1 on 1 Discussion (Please all others stay out)
(scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
My debate with Swamp Jew regarding these 5 things:
Are the Jews cursed, and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
Is the Old Covenant still ongoing? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is OSAS true? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the "Hebrew-roots Christian" movement actually Christian? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the Talmud anti-Christian? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
By the definitions u/CrusaderPepe supplied by context, there's nothing to debate. He mischaracterizes my position by refusing to permit any other definition of the words.
By one definition ['"The Jews" are anyone of the Hebrew stock who publicly or privately REJECT Jesus Christ as their Messiah, Lord, Savior, and God. This includes all religious Jews, since the First Century (Pharisees, Rabbinical Jews, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Hasidic Jews, etc.). This includes all secular non-Christian Jews that are only ethnically Jewish. Whether they are Zionist or not doesn’t matter. It also includes converts to post-First Century Judaism.'], "the Jews" would, indeed, be cursed and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['By "valid" I don't mean it justified them. No. It just better prepared them for Faith in Christ.'], the Old Covenant would, indeed, no longer be "valid" in the same way it was once "valid"; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['The term is "sanctifying grace." And this is the grace bestowed by God upon Baptism and is poured upon the soul while one has Faith and no stain of mortal sin. Mortal sin removes it. Penance/confession brings it back.'], having "sanctifying grace" once would, indeed, not be having "sanctifying grace" always; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['The "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" syncretizes Christianity with anti-Christ Talmudic/Rabbinical Judaism, believes the Old Covenant is still active, believes Mosaic Law is still active, practices the Sabbath, celebrates Jewish feasts, etc. and clearly meets the definition of a Judaizer sect (that being a sect that tries to enforce Old Covenant or Mosaic Laws into the New Covenant of Christ)' .... 'And even if they don't force other Christians to do so, by even influencing and advocating for these things, at all, they fall under the definition of "Judaizers".' 'When you post stuff defending the Talmud and/or Jewish interpretations of things ... you are influencing it, in a Judaizing way.'], the "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" would not be actually Christian; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name.'], the Talmud contains "blasphemy"; no other definition is in view there.
If Pepe is willing to offer other definitions I can evaluate the new truth claims separately at that time.
In other words, I won't let this Jew REDEFINE words with OBJECTIVE MEANING into his SUBJECTIVE MEANING TO SUIT HIM, and he thinks this is unfair. The 5 propositions are Boolean, from a formal logical point of view: you can either find each of the 5 original propositions true or find them false. There is no MIDDLE GROUND, no CENTER, and a JEWISH HEGELIAN DIALECTIC need not apply.
Since I won't let Swamp Jew redefine objective words or turn Boolean propositions into dialectics, in order to reframe the debate in his favor, he has made it clear that he has no desire to debate in a fair, straightforward way.
On the contrary, as just shown here, once he defined his terms I agreed with his terms and came down on the same Boolean side he did. He doesn't know how to set Boolean propositions and get consent to debate from someone who disagrees. He only knows how to set tautological propositions that very few would disagree with, which is why there was no debate. When I did set propositions he disagreed with, he utterly refused to allow any means of resolving the debate, implying instead that he only intended an unresolved showcase of both positions, which is itself Hegelian even if he thinks his truths shone out clearly. If all this is not so, he should tell how the final resolution of truth in "debate in a fair, straightforward way" can be achieved other than unilateral unagreed declaration of victory. (Comment being copied due to his admitted "spamming".)
ALL LIES!!! Swamp Jew DOESN'T AGREE!!!
Proposition 1:
When I criticize "the Jews" in my video posts for subverting Christianity through their support of Abortion, Birth Control, Communism, Divorce, Feminism, peddling Pornography, and the Sexual Revolution, amongst other things, Swamp Jew STRONGLY DISAGREES, and says that I am accusing the group for things that individual actors in the group does.
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txaaaw1j/here-is-a-jewgrass-song-my-frien/c
Swamp Jew:
"Informal warning: We're going to need to do something about our communication gaps that many have noted. Just deleting the posts the mods find to be racist isn't solving the problem. Dialogue will ensue."
Me:
"Documentation of fallacy:
Equivocation
This is the upteenth time you have accused me of racism.
And you berated me in the other thread about never defining my terms.
Again, I will define the terms of what "the Jews" are, as has been agreed upon for most of the past 2000 years (until it was muddied in the 20th century):
The definition of "the Jews" I am using refers to people of Hebrew stock who reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah (which included Rabbincal Jews and secular Jews) AND people of non-Hebrew stock that practice Judaism (and again, reject Christ). People of Hebrew stock who accept Jesus Christ as God the Son (Nazarenes or "Messianic Jews" as you call them) are excluded from this definition.
This is the upteenth time I have defined this term. My content is meant to highlight a spiritual war between Christians and Jews, NOT to spread hatred against the Hebrew race.
Now that my terms are well-defined, if you gaslight me again by equivocating my participation in the spiritual war against those that reject Christ but call themselves "Jews" as me being "racist against the Jewish race" then I will re-paste this documented response over and over and over whenever you pretend that I never define my terms or that I am racist or that I never respond to Swamp Jew or whatever..."
Swamp Jew:
"Your content takes your "95% of the Jews" definition of "the Jews" and lumps them all together as guilty of many things severally and jointly. This is judging the innocent with the guilty, which I've defined as racism when it applies to ethnoreligious constructs like your definition."
Proposition 2:
Swamp Jew doesn't believe the Old Covenant was superseded by the New.
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txVyUe1f/the-old-covenant-is-fulfilled-su/c
Swamp Jew said:
"While I understand some of the church sees the Old Covenant as "ended" in its fulfillment in Christ's first coming, I don't see that, and I do see that people use this as a wedge issue to explain away our connection with the covenant people among the Israelites, which I see as dangerous. "
And:
"OP gets caught up in an unproven supersession as "the Old is superseded by the New". This is never taught by Scripture and probably not as such by tradition. If the Old ever had a place that could be superseded by the New, that would be dual covenant in the past!
Therefore I say the Old Covenant's purpose stands just as it ever did."
Proposition 3:
Swamp Jew believes in "Once Saved Always Saved".
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txfCkFEf/i-will-prove-that-once-saved-alw/c
Swamp Jew said:
"You define OSAS as "once God gives You saving grace You can never lose it". I agree with Calvin this is true."
And:
"there is no proof the Bible or Rome teach that "we can lose our saving Grace". Passages about loss either (1) do not refer to Christians saved by grace, (2) speak of perseverance without expressing doubt in it, or (3) speak hypothetically of loss as a warning to those truly saved to continue testing that they are not falsely assured."
Proposition 4:
Swamp Jew believes that "Hebrew Roots Christianity", which he adheres to, is not a Judaizing sect.
This contrary to what I have seen. Proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
Looks like the aim is to syncretize Judaism and Christianity to me...
Proposition 5:
Swamp Jew DEFENDS the Talmud from charges of blasphemy.
Proof:
Swamp Jew made a whole thread trying to DEFEND the Talmud here:
https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/17s5tfMVEL/talmud-quotes/c
Swamp Jew did it here to, in order to try to refute me and gaslight me into believing that there are 3 different Jesuses of Nazarene in the Talmud:
https://scored.co/c/Christian/p/17tLKRPlQ3/repost-from-cconsumeproduct-lgbt/c/4ZCaZybJv5Z
And here too:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17te0Hl9KZ/proof-that-the-talmud-blasphemes/c
And my response is here, which shows Swamp Jew has to be an intellectually dishonest gaslighter to believe that the Jews weren't blaspheming Jesus Christ and His Mother:
https://rumble.com/v4bpdd3-yes-michael-lofton-the-jews-are-talking-about-jesus-christ-in-the-talmud.html