In the first half of the video he uses an ethos argument that a particular person is a contemporary leader in biblical study and that he believed a certain interpretation of Revelation, therefore you should too.
The argument is poor, even if you agree with that interpretation of Revelation.
The video OP spends a lot of time pontificating and claiming that he has proven his points in other videos, but in many cases does not present anything to point towards how he came to those conclusions.
In the video he is a self-professed Judaizer (believing that we should follow the letter of the law), anti-Trinitarian, and believe that blood atonement and metaphysics are mutually exclusive concepts. He claimed that the early followers of Jesus believed as he does.
None of it is true, but more importantly he is just stating positions and making a blanket argument that he is an authority on the subject (an ethos argument).
I would recommend he takes more time to spell out his case using scripture or other evidence.
He doesn't seem to have a grasp of concepts like "it rains and shines on the just and unjust alike" and instead insists that the rain of today is evidence of punishment for iniquity (the vials of wrath).
You could take his entire video point by point and likely refute it using only the Catholic Catechism and the documents it references.
>In the first half of the video he uses an ethos argument that a particular person is a contemporary leader in biblical study and that he believed a certain interpretation of Revelation, therefore you should too.
This is not the case made at all, you were not paying proper attention even during the half of the video you watched, and you evidently stopped listening before the full case was made. Chilton is a Preterist, Drake is an Historicist. Drake has made his Historicist case extensively elsewhere and is here providing evidence that even David Chilton, the leading Preterist author agrees with him that the beast of Revelation 13 is Rome. This they both do citing scripture and not making generalist or ethos arguments. His case was precisely the opposite of what you portray; that while agreeing with some of the case made by the accepted Preterist authority, David Chilton in his book The Days of Vengeance, he finds himself in flat disagreement with other aspects of his position and cites scripture and the position of the original apostles, as clearly stated in scripture in defence of his position. Given the testimony of scripture as a whole, the term Nazarene Judaism is a reasonable and rational alternative to the discredited and debased term ‘Christianity’, as a descriptor of the faith taught by Yahusha and the Apostles.
The argument is poor, even if you agree with that interpretation of Revelation.
Speaking of poor argumentation, you do not even attempt to make a case.
The video OP spends a lot of time pontificating and claiming that he has proven his points in other videos, but in many cases does not present anything to point towards how he came to those conclusions.
That’s because it’s presented in ‘other videos’, duh.
In the video he is a self-professed Judaizer (believing that we should follow the letter of the law), anti-Trinitarian,
You provide no opposing arguments to his positions.
and believe that blood atonement and metaphysics are mutually exclusive concepts. He claimed that the early followers of Jesus believed as he does.
Please describe the material science underpinning blood atonement.
None of it is true,
The entire ‘Christian’ case right there, ‘let’s just have a convenient ‘religious’ club we can point to without any of that difficult studying scripture stuff.’
but more importantly he is just stating positions and making a blanket argument that he is an authority on the subject (an ethos argument).
Projection much? :D
I would recommend he takes more time to spell out his case using scripture or other evidence.
Projection much? :DDD
He doesn't seem to have a grasp of concepts like "it rains and shines on the just and unjust alike"
You don’t think maybe those who rise above clinical retardation can allow such concepts to be primary givens?
and instead insists that the rain of today is evidence of punishment for iniquity (the vials of wrath).
That sounds like a good demonstration of the comfy bundle of neo platonism, polytheism, and corporate tradition know as ‘Christianity’ which provides a convenient rejection of the consequences of sin, and of the responsibilities of the followers of the Messiah.
You could take his entire video point by point and likely refute it using only the Catholic Catechism and the documents it references.
The Catholic Catechism is in itself an abrogation of scripture, finely honed for precisely this task, and yet, as always, you won’t …
is here providing evidence that even David Chilton, the leading Preterist author agrees with him that the beast of Revelation 13 is Rome.
Ethos argument.
Peter could say "don't let ethnic Jews and Gentiles eat together". He has high clout, and it might sound convincing to say, "a leading Church father said this!" But that does not remove the fact that Peter was wrong and the argument that "Peter said it so must be true" is also a bad argument.
You don't think Chilton can get things wrong? You don't think Drake can get things wrong?
This they both do citing scripture and not making generalist or ethos arguments.
I don't think you understand what an ethos argument is.
He branches off of his initial ethos arguments at times, but those branches are so dependent on the ethos arguments that it leaves a huge intellectual blackhole.
You can help bridge that blackhole by offering the source logos arguments that the position comes from, but none of that is spelled out in the video.
cites scripture and the position of the original apostles
At this point I don't believe Drake. He makes claims but does not back up his claims in the video. Maybe he has great arguments he has brought up elsewhere, but the video as a standalone item is not particularly convincing.
He also contradicts the early apostles with his anti-Trinitarian position. What is anyone supposed to make of that aside from the fact that he has thrown any clout he could have had out the window.
If someone came up to you and said they were a math genius and that Pi is exactly equal to 5, you would probably have the same reaction as I am having to this Drake fellow.
Speaking of poor argumentation, you do not even attempt to make a case.
Until I see anything beyond ethos argument, why should I bother doing anything above an ethos argument?
Catholic doctrine says you're wrong. There, an ethos argument for an ethos argument.
I can go into detail to make a logical case. I'm not limited. But why should I bother if you aren't putting in the effort?
That’s because it’s presented in ‘other videos’, duh.
Would you then agree that the video as a stand alone item does not make convincing arguments?
Please describe the material science underpinning blood atonement.
Metaphysics ≠ material science
This shows me you don't understand what metaphysics is.
Granted, there are different schools of thought that call themselves "metaphysics", but the body of metaphysics referenced by ancient Church writings is Platonic metaphysics. Things like allegory of the cave, the Forms, etc.
You don’t think maybe those who rise above clinical retardation can allow such concepts to be primary givens?
So you agree that Drake was wrong?
That sounds like a good demonstration of the comfy bundle of neo platonism
Feel free to try to argue that all forms of Platonism are mutually exclusive with Christianity. I doubt you know the slightest thing about Platonism.
polytheism
Trinitarianism is not polytheism.
corporate tradition know as ‘Christianity’
You mean like the Phariseeic heresy you follow?
which provides a convenient rejection of the consequences of sin and of the responsibilities of the followers of the Messiah.
This shows me you know nothing about Catholicism.
Would you pull an ass from a well on the Sabbath?
The Catholic Catechism is in itself an abrogation of scripture
It is a sound hermeneutic. Your rejection of Christ freeing you from the law of Moses is an abrogation.
as always, you won’t …
As always? You are a liar just like your father. Do you want a play by play from the Catholic Catechism and supporting documents? Let's save time, tell me your top 5 "facts" that the video presents and I will break them down.
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Isaiah 28 KJV
That’s an ethos argument! He’s a heretic! Saw him in half with a wooden saw!
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 weeksMay 26, 2025 05:49:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 06:24:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 07:32:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 07:43:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 08:08:33 ago (+0/-0)
The argument is poor, even if you agree with that interpretation of Revelation.
The video OP spends a lot of time pontificating and claiming that he has proven his points in other videos, but in many cases does not present anything to point towards how he came to those conclusions.
In the video he is a self-professed Judaizer (believing that we should follow the letter of the law), anti-Trinitarian, and believe that blood atonement and metaphysics are mutually exclusive concepts. He claimed that the early followers of Jesus believed as he does.
None of it is true, but more importantly he is just stating positions and making a blanket argument that he is an authority on the subject (an ethos argument).
I would recommend he takes more time to spell out his case using scripture or other evidence.
He doesn't seem to have a grasp of concepts like "it rains and shines on the just and unjust alike" and instead insists that the rain of today is evidence of punishment for iniquity (the vials of wrath).
You could take his entire video point by point and likely refute it using only the Catholic Catechism and the documents it references.
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 14:00:30 ago (+0/-0)
>In the first half of the video he uses an ethos argument that a particular person is a contemporary leader in biblical study and that he believed a certain interpretation of Revelation, therefore you should too.
This is not the case made at all, you were not paying proper attention even during the half of the video you watched, and you evidently stopped listening before the full case was made.
Chilton is a Preterist, Drake is an Historicist.
Drake has made his Historicist case extensively elsewhere and is here providing evidence that even David Chilton, the leading Preterist author agrees with him that the beast of Revelation 13 is Rome.
This they both do citing scripture and not making generalist or ethos arguments.
His case was precisely the opposite of what you portray; that while agreeing with some of the case made by the accepted Preterist authority, David Chilton in his book The Days of Vengeance, he finds himself in flat disagreement with other aspects of his position and cites scripture and the position of the original apostles, as clearly stated in scripture in defence of his position.
Given the testimony of scripture as a whole, the term Nazarene Judaism is a reasonable and rational alternative to the discredited and debased term ‘Christianity’, as a descriptor of the faith taught by Yahusha and the Apostles.
Speaking of poor argumentation, you do not even attempt to make a case.
That’s because it’s presented in ‘other videos’, duh.
You provide no opposing arguments to his positions.
Please describe the material science underpinning blood atonement.
The entire ‘Christian’ case right there, ‘let’s just have a convenient ‘religious’ club we can point to without any of that difficult studying scripture stuff.’
Projection much? :D
Projection much? :DDD
You don’t think maybe those who rise above clinical retardation can allow such concepts to be primary givens?
That sounds like a good demonstration of the comfy bundle of neo platonism, polytheism, and corporate tradition know as ‘Christianity’ which provides a convenient rejection of the consequences of sin, and of the responsibilities of the followers of the Messiah.
The Catholic Catechism is in itself an abrogation of scripture, finely honed for precisely this task, and yet, as always, you won’t …
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 17:58:17 ago (+0/-0)
Ethos argument.
Peter could say "don't let ethnic Jews and Gentiles eat together". He has high clout, and it might sound convincing to say, "a leading Church father said this!" But that does not remove the fact that Peter was wrong and the argument that "Peter said it so must be true" is also a bad argument.
You don't think Chilton can get things wrong? You don't think Drake can get things wrong?
I don't think you understand what an ethos argument is.
He branches off of his initial ethos arguments at times, but those branches are so dependent on the ethos arguments that it leaves a huge intellectual blackhole.
You can help bridge that blackhole by offering the source logos arguments that the position comes from, but none of that is spelled out in the video.
At this point I don't believe Drake. He makes claims but does not back up his claims in the video. Maybe he has great arguments he has brought up elsewhere, but the video as a standalone item is not particularly convincing.
He also contradicts the early apostles with his anti-Trinitarian position. What is anyone supposed to make of that aside from the fact that he has thrown any clout he could have had out the window.
If someone came up to you and said they were a math genius and that Pi is exactly equal to 5, you would probably have the same reaction as I am having to this Drake fellow.
Until I see anything beyond ethos argument, why should I bother doing anything above an ethos argument?
Catholic doctrine says you're wrong. There, an ethos argument for an ethos argument.
I can go into detail to make a logical case. I'm not limited. But why should I bother if you aren't putting in the effort?
Would you then agree that the video as a stand alone item does not make convincing arguments?
Metaphysics ≠ material science
This shows me you don't understand what metaphysics is.
Granted, there are different schools of thought that call themselves "metaphysics", but the body of metaphysics referenced by ancient Church writings is Platonic metaphysics. Things like allegory of the cave, the Forms, etc.
So you agree that Drake was wrong?
Feel free to try to argue that all forms of Platonism are mutually exclusive with Christianity. I doubt you know the slightest thing about Platonism.
Trinitarianism is not polytheism.
You mean like the Phariseeic heresy you follow?
This shows me you know nothing about Catholicism.
Would you pull an ass from a well on the Sabbath?
It is a sound hermeneutic. Your rejection of Christ freeing you from the law of Moses is an abrogation.
As always? You are a liar just like your father. Do you want a play by play from the Catholic Catechism and supporting documents? Let's save time, tell me your top 5 "facts" that the video presents and I will break them down.
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 1 weekMay 27, 2025 04:48:48 ago (+0/-0)
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Isaiah 28 KJV
That’s an ethos argument! He’s a heretic! Saw him in half with a wooden saw!
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekMay 27, 2025 05:20:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 1 weekMay 27, 2025 05:23:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 14:00:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 0 points 1 weekMay 26, 2025 08:34:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 1 weekMay 27, 2025 04:29:09 ago (+1/-0)