Roosh Hour #67 – Michael Witcoff (Brother Augustine)

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
The main point is that what is considered "judaism" today is not what it was in the mainstream sense, in the time of Christ. That is all. What began taking over, as a rejection of Christ at the time until now is what it is, mainstream. That is inarguable, since they deny Christ, and that is the heritage. A "jew" of the first century had reasons to accept Christ, and many did. A jew, currently, by definition, does not. Could a modern "jew" not accept modern judaism? Sure, it happens all the time. He isn't a "jew."

In this sense, what we have put forth (2 Right Hands and I) is accurate.

Although I quoted you, the comment wasn't directed towards you. It was directed more towards the general trend of fighting and attacking the other without trying to investigate exactly what they mean (feel free to call me a hypocrite, for I'm guilty of exactly this same thing in the past), and if that had been done, there probably wouldn't have been any disputing, for it's all over the definition of terms, but once the inclination to argue begins, the passions are involved, egos become puffed up, and neither side will admit to any wrongdoing, whether in truth, or in attitude.

So to re-iterate what was said, Jesus is a "Jew" according to bloodlines which was important in accordance to the fulfillment of prophecy. Whether modern Jews are, or are not the same people racially was irrelevant in the time of the Incarnation of Christ (Matthew 3:9), and is even less relevant now.

Jesus isn't a "Jew" in the sense that he did not identify with the Pharisees/Jewish ruling class of the day, nor would he identify with the spiritual successors of the Pharisees in modern Judaism.

If anyone has a problem with that, it's a fault within their own interpretation of scripture.
 

Early Bird

Sparrow
For the 100th time - no, Jesus wasn't a "Jew", the Apostles weren't "Jewish". They were, broadly speaking, Hebrews or Israelites. Today's Jews descend from one particular branch of Hebrew religion - Pharisees. Yes, them Pharisees aka brood of vipers.
Unless you're claiming that Jesus and the Apostles were the Pharisees, I would drop the whole "Jesus was a Jew" boomer trope.
Also, Judaism as a religion is newer than Christianity...since it it based on the Talmud and the synagogue (rather than the Torah / temple).
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Rome Answers Constantinople -
A Critical Tour Through Michael Whelton’s “Two Paths” (link)
In other words, you haven’t read it. I’d be surprised if you’ve listened to the audio at the link you posted either, rather than simply seeing that it exists and posting the link here as “evidence” that you must be right.

As I’ve mentioned many times, the Vatican 1 definition of the papacy and its powers are indefensible. That’s why none of you can defend it.
 

Pancras

Sparrow
In other words, you haven’t read it. I’d be surprised if you’ve listened to the audio at the link you posted either, rather than simply seeing that it exists and posting the link here as “evidence” that you must be right.

As I’ve mentioned many times, the Vatican 1 definition of the papacy and its powers are indefensible. That’s why none of you can defend it.
Do I need to? You hadn’t even finished reading the book before giving it your unreserved approval, which you acknowledged at the start of your “review”. I’ve read/seen enough that I can confidently dismiss it as a work of cheap polemic with bad scholarship (something other Orthodox — including Ubi Petrus — recognize). Moreover, the fact that there is such an audio as I have posted disproves your claim that the Papacy is “indefensible”. Have you listened to the audio at the link I posted? Have you read anything besides “Two Paths”?
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Thank you, Pancras, for demonstrating to this website's sizable audience what level of apologetics "Roman Catholics" are bringing to the table. You didn't read the book you "can confidently dismiss," nor did you listen to the audio track whose existence, nonetheless, you believe constitutes some kind of takedown of the book you haven't read. For all you know, the audio is just Ybarra saying "nuh uh!" over and over - but just as with the "Roman Catholics" who cannot defend the papal inventions of your religion, you are not even attempting to read (or in this case, listen to) the primary sources. The fact that I knew you didn't even listen to it before posting it is the fruit of my previous discussions with "Roman Catholics" and becoming more familiar with their particular methods of "argumentation." Thanks for playing, and daily reminder to become Orthodox.
 
Thank you, Pancras, for demonstrating to this website's sizable audience what level of apologetics "Roman Catholics" are bringing to the table. You didn't read the book you "can confidently dismiss," nor did you listen to the audio track whose existence, nonetheless, you believe constitutes some kind of takedown of the book you haven't read. For all you know, the audio is just Ybarra saying "nuh uh!" over and over - but just as with the "Roman Catholics" who cannot defend the papal inventions of your religion, you are not even attempting to read (or in this case, listen to) the primary sources. The fact that I knew you didn't even listen to it before posting it is the fruit of my previous discussions with "Roman Catholics" and becoming more familiar with their particular methods of "argumentation." Thanks for playing, and daily reminder to become Orthodox.

Don't just say "become Orthodox". Say: "Begome Orthodox :DDDD"
 

Pancras

Sparrow
Thank you, Pancras, for demonstrating to this website's sizable audience what level of apologetics "Roman Catholics" are bringing to the table. You didn't read the book you "can confidently dismiss,"
I did listen to your two videos on the subject—
which again, as you yourself admit, you hadn’t even finished reading yourself when you made your first video! Why pay $$ to read a bad book when I could listen to you regurgitate all of its points for free?
nor did you listen to the audio track whose existence, nonetheless, you believe constitutes some kind of takedown of the book you haven't read.
I have, actually.
For all you know, the audio is just Ybarra saying "nuh uh!" over and over
Ah, but it isn’t that, is it? (For all you know, that is).

- but just as with the "Roman Catholics" who cannot defend the papal inventions of your religion, you are not even attempting to read (or in this case, listen to) the primary sources.
“Two Paths” isn’t a primary source.
The fact that I knew you didn't even listen to it before posting it is the fruit of my previous discussions with "Roman Catholics" and becoming more familiar with their particular methods of "argumentation."
Wrong again. Just like you “knew” that Two Paths was only written last year.
Thanks for playing, and daily reminder to become Orthodox.
“Thanks for playing”? This really is “game” of one-upmanship for you, is it? Not that I didn’t already know that to be the case. Sadly, I rarely encounter good-willed individuals. One would think that those who claim to love Christ and the His truth would want to know if he were in the wrong religion since doing so would create a false relationship with God. In fact, the opposite is true. Most of these so-called Christians actually hate Christ and His truth precisely because of the pride they posses. It shouldn’t matter how long one was in error unless he was so filled with pride to admit error.

And thanks for the “daily reminder”, but no. Personally, if I ever rejected the claims of Rome, I’d go Oriental Orthodox. Because they have maintained views the same.
 
I did listen to your two videos on the subject—
which again, as you yourself admit, you hadn’t even finished reading yourself when you made your first video! Why pay $$ to read a bad book when I could listen to you regurgitate all of its points for free?

I have, actually.

Ah, but it isn’t that, is it? (For all you know, that is).


“Two Paths” isn’t a primary source.

Wrong again. Just like you “knew” that Two Paths was only written last year.

“Thanks for playing”? This really is “game” of one-upmanship for you, is it? Not that I didn’t already know that to be the case. Sadly, I rarely encounter good-willed individuals. One would think that those who claim to love Christ and the His truth would want to know if he were in the wrong religion since doing so would create a false relationship with God. In fact, the opposite is true. Most of these so-called Christians actually hate Christ and His truth precisely because of the pride they posses. It shouldn’t matter how long one was in error unless he was so filled with pride to admit error.

And thanks for the “daily reminder”, but no. Personally, if I ever rejected the claims of Rome, I’d go Oriental Orthodox. Because they have maintained views the same.
I noticed of myself, that theological discussions make me very emotional and when I later think about it, I often feel that I forgot my manners a little bit. I stopped having deep theological discussions and just recommend books.
 

Basilus of Moro

Sparrow
Orthodox
They’re fake annulments.

Is this the magisterial teaching, or a reasoned conclusion (not that the two are necessarily opposed, but they are distinct)?

It would indeed be odd for abuses to be regarded as genuine exemplars, but the seeming absurdity of the situation is more the objection. I understand this wouldn’t convince someone who takes this position. As a mere comparison, the Orthodox position (and that of many in the west including pre-schism Britain) that divorce is a sin that requires penance, after which a person may commune again, is seemingly less absurd.
 

Pancras

Sparrow
Is this the magisterial teaching, or a reasoned conclusion (not that the two are necessarily opposed, but they are distinct)?

Do you mean the indissolubility of marriage or in specific cases whether a marriage was valid and an annulment (decree of nullity) can be granted The former is magisterial teaching. The second would be a reasoned conclusion.
It would indeed be odd for abuses to be regarded as genuine exemplars, but the seeming absurdity of the situation is more the objection. I understand this wouldn’t convince someone who takes this position. As a mere comparison, the Orthodox position (and that of many in the west including pre-schism Britain) that divorce is a sin that requires penance, after which a person may commune again, is seemingly less absurd.
The Catholic position is not that divorce is a sin, but that divorce is impossible. No power on earth can dissolve a validly contracted marriage between two spouses. The Church does not have the power to do this; not even the Pope can “bind and loose” here.
8F39B019-F138-415A-8B7A-076FD239C67A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Top