A name of the man to that God, and they say that God came
in the version of a man and spoke to people and like all this,
So can you elaborate on that? Is that true? Like have like do
you believe that some humans have seen God? Well, I mean we don't
think that, like every sort of evangelical or person who claims to quote see
God in a dream necessarily has. There's a lot of people who are deluded.
But we would say that in what we call divine revelation that even throughout
the revelation to Moses and the Prophets and in the in the Law, in
the Torah and in the Prophets, there's a multiple cases, many many cases
where God the Father is not revealed, but he does have a manifestation,
a face, a glory that appears one like the Son of Man, the
Angel of the Lord. And we think that's Jesus, that's the logos.
So God's son is his face, is his form, is his glory,
is his messenger, is his angel, and he does appear. So we
would say both are true. No one sees the Father at any time,
as Jesus says to the Pharisees in John, but at the same time Moses
went up on the mountain and saw the face of God. The face of
God is the person of Christ. So in that sense we think that it's
true and also not true. Okay, I understand, Okay, that makes
sense. So essentially Jesus is not just or I would say, Jesus is
not a persona or a personality or just a human. It's more so the
embodiment of us being created in God's image. And like, no, we
think he's the eternal son of God. So God, the Father from all
eternity, has a divine son, and that divine son is the one who
stepped into time and space to take on human nature to save us from from
death and destruction. And so the death brown resurrection of Christ joys the power
of death and human nature to in the end of time, resurrect Us in
his image. So Christ is the perfect image of the Father, and he
restores what Adam lost in the garden in the fall. So he's the new
Adam, the new Man, so to speak, and we are conformed to
that by being joined to him in the church. Okay, I actually agree
with you as a Muslim, because I believe that Jesus Christ is going to
return and be the embodiment of what a man is supposed to be. And
right, but you don't believe he's the son of God. So that's a
difference. So here's the thing. Right, In Arabic, the son of
God can translate to different things. So I may agree with you, like
if it's a well no, no, I mean it's not you guys don't
believe to try to like for example, if you're saying like it's a literal
physical thing, like, I would disagree because I would say a father has
to carry his son in his balls as semen first and then give birth to
him by having Now that's sexual intercourse with a woman, you got, so
hold on. So it's it's backwards. Jesus wasn't born that way, right,
So when you say son of God, okay, I get it.
Yeah, that's easily a title you can give him because he was born without
a father, the miracle. So I think if you use the title son
of God to glorify the miracle of him being born without a father, and
God is his father, then sure God, surely God the father is everyone's
father. Right, right, Well that's not but that's not what we mean.
Right, So we believe in the trinity, right, that from all
eternity God, the Father has eternally generated his Son, and that that communion
has had in the person of the Holy Spirit. So from all eternity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God. That's not
what Muslims believe. Muslims reject the Trinity. So that's the difference there,
right, So we believe in like the Abrahamic principle of but you don't.
But you don't though, No, No, here's the thing. Monotheism is
a simple concept. No, it's not worship diam. It's not one God.
Right, No, it's not. That's not what monotheism is. Explain
it to me, right, So in the Revelation to Abraham, all three
persons of the triad manifest So Abraham worships the Trinity, not a generic Unitarian
God. What does that mean. It means that that, like if you
read ironically, I mean, let's say, let's say we go to like
Genesis twelve, fifteen, seventeen, twenty two. In every one of those
cases where Abraham has an interaction with God, we see not just a belief
in a Unitarian deity, but we see a manifestation or an appearance of God.
It says in every one of those chapters that God appeared to Abraham.
That appearance is the face of God, is the person of the logos,
is Christ. That's why Jesus fulfills all the promises to the coven of the
covenant to Abraham. So, in other words, if you go and read
those chapters, you'll notice that it's not what the Islamic account of Abraham is,
but rather it says that the word, the logos of the Lord,
came to Abraham and said, I will make you exceedingly great. The voice
of the Lord came to him. The voice there is the logos, the
word of God. So the word of God, the face of God,
the Son of God, came to Abraham. Abraham has a meal with this
angel, this messenger, this son, this Lord that's Jesus. That's not
a Gabriel, because that Lord, that angel is worshiped. So this is
the real trinitarian God revealed to Abraham. And every time you bring this up
with a Muslim, they suddenly say, all those texts are corrupted, that's
all corrupt. But the Koran doesn't actually say that the texts are corrupted.
That's a later Muslim argument. The Koran says, to check the revelation of
the Koran against the prior revelation. Right, Okay, So I have two
things to say. The first thing is Islam comes on a basic, simple
basis. Okay. It comes on the basis of here's a holy book from
God. Yeah, but that's not actually true. Come on, I mean,
I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just explained. Hold on,
but that's not true. I mean, I've debated every I've debated all the
top muzzles. It's not true. It's not true. No, that's your
belief. I don't believe that. So give me one. Hold on,
So do you believe? Hold on? Hold on? Have you read it
been to me? One? Have you read it to me? We'll get
to that. No. But but what you say is not true. What
you say is not true. I promise you I will get to any question.
You know that there are multiple schools that debate what the unity of Allah
is. So it is not true that there's a simple monothism. That's not
true. I have to say about what you said. Okay. One.
The first one, Islam comes upon the simple basis of here's a book that
is holy and complete, and everything that comes before it is now considered poetic
literature. That's not true. That's not what the Koran says. That's not
true. Let me tell you that's not true. The Koran doesn't say that.
Why because the only revelation that has been preserved in the original language spoken
by the prophet is the Quran. But what you just said is not even
true. The Quran says to check the revelation of the Koran against prior revelation.
So that's just what I'm saying directly. What I'm saying directly is the
prophet that revealed the Holy Book, each Holy book we consider Prophet Muhammad,
Peace be upon him. The praised one means Muhammad, the praised one.
That's what his name means. Okay, because three billion people today praise him.
They don't worship him. They praise him. We should be praising Jesus,
not worshiping. I know that we've already had debates with all the top
Muslims. I know, I know, But this is the point that I'm
making is that Islam came on the basis that this is a holy book,
and we believe that it's the only complete truth. Because okay, but that's
your believe that's your belief. But that's not addressing any of the points on
this Islamic basis. This is the simple basis of what Islam comes upon as
your claims. The Muslims, if you tell them read the Bible, read
this. I read the Bible. But if you tell them these are claims
the Bible, they're gonna be like, why should I read the Bible?
I have a Quran, I know everything. Are you gonna address? So
this isn't addressing any of the arguments. The Quran doesn't come and say ignore
all the other books and only read the Quran. It says the Quran came
here to confirmed what is before. Correct, That's what I just said.
What does that mean? That means that when you cross reference the Quran with
all these books, you're gonna find certain pieces of information that are confirmed and
in literal proof in the text match up so versus from the Bible. But
do you understand that there's giant portions that don't match up criss cross right,
all right, So you're not gonna listen to show up versus that show up
that are different exactly like you said that are not crisscrossing, and you're like,
okay, what are these unique verses in oron? Those are the verses
that the kings and the people before us took out of the Bible and the
Torah to make it fit. This is your assertion. You have no basis
for this because you understand we can. You're not listening to me. It's
not just as simple, all right, this is all fellacies. This is
getting ridiculous. So again, we've addressed this a million times. He's not
even listening to what we're saying, John Q. Taxpayer. It's like a
script. It's like it's like when you debate with Joe's witness. They read
a script and they don't they don't reply to anything that you're saying. They
just they just charge forward with the script, not addressing the fact that you've
already addressed this point. Yeah, you claim that it's a simple book and
it's consistent with what came before. And by the way, he contradicted himself
because he said that everything that came before was poetic, and then he says,
but you can check it from what came before, though, that's a
contradiction. What's up, John, Q. Hey there, how's it going,
Yes, sir, I just had a quick question regarding using penal language
to describe the atonement. Now, I know to some extent, like if
like for someone like Mercy Sproll, I think they would go as far as
saying that the Trinity was like hey, Jamie divited in some sense. I'm
just wondering, Yeah, it's completely stupid. I'm wondering, like saying,
like in a basic sense of like what if we were just to say Christ
was punished for us bearing God's wrath and we were only to say that,
could that be something that that could like you could be Orthodox and you could
just hold to something like that. I mean, if the punishment that you
believe is damnation, then no, it doesn't make any sense because we're already
told explicitly that the death or the quote punishment is the severing of his human
soul from his human body. There's never Christ as a divine person. Okay,
So the Father never turns his wrath to the sun because that would imply
that the divine person the Sun doesn't have the same will in nature as the
Father. That would divide the trinity. So the death, if you read
John Damascus, book three, and you go down to the very bottom of
that whole chapter, he explains perfectly what the Orthodox position on the death of
Christ is, and it's the severing of his human soul from his human body
so that the divine person, the Son could descend into Hades and preach the
gospel there. Okay, yeah, No, I was just wondering, because
go ahead, oh okay, I read it. I was wondering what you
thought about, because I just kind of looked at it was like penal language
from Saint John Crisos. Yeah, the problem isn't using penal language, just
what does it mean? And most of the time Protestants think, well,
the punishment is damnation, you see, so that's what leads them to that
conclusion. Gotcha, gotcha. I was wondering just another question, as Muslims
and Jula's witnesses like to use John seventeen I'm wondering, like, how what
would be kind of like the best way to respond to someone to that brings
up John seventeen three, saying that the Father is the only true God.
I was thinking mentioning like it's called monarchical trinitarianism. We've been addressing it for
I'm not being rude to you. I'm just saying we've addressed it for about
seven or eight years. Go watch all the talks with doctor bo Branson.
It's called monarchical trinitarianism. So everybody should be familiar with that, should go
through his lectures and his talks. Hey, Jamie, she must be outside,
Adrian, No way, that wonky, That wonky. Don't talk to
White Night for my wife because I'm trying to yell to her to get a
coffee. I'm not yelling to be mean dummy. I'm yelling because she's in
the other room and she can't hear me, or she's outside. So these
people try to who he's yelling at his wife? Oh, let's get him.
We got him. He's an abuser. So you're gonna band just for
that nonsense. Go ahead, man, Okay, it looks like he's having
a hard time connecting Adrian Hackman. H Yes, I have a question.
Yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead, okay, good. Yes. When
I studied advertising, I got in contact with a group called Martinism. Martin
Yes, yes, there there have a cannot stick like belief that the human
soul had become trapped in material bodies at the fall and that Jesus the Greater
Repairer had come to return you, but its originals is fi Okay, So
what's your question, Well, he mentioned, I'm trying to sort of understand
what he meant when he said he took a quote from John the light shines
in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. And he says,
he said to me that darkness is dependent upon the light. It's a
very sort of duable kind of way of looking at Yeah. I mean,
darkness is not a thing. It's just expressing the contrast between good and evil.
So it's saying that the contrast between physical light and darkness in the created
order in Genesis wine is contrasted with uncreated light and spiritual darkness in the sense
of evil. So it's not talking about metaphysical that evil has a metaphysical existence,
all right, okay, Because I mean the group is based on theilosophical
Kabbala, sure, of course, and in the test it's based on the
Zohar. And I don't know how how would you try to metaphysically defunk this
kind of gnostic, cabalistic way of looking at I was just listening to some
weird gnostic guys lecture a minute ago, and uh, typically what you have
with these kind of groups, like, let me show you the lecture I
was listening to as an example of what you're talking about. So, uh,
this lecture right here is an example of kind of what you're talking about.
I mean, I don't think this guy's a Martinis. He's just some
kind of random boomer gnostic who came up with his own position. And the
documentary is called Cosmic Conspiracy Gnostic Cosmology, the Buddha Messida, And he doesn't
argue why the position's true. He just asserts the position of we know that
there's all these archons, and we know that there's this you know, dualism,
that's the physical world's a prison. And so I would start by asking,
how do you know that this is actually the case? Like you've got
this big story about the cosmos, But how me know that that story is
true? And most of the time these people can't tell you why it is.
And then secondly, I would say, if you listen to their storytelling,
as I listened to this guy's story, he says that you know.
He starts by saying that, well, the church and the Jesus position that
everybody thinks is the church. They think there's one true position, and know
that's a deception, that's a dogmatic position. And then he goes on to
say, the one true mystic position is my gnostic system. And what you
find out is that there's actually a zillion different gnostic systems, and they all
contradict one another. And within about twenty minutes, these people will typically contradict
themselves as to what they said about ten minutes earlier. So listen for the
guy's story and the contradictions, and you'll begin to notice, well, hey,
wait a minute, if, like, if true reality is in this
etheric realm and we're trapped in a prison realm, how do you know the
truth in the prison realm? That's that's going to be a contradiction. Okay,
So it's kind of like you skid's a way of looking at it.
It's what it's it's it's it's like schizophrenic with you. Oh yeah, yeah,
they'll constantly contradict, Like, if if this reality is a lie,
right as this guy said in this video, then my coming to know this
reality is a lie is still part of this reality, and it would be
part of a lie. That's a contradiction. Okay, I'm serious. I
mean most of the time Gnostics are not very sophisticated, So if you just
listen to them and let them talk for about five minutes, they'll immediately contradict
themselves. Leonid, what's up, dude? You gotta umute? Man lead?
Did you gotta umute? Mhm? Mister pink you got some reservoir dolls?
Yo? Hello? Yeah, yeah? Hello, yes, Hello,
corn boy? Got that corn boy? When him Quorn rolls, what's up?
Corn boy? Hey? How's it going? Could you hear me?
Yes, sir, I don't know. I wanted to see if you thought
there was any truth to the idea that Protestant Protestantism might have been not created
but allowed to exist by the Catholic Church to create a false binary, to
create a weaker enemy than the Orthodox Church. No, I don't. I
don't think there's any reason to think that, right, thank you. Uh,
let's see progus pragus so you can try to come out and come back
in and won't connect. Uh v Varrella, what's up? I think you
wanted to speak in the super chat Varrella? Hello again? All right?
Something else regarding the Roman Catholic Church. So there was a recent discussion between
Tucker Curls and and Past Dug Wilson of vc ORC, and that discussion was
going great until he did the typical thing a Protestant will do is speaking against
the Spanish Inquisition. And I don't think most people, per stance or not
seem to know him anything more about the Inquisition than Monty Python's little skits about
it, right, I agree, yes, so the point of it,
and in Jose Siste Mystery wrote very well on the all the fact about it.
It was not funded by it was not affacted by the Church first,
and foremost was affected by then I'll talk about So yeah, so I'd be
interested to see those talks because okay, so we know therefore this is a
matter of national unity and security. So the same thing of what GK.
Chester Ten he wrote in is what's a matter of national unity and security?
Things like the Inquisition. So like Chestertain he wrote in what I Saw in
America his experience going throule the border patrol, and they ask him if he's
an anarchist. So it's like, we know there is other inquisitions, not
just the Spanish inquisitions, right, I did a whole talk is called Medieval
heresy. It's Malcolm Lambert's book and that whole lecture on it. Okay,
so what so what's your question? All right? So an Orthodoxy would be
would have no problem with something like this, would they not? But what
I've seen something like an institution like the Inquisition, because I've seen some American
Americos writers speak against it, also like Protestants saying, you know, Orthodoxy
does not have things like this, but this does not seem to mix sense,
Like what's your Yeah, there's no heart and fast answer this because typically
in the history of the Church, when you would have dangerous heresies that threatened
to upend the social order, then the Orthodox ruler would step in to do
certain actions like banish the people or make them leave or you know, something
like that, or pass a law to dissuade them from proselytizing. And so
that's happened many times. I mean, many of the Orthodox emperors passed laws
against the heretics in the Ecumenical councils the sixth and seventh. They typically tried
to get the emperor on their side because that would ensure that the heretics couldn't
further their agenda. I mean, say, Gregory Palamas, you see this
in the Palomite Synods. They appeal to the emperor to stop the Barleymites from
pushing Barleyanism. So this is well known. I don't think it means we
have to necessarily. Basically, it's two different domains. So the church says
these people are outside the church, and then the state, because it rules
and its sphere, makes a decision about how to handle that in the civil
sphere. So I don't know why you keep coming back to debate. If
you're not going to listen to the discussion, and if you're just going to
machine gun past, then there's no point in having a discussion. So I
asked you multiple questions about Islam, and you just kept talking past. So
I don't know why you want to come back in your hammer down what's up?
Hammer down rabbit ears? Yeah, I had a question about the Schofield
Bible. If you can explaining the who, what, when, or why?
And then I have another I just did a whole talk on that on
my Twitter on the fourth Hower Lord Voldemort. Okay, if I may ask
another question that doesn't have anything to do with religion necessarily, but histerosity.
That's not a word historicity, correct, Huh. What I mean, what
I'm what I'm trying to say is the well, let me just speak plainly.
What is your opinion of the Holocaust? Did I actually take urban meat?
Hi j? I wanted to ask a theological question. Mm hmm.
Is Esther and Mordecai a type of Christ and Mary? Mmmm? I don't
know. I haven't thought about that. Maybe I'd have to go back and
read Aster. I mean, probably there's parallels with the Church. Maybe,
I don't know, I haven't thought about it. I also had one more
question. What this is a really complicated question. So I am a Serbian
Catholic human, and I was wondering how to avoid the temptations of the Catholics.
I mean, go and watch and look at all the scandals of Pope
Francis, And why would you want to be a Roman Catholic? Alf the
Great? What's up? Alf? Got it? I'm mute, sorry,
Jay. I was wondering about predestination in the Orthodox Church. So that sort
of pertains to like divine providence and like how much God's involved with predestination.
Yeah, So I've addressed that multiple times in the talks that you can look
at on the clips channel right here with part one and part two. If
you can see that on the screen, there's the Calvinism Part one and Calvinism
Part two. So I'm not trying to be rude. It's just every time
we do the open forums. So again, I don't know why this to
dud. I don't know why why are you trying to come on here and
debate? Man, It's enough of this nonsense, Najad. I'm talking about
the same Muslim guard that keeps trying to come back in here. He's not
he won't listen to the won't have an exchange. He just wants to spam
miss his position. That's not an argument, Elliot. What's up? Unmute's
going on? Mister J Dyer. Yeah, I'm an inquiring Roman Catholic slash
Orthodox. I've been listening to some of your stuff on YouTube. I was
actually supposed to be baptized today Roman Catholic, but I kind of got cold
feet decided to look at the issue again. So yeah, I was just
curious what you thought about like the eucharistic miracles, because I tried looking up
like something that you would have, you know, talked about regarding them.
I couldn't really find anything. Yeah, I mean we don't. I mean,
Worthodox Church doesn't have the same position as the Roman Catholics on this.
And I mean, if you're trying to make the decision based on supposed miracle
claims, I think this is a really kind of weak position to choose your
religions on because every religion is going to have all these different miracle claims.
So I mean you got to ultimately make the decision on the basis of which
position has a coherent worldview. I just don't understand why people make this decision
like because of all these supposed miracle claims. I mean, like every pagan
religion claims to have miraculous event. Are you going to choose the pagan religions
because of miracle claims? It just I don't understand people thinking this grim what's
up grim? Hey Jamie? Because you maybe a double shot. The audience
says, I'm abusing you because I yelled, Yo, what's up? What's
on your mouth? All right? So so for the tag argument, you
know the negative side of that argument, I have no problem like understanding that
but the positive side, getting the energy distinction out there and trying to prove
wrong, for example, the Islamic God or without having to go into each
individual religion or my opponent's religion to refute that. Yeah, because because the
I mean, if God is a pure unity, you could look at the
problem of how to have multiplicity. Uh. If God is I don't know,
like abstract and unknowable, then he's irrelevant and not related to this the
created order. So basically, you know, you either have a universe that's
uh has intentionality in tilos, or it's disteleological. So basically some of the
basic metaphysical principles will kind of automatically cancel out a lot of the world religions.
But if it's you know, Islam or Judaism versus Christianity, then it
gets into the specifics of like the triad and the metaphysics that the Trinity gives
you versus the metaphysics of the other positions. Yeah. So in I know,
in Islam, I probably have to go into some specifics because I know
that the hyposthetic you know, properties of each person of the Trinity. They
reveal that through the energies or the operations which you know, in Islam they
only have God as a being, they don't have him as specific Well,
also, there's a problem of knowing a law because they have a natural theology
empiricist principle that you're only ever experiencing these creative effects, you're never actually interacting
with they're knowing a law. A law is not in the created order at
all. Right, So that's ultimately like the same critique that Palamas makes of
Thomas Aquinas's theism. Yeah, so in our worldview, you know, so
we don't rely on empiricism, right, we rely on So if we're relying
on knowing God, then how do we come to know God in our worldview
if not empiricism. Empiricism is a school of philosophy or a basic presupposition about
how we attain knowledge. That's not the same thing as having empirical knowledge or
obtaining knowledge from empirical sense data. They're two different things. So empiricism is
just the idea that the way we get actual knowledge, that justification, is
our senses. Empiricism says that the only source of knowledge is sense data,
and Islamic philosophy and thought typically says that as well. Right, and so
what's the difference between that and us. I mean, in the Jake debate,
he says nominalism, So we're not nominalists and we're not subject to all
the problems of nominalism. Did you see the Jake debate? Uh? Yeah,
I watched part of it. Yeah, so basically, so basically he
just keeps repeating nominalism and says like that's obviously what's true, and doesn't even
appear to be aware of the problems in nominalism. So that would be pretty
devastating to having any kind of coherent epistemology if you're a strictnominalist. Oh yeah,
And also, you know, he said that logic is based in our
minds and yeah, blah blah blah and all that. So would that be
part of nominalism as well? Well, nominalism is just a position that there's
no universals or essences. They're just sort of terms that we get. Yeah,
so yeah, it would ultimately kind of relate to that. But thank
you for that question. We're going to move on. Uh, alp apologetics.
Didn't you already come on here? I can't remember or did it not
work? I think you couldn't connect? Yeah, Hi, Jay. I
had a question about the Church of England and of a preston churches and how
we could sort of reclaim them, like I'm talking about a conservative position,
how we reclaim these churches? How we could Yeah, I don't think we
can do that. I think we just got to convert on the Orthodoxy.
Because my question is only based on this is because like there's loads of people
that wouldn't have this question that's sort of just attend church, like sort of
not knowing any theology, not knowing why it's important, and sort of blindly
following a lot of the leaders, like justin Welby all these other people.
They just don't know what the importance of it is. And so like,
is there any way to do this aside from like reziem zoom has got some
movement like the I think it's like the reconky stuff. Yeah, And I
feel like because of the fact that even in America, one Episcopalian church booted
off a priest right because of some liberal complaint, I feel like it's impossible
to get people in the church to even turn it around. But yeah,
exactly these masses. Can we get these masses to come to orthodox that even
if they don't, if they're just old people, right, they don't know
what they're in the church. Yeah. I just don't think at an institutional
level you're gonna do this because a lot of these institutions are captured. So
Redeem Zuomer is young, he's naive, he doesn't understand institutional capture. So
no, you're not going to at an institutional level capture. Uh. These
captured bases, all all your base are belonged to us. So all we
got to do is just convert the people on an individual level. And that's
what's working right now, that's happening, and so we just need to continue
doing that. Buddy Love, that's what I'm talking about, Buddy Love.
What's up man, Buddy, Buddy Love, Baby, don't hurt me no
more? Well, what is love? Baby? Don't hurt me no more?
All right, Buddy Love can't connect. He's got dial up out there
at the Love Shock. Daniel Fahimi got on mute man, you gotta a
mute Hi there you heard me. Uh. I just had a question to
ask about the transcendental argument, right, So why it's like, why is
a mind with the only condition in which you can ground transcendental categories. Well,
because of intentionality, and because those categories stand or fall together. They
don't they're not discrete, they're kind of they kind of hang and fall together.
I still don't understand, like, don't understand what it's just like it's
kind of I'm used to the I'm not used to like thinking in this abstract
I don't know. Well, I mean think about your mind, right,
I mean your mind houses a bunch of things, right, yeah, right,
So your mind is a single thing that houses a bunch of things,
and so in a sense it kind of in a in a limited temporal sense,
quote grounds them or gives them some linking, uh, substrate. So
those things that we're talking about aren't just our minds. They exist and they
structure the entire world. So where are they and how are they? Well,
we need a divine mind, and so the divine mind isn't just an
abstract thing. It's a personal, intentional thing, meaning that it gives purpose
or tilos to all of reality. Yeah, thank you most of Another question,
Sure, how would you like refute determinism? I'm going to like prove
that we will has to exist? Well, because if you deny free will,
it's impossible to have knowledge at all in the sense of having justified knowledge.
So if you go back and watch my debate with JF, that ends
up being the purpose of that whole debate. The JF debate, by the
way, is it's on here somewhere. If you go to my clips channel
all the way to the bottom, right here where the cheshire Cat is,
it says best of jd Our debates. That's the debate where we debate determinism.
Wesley Vennable, So, dude, what's up? Hello? Can hear?
Yes, sir? I had a couple of questions about pre stuff and
transcendental arguments. Okay, So I've got a friend at my parish I'm Orthodox,
and he was pretty into the truth of the presupp argument, but lately
he just decided he doesn't like any things as dumb. And one of his
critiques is that if we can't do natural theology because it's a fallen world and
will come to false conclusions, why would that not apply to the transcendental categories
themselves. Why wouldn't those also be in some kind of falling Yeah, I
mean that sounds like a misunderstanding of why we quote don't do it has nothing
to do with because the world has fallen. That sounds like what That sounds
like what Bonson or Van tilS or somebody would say. So it's not that
we can't do natural theology because we're fallen. It's that natural theology is a
misplaced understanding of how we derive meaning in ground our understanding of the world,
and that ultimately we're still assuming God and the Christian God when we try to
even do natural theology. So natural theology, if you read the Garabie paper,
is also based on several fallacies, typically like the quantifier shift fallacy.
So it sounds like your friend is probably misunderstanding what we're saying as as if
it means that there's no theology of nature. I mean, if you read
Stean Eloy, he says on page one of Orthodox Dogmatics that we do natural
revelation, not tomistic natural theology. Yeah, that all makes sense. I
was trying to figure out to try to wrap my brain around his criticism because
it seems like some kind of category era. Yeah. I think he's responding
to the way Bonson or van Ptilis Calvinists would say that we don't do natural
theology. Yeah, because he's starting to go into He says, like the
phenomenological phenomenological argument is what commited? Like the fact that we're here, we
exist is enough for him. Well, if I mean that you're in the
church now, I don't know what that is. I mean again, I
think that sounds like a lot of fallacies, like the fact that I exist,
Like, how would that prove orthodox Christianity right to me? That doesn't.
That's just not gonna work talking to people. And then I was trying
to think about, like trying to straw me or steal man the transcenital argument.
I won't hear a lot of very good criticisms about it, so I
was trying to think of some The only one I've really heard is why is
God the necessary precondition for X? When when you've laid out formulaically like that,
Well, God's a necessary precondition because it's not just like the abstract idea
of God. It's God in the entire Christian worldview, and the entire Christian
worldview is what gives a grounding and a basis for the transcendental categories which make
knowledge possible. Yeah, I would agree. My friend also said, like
he would maybe be Okay, with the transcendental argument, if we systematically disproved
every single worldview, yeah, again, we've already addressed every one of these
objections. Has been addressed probably five hundred times in the last seven years.
So you don't have to address every single worldview because there's only a limited number
of basic starting point positions for any possible world view. For example, a
disteleological universe versus a teleological universe. There's only that, like there's and you
maybe you could argue that there's some mix. Okay, well that's just three
possible positions that will immediately determine and sort of cross off a whole bunch of
world views. Yeah, I agree with all that. I just wanted to
hear your thoughts on it. And then one last thing, also, Father
Diggan and Ayas's recent paper addresses that objection. Okay, I haven't read it
yet. I will. One other thing. I want to hear what your
your thoughts on this. If there's no such thing as brute facts, is
that itself a brute fact? No, because it's saying that every fact is
embedded and it would include it would include that fact as well. So for
somebody trying to flip that on us, like, that's a gotcha. It's
only a gotcha. If I was like, if I believed in classical foundationalism,
if I believe that, if I believe that all beliefs are theory laden,
then the beliefs that all believes for theory leading is also the leads.
Damn dude, he's bringing the damn farm out to debate. Oh I just
got roasted by rooster boy. Thank you so much. Appreciate those questions.
Daniel. What's up? Oh that's a that's a wolf rooster right there.
That was nice. That was the sign of you that it's time for you
to get off the rooster is like, get off of that phone, get
over here and get the eggs out of these dang chicks. Daniel, what's
up, hey, j I was just calling. I was wondering a lot
of the times arians will bring up Proverbs eight twenty two to justify that Christ
is the created being. How would you defend the positions that he's not.
We just read in the so in this I think it's a septuagen translation.
We read that in the Littergy the other night, or was it that during
the It was just read in the liturgy recently, and the way ours reads
it, it's like I was he was with him in the beginning. It's
not created me in the beginning or established, it's established me in the beginning.
No Oursa has created me in the beginning. So there's when when there's
terminology that's used that's analogies for God, like uh, Like there's a phrase
where in Isaiah says something like I will be to Israel like a mother.
Right, does that mean God is our mother? And you actually have like
heretical sex who will take that analogy and say, oh, we'll see God
is also a woman because God's like a mother to Israel or something like that,
And it's it's just an analogy where elements of the thing match up and
elements don't. So anytime there's an analogy, we can't take the things that
don't make sense to match up. Right. So if there's dozens and dozens
of other passages is to talk about the Son of God being the eternal son
of God, then clearly the passes it talks about the personification of wisdom at
the beginning of creation. We're not going to apply the created categories to the
Son of God. Okay, My next kind of branching question off of that
with the in what sense is a Christ's analogous to being created? Well,
the created order is analogous to him as the being through whom creation occurs.
Right, So for example, it's referring to the beginning of the works.
It doesn't mean that the sun himself is a creation or work because it says
also that huh is the origin? Yeah, okay, yeah, So when
John and if you read John One, when John plays on this passage,
right, John One's exegesis, and I wrote an essay on this some years
back. It's in the Red Book. So a lot of people think that
John one is pulling from Greek philosophy. Actually, John One's pulling from the
Hebrew wisdom tradition and the wisdom texts that personify wisdom. It also personifies wisdom
as a woman. So like when we conclude that Jesus is a woman,
because wisdom is personified in Proverbs as a woman. No, so there's elements
that match up to what it's referring to and elements that don't. Just like
God is a mother to Israel, but God's not a mother, right,
So it's he's like a mother to Israel. And so the beginning of the
created order finds its origin in the person of Christ, the logos, And
that's the way John exegetes this passage in John one. So John one is
really the way to interpret Proverbs aids what I'm saying. And that's why he
says, in the beginning was the word, the words with God. The
word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were
made through him, and nothing that came to be came to be without being
made through him. So that means that he's not a creature, right,
And the word there is the wisdom logos of Proverbs. So but that's a
great question. Let's see Timothy. What's up Timothy? By the way,
if you want to support via bitcoin, this is my wallet QR code the
wallet addresses also in the show description. What's up? Timothy? Hey,
j what's Christ? Division? My question is reverse to the idea that when
Christ became men, When Christ became men, the person of Christ went from
this is going to sound a bit strange, went from simple to complex.
I understand that. Yeah, I think that monologies used by Saint Maximus.
Yeah, or and maybe John Amascus too yeah, and in the I sort
of work with a mission group, so translating to our language is a bit
difficult for me, especially because I myself don't understand this concept in its depth,
so it will be impossible for me to explain it to me. Well,
it just means complex in the sense of now he's composite or compounded of
human nature and divinity because of the human nature. Correct. Are there any
books of that I could read to explod more on this knowledge that you would
recommend? Well? Yeah, I mean any of the Orthodox Church fathers the
treat of the Incarnation extensively, like Saint Maximus. Uh, you know,
the Cosmic Mystery of Christ book from Saint Vladimir's. You could read John Damascus
is on the Orthodox faith. Book three is all about Christology. But if
you want more of an academic scholastic treatment, Rise of Christian Theology and the
End of Ancient metaph Physics by Zach Kuber is all about the metaphysics of the
incarnation. So that would be this book right here, let me open the
stream. Sorry. Oh yes, And also if I can ask one more
question in regards to the Old Testament, the various theophanies and for example,
like the more you read the Psalms, and the more you read the entirety
of the Old Testament from Orthodox fronium, it would be more and more compelling,
more and more blatant that literally everything is about Christ. Yeah. Absolutely,
yeah. He says that at the end of twenty four he says that
He opened their eyes to understand everything in the scriptures about him. Right,
how would you? Because I believe that the Episole occasion ever truly died.
I think that we, or those Christians, we are ought to following their
footsteps the same way that Saint Paul, for example, wrote for the Hebrews
in his letters, he used language that they would understand. What sort of
language do you think that would be useful to explain to Muslims that these things
are indeed speaking of Christ and it's not just some God which you can't know
or have any analogy, but it is in fact. I don't know.
I mean, I don't know if there is any language secret to explaining stuff
to Muslims. I don't know. I see, thank you very much.
Yeah, I mean I think it's just a just a sort of a really
hard headed arbitrary I mean, when you talk to the Muslims. Most of
the time. Like the guy that was in it earlier, he wasn't interested
in having it back and forth. He just wanted to do his spill.
And if you try to, you know, have that back and forth,
he just like blew past every question and just wanted to keep repeating his position
and do a sales pitch. And it's like, you know. Then he
said to them, these are the words which I spoke to when I was
with you, that all things might be written that were fulfilled, which was
written in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms about me.
And he opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures. So until the
Messiah opens your mind to comprehend the scriptures being about him, you won't understand.
You won't see any of this. Is God able to do anything.
Eric three dollars. So I addressed this earlier. No, what omnipotence means
is anything that's possible within what's determined by his nature. So it doesn't mean
literally anything possible that's importing an external definition of omnipotence to our system. So
it doesn't mean that where do humans and demons get evil from if not from
God. So evil is a move of the will away from the good.
It's not a thing. It doesn't have being, it doesn't have substance.
God doesn't make evil. Cataclysm North is xenomorph and I'm a man boob.
It's just a joke. Chris one Dollar, what's the best argument against the
Protestant Canada scripture? Again, I've done multiple talks and lectures on this,
so you can go watch the lectures that we did over here in my clips
channel. Go watch the video the Protestant Candidas Scripture on Sam Schimun's channel with
me. So Jay Dyer, Sam Schmun Protestant Candidas Scripture. I address that
in great detail. John five Dollars, I'm an ext Show's witness. There's
Joe's witnesses in Greece, Russia, Ukraine thanks to their evangelization efforts. I
know they're also used by the CIA with the EO. I find myself dealing
with unresponsive priests and ethnic churches, and then I finally found a good one
after many months. Yeah. I think that's the thing is that you know,
Orthodox church is not some in general, when you try to find one,
you're not gonna find like some utopia. You know, it took me
a long time to find a good church too, so you do have that
time's work for a long time to find a good one. Whale box ten
dollars. I would like to support Orthodox monks. Do you know a reputable
website to buy products like Jordanville Who Holy Cross slop ten dollars. Do you
agree with Andrew Wilson's stance on rights. I mean, we had to talk
about this. It just depends on what you mean by rights. I mean,
do you mean a moral like defense grounded in divine law, or do
you mean like the Enlightenment idea of like some inherent right. I mean,
if you're an Enlightenment goober, which is most of the people that or a
atheist or whatever, which is a lot of the people. He's debating the
feminists like they have no basis for rights and there doesn't make any sense.
I had this argument with my brother and he was insisting that the position was
anti Christian. It just depends on what you mean by the words one,
two, three, four, juice box ten dollars. Why do we not
have multiple wives in Christianity? Because Jesus when he came because he's the one
that gives the law. He decides when to apply when to relax the laws.
Decided that he wanted to move us in the direction of what was appropriate
and intended in Genesis, whereas polygamy was a condescension to man's weakness, and
so he made that decision for our goodness. Anonymous five dollars. Are Protestants
better at preaching and evangelism? No, because preaching and evangelism isn't done correctly
unless it's done at correct faith. Pantheon five dollars. Jay. Question,
is Christ the logos and word of God? Is that the voice heard in
the sky? Well, Christ is a divine person who's being baptized. The
voice is the energetic manifestation proper to the hypostasis of the Father. So it's
the Father saying, this is my beloved son. And if you read it's
the same principle with the tongues of fire. It's not the person of the
Holy Spirit. It's the energetic manifestation of the Spirit that is appearing as a
dove or as tongues of fire. But the Holy Spirit is not a dove,
and he's not a tongue of fire. Geets avon pig sty seven dollars.
Jay question, how does souls come into existence? After Adam and Eve?
Saint Maximus says very clearly that they're created instantaneously at the point of conception.
Is there a continuation of God's breath into Adam and Eve? I think
God creates a new soul. Is it a self sustaining chain reaction? No,
L two A five dollars. Could you steal man created grace saving you?
No, because it's a completely rejected position. All all the four of
the Polamite synods, which are translated in this new book, fairly new book.
In all four then they reject the possibility of how grace itself could be
created without ending up in some kind of Aryan position. I mean, arianism
is false because it says that our savior is a creature. And it's just
an Aryan move to say that the grace that saves us is also a creature.
It's just silly, and they'll always try to deflect into saying that,
well, sacraments have a created element to it, so it's a created grace.
It's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the energies themselves that
we participate in are they themselves created? And the answer universally in the Eastern
Church and amongst the Eastern Fathers and councils is absolutely not. G mall ten
dollars. I love you well, no, homo br but I love you
too, Shaan five dollars. Malpass granted that God might be the way to
account for logic, but does it says it doesn't rule out logic being grounded
in something incomprehensible. Well, if it's incomprehensible, then I don't know how
it would do the grounding work aesthetic to having a respect for uncertainty, but
it makes it impossible to argue correct Uh, yeah, it seems like it
would go in that direction. Roll of stakes, ten dollars. What's your
favorite argument against Protestants to take issue with venerating Mary and giving her titles such
as Queen of Heaven? Well, I don't know why we wouldn't venerate the
queen. I mean, isn't that the point of terms and showing respect?
So you believe she's a queen, but you're not going to venerate her just
doesn't make any sense. What do you say to their arguments when they try
to equate her to a pagan goddess. Oh again, I mean it depends
on what the reference is, right, I mean, Pacha Mama is not
Mary. And for Roman Catholic to try to say, well, it's kind
of like Mary, I mean, that's an idiotic move. So you know,
if we were like Lofton or a Roman Catholic making a Pacha Mama argument,
then maybe they would have a point. But I mean, do you
would you say that an arching angel is I mean, surely if you're a
protest he believes the Bible. You think that there are archangels that are high
in rank? Does that make them gods? I mean? And by the
way, the problem also might be linguistic, because Jesus said, I have
said ye are gods. So he made Moses like a god to Pharaoh.
So the problem isn't the terms of the words. The problem is are you
giving improper reverence to a creature that's due only to God? That's what idolatry
is. Mister Pink nineteen ninety two, five dollars can I speak? I
have the highest IQ question? All right, let's see way you dropped off,
So if you're still in the chat, pop back on a, mister
pink, apologize. I just now got to your question here. We couldn't
get you. You couldn't hear me when you popped on DC would work in
three dollars. Thank you so much. Appreciate that that long key boy,
three dollars. I couldn't ask on. Next, I'm gonna ask you here,
how does the Orthodox Church know dogma? I mean, I'm not trying
to be rude, but like maybe we've answered this question literally every time we
do a live stream, so you can just go watch some of the other
live streams. I'm sorry, I'm just like I can't answer that. One
thing that I really just don't like about doing the live streams is answering the
same question like fifty times. And I'm not trying to knock you guys.
I appreciate the three dollars, but like literally you could just go probably listen,
just pick any of the previous open Q and A debates and that that
question is gonna come up, or just go watch ubi's video on how we
know what Orthodox dogma is so and by the way, the Roman Catholic Church
saying that we have the papacy, it actually doesn't give you what the dogmas
are either, so it doesn't even do that work. Dom l Cardio ten
dollars. What is the argument against Krishna and others before Jesus going through crucifixion,
born of a virgin and so on and so on. Well, again,
it's another type of word concept fallacy, and it's it's also a genetic
fallacy. The fact that there's similarities in the religions doesn't have anything to do
or doesn't prove that it comes from the other, right, It's just it's
a non secutor's genetic fallacy. It's also a historical fallacy. Just because something
comes beforehand doesn't necessarily mean that the religion has its origin from there. So
there might be some religious claim to a virgin birth, but that doesn't mean
that Christianity therefore derived its doctrine of the version of birth from that pagan religion.
It's just it's just and that's all ways, Like all of the zeitgeist
level arguments are based on these fallacies. And I've never heard of Krishna being
crucified. I mean, is that is that a thing? Maybe it is,
I don't know, but I mean the argumentation of crucifixion and whatnot in
this biblical revelation has nothing to do with Krishna. Uh, I'll be uh,
I'll be uh. No, I can't even pronounce whatever. I'm guessing
this is some Hebrew roots stuff. Go ahead, talking about Christian and shua
she was said, all who came before me are liars and thieves. And
so that explains everybody who came before him. Well not everybody, like I
mean, not Moses. Right, he's talking about the negative entities. Yeah,
yeah, I would agree with that. So what's your position, what
are you what are you arguing? Oh? No, I was just popping
in because somebody's talking about Krishna, right, So if you want to talk
about Krishnan, right, that's Shiva. So all Krishna is is another representation
is Shiva. And so yeah, and so Shiva's represented. They worship him
with linams with an eight sided, eight sided like figure like an idol,
right. And then so if you look at the temple mount right, and
you'll see on top of there is just a lingam has eight sides with the
thing in the middle. It's just not extended up very high because it's a
dumb yeah, right, and so what it is a linom? They work
worship Shiva because Shiva, Lucifer and everybody else who is Ashua, right,
they're all on the same team. Uh well, I agree with that principle,
but I don't think that it sounds like if you're using the terminology Yeshua,
that you're into some Hebrew roots thing, which is silly. So you're
saying that Hebrew did not come before English, Well again, that would be
the historicist fallacy. It doesn't really matter what came first in this regard because
the word it does because English came from Hebrew. It wouldn't matter because the
reference is what matters. So this is a word. It's a superstition to
think that somehow like saying the word yes Shua makes you like better or more
holy or something thing. Oh no, that wouldn't make better and more holy
unless you used it to get yourself saved, as only one name is salvation,
right yeah, sure, yeah, saves. Uh huh. So you
and you think Jesus doesn't mean the same thing, Well, Jesus is a
transliteration, right. But if we go back, Okay, but so are
you a Hebrew? Are you Hebrew? Well, I guess I'm Jewish.
If you consider a Jewish being born again? Are you a Hebrew in terms
of your edison? Right? So why are you trying to why are you
trying to act like you're Hebrew? Oh? No, it's because my Messiah
was Yeah, but the Messiah intended if you read Isaiah like say, forty
nine fifty to fifty one, the Messiah intended that message to go out to
the Gentiles and intended that message to be translated into all of their languages.
First of the Jews, thento the Gentiles. Is the actual verse? Which
verse I'm talking about Isaiah? I'm talking about New Testament? I No,
Isaiah's not in the New Testament'm talking about the Book of Isaiah, which eleven
two, right, And then it was like a twelve to two. No,
I said Isaiah forty eight forty nine fifty, which talks about the Gentile
nations coming into the Covenant. That happened in the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth, sixth century. You know that right still today?
Okay, but what was the church doing in the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth sixth century? What was the church doing? Are you
not going to answer the question? What was the church doing in the first,
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth century? Probably all right,
you're an idiot. This is what you get with Hebrew Roots goobers.
I was hoping they would call in. We've only got one of them.
Finally after like an hour. Uh kaish dark, what's up? Kai Shark?
H what's up? Kai Shark? Yeah? What's up? Oh?
Oh? All right. I'm a big fan, thank you, but I
was jo. I'm sorry, man, I can't hear you your I can't.
I appreciate that I can't, but I just can't hear it. Uh,
Judah Hicks, We've got another Hebrew Roots man, Judah, Hey,
brother, how are you doing? What's up? Hey? I just had
a few questions on some transcendental argumentation. I wanted to hear your thoughts on
it. What's up? So? I know you probably addressed this point before.
But when we talk about transcendental categories and how they relate to knowledge,
when we use this to create a critique, like an atheistic perspective, the
question would be is why can these transcendental categories not just exist in a presupposed
form and compared to being grouped in the same way ideas with pre supposed to
go Well, I mean it because it doesn't do the work of grounding.
To just say they are it's arbitrary. Well they just are, but just
are what? Just are where? It doesn't it doesn't do any work.
Okay, I mean that's what That's what Matt Dela Hunty says. When Matt
dal hunting Day says, well, they just are just are what And by
the way, Matt, didn't you say not to believe in anything that you
don't have physical evidence for. Yeah, and so you were would just be
in what form? Do they exist? I don't. Well to say they
just are does and says nothing? Just are what? Just are? Where?
Just are applicable to reality and actualize? That's begging the question. We're
asking their status, their existence, their justification, and so you just don't
think them being presupposed is a form of that doesn't say that doesn't tell us
anything. Presupposed to be where, pre supposed to be what? Okay,
you appreciate. So that's just saying that we uh, when we make claims,
we assume they are. But we're not asking do you do that?
We're asking what they are. It's a different question. So the question is
more similar to what are the transndental category, what's their ontological status. Where
are they and how are they? You mean by how do you mean or
the action? I mean their mode actually their mode of existence? Okay,
so what do you mean their mode exactly? Of course, their mode is
a philosophical term for the way a thing exists, how it exists. Okay,
So where are these categories? How do they exist in the same That's
a good question. I don't know. I don't know the answer. Well,
but I'm saying that's what we're asking when we ask for that type of
justification. That's why we go to things like Christian metaphysics. So that's how
we get to grounding them and whatnot. Surge, what's up? Surge?
Y'all having fun today? We had about twelve hundred at one point, so
that's a good day. I'm mute, man, Yes, sir, yes,
Surge. Thanks, yeah, a J. I have a question about
communion in both kinds? Is I think the Roman Catholics say that it's permissible
to give only the host, and to say that it's not with be a
metaphysical issue, because then you would divide up, you would divide up Christ
and separate his body with his blood. Is that something you've heard against?
I guess both kinds or I mean, it's just the Orthodox Church does the
traditional ancient practice and that's why we give it to babies, and so the
Roman Catholic Church departed from all this under the Carolinian era. So I mean,
we're we're not sitting here trying to figure out the scientific elements of what
you're partaking of when you have we just do it the way the Church has
always done it. So I mean, it's a silly Roman Catholic argument that
they have that's gonna be rude to you, but it really just misses the
whole point. It's open for me. If you guys want to come on
and ask your questions, make your arguments, that means you make an actual
argument. That means you give a supporting positions, give a logical account of
why you believe this or that thing. If you've already been on here and
asked multiple questions, then please. We're looking for other people who disagree.
So we've had multiple people on today who have asked questions, which is fine.
I don't mind answering everybody's questions, but really looking for people who have
specific disagreements who want to argue their position versus our position. You're welcome to
hop on and do that. Just make arguments telling me that the church fathers
are just looking for something to eat. It's just dumb, wasting everybody's time.
We want actual argumentations for the position. We want to know why this
is the case. Remember, one of the common mistakes that seems to be
made all the time is that people don't know what it means to give an
account for the position. That means to tell me why I should believe your
position. That doesn't mean you tell me a big story telling me the story
doesn't tell me why your position's correct. Lady die, lady, d Lady,
d Ady d lady d lady died Diane There, Yes, ma'am,
what's up? Oh? Can I please comment on the Communion for the gentleman?
Okay? Yeah, I'm My family beat for me was Catholic Italian,
and you know, everybody was Catholic. But then my mom married a rodeo
cowboy and he would not go to Catholic church in southern Colorado, and so
we went to the Baptist church, so Protestant, okay. And I know
that Catholic has just always, you know, gotten stuck in so many different
areas as far as over the years, and you know who's ever infiltrated in
this and that and just all of it. But I'm so glad I wasn't
a part of that because honestly, it is just beautiful to focus on Jesus
came for us and the simplicity in God, who God is. But let
me let all of you know. I know there's a lot going on that
we've uncovered, you know about these ancient people who enjoyed. So do you
have a topic that? So I'm not trying to be rude, but today's
topic is debating the topics I'll get it right. Is that. No,
it has nothing to do with anything differs at all. It's remembering Jesus and
his body because it died for us and his blood was sacrifice. But that's
it, okay for communion. Don't let it go that opposite direction. Well,
Jesus said it's actually partaken of his flesh and blood, so that's not
true. Yeah, well it's okay, but they're trying to associate it with
something else that was are nefarious, you know, and I don't want them
to go there at all. People there too, Yeah, because it's right
can you well appreciate that we're gonna move on to the next question. Rayon
Rayon, silk or maybe even denim. It really doesn't matter. As long
as you're in a you could break caughts and manipulate minds. Rayon Rayon,
you hear me? Yes, yes, sir? All right, I had
one. I have one question. So I've noticed they are religious people often
criticized atheists for a conical morality in the opfice of God. For what but
you're cutting out? Can you start over? Okay? Can you hear me
now? Ah? Yes, so kah. Very often we can't hear you,
man. You're cutting out, morn and all of that cutout. Dude,
I'm sorry all of that cut out. We didn't hear any of it.
Elisha. Elisha super Chat says, thank you for helping me. I'm
struggling with monasticism. Well just decide that with your spiritual father. Romans twelve
too Protestants say man made tradition. Romans twelve two says, do not be
conformed to this world, be transformed by the renewing of your mind or what
does I don't understand what does that have to do with man made traditions.
I don't get it. That Wonky boy, three dollars, Thank you so
much for that. Appreciate it. How can I respond to the Roman Catholic
religion of my forefathers that I shouldn't convert because the forefathers were fine? I
mean, I don't understand this so argument. I hear this all the time.
It's like, what does your forefathers have to do with whether that's the
true religion? I mean, should a Buddhist, well, my granddad was
a Buddhist or a Satanist. My granddad was a famous Satanist. That's the
religion of my family. It's a mindless argument. I don't get it.
So if your family members aren't interested in questioning the heritage argument, which is
the fallacy, like just ask them say, well, should a Buddhist remain
a Buddhist because his granddad was a Buddhist? It doesn't make any sense.
Elisha, what's up? I'm mute man, Sorry. I have a couple
of questions about tag. The first of all, so like, I don't
know if you saw father Deacon whenever you like debated the two like most friends
or most respectful atheists, I think that's what the title was they brought like
one of them was amp deer, and he brought up a point at the
end, he was saying that, like, yeah, did you so we've
already addressed it in the paper. He wrote a paper addressing this. We
did it. We just did a podcast on his paper. Okay, sorry
I didn't see like, oh sorry, I like still have the question after
reading the paper and watching the podcast. I don't know if I can.
I can. I don't know if I can answer every question of his paper,
but I'll answer to the best of my knowledge. Go ahead. The
second one is like, how does tag prove revelatory seism and not just like
intentional, because because all of the other because all of the other elements are
assumed in the position of Christian metaphysics in the Christian worldview. So in other
words, it's a it's a package deal, an argument for an entire paradigm.
So it's not an argument for one idea about God being intent, it's
the entire Christian paradigm that's assumed in the argument. Okay, God, So
how is the entire paradigm like how is that being proved by Tag? And
not just the argument is for the paradigm. It's for the Trinity and the
entire Christian revelation. It's an entire argument, holistic. Okay, Okay,
I think I think it's not saying that it's true because it's in the in
the argument. It's saying that the argument is for this entire paradigm. Okay,
Okay, I'm starting to see. Oh, yeah, that makes more
sense, Thank you so much. Yeah, you can look at one way
to see this, which illustrates the arguments in regard to meta logic and how
that works. Is the the argument that's had between the tortoise and Achilles.
Are you familiar with this? Okay, So this is a famous problem that
Lewis Carroll raised in his It's sort of attached to through the looking Glass.
He was a mathematician and he wrote this little essay and it's about this fictional
dialogue between it's called a paradox. It's a fictional dialogue between Achilles and a
tortoise. And here's a video right here that explains it from a philosophical website.
What the tortoise said to Achilles explained. It's a five minute video.
I think that makes it really clear. I just went into this in a
lot of detail with my part two for analyzing through the looking Glass, because
in Through the Looking Glass there's a lot of areas where Lewis Carroll does not
just wordplay but also number games, number play and number theory, and it
starts to edge over into the stuff that's discussed by Gus Hofstad or in Gardell
esher Bach, and so it gets into the strange loop stuff where he talks
about how the mathematical principles of the limitations of set theory in Girdell's in completeness
theorems, this relates to the problem of the Tortoises argument that you can actually
show that in affirming one statement in terms of logic, you're actually also necessarily
affirming an infinite set of statements, and so it ends up being an infinite
loop. And it's a kind of paradox that's not really solvable unless we admit
that there's limitations to first order logic. That's the point. That's the point
of why we were saying that the sets eventually appeal out of themselves outside of
themselves. And when I brought up this to one of those guys, I
forget which one. He said, you can't bring in Gardell's in completeness theorems,
because that's different. It's illustrating the point that I'm making. I'm not
saying that into completeness theorem is a transcendental argument. I'm saying that it illustrates
how there's a limitation the first order logic when you ask metalogical questions. This
also illustrates that. And you can go watch this video as to see how
that is the case. It's called the tortoise. What the tortoise said to
Achilles Rock Barcellos, Rock Barcellos, I'm mute, yep, I'm from Brazil's
sold sorry if I have any difficulty communicating. I'm a former atheist and I
and I I got convinced about the arguments for God, and but I'm currently
struggling about the about evolution. And to me, well, I don't I
don't really have much to say about that today. It's not really the topic's
not really an evolution. But I mean, I critique evolution from a philosophical
perspective. But I'm not trained in biology, right right, So can I
can I ask something about philosophical about uh, would you say that the the
role of evolution the belief in evolution in society today. Is it's somewhat religious
perhaps, or it doesn't have a function right to put humanity down somehow.
Yeah, I mean I think that. I think that at basic level of
many Orthodox saints in the last one hundred years and one hundred and fifty years
have made this very point that it degrades man, turns him into an animal,
removes his dignity. That was part of the demonic purpose of it.
It has its origins not in Huxley th Huxley, but rather in ancient Hindu
thought. So it's an ancient Hindu mystical pagan religious concept in terms of its
origins. Right, right, and right. So do you have books that
you can Yeah, so the best would be Genesis, Creation, Early Man
by Father serafrom Rose, which is kind of the classic Orthodox critique. Guys,
I want to remind you that we have a show sponsor, and that
is, of course the one, the only, chalk dot com. And
if you head on over to chalk dot com right now, that's choq dot
com, you can use a promo go j fifty to get fifty percent off
those amazing products. I will be right back in a moment I do have
some more energy left to continue this, hoping we get some disagreeers, some
Hebrew roots, some opposition who would like to come on and defend their position,
or some arians or some you know, if you've got a position that
you disagree, if you're a Muslim, if you're if you're whatever, really
would prefer that topic today. I'm kind of in the mood for that.
And before we get to that, though, I want you to listen to
this. I don't know if you'd be able to hear this if you're on
the Twitter space, but I gotta go to the Little Ladies room. I
gotta go tt So, everybody, just hold your horses. I'll be right
back. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these
zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the day.
They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that.
Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This
is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma male pre
workout powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your
co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small
village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives,
sweet nurse, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience
the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon
cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese
lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which will
get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is
made in a marriage with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of
its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweetness to every single pre workout
when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty, fake superlose. Each dose
of chad Mode means the kick of a cup and a hunch looks so delivering
a surge alongside essential Head on over to chalk dot com use promo code J
fifty fifty off all those great products if you have an argument, make your
argument. I want to hear your arguments, whatever your position is. That's
related to the topics today. Again, not many people seem to know what
an argument actually is. Rayon, you want to try again, ray on
silk, or maybe even dinner. I'm over here singing some llo cool jay.
Nobody even knows what I'm talking about. Barely speak up? Can you
hear me better? Yeah? Okay? I had a question. So you'd
often see religious people christ we also have that starting point where we say that
God is good. So you keep cutting now man, start over? Okay,
Okay, did you hear the whole thing? At least we'll none of
it? Start over? Okay, let me start over. Okay. So
religious people often criticize atheists when it comes to accounting for morality in the offense
of God. Right, yeah, got it? Okay, when they say
that murder is objectively wrong. We don't let them have that stance, because
if God doesn't exist, then morality has to be relative. But I had
the question that we also do make a starting point, which is that God
is good and Statan is bad. So how do we make that judgment?
We also are making an axiomatic presupposition when it comes to believing that God is
ultimately the good one? How do we make that? Yeah, we we
have. That's the point of the transcendental argument of presubsu presubsitional argumentation is that
everybody has fundamental starting point axioms. But the question is how do we give
a holistic account for those axioms? And the point is that the atheist doesn't
have an ability to give an account for that a justification, and our position
does. So we're not saying that we don't have presuppositions and you do.
We're saying we all have presuppositions. Who can give an account for those presuppositions?
That's the tag argument, right, But why do we not let them
have that stance where murder is objectively wrong? Why do we not let them
have that because they can't give an account for it. They can't give a
justification. But do you know what that means? I understand they cannot justify
their argument. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so that's that's why argument.
Thank you for now, Yeah, yeah, man, thank you. So
we still got a room full. We're looking for people that haven't called in
yet. If you have a disagreement, if you have a position on Islam.
If you have a position on Hebrew roots, Black Hebrew, Israelites,
Anti Trinitarianism, Mormonism, Jovah's Witnesses, Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, if
you have an argument that you'd like to present Islam the Qur'an, it's an
open four right now for you. It looks like everybody's filtered out, and
I don't see anybody else coming on except people that have already asked questions.
So not really looking to do the Q and A again, Guys, We've
already done a lot of Q and A tonight. So we're giving a position
to the people that disagree. Next up is it looks like Mick Wilson.
What's up, Mick? Mick Wilson sounds like a beach boy. Yeah,
how you going, mate? Not much too much. Look, I just
jumped on the page, But you know, I like I like this kind
of discussion. I just wanted to say that belief was the dumbest thing that's
ever been installed on man. Right, that include all beliefs, like beliefs
in the regularity of nature, laws of logic, I mean all beliefs pretty
much. Yeah, yep, completely unnecessary. So I shouldn't believe in the
laws of logic. I don't know what. You don't have to believe in
him in any sense. Well, you said all beliefs, so they exist.
They exist, right, So it's just where Well, I don't have
to believe in a flower. I can see it and prove it to myself.
I don't have to believe in the sun. I can feel its effect.
Well hold on, wait a minute, though, Like maybe that's uh,
maybe that's all an illusion, Like how do you know it's an external
world because I'm not an idiot? Well, I mean there's plenty, there's
plenty of intelligent philosophers who don't believe in an external world. So let's just
get back. So let's just get back to religion. Right. Well,
but I mean you said all beliefs, so sounds to me like you sounds
My point is that you have a religion too, it's just not my religion.
Well, ask me if I know or I do not know what?
So I don't like the word belief. Do you believe in fosters beer?
So if you, if you, let's just let's just speak to religion because
that's what you're talking about. Well, My argument is that you have a
religion too, So well, you believe in all these principles that you can't
justify like that there's an external world or that there's laws of logic. Laws
of logic have come, So what's what's a law of logic? I can't
prove the law of identity. I can't prove what you think. I'm not
so who's talking to you? Well? I mean where in the external world
is the quote law of identity? Is it physical external world? What do
you mean by that? Yeah? I give up, you win, Let's
move on. Next up is Pablo. What's up, Pablo? Pablo Escobar?
What's up? Man? You get some of them kilos we sent?
I was, I was poking that coca with my pointed finger, revenue on
my gums. What's up, Pablo? Yeah, you keep shoveling up your
age, my friend. Keep shoving the white up jutes, and you'll sleep
like a baby. That said, if you don't sleep, you can always
get into if you stimulate. I'tough you can almost get into Islam.
You can go and study Islam and then tell me is that it's a good
thing for the world. I don't see anything good coming out of that theology.
Yeah, there are many things I dislike about Christians, the Christian religions,
you know, like Catholicism and all that. There are many things that
despise about that. But when I when away all up, there are is
a much much more positive thing for the world than Islam. I don't see
any positives coming out of Islam. What do you see? No, I've
debated all the top Muslims except for Mamaha at the job is the only one
we haven't been yet, And I would agree with that. Is that all
you had on your mind today? So you know, willing to have an
argument of devils for good? Uh? Well, I played. I mean
I have a position I'll defend. I don't know why would I play devil's
advocate for Islam because speak, well, some people have. I mean,
what's your position, let's bring up I mean, you're you're on here.
What's your position? Well, my position is I've already stated my position.
I don't see. Okay, you don't like Islam, But what's your position
anything? Okay, well that's not that's not your own position. Okay,
all right, that is my position. But however, for the sake of
argument, I will play devils for good. Okay, right, Well,
we're not looking for fake arguments. We're looking for people who have actual positions
that they want to defend. So if you want to come on and if
you disagree with my positions, if you're a Protestant, you're a Catholic,
you're a Muslim, you're an atheist, you're a Joe's Witness, you're a
Mormon, you are some other position, then request to speak. I'll give
you the mic. You can come on and ask your question. We're looking
for people who disagree to who want to have a coherent, reasoned debate in
exchange. And that does not mean just telling me a story. Okay,
that's not why your position is the case. If you have a position an
argument, you're welcome to bring it to the table. But we're looking for
people who disagree, not for people who just want to tell me your opinions.
Not interested in that. I'm interested in the argument for your position.
Why is your position the case? Okay, maybe it is the case.
Maybe you've got the goods, maybe you can put me in my place.
Well, here is the chance. You can have the mic for as long
as you'd like, within reason. If you make an argument. Making an
argument is not the same thing as arguing. An argument means that you give
a position with supporting evidences or supporting logical premise, conclusion, et cetera that
shows that your position is true. Why do we need to believe your position?
We know you think your position is true. We don't need you telling
us that you think your position is true. Obviously you're here representing your position.
So again, I know, guys, we've got multiple people who've already
talked and asked questions, but they didn't disagree, and they don't have a
position to present. So again, guys, if you disagree, please request
to speak. All these people requesting to speak are people who agree or just
want to tell me their opinions on stuff. We're not interested in your opinions.
That's not an argument. And by the way, there's a bunch of
people in here, like, uh, nobody wants to come. There's no
Muslims who can present the argument. People in the chat said, oh,
I'm scared. I'm scared. Maybe we'll go ahead, and I mean,
if nobody's gonna come home, maybe we'll just call it a night. I
don't know, I don't know what do you guys think, here comes somebody
Horatio. Oh, here they come. Uh, let's see emergent emergencist.
Emergencist. What's an emergencist? Hey? How you doing? Man? So
I don't have an argument, but this is a better argument about I think
it's generally useless to argue about religion because it doesn't change the reality of the
situation, which is people are destroying the planet. You didn't you already make
this point a few minutes ago? Did somebody make the same point? Yeah?
Oh that's great. Okay, And so I mean, what does it
mean? What do you mean destroying the planet? What are you talking about?
Well, you're arguing about religion while petroleum deposits are running out, okay.
And you believe in the peak oil scam. That's not really a scam.
It's a finite resource. Well that you think that, But I mean,
I can point you to the people who dreamt up the scam talking about
how they would dream it up. So you believe it's a renewable resource.
It would seem to be. I can't prove that, but it seems to
be that. But you believe that for you, Well, if it's infinite,
but it seems to be renew Yest's no, let's think about the origins
of the peak. No, let's think of No, let's think about the
origins of peak oil. Do you know where it comes from? You're not
going to talk about I'm discussing peak oil. Where does it come from?
Yeah, I'm making a point about how you don't know where peak oil comes
from. That's sophistry asking you a question to note where this idea comes from
the sofistory. No, I want to I want to talk about peak oil.
It's not that I was discussing. You brought it up. You brought
it up. You said, petroleum deposits are going all right, you're just
a ridiculous some of them are? Which ones? You're not going to answer
the question. Then we're going to move on. Let's see Horatio, what's
up? And that was? That's exact same dude that was on before.
What's his nonsense? He said the exact same thing as the other guy,
trying to pretend like he wasn't the same dude. I'm mute, Hello,
what's up? Hello, mister diary. Yeah, I am a fan of
yours. I love your content. I have a I have something to say,
regarding all the religions in the world, how exactly can we logically deduce
that and Christianity is correct? What's your account of logic? Well, I
would say that logic is I had ground logic in the Christian God. I
would say, logic is the same material. It's not something that's tenable that
we can actually experience in physical sense, but we know it's there. Okay,
Well, I mean that's my move. So where where are we disagreeing?
So that that's the same argument I would make? Well, I would
say, I mean, because I know that Islam makes a similar type of
argument to say that big ground truth and a law. But well, I
mean, but they're also empiricists, So how's that going to work? I
mean, unless they're like Shia Islam. I mean, the rest of them
are empiricists. So how are you going to ground it in a thing that
you never experienced saying what you're saying? And that is a good point,
But that's and I don't I don't really disagree with you in anything. Okay,
Well, appreciate that. I'm gonna you're cutting out a little bit.
So we're gonna go over here to Zionist something. Go ahead, make sure
it's on topic. We're not talking about you have politics today, Thank you,
sir. Sir started listening to you guys, I'm just getting a feel
for I've never seen you before. But somebody mentioned religion, and what I
heard his question was, how do we know Christian was the correct religion?
That what he asked, Well, he started with that, but then he
was basically saying, I agree with all your positions. So I was moving
on because I was looking for people who disagreed. Okay, I feel I
can't defend Judaism without destroying somebody else's faith in their religion. But my question
would be to retort question. No need to answer it, but every person
needs to think about it. Judaism was founded upon hush Him coming to the
people as a nation as a whole and giving them a choice to follow him
and then well then to begin with like a family and then a tribe.
Yes, but at Mount Signa he gave the Ten Commandments. I'm aware,
but I'm saying that he appeared to Abraham, which is before Mount Signa.
Yes, but my point is, you know it led up to that.
But at Mount Sinai Hashim revealed himself to a whole nation at once. One
other religion can say that, thank you. Yeah, I mean I think
as a Christian we would agree with that. But what are you evangelical or
you a Hebrew roots Messianic believer or something. No, I'm I'm a I'm
Jewish. I converted from Southern Baptist Us. And my point of contention is,
you know, Judaism was first. God does not change. He says
he is never changing. So it became to the Jewish people, why would
he change more than your Testament? Well, I mean, does God appear
in the Old Testament as a unitarian deity or as more than one? It
plainly states he is singular and his into he has multiple aspects, just like
you have an angry side to you, you have a joyous So who appeared
to Abraham? Assume so God has a form. He can be in multiple
spots at once. So when the Psalms in this in Psalm one ten,
who's talking to who in that Messianic song? I'm not familiar with that.
So you converted out of the religion when you appear to not be familiar with
the fact that even in the Old Testament there's multiplicity to Yahweh. I don't
have anything memorized. That's what I'm saying. Well, you don't sound like
you don't know anything about it, so you can quote the bibble any verse,
any chapter and tell exactly what it's talking about. It's not an argument.
I mean, I'm basically pointing out that in many places we have an
angel of the Lord who's called Yahweh. Who's the angel of the Lord.
That I just gave an opinion, and like I said, moving on,
just luke, what's up? Yes, sir, hey, I was just
gonna ask if you had any good book recommendations for like Trinitarian theology, just
to get like a good word that I understand. I mean, yeah,
you could read on the Orthodox Faith by John Damascus. You could read anything
by like Saint maxim As. You can read anything think by Triads. I
got the Cosmic Mystery one, so we'll read the read the Triads, all
right, thanks, sir? Yeah, House of something, blim House of
blim something. Hello, mister Dyer. Yeah, I was wondering about I
heard another arguments before about a Catholic person or like someone was decided to become
Catholic and he was wondering about the miracles? Miracles? Can you? Yeah?
How do I say it? Yeah? So the Orthodox Church doesn't have
the same view of eucharistic miracles. The Orthodox Church stops the service of this
something like this happens because we don't want to fall into prelast. But miracles
don't prove or disprove the position anyway. But Jesus uh prove his godsness by
by by showing the miracles, by eating the miracles attest to the position.
They don't prove it. They're they're like attestations, but they obviously themselves they
can't prove it. And Jesus themselves says that you seek for a sign and
then we'll be given to you. A wicked generation seeks signs Ah, But
why do those miracles happen? Do you recognize the miracles or no? I
mean, we don't have any. We don't make any statement on that,
because how would a how would how would a miracle claim prove a position?
If every religious view claims miracles, is this not obvious that that may be
a fallacy? You don't see why that wouldn't work. But there's something different,
because the miracles happens in the sphere of Christianity. It's not different,
it's not different. The point is that they don't prove the position. Miracles
will accompany the correct faith and position, but miracle claims are everywhere, so
they can't prove the position. Thomas, what's up? Man? And I
was just going to ask about your opinion on the MC and church basically pretty
general question. But well, I mean, I'm not trying to be rude,
but like today's debate topic of the topics listed, what what about it?
Just whether I obviously appreciate you're part of the Russian authors Church. I
mean it's basically because the Metropolitan of the UK, Siloan, he recently excommunicated
someone because they rebaptized someone from another you know, what they consider a heretic
when he said that Chris motion is the only necessary thing for someone provided they've
been baptizing the name of the Trinity. And I was just curious about your
position on that because I've seen I think I might be wrong about this before.
The piece of here says about how they should be rebaptized basically, and
you know, someone like Siloan would suggest that that's kind of a schismatic way
of looking at it. But yeah, I mean the ro Corps position is
that the local bishop determines that, and we do not de facto accept everybody's
sacraments just because they were performed in a certain way. So I believe in
economia, I believe the church makes that decision, and I think you should
just listen to your local bishop. So that's my take. But today's topics
are disagreements on Catholics, Protestants, atheist Muslims. I'm not looking for Q
and A. I mean, We've done about three hours of Q and A.
So I'm looking for people who disagree and you want to present an argument
ethereal nosis greetings was I added? Yeah, man, what's up? Greetings.
I hadn't been listening the full time. I was hoping to catch it
earlier, but I kind of wanted to introduce something. I'm not sure if
it was introduced within the context of the topic O et cetera. Version.
I think all of these, all of these Catholic, Protestant, outside of
atheists, Muslim et cetera, most of these ETCeteras, they seemed to all
come from an initial source et cetera. What are you talking about? Well,
things other than those listed right, we have. There's lots of different
branches of Orthodoxy, hundreds of Protestants, there's different branches, and I et,
there's not a lot of branches of Orthodoxy. So I don't know what
you mean. Well, there's there's there's Through, there's Coptic, there's Greek,
there's I mean, there's there are those aren't branches of Orthodoxy. Greeks
are in communion with the rest of the Orthodox. Coptics aren't to che toche
Uh what I what I sought to introduce was the idea that perhaps Jesus was
was was actually authentically Jewish like like all of his followers, and he was,
Yeah, we believe that. So what about it? Well, why
why is it that he wouldn't teach his followers to have the religion of him
rather than a religion about him that was founded long after his Have you read
the Gospels? He says, for example, in Luke twenty four, that
all the stuff in Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms is about him.
Well, and I concur I would concur with that. I don't know that
contradicts what you just said, So how could you concur with that? I
concur that it is about him. That doesn't that you just said it's not
about him. That means that you just said it's not about him. No,
I a religion, that is the religion he had. The Judaism that
he had was he just said that Judaism is about him. It is,
And I agree. He just said that that's not true Christianity. You just
said that's not true. What are you talking about. I may have misspoken
in my haste. What I'm trying to express is the difference between his religion
and religion that was formed posthumous. Yeah, that's false. Yeah, that
didn't happen. It's not true. Why why is it that all of his
followers continue to observe Jewish customs? I mean in the Book of Acts,
this is explained by Acts fifteen. Well, what's explained is is actually they're
talking about certain prohibitions that were against the Torah, against them, No,
they weren't. Act fifteen says that we should not require anything more than what
Noah had to do in the Noea Covenant. And so the reasoning of Acts
fifteen is based on Noah. Well, yes, the Jerusalem Council, but
we're talking to what he said was then then they should go and learn and
you'll find the four things that are required. Three of them are dietary firstly,
and then there's sexual immorality. What we're noticing is is this is the
requirement. It doesn't say this is all that one needs to do. Yeah,
we would agree either. Yeah, I don't. I don't know what
you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about, because we don't
say that you only have to follow four things from the NOA covenant to be
in the term Jerusalem Council that you're mentioning was brought to James, and James
declared there were four things which a man must do. I disagreed with that,
I know, and there's more I know. The day right, So
that was it was, have you read the book of Okay? Have you
read the Book of Hebrews? I have? Okay, What does this say?
It? Well, says a lot of things, in particularly, what
does this say about what we're talking about? Well, are you speaking about
faith and work? Faith? No, about all of the Judaic stuff that
you want to include, which is what Acts fifteen is really about, which
is that Gentiles don't have to become Jews to be safe. I well,
and I I would concur with that, But it does Acts fifteen does does
seem to to to state that they must attend. It's actually says synagogue on
Shabbat, doesn't it? Okay, The point is that they are to go
and learn the tour hold on. So what you don't listen, what you
don't understand, is that what's happening in Acts is part of a transitionary period.
So what the Book of Hebrews and part is talking about is seventy a
D, which is the destruction of the Temple. Jesus talked about this in
Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four that when you see the temple destroyed,
that's the sign that the fullness of the Old Covenant. Let me finish the
old all right, I'm gonna be If you don't stop interrupting me, I'm
going to boot you. The Old Covenant is done. When the temple is
destroyed in seventy a D. That's what Luke twenty one is talking about.
So, yes, there are things that happen in the middle of the Book
of Acts where there's still temples and synagogues before Christianity has been booted. From
the synagogue. And so that's the point you're missing, is that the New
Covenant is fully, finally there and realized by seventy a d. That's the
point. I fully agree with you in that believe the Kingdom was established at
that point fully fully. But I don't see how that negates the responsibility to
learn the Torah even outside of the synagogue. It seems that observing I don't
know, like we read this. We read this every day in the church,
So I don't know what you're talking about. Well, well, the
Torah is more than just reading. It's it's about observing the commandments. They're
six hundred and thirteen of them. We should we should strive to keep each
of those that apply to us. Yeah, again, you don't even understand
that the Jewish law itself was never intended for the nations. It's intended for
the Jewish people. So when the Messiah comes, the Messiah decides and his
church decides what elements are necessary for the gentiles. So no, we don't
keep all of the laws that can't even be kept. It doesn't even make
sense to be to keep them when half of those laws, half of those
laws apply to the Land of Israel, which can't be kept by gentiles.
It makes no sense. It's not even the Jewish intention of the law precisely,
which is why my statement with the laws which apply to us individually,
because are you just said six hundred and thirteen of them, six hundred and
thirteen laws don't apply to gentiles? I agree, I agree, But of
those six thirteen many do and to be entered into covenant. Still Still,
this is all of this is, all of this is missing the point.
All of this is missing the point that whatever you're talking about is not Orthodox
Christianity. That's the only church that exists. So let's just cut to the
chase, like, what group are you a part of? Well, I
would I'm Jewish? Firstly, Okay, I'm a Jew, and I have
accepted that Yesua has has has has an effect fulfilled those prophecies. You have
to understand what they mean. And the thing about gentile understanding is it's not
things aren't translated very well. For the nay hold On So and Isaiah and
Isaiah forty nine and fifty. It says that when the Messiah comes, nations
will begin to convert, kings and queens will worship the Jewish Messiah. Do
you think that happened in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh century? I do? And what how were those people
worshiping mostly secret? No? Totally not true, no idea. What you're
talking about? How so you think that in the first, second, third,
fourth, physical seventh century that the Church was worshiping secret? I believe
that. Do you think? Do you think persecuting? You don't know what
you're talking about. Do you think we can read those people? Do you
think we can go read those people and their beliefs? Well, considering most
of the books we have fragments, no idea? Is what you're talking about
Rome? Burning the books? What are you talking about? History? Which
gives us a lot? Can you can you read what the Christians of the
first, second, and third century taught? I believe? Yet some I
mean we well, for for example, we we have the homilies of whom
of Clement because that's one church father. Who else? Well, if we
have you read them? Have you read the homilies? For example? I've
read Clement? Yeah? Have you read any of these people? I have?
I have very you read Wait a minute, you read? You read
them? Very well? Okay? Who else you've heard the discussion between Simon
Magus and Peter within Clement. Right, Well, I don't. We don't
believe Clement is a saint. He's not accepted in our church. He's relevant
as a historical figure. But I'm talking about the church fathers of the first,
second, third century on what they believed. Have you read any of
them? I have? I have, I have as an exercise of pure
just just for liturgy, just to understand. I don't follow or believe any
of that. Like as I said, I'm a Jew. We well hold
on. So but what I'm the point I'm making is that we can figure
out what the Christians of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth
century believe by going and reading these people, and it shows that you're not
even letting me finish. It shows that it shows that they are doing and
fulfilling the types of things predicted, for example in Isaiah forty nine fifty,
where we're told that gentile kings will become priests and worship the Jewish Messiah.
So that happens in those centuries. We can go read those people and they
believe what orthodox Christians today believe somewhat well, But how do you haven't read
them so how do you know they don't, Well, I had some of
them like who like who, oh Jerome? What is what does Jerome believe?
Well, Jerome doesn't actually believe what I believe. The Nazarenes carrying the
original Matthew and Hebrew, like he records that that the original Gazarines observed the
Sabbath and followed the Law of Moses, and like, there is record of
this group people that existed prior to Christians. There was even a debate of
whether the word Christian should be used or so when When when the minor prophets,
When the minor prophets talk about the gentile nations offering up a pure sacrifice
and incense to the God of Israel, And when Isaiah talks about gentile priests,
who is that? It's in your face, it's staring you in the
face, all of this stuff. They're talking about converts, clearly, but
what I and that is our So we're talking about the first three century?
Correct, that's them? No, that's Isaiah. You're talking about Isaiah prophecy.
And I hear you. Are you being a sophist? You know what
I'm saying here? You're neglecting the actual fathers that that you chose to bring
up, Blake, I'm neglecting them. No, you haven't read them.
That's the point. Those are the gentile priests that fulfilled these prophecies, that
offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. That's them. It just seems like you're
avoiding. You're not avoiding anything you said as a gentile. You said,
you said, I don't understand the text. I'm right here in Isaiah forty
nine and fifty where it prophesies gentile priests. It profits that. That's the
end of Isaiah sixty five or sixty sixty. I hear you, and I
would I would say that we see that with Paul going out and start speak
preaching to the gentiles exactly, and guess what after hold on. So after
that period when Jesus says to Matthew sixteen that the Church, the gates of
Hell would not prevail against the Church, it's that group that has the extension
of that gift of Pentecost that goes out and anoints gentiles to be part of
that covenant. So the church that exists in the first, second or third
century is the same group from Pentecost. There's not a false. That was
that was overcome by Marcus, and this was not acceptable, overcome by Marcus.
I don't know what you're talking about. What are you been talking about.
I'm talking about when the authentic Nazarenes when that's yeah, you're you're wrong,
that's not the church. I'm showing you how there's no authentic Nazarene sect.
I'm showing you that the gentile kings and queens that are prophesied in Isaiah
forty nine and fifty, they're not Nazarenes. They're the people in the first,
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century that convert
the Roman Empire and the other nations to worship the God of Israel. So
we are we are we We're just going to avoid that those are that's that
is the organization of Constantine that brought me. It's all bullshit. What you
believe is bullshit. There is no changed Church of Constantine. That's why when
you read the first Church Fathers the first, second, third century, they
teach the same thing as the Church Fathers after Constantine. But you haven't read
them, and you've evidenced that in your discussion that haven't read them, because
you would know that they don't teach anything different. I mean, they absolutely
do. No, they don't, because how would you know if you haven't
read them. How would you know if you haven't read them. How would
you know if you said, I can tell, you haven't read them.
So how would you know they changed the doctrine after Constantine because they were still
debating over the Trinity at this point. Having a debate does not prove that
the doctrines changed. They didn't have a dog. There wasn't Oh wait a
minute, so you think the you think the post app assault fathers don't teach
the Trinity. I know that it took a while for them to get there
because initially, Yeah, I've done an entire lecture. I've done an entire
lecture with uh Inspiring Philosophy on the post Apostolic fathers teaching the Trinity. I
actually, I'm I'm I'm sure to review that. I follow you, jay
I, I really I appreciate all of you. You should go watch watch
the Inspiring Philosophy talk where we re butt them Muslim argument that the Church fathers
of the first, second, and third century don't teach the Trinity. We
did a whole two hour talk on just first and second century fathers on the
Trinity. So they teach the deity of Christ, they teach the personhood of
the Holy Spirit and his deity. It's all before Constantine. There's no new
Christianity that Constantine invented. It's not true. Well, I agree, we
have Simon Magus in the first century here when Clement's writings arguing against Peter with
that very same thing. But you find Peter stands upon mono theism purely.
Okay, so mono theism. This is wrong. This is wrong if you
look up what monarchical trinitarianism is, because if you look at this video I
did where the introductory debate with Daniel Hikikicho I proved from modern Jewish scholarship that
there's no such thing as a generic unitarian monotheism. Modern Jewish scholars are more
and more admitting, hey, it actually looks like there's a triad in the
Old test I mean that that just sounds like we're reconstructionists. I don't think
that you're gonna find that the rabbis that I cite here are not all reformed
or reconstruction is due. So we're talking about multiple different scholars and you can
just go read them. It's a Boyarin, it's Uh Summers, it's SEAgel.
They're all talking about how it's clearly the case that in multiple texts it's
not just Unitarian. Who's this manifestation throughout the Old Testament prophets. It's first
off, I'm not all right because for the debate I will there is the
idea of the memory. All right, we have there's there are there's Jewish
concepts that do not equate to deity. That if the personifications analogies are standard
uh euphemisms. The problem is that the problem is that when these Theophanes appear,
they're called Yahweh and they're worshiped. So how is it worshiped? And
by the way, if you believe the New Touch, just the word means
bow no, no, you can't. God says, I don't give my
name to it. I don't give my name to another. And yet in
Exodus we're told that the name of yah you're not even letting me finish.
The name of Yahweh is in the Angel that goes before him in Exodus twenty
three. So how can the name that's not that's not saying that the name
of Yahweh is in the Angel of the Lord, and he's called the Redicted.
So you don't believe in the price. So you're an anti trinity.
So that's the point. You're anti trinitarian. Even though multiple times the Messiah
is given the name Yahweh. Right, so Jesus is not called Yahweh never.
Okay, what does Hebrews One say citing the Psalms about the Son of
God? So you said, well, hold on, you said. Hebrews
says a lot of things. It does memorized the entire thing. You have
a verse in mind, you should mention the totality of Hebrews One is about
the superiority of the Son of God, the eternal Son of God, to
the angels, because he created all the angels. Are you familiar with us
or not? I am familiar with this interpretation. Now, it's not an
interpretation. It's multiple texts that are cited from the Psalms. God, who
at various times and in various ways spoke to us and passed by the prophets,
has in these last days spoken to us via his son, whom he
anointed the air of all things, through whom he made the world. So
God created the world through his son. Okay, that means that he's not
a Nazarene Aryan creation. He's the second person of the Godhead, who being
the brightness of his glory being created through through the Word is through if he
said created you you don't even know what is in Hebrews one, which is
a passage about defending the deity of Christ. And you're here trying to argue
with me over the word through aramaic word. There is not the Aramaic word.
Listen. The whole force of the passage is that Jesus is the creator
of the world. As John one says. It's playing on what the world
was created for him, not by him. You haven't even read John one.
John in the beginning was the word. The word was with God.
The Word was God, and the world was created through him. All things
that came to be were created by him and for him, and nothing came
to be that he didn't create. Is what the passage is saying. It
goes on to say the word this is the Hebrew concept of memory. No
it's not. Now, that's what you have to say to have your heresy,
to get away from the fact that the entirety of Hebrews one says that
the son of God created the angels. He's superior to the angels. You
don't think that's the force of that passage, that's the point of it.
No, it was he was, that he was, that everything was created,
not by him, not not with his hands. But that's not No,
that's the opposite of what the passage says. He is the creator of
the world. That's what John one says. And that's why the whole argument
is that he's not like an angel because he created the angels. That's the
whole argument of Hebrews one. I mean, it just see it's it just
seems that to me seems like heresy. Honestly, the idea that there could
be another God. It's not another God because you don't understand that the word
God itself. Do you realize the context? When he was asked the first
Commandment by another rabbi, he recited them. Have you read the Book of
John? Have you read the Book of John? Have you read the Book
of John? Yes? Okay, every chapter of the Book of John includes
either or both an argument for his full deity or for the Trinity. In
fact, in multiple cases, he says that he's equal to the Father.
He does the same works as the Father and the fai Right. No,
well, we're done, because all of this is about the basics of the
deity of Christ, which you can't stomach because you don't want to believe it.
And we're going to go through Hebrews for the sake of the audience,
so that you see my point here. God, who at various times and
in various ways spoken times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in
these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the air
of all things, through whom also he made the worlds, and being the
brightness of his glory. So God's glory cannot be likened to creatures. The
Son is the brightness of his glory, and whom he is a point of
the air of allum, the express image of his hypostasis, of his person.
You can't make images of God. And yet this says that the Son
is the direct icon of the Father when he purged him, when he had
by himself purged our sin, sat down on the right hand of the magicy
on high. That's the ascension, having become much more excellent than the angels
through the incarnation and ascension. For which of the angels did God ever say,
you are my son today have begotten you. This is Hebrews arguing that
the Father spoke spa spoken to the Son about the eternal generation of the son.
I will be his father, he will be my son. But when
he brings the firstborn into the world, that isn't too the created order.
He says, let the angels worship the Son. You can't worship creatures.
And this is not talking about reverencing a king. It's talking about worship to
the whole part of the passage is that he's superior to the angels. Of
the angels. He says, he creates, he makes his angel spirits,
and his minister's a flame before. But to the Son, he says,
your throne, oh God, the Son is God. Your throne, Oh
God, Son, God is forever. Therefore, God, your God,
has annoyed to do. That's the Father and that's the Son. Now you're
gonna hung up on the word God, go listen to all the talks that
debates that we've done with the Muslims, where we get into the point,
the point that the word God can pick out different things. It doesn't just
refer to the divine essence. It doesn't just refer to a Unitarian deity.
It can pick out in scripture all kinds of things. It can pick out
angels, it can pick out men, He can pick out demons. It
can pick out the Father, It can pick out his angel, it can
pick out his spirit, It can pick out the divine essence or the divine
operations. God is a generic term that means that can pick out different things.
And so all these arguments always hinge on Well, there's only one God,
so therefore there's no differentiations in God. And yet when we drill into
this we always find out there's multiple passages point out there are differitions, differentiations
in than God. And that's because the word God can pick out Mono,
theeos, monarchical theism, the person of the Father. If God is an
eternal father, how is he eternally the Father without an eternal son. This
is Alexander's argument that's prior to Nicea, by the way, saying Alexander's argument
about the Trinity is prior to Nicia. And if you go and read the
Church Fathers that I mentioned, which you obviously haven't read, you would know
that they all teach the exact same things that I'm talking about. And this
is about the son. You lay the foundations of the of the earth.
To which of the angels did he ever say, sit in my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool? And then John one in the beginning
was the word, the logos, the second person that God had, Jesus.
The word was with God, and the word was God. He was
in the beginning with God. So now does this not immediately refute this anti
trinitarian Nazarene error. All things were made through him, and without him was
nothing that was made. So there's no things that came to be that he
didn't make. It's very obvious what this passage is saying. And he kept
saying, no, it's made through It doesn't matter. Yeah, of course
it is made through He's the That doesn't mean he's the world or he's he's
created, because the passage clearly says anything that came to be was made by
him. He is the creator. And that's why he's the one in the
garden of Eden walking around with Adam and Eve. Because he says in John
to the Pharisees, no one has seen the Father. At any time,
there is no image of the Father except the Son, as Hebrews one says.
So when he argues with the Pharisees, he enrages them because he says
that he's equal to the Father. He is the image and brightness and glory
of the Father. That's what Ezekiel one to ten says. He is the
son of Man on the chariot, the eternal son of God. I don't
know why this is being so slow. Why is this not pulling up Ezekiel
one? Now, notice that every passage that dealt with the deity of the
Son or the angel of the Lord. Oh, he said, all that's
symbolic. Those are just passages that symbolically referred to Yahweh. Yet when Jesus
comes onto the scene in the Gospels and argues his position, he's always arguing
that those things are him, that he's the one that ate with Abraham.
Does that mean how could he be the one with Abraham if those are all
just symbolic passages that don't refer to a second hypostasis in the Godhead. So,
in other words, Jesus was wrong or was lying in all those passages
in John where he says that he's the one that visited Moses. Who do
you think Moses went and ate with? Oh, it's just symbolic, it's
just symbolic. Well, then Jesus is wrong for identifying himself as the one
who was with Moses face to face. Paul says in Second Corinthians that it
was Moses that was meeting with Jesus face to face. So all these passages
are then wrong. And we just saw that the Messiah when he comes in
Isaiah is worshiped by the nations. And that guy said, no, that's
just reverencing. That's just reverencing. You can't give creatures the attributes of deity.
That's what idolatry is that when it says that the Age of the Lord
appears, not only is he called Yahweh and worshiped, when he appears to
Samson and Manoah excuse me, to Samson's parent, to Manoa, it says
that why do you ask my name, seeing as it is wonderful. That's
the same message in Isaiah when the Son of God is called, whose name
is wonderful? In the Messianic passages in Isaiah. So that guy was just
sort of infected with this gnostic idea of whatever Nazarene stuff is. So if
you look at Judges, by the way in Judges also it says Yahweh turned
his face to Gideon. That's because it's Jesus that they're talking to Gideon,
because Jesus is the face of Yahweh. Why do you see my name seeing
it, why do you ask my name? Seeing as it is wonderful?
And then Isaiah nine five to six as a nine six and seven as well,
we call his name wonderful. It's the same personage that appeared to Samson's
parents. It's the same messenger of the Covenant that appears to Gideon and turns
his face to get in. Remember, no one sees the father at any
time. Then who is it that's talking to Gideon, that appears to him,
Yahweh turned his face to Gideon. By the way, that whole chapter
has the triad present, Yahweh is mentioned yahways messenger who turns his face to
Gideon, and the spirit that comes upon Gideon. Betwixt ten dollars. Can
you provide a slow boy argument on objective morality and Christianity that's more valid than
other theistic foundations? I think it just goes back to tag. So I
mean, the argument, if you're arguing with like Muslims or something, it's
gonna shift because they're going to agree with you that Theism gives a basis for
objective morality. So no, I think you're gonna have to shift over into
specific issues of where Islamic thought is wrong. And that's why mentioned Islam exactly
STEPF on D five dollars. My former employer is a novs Orto Roman Catholic,
talks a lot about Christianity, but I am no expert. By the
way, the video that we're talking about is let's look at what do we
what do we know about the immediate generation after the Apostles? Well, because
Jake claimed that they didn't teach the Trinity as Muslims do, the same argument
would apply to the Nazarene position or whatever that position was. Did the early
Church teach the Trinity? Here's this video over here, and we deal strictly
with pre nice scene fathers here. I think I only I think I've kept
it to like even like we didn't even go to the three hundreds. We
just kept it first and second century, like two hundred three, like it
was all pretty nicea but not maybe not even up to like we didn't even
go into Cyprian in this like, I just kept it to anything that was,
you know, really early. So here is this video. I'll give
it to you guys. It's called does the Early Church Teach the Trinity?
And we focus here on the post Apostolic era, is what I'm trying to
say. So there's that video with inspiring philosophy. My former Novasorto friend employer
was talking about nine personalities by Saint Augustine. I don't know what that means.
I can't find anything. Yeah, I've never heard of that. Jackson
five dollars, Jay, I have a question about fasting, just kidding.
Have a good one. Well, thank you so much. Appreciate that,
all right. I don't think I have much more energy. I can't.
I'm kind of I'm kind of spent today. That was a pretty wild thing.
I appreciate the guy coming on with the Messianic Ish Jewishish position or the
Hebrew roots or whatever that is. I appreciate the other guys. I wish
the Muslim guy at the beginning would have had more of an exchange and not
just wanted to spout out his position, but he he wasn't interested in that.
So anyway, guys, remember head on over to chalk dot com.
He's promo co J fifty to fifty percent off. Also get the lower Coffee.
You can support FDA as well through Lower Coffee the links in the show
description. That's a based coffee company, good solid products. Also, get
tickets to our live event in Vegas. We'll be with Jamie Kennedy and our
bros buddies. Isaac Wishott will be there as well. It's gonna be a
lot of fun. Go get your tickets. There's comedy, there's all of
it. It's all there. It's a corner copia of fun. You can't
pass this up. Come on,