The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the dout they they all right. Welcome, How
you guys doing, as you know, I turned sweet sixteen today, so
happy birthday to me. I got to pick a pretty pink Maserati and a
Bugatti. They're both pink. My zillionaire parents bought me both of those,
so I got a Bogot you now go Bugatti. So I'm top g aka
top J And I was acting like a brat because it was my MTV sweet
sixteen shout out to me and party later at my place. Also, it's
open for him tonight. I will be doing a fun stream with my buddy
who had just transitioned Tristana over on my channel, which is this channel.
Tonight, we will be covering the classic libertarian paradigm film Wall Street by aller
Stone. Absolutely, Alexander, would you like to come into the debate,
So all the haters in the chat, it's open for him tonight. That
means that you get to come in debate so random, dudes, is your
liar loyal? Come in, bring your debate. There is the link you
can call in via X aka Twitter aka drama aka high school Drama app.
Because everybody's just involved in a bunch of drama on X. It's like it's
like high school. It's the new high school. Jamie said that. I
said, you're right, welcome to Internet. So but yeah, we always
invite the haters. It's weird because you would think, you would think haters
would just come in here and like easily shut it down, you know what
I mean, because it's always so obvious in their mind, how evil I
am or whatever, And yet when we invite them to come debate, it's
just spurging out a lot of the time. Why are you asking if you
can come up? Brother? Link is right there? Well do I call
in? The link is in the chat, dude, it's in the show
to description. I need my poscription for y'all condition, which is to be
a slow boy. But hey, it's okay. We're here to help you
become fast boys on this channel. Move you out of that short bus living
that you're in that puts you on the fast track to being a fast boy
and the way that you do that is to call in via the link.
So Athanasius, if you don't call in, if you just or Alexander what
was his name, Alexander? If you don't call in and you just span
the chat, you just get booted. So it just wastes yours and ours
times is un you dude, We already got seven people lined up. We
just started, and yes I'm a little late, but like I said,
we will be over on my channel, which is this channel tonight with Tristana
covering all over Stones Classic Wow, Screet Wall Street Street, screet Street like
the Yin Yang twins, Wow Street with scriffles. There's a lot of scribbles
on Wall Street. How y'all doing the night? It's a beautiful balmy Monday
where it's eight degrees outside. Bomb It's a balmy eight degrees with ice everywhere.
Wolverine says he just subscribe, even though he'd been listening for a long
time. Well, there you go. That's what we want to hear.
People are fussing you're late, bro, I'm always late. You know why?
Because time is an illusion. Time don't exist except in your mind.
I means clocks are a conspiracy of the of the temporal industrial complex to trap
you, and then for the idiots. I believe I'm being serious. That's
just a joke. Shout out to our friends, by the way, I
keep forgetting to plug them because they've been so cool. They featured me in
their magazine. It's like an edgier Mad magazine. It's called Flip City,
and shout out to Flip City. They do some really awesome Mad magazine style,
but edgier stuff. So if you grew up with Mad magazine and you
want to relive that vibe, but in a more adult, serious, sophisticated
way. I don't mean adult like. I don't mean adult like a shop
you go in in a trench coat in nineteen eighty five with Peewee Herman.
I'm talking about adult as in a grown up person, a sophisticate, sophisticated
man, an sophisticated lady, of which we have about three percent of my
audience is ladies. Shout out to the three percent. Shout out to the
point one percent. You are gonna have to have an occupy Wall Street to
come against them. One percent of ladies that watch this channel, it's open
for him. As you know, the way this works, we open it
up and you gotta make an argument. So I know that's tough for a
lot of people. They have a hard time with that. They think an
argument is arguing. No, an argument is not arguing. An argument is
a thesis, a proof. Right. If it's a thesis, you've got
supporting evidences. Perhaps, If it's an argument, perhaps it is. It
is itself a proof of something. It doesn't matter how bad you think I
am, how evil of a person you think I am. By the way,
it's weird how meanness is a subjective thing. Right, you can't measure
meanness? Right? What's the this algorithm? Oh he's mean? What is
that? Jokes? What planet are you on, dude? Jokes are mean?
No, as you guys, hopefully everyone has figured out calling me mean
is just an excuse to not engage and not deal with actual argumentation. But
that's okay because most people just can't handle that, and we understand that.
So we got a lot of we got a lot of slow boys, a
lot of carbohydrate boys out there. Get their feelings hurt. They can't handle
it. But the other thing that we noticed from the last time we're about
to open it up, I mean, I've known this for a long time.
But you know, if you saw the so called exchange with I thought
he was a gnostic. I didn't really know anything about this dude, right,
So people were like, why did you hop into this debate stream and
debate that was so mean of you? Well, first of all, I
saw like five minutes of this, and I was like, well, they're
debating, this sounds fun. Let me hop on. And all I do
is ask questions. And these guys immediately retreated to the slimy tactic, which
they all do. Why are you being mean, dude? Why are you
being mean? Man? Well, I don't even know you, dude.
I mean, these are people whose channels are literally dedicated to attacking everything that
we believe, which doesn't bother me. I'm not afraid of these dudes are
scared of their suit abilities. But if you're gonna launch years of attacks and
you fold within one minute of a few simple questions, pretty much everybody can
see that your tactic of calling me mean, it just doesn't work. Dude.
People have been figuring out, wait a minute, this is just something
that people fall back on. And you look at the five hundred and seventy
comments. I mean, almost everybody sees through it, right, Like n
are like, all right, this is just bull crap, dude. Everybody
can tell that. I mean, the dude literally says, I have no
idea what the law of identity even is. Yeah, this is exactly right.
It's the meme of crying out as they strike you. And it's not
just what these people do. This is actually pretty common. We notice it
with a lot of people, and I think, as Elon pointed out today,
if you can't take jokes or being satirized or people looking at your positions,
that actually just signifies weakness. And you'll notice it almost everybody's retort in
the last couple of years, especially since people have basically decided that they will
they won't debate. It's like Sam Shamun is one of these people that no
one will debate anymore because they know that, you know, nobody's no Muslim
is going to win that debate. And it's kind of the same type of
thing going on here where the only people that want to debate at this point
with me are like the really extremely low tier people with like a thousand subscribers
who are completely diluted and think that they're like a celebs or something like that.
They that all they do is talk about how they want a debate,
and then I won't debate them. It's like that, Why am I going
to debate a dude with like five hundred subs? Right? There was a
dude this week trying to say dyers already agreed to a debate, and now
he's backing up. I never even heard of you until two days ago.
I didn't agree to a debate. How am I going to agree to a
debate when we've never interacted. I don't even know who you are. But
this is the kind of nonsense that happens all the time. And I already
have a debate with Jake the Muslim metaphysician lined up in a month. I'm
not going to start randomly just taking every debate that pops up. Now.
These debates are not real debates. And I don't mean that as an insult.
Took people to hop on. It's just that pretty much nobody hops on
except kind of you know, people who have questions. Every now and then
we get like a hot headed, feisty, feral person or a wine mom
trying to rap or do her slam poetry literally, But most of the time
it's just people asking questions, which is fun. You don't have to come
in with a hot debate topic. I don't care. You could do whatever
you want. Just please make an argument. It's just so old and tiresome
when people will cop on with the same old Why ten years ago, did
you make a joke about smoking weed on the internet? Oh? You got
me? Wow, you know I'm exposed. You got me a good one.
And it's like, obviously a joke, and they act like it's not
a joke. It's it's ridiculous. But to the topics today. Remember you
have to keep it to the topics. If you call in asking me about
bb Net and Yahoo, and if you call in asking about Joe Biden and
don Trump, like, that's not the topics today. It's atheism, Catholicism,
Protestanism, Islam and more. I just did a giant multiple Epstein's analysis.
Who won't talk about stuff? Who won't talk about well been talking about
stuff before you or even on the internet. Dummies, we won't talk both.
You mean, I don't immediately talk about stuff that destroys channels. Duh,
Like, what's the point of that there's no point in it. Everybody
knows that YouTube is a heavily uh censored soft platform to where you can vary,
you can only talk about you know, limited scopes of things, so
there's not there's no advantage to like trying to forcibly talk about accept that.
People I think do that to try to shut your channels down, right,
they troll you hop on whatever. Look, there's rock Fin, there's all
these other platforms where you can have more controversial topics and subject matter covered,
so that again today's topics are simply atheism, Catholicism, protestanism, Islam.
If you have an objection as a Jewish person, you can hop on here
then, I mean, there hasn't been one. So it's like we've opened
this up. How long have we been doing this open for him? Like
on Twitter? Ever since Twitter Space has existed basically years, and people are
always like, he won't do this, he won't, he won't debate,
so and so any of those people could hop on here unless they acted like
complete loans and I block them, which is very likely because I do have
famously and I'm very proud of it. Three thousand plus people blocked, and
that's because three thousand plus people are idiotic, And a lot of those people,
by the way, over the years have not a lot, maybe I
don't know, a handful have reached out and said, hey, would you
unblock me? I was an idiot three years ago. I didn't know what
I was talking about. Yeah, yeah, And so a lot of those
people end up coming around to our perspective. But a lot of times it
takes, right, it takes. It takes a while, dude, what
are you talking about? Obviously, right, we're going to be within the
terms of service because there's no there's no point in those topics. But like
that's all anybody wants to talk about when the topic is not that. The
topic is atheism, Romanicantholicism, Papasy, church history, protestantsm Calvinism, Islam,
tag precell philosophy of pistemology, skepticism, relativism, materialism, universal is
logos, logi ethics, any of those topics you may call in. Now,
let's open it up, as you know the way it works. You
can even have the floor if you want to talk for an extended period of
time. By the way, who else even does this? Does anybody else
even do this? Or they open it up to anybody to make arguments.
No, hardly anybody does that because they're scared. They don't want to get
a challenged, they're afraid of getting whatever. All right, So that dang,
we already got like eleven people in here. We got a philosophy.
Man, Let's see Epicurus. Let's see what Epicurus wants to talk about.
Gotta unmute, guys, you gotta mute. When you cop on a space
that automatically mutes, you just unmute yourself. All right, Hey, what's
up? What's up? I'm into a picurean philosophy here to represent an atheist
position. Okay, what's on your mind? What do you uh? What
led you into that position? Just seeing the world with genocide and sexual assaults
and poverty and child starvation and the vast majority of god gods that are described
there. That God is perfect. So an all perfect, all moral God
created the universe full of love, genocide, sexual assault, starvation, childhood
cancer. So my argument is premise one, a perfect God would never create
evil. Premise too, there is evil in the world. Conclusion, there
is no perfect God. Yeah, So basically just the old the Odyssey problema
you argument, right, Yeah, So have you looked at any replies to
this, because I mean this is kind of standard atheist stuff. Yeah.
The main reply is God needs a world with free will because God doesn't need
anything. So no, I don't think God has any needs. So yeah,
right, So do you believe that there is evil and the world?
Oh yeah, terrific suffering and tragedy. Okay, what what is the benchmark
for what's evil versus good? That which causes humans great suffering? That's what
evil is in any agency that intentionally creates that suffering. So we got several
assertions, right, so you got about three assertions there. How do you
know epistemically that that's what evil is? Because humans and even animals and other
species like chimpanzees, when we create, we commit certain actions that do harm
to others. We instinctually know this is okay, So your answer, so
your answer for an epistemic criteria is that because humans and animals know this,
you don't see a problem with that. No, it's an it's an observe
from nature, right, So number one, that would be the naturalist fallacy,
the idea that just because something is observed, it's therefore natural. Or
quote unnatural. You know that's a fallacy, right, okay, Oh okay,
so number one, that's fallacy number two. The fact that you observe
something doesn't mean that it's universally the case, does it. It could be
it could not be. Oh okay, so then theism could be the case.
So it's not an argument if it could be otherwise. Okay, all
right, good job, bro, nice one. You just giving it to
you. I'm not gonna argue like you. You're not going to argue because
none of that constituted an argument exactly. Moving on, Ricky, what's up?
Ricky? You? What's up? Rick Slick? Rick what's up?
Yeah? I'm just uh. I will only watch the opening statements of that
debate on Lofton's channel, And you know, it's kind of funny to see
the guy that Lofton picks to debate on, like on this kind of space.
I want to see what your thoughts are on that, and and the
guy still won shout out to yeah, so so lot Lofton's tactic is to
bring on an inquirer to debate, uh pop normy apologist from TikTok and uh,
I haven't watched it. I've watched a few clips of it, but
the consensus seems to be that even the inquirers can now pretty much mop the
floor. But I mean, what do you expect from Lofton? I mean,
the guy's a total snake. Yeah, I mean, the truth will
always win. And and that's what you're saying about, uh, slow boys
turning into into fast boys. I can see like how a lot of people,
uh, just by inquiring and wanting to know the truth, they automatically
become less slow. So you've been a great help in that, by the
way, and thank you. Yeah. I think that you know, over
time, people might be tempted with Catholicism. I was at one time when
I was a low information voter, and then when you experience it, you
know that world inside and out. When you get a taste of it,
a lot of the honeymoon, a lot of the sales pitch car salesman stuff
wears off. And so really the only audience that Lofton could actually draw is
the low tier Catholic answers style audience. But if you watch Kyle's recent video
rebutting Catholic answers, I mean, it's it's actually pretty astounding how low tier.
The Catholic answer stuff is even people like Scott han like when they reply
to Orthodoxy, it's literally just the same meme level stuff that you see just
like spammed on on on Twitter. It's like they don't they don't go into
any of the texts, they don't go into any of the books. Every
now and then people like Ebarrow, we'll talk about different you know, apologetic
books, church history books, works, whatever, But I mean, it
really is just the sort of like you know, quote mining spamming approach.
Once people see through that quote mind spam approach, like there's nothing left in
the papacy is completely bankrupt and people are figuring it out. It's becoming like
public to even the normy world that the papacy doesn't do all the stuff that
it's supposed to do, and so they're basically just short circuiting. So the
reality is they're they're having meltdowns, they're short circuiting, and this low tier
stuff is only gonna work to convert the most low tier person who hopefully eventually
will see through this. Because when I read through the I read through the
comments of some of Lofton's recent stuff, I mean, these people have no
idea about anything. So as they start to figure stuff out, they realize,
hey, wait a minute, like this is this is car salesman pitch
that I was sold a lemon, right, I mean, Brian Holdsworth just
made a video saying I didn't sign up for this. Yeah, that's exactly
what we've been telling you, bro, that the papacy is not what you
think. It's a car sales pitch. And then when you actually get your
lemon and you drive it home and it falls apart, you're like, what
is this? Yeah? Yeah, and yeah that's something. When I reverted
to Catholicism, I was like, you know, I'll just submit to the
pope, I guess. And that's really kind of the mentality. And you
know, I've been telling my parents, you know, I'm from Puerto Rico,
so it's the ethnic cultural religion, and they got me to talk to
the priests or the parish that they go to, and he used pretty much
fallacious argument about how you know, this is like the religion you were baptized
and raised in and this is where God has put you in and yeah,
it's just overall very little tire and not convincing at all. The bad thing
is that there's barely any Orthodox churches where I'm from. So yeah, yeah,
it's it's definitely it's been a journey and uh yeah yeah, well stay
strong. Orthodoxy is going to grow. I know it's difficult. I had
a long period where I was not near churches as well, so understand what
this like. But stay strong. I think Orthodoxy going to continue to grow
as rom implodes. And I would add to a lot of people, this
is something that Father Moses, buddy of mine, has been stressing. UBI
has stressed this. It is good to begin to look into Orthodoxy, but
do not quote or do not convert to Orthodoxy because you want something politically based
and trad because that's not what the Orthodox Church is. It's not a political
movement that you attach your social media to to become a baz trad right wing
political pundit, like, that's not what it is. And if you think
that it's going to be that, you're going to be disappointed like this dude
was disappointed with the papacy, right, So you have to understand that when
you leave trad world, it's going to take you years to be reoriented to
the Orthodox way of doing living and thinking. It's very different. It's very
difficult in a different way, and it takes time to get used to that.
So just be prepared for that. And people who are tradcats looking at
Orthodoxy it's a great thing. But I'm just advising people to take your time.
Do not jump in, do not immediately run to the Orthodox Church and
expect that it's going to be totally free. It's got its own problems.
It's got unique sets of problems that are different from the tragcat world. I'm
not saying it's not better. I don't. I've never regretted leaving tragcat world,
not once since leaving it ever, period. Never even had an inkling
of thinking of going back to that, not in a million years. But
if I was talking to me back in the day in my twenties, I
would definitely say, like, slow down, relax, don't rush. I
know that's odd because people think, oh, I got a rush into this,
or I'm gonna be damned in the next two days if I don't arguet
and rush, but I don't get into the worth of our church, I'm
damned. Just take your time. No, you're not damned if you're not
in the Orthodox Church. Within two days. Okay, we don't believe that
you're gonna It's gonna take time to lose a lot of that Latin legalistic,
black and white mechanical attitude and that has to go. So that's first,
and it's gonna take time for that to happen. Remember, the model here
is like a hospital where you need to be healed, or like rehab.
Actually, I think that's the best model that Father Deacon Ananias has, which
is that think about this like rehab. And you're like, what, I
don't need rehab. I'm righteous, No, you do need rehab. We
all do. That's the point. Now, the papacy itself is corrupt,
traditional Catholic. You're welcome to call in and let's go. Let's go to
Vatican one and let's go to the documents. I've got my Denzinger right here,
buddy, So you want to call in tradcat, let's go to Denzinger
and let's see. By the way, I still have not had any papal
proponent. None of you guys will take me up on the offer to debate
the geopolitics of the papacy, because I will go into Tome after Tome after
Tome, of geopolitical writing from even tradcats explaining to you how your papacy was
co opted by the intelligence agencies in the Western power structure. So I will
debate you on the theological front and on the geopolitical front. And by the
way, no Roman Kelly will dare debate me on that, none of them.
I begged for professors to come debate this topic because I can show you
when and where the CIA co opted your papacy, which means that the promise
of Peter doesn't apply to your papacy unless you think the promise of Peter also
applied to the CIA. Should I extend that to Alan Dulles and Bill Donovan?
Were they also guided by the charism of Peter when they co opted You're
ridiculous. First c you don't know anything, you tradcat in the chat,
I tell you right now, you don't know anything about this, and none
nor do any of you except one of your great trad cats, David Wemoff,
who wrote a giant eight inn page book on this topic. He knows
all about it. And yet when he goes on y'all's podcasts like Timothy Flanders,
right, he's based and cool, but if I talk about the same
thing, he's evil conspiracy tous t for hell? Has Trent Horn talk to
me, bro, We've already done a debate that he lost famously. Do
you mean about this? Yes? Of course he declined this. Trent Horn
is not gonna debate. Do you apologie, Trent Horn is that's total normy,
dude. Trent Horn doesn't think that there's any push for world government.
He doesn't even know what the world economic for him is. Of course he's
not going to debate this. Are you kidding? Do these people? Yeah?
Exactly? Langley is the first Sea Yeah exactly. Trent says that if
you talk about the world like gomy for him and whatnot, that's jack chick
level. Yeah, okay, so I guess it doesn't exist. So Trent
Horne thinks that it's so low tier and yeah, exactly Tim Gordon. So
wait a minute, does that mean that Trent thinks Tim Gordon is Jack chick?
Because if Tim Gordon talks about the same stuff I talk about and that
makes me jack chick, then that means that Tim Gordon is also a jack
chick lovel according to Trent. But you see, look, dude, you're
dealing with people who have no clue about any of this stuff. And the
reason that I get so feisty about this is just that they have pulled the
most beta woos level passive aggressive shit over the years, right like, oh,
he's mean. The reason their excuse is that I'm mean. Look at
the tradcat no offense, folks. I can't call in. I have to
go eat dinner. I'd have to figure out how to call in. Yeah,
that's what That's always what you guys do. Not I don't have any
respect for traycats. I'm sorry. I except for Babylon Bros. And Tim
Gordon that's the only traycats I respect. And David Wemmoff. Jordan, what's
up Jordan? Michael Jordan, No or twenty three Michael Jordan, Hey Jay,
what's going on? Just fussing? What's up with you? Oh?
I wanted to know. First of all, I think what you and Jamie
do your wife is great, so thank you for everything that you both do.
Thank you. I wanted to know where this and this might not be
in the purview of this discussion, but I wanted to know where Martin Luther
and Orthodoxy overlap and if they do. I mean, yeah, there's going
to be some areas where Orthodoxy is closer to Protestantism than Roman Catholicism, but
there's going to be areas where it's not. So we're not going to overlap
on anything related to solar scriptura or solo feeda or justification, but we will
overlap on areas where he would critique the papacy. We would agree with that.
I mean, father, just father decided. Trentam wrote a whole book
on where Orthodoxy agrees and disagrees with both Protestantism in the papacy. It's called
Rock and Sand. But so, I mean, there's a whole book on
that very topic. But just in short, we would agree with him on
the critiques of the papacy that I did the churches decentralize that kind of stuff,
critiquing purgatory, critiquing the merits of the saints, indulgences, all of
that is foreign to the to the first millennium of the church. But do
you have reverence for Martin Luther himself? Not as like the Lutheran Church.
We all know that that's a crazy no, like co opted No. Martin
Luther said all kinds of No, he said all kinds of crazy heterodox things,
like if you read the Bondage of the Will, that book's mannichean.
Yeah, okay, I'll have to check that book out. But I mean,
you didn't know that. I'm not being mean, but you didn't know
Martin Luther wrote a book called Bondage of the Will. No, I'm like,
I'll just confess. I'm I'm like hereditary involved with Lutheranism, Like,
okay, father, and yeah, great, got your father. Yeah,
yeah, I'm not trying. Yeah, I got you. I thought you
were debating. That's fine, I understand you're just asking a question. Yeah,
I would uh, I would say if you look at Luther's book Bonde
of the Will, I mean, he's pretty much distancing himself from anything that
we would call classical Christology. So for us as Orthodox, the way that
we're going to settle the grace versus free will, predestination versus free will,
it's going to be the paradigm of Christology, which is settled at the first
six slash seven councils. So even the Seventh Council in iconography is based on
Christology. So we have two wills, two natures, two energies in Christ,
which really settles for us the whole issue of predestination and free will,
because Christ's incarnation is the whole model of how we're saved. That's the paradigmic
materiology, not justification by faith alone. It's Christology that we begin with,
and I would say look into that as the separation point between us and both
Calvinists and others. So there's a good book, say Soul Alexander, The
Christological Controversy is a good book on that. Sean, what's up, Shawn?
Hey? Yeah, okay, Oh, So I have a question that
the soteriology of the Orthodox Church versus the Catholic of Prouston Church. I don't
know the soil position of the because I just came out of into Orthodoxy.
I'm just a bit confused about the reality of the Orthodox Church. What's confusing?
So, like, is it similar to Romanptholicism or is it is a
different in Roman? I think the paradigm again is Christology. So the way
that Christ deifies the human nature that he assumed is the model by which we
participate in his uncreated energies. So the Eucharist that we partake of is the
process of deification is the mystical union. So that's how we're deified, that's
what we participate in. So really the model for uh Materiology and Orthodoxy is
the essence centery distinction. We are becoming and participating in God, not in
essence, but via his uncreated energies. So I would say read something like
the dialogue between uh Acandinos and Palomas called the Dialogue with a Barleymite, about
an eighty page thing, but that would give you a good grounding in what
our whole paradigm is all about. So it's very different from rob Becantholicism.
I mean, they believe in a union or whatever, but what they say
they participate in is a created accident in the soul. We don't believe in
created grace. We believe in uncreated grace. All right, appreciate you,
Yeah, yeah. I also have a ton of classic talks and lectures on
that you can go. We lectured through the entirety of John Damascus's on the
Orthodox faith like five years ago. You could go watch those lectures that would
show you that as well. Maximos, what's up, Maximos, Hey We're
going Hey, can you hear me? Is there somebody in the chat that
go ahead, I can here you go ahead. Oh oh yeah, that
was just a quick question. So, uh, I kind of have I
kind of know the answer, but I just kind of want to hear your
take on it. I'm pretty sure you've answered this question in the past.
But so, say like you're arguing with an atheist, which their paradigm doesn't
have a justification to account for why we shouldn't eat meat, et cetera.
But let's just say they take like a Platonic or a what's this other guy,
a Pythagoron or Pythagoras. They take that position to try to justify why,
you know, we shouldn't eat animals or et cetera, because the reincarnation
could possibly be a you know, a relative or a human being, and
therefore you shouldn't eat animals or something like that. So what would be like
a good way to Rebut if they were to take this position, I think
the easiest way to go about that is to just think about the classic problems
for Platonism. I mean, the classic problems of Platonism are there's no clear
way to know or relate the realm of the ideas to the here and the
now. So if that falls apart, right because of the vast dissimilarity between
the realm of the forms or the realm of numbers and geometry and the world
of flux that we inhabit, then the rest of the whole system falls apart.
I mean, you could also ask them for epistemic justification for how they
know that eating an animal is eating a relative. So but again they're not
going to have any answers to that. But Platonism and Pythagoreanism are mystical systems
at root. So even though Plato did talk about justify true belief, when
it comes down to the basic metaphysical presuppositions of Platonism or Neoplatonism or Pythagoreanism,
they're really going to be pretty arbitrary. So they'll say stuff like, well,
we just know all reality emanates from the one. It's like, okay,
so how do you know that? What does that mean? Like?
What is the one? You know? How do you know all reality emanates
from? It'll be a very mystical kind of sort of arbitrary position. So
that would then if you go for that, I mean, then all of
the ethical claims that it's wrong to do this or whatever would also fall apart.
So and Anther's we need to know. Like a lot of times playtons
will say stuff like, well, numbers and geometry and forms, they just
are just are what I mean, you can't just that's not an argument that
well, it just is just all That's what Matt del Honey said, right
position. Yeah, it reminds me like that one Pagan you you debate.
I don't if you remember, like till years ago. He's like, nor
he remember that. Yeah, Australian or New Zealand, try just get the
justification for his platonism, right, he was just trying to. It's like,
well, he just wanted you to grant him the system. And then
he's like, well, let's just dialogue about it. But uh, the
second quick question, So I was watching one of your interviews with the caller.
I think it's it was his theme. You guys were talking about the
logi and the local way. I don't remember the same thing, but yeah,
sorry the logo or sorry the the logi. Sorry, well anyways,
but I don't remember the guy's name. He was this scholar guy you had,
and you guys talked about the specific subject. But one of the things
that I guess you guys kind of differed on was on the the energies,
for example. I think he said somewhere along the lines that obviously there's a
distinction between the essence and the energies. But like, how would you how
would you like? What would you say if, for example, in order
for those energies to be actualized, they they require a they're required to be
part of the essence, Like you can't have energies without the essence, and
you can't have an energy without an essence. Would would that be correct to
say? Yeah? The Combineosians say that every energy signifies some nature from which
the energy proceeds. So I mean the action, the action of building a
house is an action proper to human nature, and it proceeds from my human
nature. So the same analogy, according to Covedotions, applies to God.
God creating the world is an action proper to the divine nature, to Divinity,
and it's not reducible to or synonymous with the divine essence. So right,
right, But so what do you say that it's in a sense,
it's part of it, but not identical to it. Wou would that be
correct? I mean it proceeds Like when I build a house, the energy
that I use to build a house proceeds from me. But it's not.
I'm not My human nature is not building a house. Okay, okay,
yeah that that fears it up. I was just kind of it was just
the distinction between I guess, like, well, there's different what you may
be asking is about different types of energies. So not every energy is the
same type of thing. Right. God has, for example, knowledge of
all the worlds that he didn't choose to create, So there's a divine idea
or a low gie for everything in every possible world. And yet God didn't
actualize every possible world, which is why you can't say that his ideas are
identical to his essence, because if his essence is necessary, then every idea
of every possible world is also necessary, and therefore every possible world is also
actual. So it's not. I mean, it may sound abstract or something,
but it's actually pretty kind of obvious. Like if I have ideas of
houses that have twenty bedrooms, three bedrooms, ten bedrooms, a movie theater,
and I build a house with one bedroom and no movie theater, right,
Like I just chose to actualize that idea, even though I have all
these other ideas. Okay, so that's why Maximus calls them thought wills,
because God doesn't will to actualize every potential or every thought or every idea that
he has. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, the logi is not
the actualized The logi is just what is a divine idea? And that could
be all kinds of things, right, I mean, what is a You
know, God's knowledge is infinite. Besil says, the works of God are
infinite. Right, So we don't know everything that God knows or does.
So what we do know is that what he's revealed to us and what he's
also revealed to us that he didn't create every possible world. Right, we
all we know about is this world. So that means then that not every
idea that God has is actualized. Actualize just means that it comes to be
on the basis of whatever his predeterminations or his his willing is. So the
will element that's brought in distinguishes it from Platonism because in Platonism there is something
similar to divine ideas. The forms are basically the same thing, but there's
no notion of God being a personal being that wills to this, to do
this versus that. So you understand the intomism or in Augustinianism, because they
don't put person first. They have a platonic conception and then they try to
tack on the idea of a personal God later. But you have to start
with the person of God. God is the personal he father, right,
and that's the basis also for what we mean by divine conceptualism or God creating
on the basis of ideas. So does that make sense or as it's getting
too abstract? Oh yeah, you're making sense. Yeah, because I thought
about that as well, like the whole plate, the rambled ideas having a
similarity but obviously not being exactly the same. So in Platonism, there's no
In Platonism, there's no idea that the one chooses which things to actualize in
terms of the emanations. It's just whatever is emanates from the one. So
there's no idea of a person volitional choice in the one. So this actually
becomes a big problem for Platonism because reality is fundamentally not personal. It's impersonal.
It's just a sort of spitting out of whatever is. So if the
first principle is not personal, then we don't have a basis for reality at
a ultimate level, being purposeful, purposive, teleological, and having a tilose.
You see, that's why Platonism is a flight from the here and the
now to the one. It's an ahistorical antihistorical position. Platonism. It deemphasizes
and rejects history, time flux, change for a supposed return to the one.
But all of this again just evolves into mysticism and irrationality because there's no
reason for any of it, even the split of the one into the diet,
it's just irrational, makes no sense. Why was there ever a schism
from the monad to begin with? And so Platonism result resorts to mythology for
this. Yeah, that makes that makes perfect sense. Yeah, good question.
So, uh so we got a bunch of people, Thank you,
Maximos. Who is Austin? I don't understand. Okay, here's Austin.
I see now, I see them now. So people thought I'm trying to
run from these people. I just now saw. I'm trying to figure out
who this person is. And then somebody said, you're trying to run from
suitor. No, I see Sotera. So I'll go to Austin and then
I'll go to Sodor. So there's like literally like sixteen people in here.
I'm trying to run from people. Hello, yes, sir, what's up?
So, yeah, I'm a Protestant. So I just wanted to ask
some questions about Orthodoxy basically in church authority. Okay, So basically the Jews,
right, they had they have an oral tradition and they have like succession
from Moses to the time of Jesus, and Jesus appeals to the scripture and
says, you know, the Pharisees is something in front of Moses. They
have authority, but you know, don't listen to them when they tell you
that I'm not the Messiah. And so like he kind of rechecked their oral
tradition and went back to the scripture. So why did God establish Pharisees who
are like not infallible, but then after Christ he established an infallible church?
Like why did he go from not infallible to infallible? Right, So,
first of all, it's conflating two different things. The situation of the Church
post Pentecost is not identical to the situation of Israel pre Pentecost. So the
importance of Pentecost is always lost on Protestants because Protestants kind of default want to
take the church back to a pre Pentecost reincarnation Old Testament type of setting.
But beyond that, it's also a fault. It doesn't work because the way
that the Church, or the the way that Israel functioned still had recognized public
authorities. So it's not true that Jesus completely rejected the Pharisecra. He rejected
the traditions that contradicted the Word of God. He also affirmed Phariseic tradition in
the very passage you mentioned, because Matthew twenty three, when it talks about
the seat of Moses, it doesn't say that that oh here in Exodus.
No, it just says the Pharisee sit in the seat of Moses. That's
a tradition that there is a lineage from Moses through the synagogue system of Ezra
to have this kind of authority. And in the Old Testament system they had
authority and they could make judgments that were binding on the local community at a
local level. So whether it's the Levites or whether it's the Pharisee system post
Ezra, they did have authority. So the idea that is common in a
lot of pro groups is that it's either it's either fallible and I don't care
about it, or it's infallible and it's binding. And the Orthodox Church is
not that way, Like, we don't have just a two tiered thing of
either it's either infallible or it's fallible. Like everybody's bound to their local bishop,
but the local bishop isn't infallible. So a Protestant could probably agree with
us on that perspective. That, okay, so you have, you know,
recognize local authorities and whatnot. Where we begin to differ is when we
get into the specifics of things like could the Church bind somebody's conscience to a
decision? And if you look at Anicia or all the way up to the
Seventh Council, there's a consistent pattern of the Church and the councils binding people
too a decision that's normative and authoritative for the entire church. So for example,
if you agree with Arius or if you agree with Thestorius, then you
are excommunicated from the church. There's no notion of the freedom of conscience,
which Protestant reformers later adopted. So that's a question of normative thing that's different
from individual existential certitude about what's right or what's wrong. So I could agree
with the idea that in the Old Testament, could an individual believer hearing the
prophecies of Isaiah when Isaiah's prophesying and teaching. If I'm walking around Israel and
I hear Isaiah and I listen to him, can the Holy Spirit work on
my heart to convince me of Isaiah's message? And can I know with certitude?
Absolutely? But that's not where we disagree with a Protestant when it comes
to authority and infallibility. Where we disagree is on the means that the Holy
Spirit uses to provide that knowledge and that certitude. So where I disagree is
that you and I might let me put this a way. You and I
might agree that the Holy Spirit is what convinces an individual of a position or
say, the deedy of Christ. You read the scriptures, I read the
scriptures. We both come to the conclusion that Jesus is divine because there's so
many passages that teach it, and ultimately we would say that it's the Holy
Spirit that guided us in that. It's a different question though, when we
ask, but how do we know which books authoritatively make up the canon of
scripture? And that's a post Apostolic tradition based decision of what you think are
fallible men, and we're just saying that, Well, it makes more sense
to say that not everybody posts to Apostolic period is fallible. There are some
cases where they're actually infallible and they're binding on people's conscience. So it's a
question of is their normative authority? Did Jesus set up any body of people
who have the ability to bind people's conscience. That's really where the rubber meets
the road between Protestants and Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Okay, so yeah,
I can, I can agree with some of that. But so you mentioned
the canon and let me have to rely on the canon. Yeah, but
the Old Testament. During Jesus' time, Jesus relied on the Pharisees to give
him his canon. Like when Jesus was reaching the Bible in the Senegal,
he was reading the canon which the Pharisees had given him, And you would
agree that the No, we don't. We don't even agree with that that,
I mean, no, the Apostles following Jesus did not agree to the
Palestinian Jewish canon, right, So you would say that, you would say
the Jews during the time of Jesus, then they weren't the scripture they were
reading was in a complete because they didn't have like Maccabees and stuff like that,
so they didn't have like a well hold on again, So Jesus and
the New Testament in dozens of places, both the New Testament writers, they
all cite the deuterocanonical texts. Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. So it's entirely possible that
Jesus did accept the testimony of Maccabees. And one way that we know that
he did is that his church accepted the Book of Maccabees. Right, So
you know, do you think Jesus set up a church in history or not?
Yeah? Yeah, I think Jesus set up a church. But the
thing is, I wouldn't say that he set up like an infallible institution because
I mean, like you have the Coptics, you have the Eastern Well,
that's a that's a fallacy. That's a fallacy. So you're arguing that because
people have split or that there's divisions that there wasn't an infallible church. That's
a fallacy, No, not not not that the schisms make one church is
not infallible. But it's more that like, how do you like know which
like, for example, you've just go through a bush of intellectually you have
to read through thousands of years of history to find out which one's the fake
church and which one's the real church. And well, hold on, wait
a minute, now, now you're going back. Now you're going back to
a different topic, which is existential certitude. So that's a different question because
nobody escapes that problem, the fact that you're a Protestant, that isn't you
don't escape that epistemic dilemma by saying, well, about I'm a Protestant.
So it's not an issue for me because you already said that Jesus did set
up a church. And so if I start asking you about the nature of
that church post apostles, what does it look like? What is it?
What do you think the church looks like in the first, second to third
century? So the church in the early times where you can read about it
in the epistles, you can read about it from the church fathers, right,
And how have you read those some of them? Yeah, okay,
So how does a Cyprian iren as justin Martyr Clement, How do they describe
the church? What aspect do you mean? What aspects you mean? Do
they describe as infallible? Any of the features? Are there? Bishops?
Is there a Eucharist? Is that there? Yeah? Yeah? Is there?
Baptismal regeneration there not? Not necessarily not in the epistles in the Church
Fathers some of them, Yeah, would believe in that. Wait a minute,
so again wait, not in Paul's epistles. So what's the why sing
the Labor of regeneration and Titus three? So yeah, that's just about baptism
removing sin, I think. Yeah, that's called baptismal regeneration. Yeah.
Oh so okay, uh, for you're referring to like baptism, Like,
let's come on, let's let's let's look. How do you how do you
have access to the correct canon of Scripture as a Protestant without the church,
so like for a Protestant for you, yeah so need so old Testament canon
is the Hebrew canon? So so so Jews that reject Christ, in your
view, determine the canon for the Church, not the church well before Christ.
Yeah, because they had authority. So again, so notice proving the
very thing I said at the beginning of the discussion that Protestantism wants to take
us back to a pre Pentecost church where the church doesn't have authority, there's
no Holy Spirit given to the church. So you guys basically have no use
for Pentecost because Jesus said that he would be with Jesus said he would be
with Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the world
when he's talking about the comforter coming at Pentecost and that he would lead in
God the Church into all truths. It's a visible college of apostles that he
gives that promise to. You then said, but the church is not a
visible institution. So where did the church apostatize in your view in the first
few centuries. Okay, well, there's a few things to impact that.
First of all, you said, the Pharisees, like the Jewish any authority.
I would disagree with that. I say they have authority. I'd say
they have no similar authority to the Church that is today. So again,
so you're a judaize, You're a Judaizer. So you're a Judaizer. That's
the admission here, right. What? No, So the Church today has
the same level of authority as the Why would the Church take the canon from
Palestinian Jews when the Church and the apostles themselves use the do Eral canon and
cite the duoconical books. Whoa I mean cited? I'm pretty sure does Enoch
gets cited to at one point. I'm aware of that. I did.
I didn't argue that it's canonical merely because it's cited. I argue that the
Church includes it in the canon as as the Church decides the canon. And
you're saying, I don't accept what the Church fathers decided, I'm going to
go with the anti christ Jewish canon. Yeah, but you need to make
the distinction between the Jews before Christ and the Jews now that's your distinction.
That's your made up distinction, because the Jews before because where where is the
Old Testament canon that you're talking about. You're arguing that Jesus used the Palestinian
canon. You don't have any proof of that. Well, we have we
know what the like from Jewish tradition. We know like what the main Bible
so Jewish. So you don't write you go to right, where do you
think Jewish? Yeah, but you don't understand that Jewish tradition is not from
pre Jesus era. The Jewish tradition that you're referring to is a post christ
era, first second third century so called Judaism that is actually based on a
bunch of rabbinical traditions. So you're not actually accessing the Old Testament Judaism like
you think by deferring to the decision that post christ Jews made about the canon.
Yeah, they made the decisions off to us, but they still can
trace the tragedy. No, they can't. So your religion is right,
So you're a Judaizer. Your religion is not based on Christianity the first second,
third century. It's based on the Judaism of the first second third century.
Right, This is why you're a heretic. It is you just admitted
that. You just said the first second and third century Jews can trace their
traditions which I follow to prior to Christ. That's what you said. Yeah,
because so you don't follow Christianity, you fall you're a Judaizer because because
you don't follow the because you don't follow the Church's decision on the canon,
which includes the duc If I'm a Jew living in Palestine right pre Christ.
You're telling me that none of this you're not even answering that you're not.
That doesn't answer the point. I'm just going back to your point that they
have no authority. So I'm saying, if I'm a Jew living in Palestine
pre Christ, none of this is even answering. This is not answering.
You just told me. You just told me that you follow the decision of
first, second, third century anti Christ Jews who fought against the Church in
the first, second or third century. You go with their canon because they
claim to be able to trace it to prior to Christ times. So you
just admitted you're a judaizer, Right, you have to define Okay, how
do you define judaizer? Uh huh? Right, what you just described,
That's that's how your the definition is. Yeah, so let's get our canon
from anti Christ first second century, first second, third introduced, which now
he's saying he doesn't actually referred to judyizers. Everybody knows that's where judaizer comes
from. Lex, what's up, Lex, what's up? What's on your
mind? So? This isn't necessarily my position, but it's a trinitarian question.
So the position is basically that that Jesus is the son of God and
not necessarily God, and like Trinitarians, they call him like God the son.
Okay, what about what's what's the problem? Are you eating? Bro,
I'm going to eat on the stream grossing me out? And he dropped
exactly. Okay. So next up was Soter unmute hello more speaking to Jader.
Okay, so he's a troll. So you guys spent with this dumb
this Your dumb voice is not even funny? Is that like it? Why
do you even think it's not even funny? Dude? It's dumb. I'm
call it to take on your low tear sort of objections to efeuism. I'm
at your voice isn't even funny, dude, just stupid. It's like ten
year olds. Yeah, so this is what you guys were begging for.
So for the last thirty minutes you wanted that guy to call in it's dumb.
All right. Let's see, I'm looking for like actual objectors here with
actual arguments. Look, Ortho, guys, come on, Like, I
know a lot of Orthodox guys want to call in and ask her. It's
not really I mean, I don't mind you guys being here, but it's
like, whenever I open it up for this stuff, it's like a million
Orthodox people pile in, which is fine. It's just like, but the
topics are atheism Catholicism, and then everybody wants to ask their Orthodox questions.
Uh, let's see, I'm trying to pick the profile. The ones with
no PfP are always the wildest ones. Let's choose Daniel Lotus. This sounds
wild. I mean, if you're gonna call in, at least have a
funny voice. That wasn't even funny. It was just dumb, right my,
can you hear me? Okay? A couple of questions. So I'm
a Roman Catholic looking into some of the things. Is about the essence,
energies, distinction, and honestly, I read Palamas just finished that a couple
of weeks ago. Finish what that was pretty I read the triads. Oh,
nice, good job he makes. I mean, he makes a pretty
good point. So but I have some questions on that, and then later
on maybe we can talk about ecclesiology. Okay, okay, So if we
know God through the energies, then how do we know? And you would
say that there is a feliu in the energies because all energies come from the
Father, through the Son and in the spirit. Right, it's called the
energetic procession. So it would be like a type of like phe Yeah,
because the word just means from the Son, and we all believe that the
Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son or from the Son in the movement of the
energies and in the movement of the person. So the Father generates and the
Sun inspirates the spirit through the Son. But that doesn't make the sun a
cause of the spirit's existence or hypostasis. Yeah, that would be that would
be like a metaphysical thing of begetting or spiration is different than what's happening in
the actions of the of God, right, right, So the movement of
the energies is distinct from the persons, but the movement is concurrent with the
persons because every action is a personal action, so every action is triadic.
So if God loves, the love moves from the Father through the Son and
in the spirit. So there's this that that movement is the same as the
movement of the persons and this is all coming out of the Cappadocians. Yeah,
I gotta maybe read some of the Cappadocs. And then so in the
essence, what is the relationship between the son and the Spirit. They're just
one thing. And then do they love? Is the love of the triad
energetic? Yes, God's love is one of the many energies that he has
that he shares amongst the persons. The Father loves the son, so this
is the way Jesus describes it in the High Priestly Prayer and John. But
the relationship to the essence is that the Father communicates everything that the son has
to the son and biver and also by extension, to the Holy Spirit.
So the Father communicates all the energy's power, existence and essence that he has
to the son and to the Spirit. That's actually the Nicene definition. The
generation of the son is from the Father's essence. So it's a personal essential
generation that communicates everything that the Father has to the sons. Gregory says,
accept the father's hypostasis, so the Father gives everything to the son except Father
such that they're kind substantial. Absolutely. Yeah, that's nice. Yeah,
Yeah, And then okay, and so then the essence is like what it
is? Correct, essence answers the question of what a thing is. Person
answers the question of who. Yeah, and then so the energies are how
we know the person's how we know the Yeah. So letter two thirty four,
Basil says what God's essence says we know not but what he is.
The energies come down to us to give us a personal revelation of God.
Correct. Yeah, Yeah, I think a lot of the Yeah, it's
like I saw something of like a Catholic saying that, you know, puts
the best argument against Basil two thirty four. It's like, are we like
making arguments against the exactly? Yeah. The Catholic approach is, let's reinterpret
that to be not a real distinction. And yet Basil himself says that the
distinction between essence and energy is as real and the same as a distinction between
father and son. So Romancolics are argument against their own trinitarian the loss because
Roalanchalics just simply don't read them, and they're not even aware that constantinople one
is where the trinity comes from, which is Cappadocian theology. Yeah, and
so then they would have a more Augustinian Yeah, they just yeah, exactly
correct Aristotelian, which first takes the the Aristotle God of actors purists right,
and then tries to throw in the triad. No. I think it's more
so neoplatonism because the definition of divine simplicity that Augustine and Origin uses from plotonis
they both use the same definition, and so that's what causes the modal collapse
ads problems, and then all the struggling that for example, Augustine has in
confessions with how God could be in time, or how God could do different
actions, how God could rest in Genesis one on the seventh day, all
of those things Augustin himself says he struggles with because his definition of simplicity is
the metaphysics of Plotinus. So that same problem is throughout Latin theology and tranitarian
they all the way up into Aquinas, who also adopts a lot of Neoplatonism.
The Ariscitilianism isn't the central issue. I mean it could be. It
really just depends on which person, which theologian is fleshing this out. There's
multiple things going on. An absolutely designed, simple God, right, he
didn't believe that God had potency. Well, it's yeah, it's a different
account of what is meant by simplicity. So Aristotle and Plato have similarities when
it comes to the monad. If you read Bradshaw's book Aristotle, East and
West, the first three chapters discusses similarities and divergences. For example, Aristotle
seems to think that there are ideas in the first mover as well, which
sounds platonic. So it really just depends on how precise we want to get.
But there are places where Aquinas, for example, is pretty clear in
describing divine simplicity as pure suality with no potentiality at all. So there's no
mixed potentiality. Uh, it's not. It's it's just pure act. That's
it. And so would the would the energies we have some type of potency?
I right, So the the the answer of if you read it's it's
a difference between first and second act. So if you read this book Essence
and Energies, being and naming in God and Saint Gregor Palamas, it's the
it's the difference between first and second act. And that's actually from the Cappadocians
so when the Cappadocians are that again, so I can write that there that's
the difference between first and second Act from Aristonta, the book, the book
Essence and Energies, Being and Naming in God and Gregor Palamas by tekon Pino.
Okay, So there are times when, for example, John Damascus says
God is pure act and Maximus says this in the first five pages of the
two inner chapters, but Roman Calviox sees that and they quote it out of
context, as if the discussion is a reductionist move to define the essence of
God is pure act if you read, if you read the first five pages
of the two interred chapters, Maximus says, there's two different ways that we
speak of God. We speak of God in himself and we speak of God
in relation to and in contrast to creatures. He says, when we call
God, when we call God first act, we are not saying that his
essence are excuse me, when we call God pure act, we are not
defining his essence as pure actuality, he says. We are saying, in
contrast to creatures, God is not acted upon, not composed, not changing,
et cetera. So there's a distinction in the way that we use pure
act of God, and the same thing in John Damasca is on the Orthodox
faith. Every Orthodox person knows that you cannot collapse God's essence into act or
excuse me, God's action is into essence, right, That would be the
denial of everything. Paul must argues, Yeah, but you have people out
there, by the way, in the Orthodox so called world who also pushed
this because they either don't know what they're talking about our or they're openly pushing
for a humanist reagnion with Rome and they want to get rid of the idea
of the S and center. You stinction, so kind of like fed,
I think some of these people are fed. Yeah, yeah, okay,
so yeah, I mean I think I've kind of gone through a lot of
this stuff, watched a lot of your stuff, and I mean I was
going at it originally from a Catholic Like when I first I first saw the
you and Trent Horn talking. Yeah, maybe maybe it wasn't that, but
at some point where you said like God, Like the first time I heard
about the energies, I was like, that's like retarding, because there can't
be some other thing, you know, in God. Besides, like just
a like, it seemed to contradict God's oneness. Like the more you realize,
like the God of the Christians in the first millennium is not the Aristotle
right, pure Aristotle's God, to make this very simple, cannot be incarnate.
Yeah, there's no such thing as a second hype of stasis in pure
act that could come into time and space. And every one of the Roman
Catholics who argues their position philosophically and metaphysically will tell you that this thing that
they're describing isn't in time and space, cannot be in time and space.
Oh, good job, you just canceled out the incarnation. Good job.
And then they then they try to tack on this other contradictory system of incarnation
down the road, as if their metaphysics can be totally different from their Christology.
It's just stupid, and it's not the way that the councils define the
triad and Christology. So the real way to understand the essence entergy sinction,
which nobody ever listens to me when I've been saying this for like six years,
is Christology. Rea John Damascus, Book three. The majority of the
Usen's inergy sinction discussion is not about the trinity. It's in Christology. And
if you take all of the essenceentitgy distinction denials of Roman Catholics and apply it
to Christology, you see how whack and stupid their system actually is. And
they don't even realize because none of them actually go and read John Damascus that
the entirety of book three fifteen on is all essence synergy distinction discussion. And
if you deny this, your whole Christology collapses and it's whack. But they
don't care. They don't They don't even listen to anything from the first thousand
years anyway. So yeah, and then it's like Thomas Thomas has a thing,
you know, against John of Damascus, and then he cites mimon eighties.
Yeah, his response to why there's no essence sentergy distinction in Dave Veritate
is because mimon Id says anything that's simple cannot have distinctions. Yeah, that
would also deny the trinity, dummy, Yeah, exactly right. So I
would also say, uh, you know, there's a lot on this.
David Bradshaw's recent book Divine Energies and Divine Action has been published, And this
is really all the essays that we are constantly sharing with people, all the
PDFs that are hard to find, they've all been collected in the one book.
So I definitely recommend getting that book because it's a landmark on this.
So again all of these, by the way, even easier way to see
this is again the Eucharist. What did we just see with what's his face?
The other day? AJ? By the way, I didn't realize AJ
is a football dude. He's like a famous football bro. Did y'all know
that AJ who was on here right here at this AJ bro, Tim's buddy,
Aj' is like some superstar, was like a college football superstar bro.
So anyway, I apologize. I wasn't meaning to be rude or dismissive.
I didn't actually know that AJ was like a college football star guy. But
anyway, he has a really fascinating story. If you go watch all like
the ESPN clips of of his his family. He and his brother were both
going to play football and then something happened, I think to his brother health
wise. So it's a really fascinating story. And I didn't even realize that
that's who that got was. So but in that discussion with aj we got
to this point on the real presence, right, and that the the point
is that the real presence is really like one of the best ways to see
the essence energy distinction, because no Roman Catholic thinks that you're eating the essence
of God. And really they but they all want they all want to say,
well, the real presence must mean uh, you know, participating in
divinity, body, blood, soul and divinity. Right, that's the thing
they always say, yeah, exactly, So what's the divinity there if it's
not the essence of God? Well, Ludwig, God tells us that it's
a created accident apparently. Yeah, but you understand that. Newsflash, it's
already been defined for you guys. It's called Ephesus. It's Saint Cyril,
and he says, you do not partake of the essence of God and the
Eucharist, partake of the uncreated energies and immortality. And this is in the
first and second letter to six Census. So if you go read the first
and second letters to six Census, which are online, but nobody ever knows.
They're just lazy. They don't go read this stuff. They don't care
it tells you that it's not the essence of God, it's not a creature.
A creature can't make us participate in divine life. That's Arianism. If
Christ is just another creature and he just gives us another creation, as Paulomas
says to Barlem, then we're all just arians. There's nothing we're essentially wrong
with what Area said. I don't need another created status. I need uncreated
life and immortality. Yes, by the way, doctor Bradshaw is super cool
if you meet him in person. I got to head then. We had
a couple of meals when we were at a conference. We had a breakfast
together, and I might have even I don't remember if I sat with him
at a dinner or something maybe, but I have had some good conversations with
with him. I mean in person, like he's cool in persons. What
I'm trying to say anyway, But I've shared this like a million times and
it gets old because people just don't even just I don't know if it doesn't
register or what. Let me see if I can find this tweet, let's
say, Cyril Eucharist. I probably won't be able to find this from No,
I'm not gonna be able to find it right now anyway, must see
flap says one dollar, and says I expect the SMP to peek at five
five one hundred before bitcoin at h When it hits around eighty, then the
FED will it cautioning a recession. They're planning on a twenty twenty four de
risking. I'm envisioning a twenty twenty five bull market. However, how could
cyberpolygon impact banking and crypto? Yeah, I mean those are all really you
know, difficult questions. It seems like a cyber polygon if it happened,
it would be to like to justify. Oh, now we need to go
over to fed coin. Now we need to shut down all this stuff.
Right, but again, who knows? Bmax nineteen sixty six ten bucks,
Thank you so much, the real Eric Obara three dollars. I'm guessing that
this might not be the real Eric Barro. Jay Dyer is the man who
lacks all nuance and perspective. He's a big baby and he can't handle any
invective. Now wait a minute, Eric, I'm the one that always makes
jokes, and you're the one that said that people on the internet were being
mean to you. Quote making internet cartoon strips of you. So again not
even knowing what a meme is. Eric Obarrow got his feelings hurt twenty eighteen
because people made memes about him, which he called quote internet cartoon strips,
Jay, you can't handle this and the petite pink pajamas of silk that you
wear. You slip on those. Yes, you jealously watch Taylor Marshall suck
Tristana's and gorged milkers. That was a wild super chat. I have to
admit the real Ericabarrow one dollar. You constantly go against the pope, and
you forget the trauma at the time that he dropped the soap Unable to withstand
carbohydrate Lofton's Katana swings, you were forced to shriek back and poorly sing.
Correct, that's what it's called cringe core. Eric ac drops forty bucks.
Thank you so much. Ac. Why do you need to know the law
of identity to tell people about ultimate reality and worldviews? Exactly right. So,
going back to the quote debate, I wouldn't call the debate with Derek
myth Vision. Derek Mythvision, guys, there's two hundred thousand plus people that
follow a channel called Derek myth vision and the channel is devoted to exposing Christianity,
and within two minutes of asking questions about his epistemic criteria, he had
a fit. So you guys can go watch that amusing the interaction where they
said I was a mean man just simply for asking what the basis to believe
in their epistemic criteria was volunteer three dollars and seventy two cents. Jay,
what are your thoughts about Dugan? I've done many podcasts on Dugan, I've
covered it many many times. I just started reading forth political theory. I
disagree with the Gnostic chapter in the background or in the back, the very
last chapter sam sua ten dollars. Can God be timeless and changing? No?
God does not undergo change, but he is able to do different things.
And the reason we believe that is because we accept it on the basis
of divine revelation. So, for example, we see the manifestation of his
Theophanes doing different things, coming and going in time and space right, So
the cloud and the sea, the fire right, all these theophanies that we
see throughout the Old Testament, they're described as really divinity, and we're told
that God does different things in time and space. So in some way,
because God is above the antinomis some theologians say of stasis and change, time
and eternity, God can appear to do things that don't make sense to us
according to our vantage point. So although we don't think that God undergoes change,
there is, for example, God's condescension to engage in reciprocity with human
beings, and doctor Bradshaw covers this in one of his great essays. So
does that mean that God undergoes change because he wills to answer our prayers?
Does he undergo change because he engaged in the in kenosis? Well, he
chose not to exercise all of his attributes or powers when he became an infant,
when he entered into the canotic state, So does that mean he underwent
change. Well, if a strict act is purest definition of God is at
work, then yes, he had to do something. If he does something
different than he underwent change, because that's no longer pure act, that's doing
a different act. Pure act is one perpetual, eternal act. To do
something different is a different act. Okay, it's not rocket science, it's
just what you guys yourselves defined as Okay, and Aja was totally incorrect when
he said there's sub acts beneath pure act and totally not true. Not Atonism,
not in scholastic philosophy. Okay, that's more like what we say,
how can God prevent a murder but also allow one? I don't understand that
question. So God can create a world where beings are secondary causes and have
the ability to affect their own causal actions. So it sounds I mean,
I don't know what your position is, Sam, but it sounds like a
kind of a predestinarian Calvinist position where God has to be the direct cause of
every event. So we think that God could create a world where beings themselves
are what we call secondary causes. So God is the first cause. He's
the creator of the universe. He sustains it, he preserves it, He
is there present in an energetic way in the universe. Contrary to what Muslims
say, Muslims don't believe God is present in time and space. And this
is also, by the way, why Muslims don't believe in incarnation. So
notice Roman Catholics, when you do your metaphysics, you argue the same thing
that Muslims are you right, God is absolutely simple, pure act blah blah
blah blah blah. I'm saying, they argue, in this kind of way.
God is perfect, all the Muslims say. And if he's perfect,
he can't change or do something different, or undergo change or enter into time
and space because now he's no longer perfect because he's entered into the domain of
flux and change. Muslims argue, Roman Catholics, did you hear me?
So Muslims are more consistent than you, because then you turn around and say
with us that the second hypostasis entered into time and space and walks around and
does things while you have the same metaphysics of a Muslim that an absolutely simple,
pure act thing can't be in time and space. I mean, how
do you guys not see this? I mean literally? In Phaser's chapter on
the Neoplatonic argument for classical theism, he says, the one cannot be in
time and space, then how are you a Christian? And by the way,
in that very book, Phaser goes on to argue that it's time to
give up the idea of creation x Nelo in Apologetics Exactly so, now you
go back, You're going to Greek philosophy, not Christianity. What use is
all of these five quote classical theist proofs If they're proving demonic heretical positions,
it's so stupid. I'm not saying that Phaser is stupid. He's not.
He's very smart. He's smarter than me and knows these philosophy is better.
But you can be smart and be wrong. All right. I forgot that
we're doing open the form here. So we got a bunch of people,
uh, stacked up trying to find like the most Let's see who's going to
be sassy. Here we go. We've got some sassy names. Garfield,
Garfield, what's up? Garfield? Now? Look, if you if you
don't talk about the topics, it's immediate boot. Hello, Yeah, what's
up? Hi Jay? Just quick one. So when we talk about christ
divinity, when he manifest in time and space, we are we saying that
the energies of prison in his body. Yes, so that's epicist. So
the human flesh is what is infused with energies? Would you say? Yes,
that's the definition of the Six Council, that the humanity of Christ is
fully deified via the uncreated energies, which John Damascus says are communicated to his
humanity. So it's the divine hypostasis of the Son in a personal, energetic
way, walking around and doing things and deifying and whatnot. Right, Okay,
guys from the clip, right, So it's not the Father, it's
not the Holy Spirit, it's not the divine Essence that's incarnate. It's the
second person of the Godhead incarnate and the essence communicates to the energies. Well,
it's not the essence doing, because persons do. Persons have essence,
right, Persons act, not essence. Essence doesn't act. Persons act.
So the Father acts to send the Son. The Son acts in time and
space to be incarnate and to then send us the Spirit for example. So
it's every action is triadic, but each person in the trinity has a unique
role in that one act. So the action of incarnation, for example,
that's from the Father, the Son takes on the human nature and then sends
the Holy Spirit. So does that make sense? Like the mission of the
Son is a triadic thing, but each person is unique in that in that
incarnation. Yeah, No, I'm just struggling to try to relate the relationship
between the nature and the energies. Right. So nature is what we say
in hypostatic That just means that it exists in the mode of the person that
has the nature. So I'm the person Jay, You're the person Bob.
We both share a common nature. You have human nature. I have human
nature. But what makes it unique is that I have human nature in the
unique mode of the person J that has that nature, and J is not
reducible to or isomorphically identical to human nature. Right, It's a both and
so it's you share the same nature, body, mind, soul, will,
but you have it in a unique way as Bob. I have it
in a unique way as J. That's the nature person distinction. I'm the
person Jay, the hypostasis, Jay that has the nature of Adam's nature.
You have Adam's nature, but you have it in a unique mode as that
person. The only difference between us and the trinity, Well, there's many
differences, but one difference is that the trinity are not distinct beings. They
are one being in nature. They interpenetrate and dwell in one another. But
there are three distinct type of stasies that have that single nature So the Father
uniquely has the divine nature as the person of the Father. The son uniquely
has the divine nature as the person of the son. The spirit uniquely has
the divine nature as the person's spirit. So all of that is again just
that fancy word in hypostatized just means exists in the mode of So Christ's divine
nature is present in his person. Correct. Yes, that isn't identical to
the essence. No, it's the same thing. But Christ doesn't become incarnate
to show us or reveal us the divinity directly. The only thing that we
know or experience of God is the personal energies that he uses and reveals.
So that's why if you read letter two thirty four at Basil, Basil says
what the essence of God is, we do not know, but the energies
come down to us, and the same thing would apply to the incarnation.
The energies are present in Christ revealing the divinity to us. This is why
on Mount Sinai it's the Logos who's there present, interacting with Moses right in
a personal face to face a way, as Paul says, And the second
manthing is three and in John five to nine, it's Moses interacting with the
you know, burning bush and the angel will lord there and eating with him.
But it's not the divine essence. There's still an aspect to God which
is never revealed, never shown to us. And we see that, for
example in John and Isaiah's six, where it says, you know, the
seraphim have to cover their eyes, right because creaturely beings never see or comprehend
the divine essence. And that's because God is forever both transcendent and imminent.
So we don't fall on either side of this dialectic like Muslims do to say
that God is only transcendent, right, Muslims say God is never eminent,
even though they contradict because they think that the Koran is an eternal Koran in
time and space, which is a contradiction. But still God is not just
transcendent or beyond or whatever. He's also imminent. So how do we know
or what's the way that we would describe him as imminent? Well, the
New Testament, following the Old Testament itself, uses a description of the inner
gaea, So energies is not something invented by Palamos. It's from Paul and
it's from the subtuagen the inner gaia of God are his operations, powers,
attributes that he reveals to us and and energies. They're not synonymous, which
is actions are they like the Greek the Greek term they're actually sort of have
a have like a metaphysical existence to some extent. Well it Energies can describe
different things, even in God. So for example, God's omnipotence is an
energy. God's actions are called energies or operations in Basils. So most of
the time when when Basil Acabadocians use the term like and when Basil uses it
in against eunomias, it's typically operations. So whatever, when for example,
uh, Christ walking on water, that would be an operation proper to his
divine power, right, But it's not. But there's different actions or operations
that God does, such as as creating a world. So creating a world
is a divine action, is proper to God's divinity to create a world,
but it's not the same thing as walking on water. They're clearly obviously two
different actions. So does that help? But then that we speak of the
logi or the divine ideas, those are also a type of energy. According
to Palomos, Yes, yeah, I mean yeah, I've got some thinking
to do, but thanks, Yeah, absolutely great questions. Appreciate those.
Yeah, I would say again, you know, go go if you want
to watch the lecture that we did, lecturing through the Totality of on the
Orthodox Faith by John Damascus. You know, there's extensive energy discussions in those
talks. So I will have a show here in a little bit with with
Tristan, So I might have to get off quick. I'm going to try
to pick some good ones here. But I want to remind everybody too that
the show spawned is Chalk dot com. Head on over to Chalk dot com.
Use promo go Ja fifty to get fifty percent off the tongkat Alie.
That's my favorite testosterone boosting supplement they have over there. There's also the Action
two point zero, which is available on the main page. There as a
male vitality stack and it does work. I've been using Chalk for several years
now. This is the performance stack. If you use the promo go Jay
fifty, you get fifty percent off all those amazing Chalk products over there.
It's not just for guys, it's also for ladies. As well. There's
ladies supplements you can get chalk is legit, they actually work. There's peer
reviewed studies you can read over other site. They also have a recurring subscription
discount which is J five to three Life. That's J five three L A
F E. Use those promo codes and you get vast discounts. Senna,
what's up? Senna? Cinnebun? What's up? Oh? Hi? I
had a question. Actually, I was wondering because a lot of Christians seem
to have rules about how to go about courting. But is there anything specifically
in the Bible that that basically sets out these rules that they do or is
it just attributed to things that they think align with their values. That's a
good question. I mean, I think in the you know, if you
really like proverbs, there's kind of like loose ideas of what courtship would be.
And and you know that's the ancient medieval world. A lot of marriages
were arranged back then. So I think that as you know, Western society
and civilization progressed past the period of romantic love the medieval courtly tradition, that
really change things out of the normativity of arranged marriages into marriages based on you
know, decision which should be there. I think I don't want to be
in an arranged marriage for sure. So but I mean there's not really like
explicit quote biblical arguments about courtship. I think it's just more of a more
of a traditional thing. I mean, it does seem to work better for
families in for people who are looking for marriage and family, courtship seems to
produce better fruits. But sometimes people get really crazy and legalistic with this,
and a lot of so called Christian heterodox circles where they try to enforce like
eighteen hundreds era, like you know, puritanical courtship, and it just leads
to nonsense because the expectations are so high and people can in ardy and time
can't match up to these crazy expert expectations, and it's just it just a
lot of deluded people out there in this whole domain. So I don't have
any answers. I'm sorry, why complex, He's been waiting for a long
time, what's up? I mean a lot of Calvinists do this courtship stuff
and it ends up being a big disaster. I've seen years of people having
disasters through Calvinists courtship stuff. So trad cats do it, I mean,
or some orthodox do it, and it can work. It's just that sometimes
it turns into this like almost like cult like thing where people get crazy with
it. So I don't know what the answer is why complex having a hard
time connecting guys. Remember we will be with Tristan here on my channel in
a little bit. A lot of people in here. I'm trying to pick
looking at different bios to see who who has like the most ugh, the
most likely interesting. I am a tennis ball. Now looks like it's kind
of just all trolls, So I don't know. Matthew Rooker, Matthew,
what's up? Matthew choose wisely. Zachary sends a dollar and says, I'm
Orthodox. Can you pray for me? I have a ls of the daughter
who's too Yeah, sorry to hear that, Zachary, or pray for what's
up? Matt Are you there? Yeah? I'm here? Yeah? What's
up? Can you hear me? Yes, sir, I'm just uh listening
to you for what he listened to you from all and I'm currently uh and
you're cutting out. Dude, I can't hear anything, so try maybe maybe
next time try to call back in. It's all it's cutting out. I
can't hear anything you're saying. I heard you say you listened, and that
was it. Somebody is saying Jack dangelis one dollar? What do you think
of Theodore's show bought? Would you invite him on the show? I mean,
I think he's like a one Peter five guy. I haven't I haven't
really paid attention. I'm not being rude. I just don't follow a lot
of the trackcat world. So when I have him on the show, maybe
I'm mean to see questioning room Patty ten Dollars. Jay's me and he keeps
asking me reasons for why I should believe his system. That's me exactly,
and Petty says he's joking. Keep up good work, Jonathan Miller ten dollars
go back on Tucker Carlson call me okay. I appreciate that, Jonathan Alula
ten dollars. I want to donate support. Don't have anything to say,
but you're my favorite philosopher. Well thanks, man, I appreciate that.
That's very kind of you. Let's see here, I'm trying to find somebody
who might be Maxfield, but so Tristan and are going to be covering Oliver
Stones. Wow Street, Wow Street here in a little bit. Hello,
Yes, sir, Hey Jay, I've been enjoying a lot of your talks
on the metaphysics behind Orthodox christian I was just wondering with regards to presuppositions,
there's to be one you're cutting out, dude. I'm sorry, I can't
understand anything. I can't understand anything, man. Sorry, Let's see,
I keep picking the worst, dude, not you as a person, not
you as a person, worst quality of connection. That's all I mean.
Do not get your feelings hurt. I'm not calling you bad. So it's
against all Ortho bros. Which I'm not dissing you, guys. I'm just
trying to find looking for uh contrarians who So it's like if you want Atheism,
Catholicism, Protestanism and all the Ortho bros call which is funny. Not
dissing you guys. I'm just saying Jack, let's see what Jack's got on
his mind. What's up Jack? Hello? Yes, sir, So,
I was kind of I kind of want to come Orthodox, but I don't
really understand about like contraception and divorce and I think I have a different view.
Yeah, I would just say Ubi Petris has a documentary on it from
the Orthodox perspective, and also an interview with doctor David Bradshaw. So I
would say to go watch those because they deal with the whole thing very in
very in depth way. Okay, thank you to watch that. Yeah,
Ubi Patris's channel, and there's a documentary that he made and a interview with
doctor Bradshaw on that very question. Fish no, Nicholas fish fish left hell,
Yes, sir, was everybody calling from a dang taint from a from
a toilet? What's going on? Calling from a Are you in the cockpit?
Bro? I'm in my car right now. Can you hear me clearly?
Or I can't hear you. I'm just jogging. Go ahead, all
right, all right? Cool. I just had a question about the Trinity
and in regards to like the essence of God and the persons. So when
I like think about the Trinity, obviously it's like in a way inconceivable for
us to like it, hasn't it. But when like when you talk about
the essence of God and you say the Father shares Uh has the nature of
God, and so does the Son have the nature of God, and the
Holy Spirit is the nature of God. This since that they share, is
this like you know, not in the sense of like time, but like
prior to the persons, or is this something that is like, No,
there's no temporal there's no temporal priority in God. Okay, because when I
think of that, I'm like, okay, So they all share of the
same essence. So could you say that's high that the essence is higher than
any of the one person's or would it be equal with the person? There's
no higher or lower in God. It's just it's just I mean, it's
not any different than the analogy to I mean, do I have human nature
more than I'm jay? I mean no, it's like the nature exists in
the mode of the person that has the nature. So no, nature is
just what God is. And since we don't know what God is, we
just simply give it that apathetic statement or status of that God's essence or nature
is unknowable. We know that he has the nature because He's revealed it to
us, but what is is we do not know, So we can we
can only like like you said, we can only know God by his person
in a personal way. Right, just in the same way that when you
say you know me, it's because you've had a direct personal interaction with me,
Right, But I can't like look into your soul and see like what
exactly you're comprised. Right. So like to a lot of people think that,
you know, it's like a definitional thing, like a science project.
Like let's put God in a microscope and we'll define what his essence is.
And now we don't know what God is, but we know that he is.
That's basil, okay. And so in relation to that, one of
the things that I like look at a lot in terms of like I guess
you could say, like creation and how it reflects God is like let's say
Fibonacci or the Mandel broad set and like fractals or sacred geometry and nature.
Yeah, and in what way would you say that related to God? As
it is a unise Like these things are like universal patterns in the created world.
Yeah, they show us the they show us the mind and the divine
ideas behind the created order. Okay, So like you would say, like
it is right to say, like these things are kind of like a fingerprint
of or the reflection of like God's mind absolutely, Okay, all right,
beautiful because I was just confused on how to relate and obviously with fractals and
fibonacci those are those are like mathematical sequences and patterns. But in terms of
things like sacred geometry, is that something that we really dive into as uh,
you know, as Christians or is that something that you would like not
really look too far into. No, I think there is truth to that.
I mean, if you uh, you know, for many years have
talked about that book Quadraga. The first uh several pages of that Quadraga book
are about what's called sacred geometry, and really that's just pointing out the patterns
and the principles between different disciplines like music or mathematics and geometry, and you
know, they're all based on the same principles, which shows the same mind
or ordering behind all of them. Would you say that that is something that
would be under the label of like natural revelation or like natural like theology like
the Roman Catholics we say, or something like that, or is that like
a natural revelation because like obviously, like when I see like like sacred geometry
or I see fractals, in nature or any of these things. To me,
it's like, okay, can you you could possibly reason from that that,
Okay, this is obviously a pattern that is reflecting something greater, especially
with its universality. Right, So could you say that's possibly a way that
in nature we could reason too, or at least come to like an understanding
of the Creator. Or is that not correct to say? No? I
think that Paul says is one that everything testifies to the mind of the One
True God and his created order. Right. But that's not the same thing
as like natural theology, where they say, like, okay, no,
by itself you can reason back to the Trinity or something. No natural theology.
When they read Romans Won, they think that it's actually talking about doing
syllogistic reasoning, and that like Pagans would sit there and if they thought hard
enough, they would come up to the same reasoning principles that aristol had and
they would reason back to a first cause. And nothing in Romans one is
about doing a syllogistic reasoning Aristotilian first cause. It's just merely saying that deep
down in everyone's heart there's an intuitive sense by all of the beauty and the
majesty around them, that there is a creator, there is a one true
God, and they know it deep down, and that one true God in
some way is even known, as Paul says, as the logos, the
whole the logos is near, the Word is near you even in your hearts,
Paul says to unbelievers. So so that's the actual nation. Thank you
for that, though, I gotta go appreciate that we had the show tonight
with Tristan Sam Sulix says, if God's acts change, I didn't say that
God's acts themselves change. I said that God is able to do different things.
And the answer in orthodox theology from the Cappadocians and from Palamas and from
the Bible is that God does different things. God's essence does not undergo change.
Yet God does different things, and that's because of kenosis. So everything
that you're saying, Sam, just apply it to the second person incarnate.
I didn't say that it's a created thing incarnate. I'm not talking about his
human nature, talking about the second person, who's an uncreated person in time
and space doing different things. So the answer is not a bifurcated either or
between either God is created or uncreated, or his actions are created, uncreated,
or changing or unchanging. The answer is that God transcends the antinomies,
as many Orthodox theologians say, so he is able to do different things.
I mean, this is literally the terminology of Staniloe in Orthodox dogmatics. So
if God creates a world, walks on water, and then destroys that world,
those are not the same acts. Okay, God walking in time and
space to change the wine at Cana and to heal the blind, those are
divine powers in time and space, and they're different actions. That does not
mean that they're created actions. They're uncreated actions synergizing with His created human nature.
But they're not created actions any more than that Theophanes are created Theophanes.
You understand that that Theophanes are called God. The Bernie bush is a Theophanic
manifestation. The Bernie bush is not still burning, and the fact that God
is no longer in the burning bush does not make God a changing God.
So the answer is that God is above both being and becoming stasis and change.
Do you understand that? This is the very answer Maximus gives to the
originist challenge. So you're trying to pit things back to the Originist dialectic of
either ors, and the answer that Maximus gives to originism is that God is
above both statis and change, so everybody's always trying to choose