Stephen Boyce

Honest question, if Wes removes the posts that involve Sam once he learned about the situation more, wouldn’t that be the sensible thing for him to do? He met with a bunch of non-believers on that trip as well. I don’t think Wes was promoting everyone’s beliefs by posting pictures with them. Just a thought

Now Wes Huff is with Gavin promoting OPENLY PRO-GAY PASTORS - replies calling them all out!

Newest episode dropped The Making of the Rosary youtube.com/live/V8Ce9Bkc6… via @YouTube

In a couple of weeks I will be having a discussion/informal debate with @StephenBoyce333 over the question of whether there were 3 holy orders from the beginning or just two. We both love history and digging deep into the data, so expect it to be a high-calibre discussion. Set a reminder at the link below!

@HartDismas @RealAdVaticanum Proof?

@RealAdVaticanum Vatican is currently reviewing a formal appeal (hierarchical recourse) against Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte, NC. Specifically regarding his decisions on liturgical matters, particularly the implementation of restrictions on the TLM and related practices.

LATEST: Bishop Martin the Diocese of Charlotte refuses communion to families at altar rail Read Here: advaticanum.news/article/bishop…

@KlaartjeZoetho2 @RealAdVaticanum Or the bishop is being petty

@RealAdVaticanum This is just a set-up. The family sitting there and the person taking the picture are in on it together knowing they would not receive communion if they did so. As part of plot to undermine the bishop. Premeditated.

@bornagainrn @TheCynicogue @HwsEleutheroi “I hope he existed” isn’t a statement of believing someone exists btw. You guys are the dishonest ones and quite frankly I’m done interacting with delusion. Enjoy your long wasted days on X talking in circles. ✌️

@StephenBoyce333 @TheCynicogue @HwsEleutheroi @StephenBoyce333 you’re twisting what Dr. White said. He did NOT say it IS the central view. He said it is BECOMING the central view. You’re still ignoring your meme, which generated all this, misleading others that he SAID Ignatius didn’t exist.

I will be responding to this graphic from @StephenBoyce333 on the Dividing Line, hopefully tomorrow. It is sad to see what has become of him. I assume he does this to soothe his conscience, to be honest. It is a common ploy of "converts." Sort of a way to show your commitment to your new religion. But, it is so desperately dishonest. He knows better. I have provided HOURS of refutation of this lie. But, anyway, Ignatius existed---the "standard" time frame and narrative may well be true, but, for those of us who actually take the faith into the battlefield against Unitarians and Mormons and JWs and Muslims, etc., honesty about the textual tradition behind our Ignatian corpus must be a priority. Doesn't really matter to Romanists...they abandoned history when they bowed the knee to Newman anyway. BTW, you can find those hours of programs by searching for "Ignatius" at aomin.org. Oh, btw, the big irony here is: Ignatius did not address a "bishop" (singular) at Rome because...there wasn't a monarchical episcopate there as yet. And now Boyce pretends to follow a man whose very office forces him (Boyce) to believe otherwise. Gotta love the irony.

@bornagainrn @TheCynicogue @HwsEleutheroi Which is not true. Why don’t you get that? Why is this hard for you to understand? I’m done interacting with nonsense.

I don’t care if Joe is wrong or not. People aren’t having that debate in scholarship. If there’s one random guy talking about it, fine. Otherwise Joe would be incorrect too. White is way off in his “central view”. It’s just not true and you guys are willing to defend him to the death on this and it’s astonishing.

@StephenBoyce333 @TheCynicogue @StephenBoyce333 BTW, YOU are the one disagreeing with Joe on the whole fringe view.

@TheCynicogue @bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi Price does not deny his existence but his authorship. I know that for a fact because I interact with Price. And here’s White saying it’s the central view.

@StephenBoyce333 @bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi No, there are real scholars who have this view. Again, fringe, but they absolutely exist. Dr. Robert Price immediately comes to mind, but there are others. I don’t think White ever said this was a majority view. If he did, I’d love to see it, & will gladly concede the point.

White said this is the view of the majority of scholarship to Joe. Which is it? Fringe or majority? And no one in the field of Ignatian studies believes that Ignatius was a myth. I’m sure some uneducated YouTuber who lives in his parent’s basement says stupid things like that, but that’s not a scholastic view.

@StephenBoyce333 @bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi That’s not true. For what it’s worth, I believe Ignatius existed and use him as evidence against Roman Catholicism. But the claim that nobody believes he didn’t exist is just wrong. It is a fringe view but it definitely exists.

Yes, I listened to him afterward and responded. He refused to admit he misspoke during the debate and misrepresented the scholarly position on Ignatius, claiming it represented the “majority of scholars,” which it doesn’t, and saying he “hoped Ignatius existed.” There’s nothing dishonest here—just an unwillingness to admit a mistake in a debate. He created this mess by doubling down.

@StephenBoyce333 @HwsEleutheroi Any chance you listened to James’ follow up comments after the debate that specifically addressed the claim that he denies Ignatius existed? Because honestly the graphic is so dishonest. Hard to take someone seriously who shares graphics like this

@redeemed_zoomer @CapturingChrist Let's make it easier... We can debate the episcopacy being apostolic if you'd like.

@StephenBoyce333 @CapturingChrist Dude I’m not debating you over someone else’s meme. Go debate him

Many people (of different denominations) have been asking to debate me lately This next few months will be hectic for me starting a new job and taking summer classes in seminary so I’ll have to pour all my Redeemed Zoomer time into videos But starting in September I will do debates. Can’t promise I’ll do any TOPIC but I’m willing to debate anyone who is not openly hostile

Dr. White, respectfully, I raised a narrow historical issue regarding Ignatius of Antioch and, separately, your claims about monoepiscopacy. Instead of addressing either directly, we are now on Ineffabilis Deus. It was not merely a passing remark in a debate. You repeated and expanded those claims for hours on your own show afterward, while continuing to misstate key scholarly categories. If the claims were sound, defend them historically. If not, clarify them. The rest is a different discussion.

Since you have chosen to refer to a statement made in answer to a question that I have explained for 3+ hours and demonstrated you are being dishonest about it as your sole "topic," well, what can I say? I presented you with substantive topics, not cheap shots that have already been refuted. Take your pick, Stephen. Will you defend the most recent infallible statements of your new religion? How about a specific debate on this element of allegedly dogmatic authority to you: The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts. Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

@redeemed_zoomer @CapturingChrist Then don't post ridiculous memes you show to agree with and promote that you aren't willing to stand behind. I told Cameron I would be happy to discuss it with the both of you.

@bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi 👌

@StephenBoyce333 @HwsEleutheroi @StephenBoyce333 not if you take him out of context. This was obvious hyperbole, since he has used Ignatius for decades as legitimate extra biblical historical evidence for Christian beliefs, which I explained to you before that you dismissed.

@bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi Nice bait and switch. Dr. White “I hope he existed.” Will that be more accurate to the meme and make you feel better?

@StephenBoyce333 @HwsEleutheroi @StephenBoyce333 ironic you’re accusing Dr. White of the very thing you’re doing. Your meme is explicit he believes Ignatius didn’t exist which he never said. Yet you’re accusing him of misleading scholarship. Admit you were wrong to post the meme.

@bornagainrn @HwsEleutheroi I didn’t misspeak in a debate and then buckle down and defend it more, while making an absurd comment about modern scholarship that doesn’t exist. Get over yourself. No one was exposed here

@StephenBoyce333 @HwsEleutheroi @StephenBoyce333 what’s not up for “debate“ is how your “satirical meme” misled people into believing @HwsEleutheroi stated Ignatius didn’t exist.Cameron Bertuzzi publicly declared he did. You refuse to accept accountability for your actions, now your exposed

No one in contemporary scholarship believes this. That is the problem, and you guys do not seem to grasp it. The real debates in modern scholarship are not about whether Ignatius existed, but about his corpus: how many letters are authentic, when they were written, and which recension preserves the earliest form. I know mythicists who deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, yet even they do not deny the existence of Ignatius of Antioch.

@StephenBoyce333 @HwsEleutheroi @StephenBoyce333 again, he was addressing contemporary scholarship, but you’re meme implied he himself believed this, which he never even insinuated. This is where you’re being dishonest and misleading people, even in your reply here.

Dr. White, with respect, I think this response proves the point I was making. I raised a specific historical issue: your public comments regarding the historicity of Ignatius of Antioch. Rather than addressing that narrow subject directly, the discussion immediately moved into papacy, Marian dogmas, Honorius, infallibility, and a range of unrelated Roman Catholic controversies. Those are substantial topics, and each deserves serious treatment on its own terms. But they are not the issue I raised. My question was much simpler: were your statements about Ignatius and the historical evidence accurate? If so, defend them. If not, clarify them. I say that sincerely because you were an early influence on me in apologetics, and I still respect the years of work you have put into public debate. That is precisely why I was surprised by the comments. If you would ever like a focused and respectful exchange on Ignatius and the early second century evidence for the Bishop of Rome in his letter, I would welcome it.

Baloney, Stephen. And what an absurdity: debate WHAT? A rushed comment at the end of an interrupted cross-examination in a debate on a different topic? The desperation of even picking up on this absurdity is astonishing. The very fact you would talk about "debating" such a topic says all that needs to be said. You want to debate? Let's debate the role of forged documents in the creation of the Roman papacy. Let's debate what the early church actually believed about the key passages Rome has used to forge its pretended supremacy. Let's debate whether Papal Infallibility even has a definable meaning, let alone whether Honorius' successors could anathematize him as a heretic for 400 years *as a part of their accession to the papal throne* while still believing him "infallible." Maybe you would like to defend the actual claims of Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus--not the watered down Newmanian modernistic view, but what they actually meant when they were promulgated? You know neither dogma is "apostolic" in any way, shape, or form. Want to demonstrate your chops with the early church? OK, let's debate those two dogmas: did the early church believe, proclaim, and practice, these dogmas? Or are AI generated memes about things that never happened more to your liking?