Transcription
Uh, you think so? I'll give you the link. Come on up and I'm going to call out your bluff unashamed. Let's see if you're not ashamed. Come on up and I'm going to prove that you're a fanboy, that your idol got destroyed. So unashamed, come on up. Let's see if you're a man or you too ashamed because I'm going to prove you're a liar. You didn't even understand the debate. You're wasting our time unashamed. Stop being ashamed. Come on up because I got to go into the debate with the receipts. You made an assertion. I'm going to show that you're either a liar or stupid. You didn't understand how he got destroyed. Come on up.
In fact, I'm going to play the first clip. So, until he comes up only him cuz he was he was acting like, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, try. We'll see. I'm going to show it's because you don't understand to see how your boy got destroyed." So, watch here. I'm going to play this now. We're going to get here. We're going to get to the meat later about water baptism. All right. We're going to go at the 205 2hour five minute mark. What does Rogers do? He appeals to Timothy. Watch here. 2 hour five minute mark. Watch how this is going to backfire. Okay. Watch here. Let's go here. Now let's start playing systematically. Now remember, he thinks he's making a case. He doesn't. Pay attention. He's supposed to establish the thesis. Is solos scriptoreraura true? For it to be true, you must know what the scriptor is. You can't have solos scriptorera without the scripura. And you got to know what the scriptor is. Keep that in mind. When he's pressed to know uh how does he know the new testament? How does he know that that's the exact list of books that God inspired? Watch the bluster and the filibustering.
But watch here. >> And they actually can. Well, uh, Trent says that when Paul says all scriptures inspired of God, he's just talking about the Old Testament. Well, read the whole context. I used to think that, and I think there are a lot of Protestants who think that, but just reading the context. Notice what Paul says to Timothy. This is Paul's final epistle to Timothy. >> His last written letter to Timothy. >> Keep in mind, he's appealing to Second Timothy 3:16. Here's where you know this guy is not as smart as people made him out to be. You're going to see now the circular reasoning, but pay attention. I'm going to be used by the spirit. Holy Spirit, you are the teacher. You save me from false doctrines. Save this man from his arrogance pride. False doctrine. Save us all. Bring us to the fullness of truth. Listen, you're going to learn a lot. Paul's last letter to Timothy, and I, by the way, I agree with him, but I'm not going to agree with him because he's going to have to prove his assertion. Keep in mind, >> and he says that from infancy, he's known the holy scriptures. And then he says these scriptures are uh are able to make him wise into salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. >> An embarrassing >> Christ Jesus. This presupposes that he was acquainted with New Testament scripture. And that same Paul says that other things are scripture. He refers to Luke whose praise is in the gospel throughout the churches. Meaning he's praised for the gospel that he wrote. In 1 Timothy 5, he quotes Luke's gospel as scripture. Second Peter 3, the verse he kept quoting about >> second Peter 3. Pay attention. Now, I'm going to use him as an example why he needs to leave his cult. >> Paul's writings being unclear. It says Paul's writings are scripture. And by the way, it doesn't say all of Paul's writings or most of Paul's writings. It says some things in Paul's writings. Some doesn't mean all and it doesn't mean most. And therefore, if some things are unclear, most of it is clear. And how?
>> Okay, you thought that Trent Horn lost, which means that you don't know what you're talking about. Did you hear what he just said? Are you talking to me? >> No, I'm talking to uh your love. >> That That That's irrelevant. That's irrelevant. Are you going to allow me to present my >> case issue? Deal with the issue. Don't manifest. >> Can Can I present a case? Can I present my argument or No. >> No. No. I don't want to hear your argument. You said Trent Horn lost. Okay. >> Yeah. I'm about to give you an argument. Are you ready? >> No, you're not going to give me any Listen to me. Stop. >> You won't let me give you an argument. Shut up and get to this argument because this is part of the case for >> Am I not allowed to give you why I feel that he want >> my objection before I cuss you out call you a bastard. Are you going to answer the question or you going to manifest? >> You're the one who manifesting Sam. >> Then you're a bastard. Son of a Now get >> Are you >> Yeah, you're a bastard. There you go. You stupid bastard. See, there you go. Can't answer the question. All right. Are you ready now? By the way, the of Babylon. Trent, don't be upset. His mother is the of Babylon. Stupid bastard. You can't even address the issue. I brought you up to address the issue. You can't. Okay, now watch here. You even tell he sounds stupid and illiterate. No disrespect to stupid people, illiterate people. I tried to give him a chance, right? Okay, now watch what he did. Sorry guys. Sorry, son of his right. It's these dogs that make me manifest. And he's a son of the Babylon. Remember, not your biological mother who's ashamed of you. Your spiritual mother, the of Babylon, you spiritual son of a Sorry, Trent. I called him a of Babylon. Sorry. He's one of the the prostitutes of Babylon. All right.
Now, did you see what he just did? >> How do you determine those things that aren't clear? Well, by interpreting scripture with scripture. >> Okay, watch how pathetically bad he is. Interpreting scripture with scripture. But the whole debate is establishing what the scripture is. How do you know to interpret second Peter in light of first Timothy or vice versa without first proving that second Peter and first Timothy are part of scripture? See how stupid he is? You got my point, right? You got my point? See how stupid he is, right? He interprets Paul's letters specifically first and second Timothy and says second Paul's last letter of second Peter 3 assuming that Peter wrote second Peter he interprets first and second Timothy in light of second Peter which begs the question how does he know second Peter is part of that scripura? How does he know Peter wrote it? And how does he know that Peter has in mind first and second Timothy? See how bad it is for him? How does he know that when Peter said what Paul wrote, Peter was referring to first and second Timothy? Let me go through this. You ready? See how I mean how embarrassingly bad this guy is. He's terrible. It's going to get worse. Now remember this argument, right? Okay. That's why the dog was manifesting unashamed. You should be ashamed of your existence because your mother is. She disown you day and night. Not the war of Babylon. Your spiritual mother. She loves you. So, let's go to second Peter and see. Watch how stupid irrational this guy's arguments were. No, I don't waste time with dogs. If they can't stay on topic, then they're dogs. They're bastards of Satan. This guy is a bastard of Satan. Okay, this is what he quoted guys. Second Peter 3:15-16. And consider the patience of our Lord of salvation. Just as also our beloved brother Paul according to his given him wrote you as also in all his letters speaking in them all these things. Number one, how does he know that Peter had the same collection of Pauline letters that he does? Where does Peter tell you what the letters of Paul are? Are you guys listening? Are you listening? Do you see how embarrassingly stupid this guy is? And they made this guy great. You're a joke, Anthony. You really are. And the Lord is handing you over. May he protect me and save me. And I pray you repent, come to the truth. Okay. So Anthony, from here tell us what letters of Paul Peter was referring to and how do you know? Everyone got it? Joey Esto, stop eating the pesto. Let me know. Rumble. Everyone got it. Okay. Secondly, it's going to get worse. He says, "In which are some things hard to understand." How does Anthony know what those things are and where are they located in Paul's letters that are hard to understand? And the guy thinks he's smart. This is what kills me. People think he's smart. I mean, even my children are smarter than this clown. Do you you understand? some things. What things? And in which letters? What letters contain some of those things that are hard to understand? Everyone got it so far? Right? I'm helping. I want to do this for you guys, not for me. Cuz I laughed at the guy. I said, "Man, you are a joke, dude. Seriously." And people take you seriously. Everyone got that? How bad it is. So here Anthony, when you do a video to save face after humiliation, show us from second Peter 3 that Peter had the same list of Pauline writings that you do. That's number one. Number two, show us where in these letters of Paul that Peter had access to can we locate those things that are difficult to understand? see it. But even more embarrassing, are you aware that modern biblical scholarship, both conservative and liberal, say that Peter did not write second Peter? So now note how bad it gets for this dude. He quotes second Peter assumes it's Petrine written by Peter assumes it's part of the canon without proving those assumptions because do you know this is a fact conservative scholars today not just liberals Mike Lacona he's not certain whether second Peter was written by Peter I'll give you a couple more names Richard Balcom these are conservatives Michael and they're conservative of Protestants, Richard Balcom, Michael FBird, NT Wright, they do not believe. They do not believe. Peter wrote, "Peter, get out of here, dude. I didn't invite you here. Don't come on up." Isn't it ironic and humiliating? You quote a letter that even conservative scholars today question whether Peter wrote it and some conser say he didn't write it to establish that Peter spoke of Paul's letters and you can't tell us whether Peter is referring to the same collection of letters that you have in your cannon. What's even more difficult is that a bastard like you thinks I care that it's difficult for you to listen while I'm cussing people out because you're a bastard. A spiritual bastard. Just keep that. Remember Trent, he's a spiritual bastard and his mother's over Babylon. So I'm using spiritual. All right. Don't come here and prick me to then cuss you out when you know I'm in the midst of a session. Guys, do you see how bad this argument was? You see how bad this argument was? In fact, do you know that even the early Christians had disputes about second Peter? Even some Christians thought that second Peter was a forgery. Didn't want it in the cannon. So now, why does Anthony accept second Peter as being from Peter and canonical? What's up, brother? How you doing? because he's barring the collateral of the church that he condemns. Yes, brother. Where are you at? Catholic zed. Do a search. Richard Balcom, right? Because your mother told me that you're a spiritual bastard and oh son of the of Babylon. That's why. Richard Balcom. See, they're manifesting, guys. See the fanboys, the cult followers are Rogers manifesting. Focus guys, let me cuss them out. Hopefully you guys give me free reign today, Sunday to cuss out these idoltors, these worshippers of men like Rogers. Richard Balcon, Michael Ferg, NT Wright say Peter did not write second Peter. Mike Lakona is on record. I played the clip. He doesn't know Peter wrote second Peter, but he doesn't really care because he's an historian and he doesn't really care right now because that's not something he's looked into. You with me there? Okay, you see how bad it is, right? So, how do you know that second Peter is scripture should be in the cannon and that you should take what it says as being from God? More important, can you list the letters that Peter is referring to and prove that he has the same collection of letters in mind that you do? And number three, can you show us the places in these letters of Paul that Peter says are difficult to understand? Yeah. I want I'm repeating myself four or five times because of creatures repetition. I just want you so show how bad this guy was. a humiliating debate and people thought he won. Oh, you thought that was bad. You You want to see how bad it gets? Now, you understand by him assuming second Peter's canonical, he is living off the collateral of the Catholic Church in the West. Now, what do I mean? his demonic cult, Presbyterianism, and his demonic reformed doctrines came from the reformers like Luther and Calvin. All of whom were indebted to the Catholic Church. All of whom took over the can of the Catholic Church, including the Apocrypha, though they re relegated it to a secondary status. It's because they took this from the Catholic Church that he assumes second Peter is canonical written by Peter, right? And he thought he's going to get away with it. BUT NOW YOU THOUGHT THAT'S BAD. Guess what's even worse? Do you know that the consensus of biblical scholarship today do not accept first second Timothy and Titus called the pastoral epistles as letters by Paul? They say they're are forgeries. That is the consensus, the majority position of biblical scholars and there are even conservatives who are joining them that pet Paul did not write 1 Timothy, he did not write second Timothy, he did not write Titus and there are conservative scholars who are slowly abandoning Pauline Pauline authorship. You with me there? Isn't it now funny, hilarious that the passage he quotes to prove that all scriptures God breathed comes from second Timothy 3, which happens to be one of those writings deemed pseudapigraph, false attribution to Paul because Paul didn't write it. Yep. You can see how much solos scriptor is winning. Okay. You you there? Yes. I know we we we dogs are manifesting. You got to get out of here. Get the dogs out of here because they can't refute anything. So, they're going to bark. All right. You want me there? Isn't that ironic? So, what does he do? He goes that here when Paul says all scriptures God breathed. See, Paul is not just referring to the Old Testament. He he even means the books that became part of the New Testament, such as Luke. And by the way, this argument is not new. I've already argue that over 15 years ago. I have an article on it. What I'm doing is I'm not going to let him assume the cannon and argue from it. I'm going to play the skeptic. I'm going to be the Bartman. I'm not going to let you steal from the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church their collateral of the canon and assume the canon and think that I'm going to let you quote these verses without first justifying why do you believe these books are part of scripture. After all, you went with Martin Luther, your master, to reject the canonicity of the Deuteronicals. So then convince me that not only do you reject the duter canonicals because you thought Martin Luther is right but now convince me that he's right that first second Timothy and Titus are Pauline. See they don't care about truth or evidence. They only care about quote mining any to confirm their Protestant heresies. You understand? They're not starting with history and seeing what history shows them about the canon. They start with their assumption of Protestantism and they accept the authority of the Protestant deformers and if they reject a book they'll reject it and then they go hijacked history selectively to try to confirm their canon. So isn't it ironic he quotes second Timothy which now the consensus of biblical scholarship deem to be a forgery not written by Paul. So now, how do you know Paul wrote this and should be part of the cannon? You see how embarrassing it's getting? Guys, are you seeing how bad that is? Right? Let me know if you're learning just how bad and pathetic Anony's arguments were. They were pathetically bad. Let me now play the rest of it. We stopped there, but we're going to continue where we left off. They were pathetically bad. We'll come back to this because watch how it's going to backfire. And even if I grant >> 1% of scripture, >> Paul wrote the Apostle epistles, which I do because I believe them, but I'm not going to grant it in debate with him. I'm a skeptic, man. I don't care that you're you assume that because I believe the inspiration of the fuller cannon that I have to now go with you and agree with you on your assumption. No, I'm now going to play the role of a skeptic. I'm going to be a Bartman. I don't believe any of these books are inspired. I don't believe Paul wrote first second Timothy or Titus or Peter wrote second Peter. Now prove your case. Prove your case. >> All right. But now watch here. Let's go here. >> To be unclear.