Capturing Christianity

“Before 20,000 followers convened for a church conference at Nauvoo, Illinois, on 7 April 1844, he declared: “No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it” (J. Smith 1948, 6:317). Smith made this statement despite serially publishing his official History in the Times and Seasons during the previous two years. So one must look beyond his published History for the “real” Joseph Smith.” In this debate, drawing extensively on early Mormon documents, I intend to introduce the world to the REAL Joseph Smith.

@FrictionPhilo Next, we'll setup a debate between you and Ethan on whether God exists.

@CapturingChrist I'm embarrassed that the algorithm thought I'd want to see something like this.

Upcoming debate: Ethan Muse (Christian) will be debating Hayden Carroll (LDS) on the Book of Mormon. Is it from God or the Devil?

"Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world." -St. Ignatius to the Romans

Link: youtube.com/live/FkDS9IeyB…

all I see is a Red Cross doctor

@deusimpera His args for atheism are extremely low tier. Why was he one of the reasons?

Sorry for going off at Richard Dawkins today. He's one of the reasons I was an atheist for most of my life, so this is very personal.

@BasedBrawLad @FeelsGuy2003 Clueless.

@CapturingChrist @FeelsGuy2003 Talking on a podcast isn't work.

To think Fradd sold out for this.

@ServusDeiVivi @JoeHeschmeyer @Trent_Horn There he would just say they believe there was a Great Apostasy and we can't trust their writings.

@CapturingChrist @JoeHeschmeyer @Trent_Horn Probably yeah. I'd like to see him pressured into showing some correlation between the earliest Christian writings and this notion that, not only do we become "exalted", but we somehow have mastery over an entire universe. It just seems like blatant idolatry.

For the love of God, someone who debates Jacob in the future, please ask him about this. This is just insanity, and I'd LOVE to see Jacob defend this theology in an actual debate. @JoeHeschmeyer, @CapturingChrist, @Trent_Horn

Marian apparitions are not a recent thing in the Catholic Church. They have been happening since ancient times. Our Lady even appeared to a Church Father, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and delivered him an orthodox creed nearly a century before Nicaea! See our latest episode below.

Link: youtu.be/iH-l4OZYrJQ?si…

New video for members is live. In it, I cover new (and powerful) evidence in the debate over whether there were early bishops of Rome. This kind of thing almost NEVER happens in a field this old. And what's more, this new evidence is so powerful, it will change the shape of the whole conversation. Goes public in a few days. Members watch now.

@Hellyers @gavinortlund It's taken from one of Gavin's own thumbnails on an existing video. People complain about the weirdest stuff.

@CapturingChrist @gavinortlund why the dodgy screengrab of Gavin? That's just childish and makes you look silly.

Yesterday, @gavinortlund put out a video claiming there are good and bad arguments from silence. Unfortunately, Gavin is still being inconsistent as I explain below.

Link: youtu.be/1-7Rk9Ud4GI

Irenaeus gives us the names of every Roman bishop from Peter to his day. So either a bishop in Gaul was fabricating Tolkein-esque deep lore to exaggerate the authority of a foreign bishop or he had access to records of the succession in Rome. The fact that there was a custom among multiple independent sources from the exact same period of dating historical events by referencing the name of the Roman bishop that was in office at the time of event confirms that knowledge of the Roman succession was widespread at the time that Against Heresies was written. Not to mention tha Gavin’s theory requires an early second century consolidation of power and then instant rise to global pre-eminence of the Roman bishop that is wildly implausible, ad hoc, and not supported by a shred of positive testimony - only very weak arguments from silence like the appeal to Ignatous. Silly.

@NathanBozeman2 Gavin's argument from silence about Ignatius in Cameron's clips is extremely weak - far more analogous to the Ehrman arguments that he critiqued in Cameron's clips than the example of a strong argument from silence that he appealed to in his response.

(1) He's making an argument from silence against evidence. There is explicit and detailed testimony about the succession in Rome from Irenaeus in the late second century. This is independently corroborated by incidental references to the historical tenures of Roman bishops that presuppose widespread familiarity with the history of succession to date earlier events by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment. Its ridiculous to overturn multiply attested, geographically diverse testimony based on omissions in a handful of earlier sources. (2) The silence in Ignatius is especially weak. C'Zar Bernstein has pointed out that Ignatius doesn't mention anybody in Rome, including presbyters and deacons, unlike in his other letters, there are circumstantial indications in the letter that indicate he knew a bishop he didn't name, and the silence in the letter is best explained by protective anonymity. (3) You make no argument for why we would expect references in NT, Didache, or Clement that we don't have, you just assert that. But getting into the weeds on that is beyond the scope - this is specifically about the argument that Gavin made from silence in Ignatius.