You think, why don't you what position? Instead? Okay, so you're
a so you think you're an an agnostic? Is ever saying? No?
JA, just say I'm I'm I don't. I don't want to argue with
hypotheticals like you don't have an actual position? No, take this, take
this for what it is. So you don't have an actual position today?
Why would you not? Why would you not? Why would you not defend
your own position? Why? Why do I have to? Who says I
do? Well? It usually debates involve one position being defended against another,
and I thinking you as someone who knows okay, well, so can I
start debating for some random other position? Would that make any sense? Why
would you not defend you? I'm asking you because it's a sign, because
it signifies bad faith if you're not going to defend your own position or say
what it is? Who says that? Why do you think? So?
Why do you immediately judge me as bad faith for just coming in asking?
Because it shouldn't it shouldn't be difficult because it's it's sophistry. If you won't
say what your your belief for your position? Is you your name calling?
What does sophistry mean? Explain why softree is an action. It's not name
calling, it's an it's no, you just called. You just called the
sophistry that's calling me a soface explains an action, right that you're engaging in
sophistry? Okay, what does the action explain that? Why can you not
say what your position is? What does what does sophistry mean? That you
won't answer questions directly? You talk around it, you get bad answers,
you get bad arguments, fallacies, et cetera. All that, that's what
means as well as well as uh, you know, arguing over words and
definitions of terms. I know, well, arguing over a over at trinity
that says, I, you know, someone's not saving unless they believe it.
Correct. You're arguing over words right now. Well, we started with
the text. But hold on, we started with the text and you ran
away from that. Why don't Why don't you want to go back to the
text? What text are you referring to? I said last night, I
gave a two hour lecture on that. They often he's just from Genesis?
What text are you referring to? And Jenna, there's about forty who the
whole book? No, forty tacks of theophanies. I'm rounding it, rounding
it around to about four. I was not a part of this discussion last
night. Eight. Okay, but my point is that we can go through
those taxs, and why don't you want to go to those taxs and explain
to me why it's not the triad? No, go for it. We
can go on. Well, I started with the tax and you said,
well, you're indoctrinated to believe those things. That was what you're Well,
you certainly, I mean you. I don't think you realize that you are,
but you are. Okay, wait a minute, so you're not indoctrinated.
I don't know if I am, or every I think My argument is
my my approach to all these kinds of questions is that every human being is
indoctrinated and religiously holds their worldview. So whatever your mysterious unnamed worldview is that
you won't defend you hold it as a religious commitment, is my view.
Maybe maybe not. No, everyone does. No by necessity, no,
no, by necessity you do? You make? You make a lot of
these half nations that that I don't necessarily see within myself. I mean,
you can you have every right to say this stuff. But I'm not so
sure you're you're it's saying. I just say, I think it's that you
can demonstrate that the fundamental nature of how a worldview works. Everybody has fundamental
commitments that they believe on a faith based in a faith based sense, that
they're not willing to give up unless those presuppositions are themselves challenged. So,
if you're an agnostic, let's say you're going to interpret things according to your
paradigm. You're correct that I interpret things according to my paradigm, and I
am indoctrinated. I just simply believe that everyone is. Even if you're an
agnostic, you're also a doctrinate and you hold it. I'm not really I'm
not really opposed to what you're saying right now to you. I think you're
probably more You're probably correct I would. So that's why I end up oftentimes
if I'm talking to an atheist or agnostic, I end up arguing this sort
of subpositional trendsnal argument stuff. Yeah, and I'm not here to argue as
some kind of moving target. Really, what I'm trying to tag down here
is kind of really your position as why would you why is the trinity necessary
for salvation? Can you explain that to me? Because God, if that's
who God is, and we believe that it is, and if that's how
he reveals himself, and if we're being invited into that trinitarian life, that
that's what eternal life is, as Jesus says in John seventeen, is to
partake of that eternal glory that he had with the Father before the foundational world,
and to become sons of God and then to share in that trinitarian communion.
Then for us, that's what's absolutely necessary to be preached and taught.
Yeah, this is a system of ideas that well you asked me what the
position is, so calling it ideas doesn't do anything or improve or disprote anything.
And I understand that this is a Christian world view and it makes sense
the Christians within that world view. I said, do you want to do?
Are you wanted to argue why the Christian world be is true? Is
that what you're going for? I think I think that probably ends up there
is why why to the whole world this idea that God is a trinity is
somehow selve ethic? Meaning what are you in first off, you have to
believe in the trinity in order to be saved, and then you have to
ask the question, save from what, well, save from your own choices,
your own damnation, your own evil. Who says that I'm damned?
Am I own evil in the first place? For me to even know that
I need that? Well, again, divine revelation is our ultimate authority and
commitment, and men are fallen and so they need circular argument. Which yeah,
but I I by affirming that we all have our religious commitments, I
believe that paradigm level arguments are circular. Okay, Well, that's a good
mission. But you we will often point out to people that their are that's
different from a vicious circle. That's two different things because it's two different orders
of argument. Different category is okay, So when it's convenient, you've know
just two different categories. So if you had a philosophy class, you might
know this. Because there's such a thing as like, have you ever have
you had any classes on Wickenstein? Well, first off, to assume that
I haven't is kind of rude. To just say that I can't assume it
because I already know from the way you answered that you haven't because you would
be familiar with these topics. That's very judgmental and maybe okay, so okay,
now it's now it's about you made it personal. You made a personal
jam. No, I can already tell that you're not familiar because you would
know these things if you'd had an epistemology class, or if you had a
class on Wickenstein. You know what you're You're being very clever. It's not
worth you think. I'm just trying to be tricky here. Now I'm talking
about actually you certainly are. Yeah, I don't know. All I know
is tricks. Yeah, yeah, so I won't be going can you explain?
Uh? The point here is that the way that language, for example,
works is that you can't define language or meaning without referring to language or
meaning. So at a base level, linguistic philosophy is circular, and world
views are the same way. If you're going to talk about what your ultimate
epistemic authority is, for example, at a certain point, you're ultimately gonna
have to appeel to something that's self referencing. Right, Okay, let's list.
Then let's start at the very beginning. What does the word god mean
since you're Since you're such a no, since you're systemology, explain where the
etymology of the word God comes from. Well, that would be the etymological
fallacy, first of all, because the origin of the word is not going
to matter to what our debate is. Okay, No, define the word
god and then tell me where it comes from. Let's build I don't have
to What does the word the English transliteration of theos have to do with what
we're talking about I'm making I'm making a point. Hold on, I'm making
a point about logic and argumentation and starting points. Right, so far do
we use and do we use words? And logic? Logic comes from the
word logos, and it has to do with words. So let's go Yeah,
And so, all I'm pointing out is that in philosophy and linguistic philosophy
you'll note that at a certain point things are circular because you have to rely
on the same thing that you're appealing to. Right this, everything is circular?
J I agree. No, let's go back to the not everything is
at a fundamental ultimate level, things are circular. Not everything is circular.
So that's why I said it's a category error. Let's start from the very
beginning. Where does the English word God come from? Let's uh, are
you going to defend a position or say what your position is? Are you?
Are you? Are you an agnosty? So you don't want to engage,
You don't want to engage in a transcendental argument discussion. I want to
terms. I've already said that God picks out the Trinity or God the Father
specifically, what does God mean in English? What does that word come from?
Do you want me to just again repeat it? It picks out for
us God the Father. The English transliteration or origin has nothing to do with
what we're talking about. There is no English transliteration. God is a reference
to theos in the Greek. God is a generic God is a generic term.
Theos is the Greek word for God. But why was the Why was
the English word God chosen? What does the word God mean in English?
Where does that word come from? And why did the translators of the word
Are you the guy who says that God is the word God and that's a
demon? Am I saying that? No? Are you that guy? No?
I am not that guy? Okay, So how is this? You
know? What are you referring to? Real? Quickly. There's another guy
who comes on and argues at this point, and he says that the word
God is the identical phonetically to the text in Isaiah that says that they worshiped
God and that God is a demon. I don't, I don't, I
don't know any Oh, you sound like that guy, so I thought that
you were him. Well, No, I have no idea what that is.
But I mean, I'm just using. I'm just using. This has
nothing to do with whether there's a transcendental argument for God's existence or not.
Do you want to talk about that or you just want to argue about words,
because everything you've done is deflect away from anything substantial. No, I
don't. I think it's very substantial when we're trying to get to the words
that the very words that we're using to describe it. Well, every point
I've made, you've deflected off to some other point. Now we're having to
talk about what is your point with the word God? What's your point?
You can't refer You can't even use language in the first That's not what transcidental
means. You don't even know what you're talking about. You think you don't
even know what this is like, what do you think a transceident argument is?
Define transcendental? Jay? You said it's not No, No, you
said that. You said that it's not that, so so that means that
you know, and what is it? No, please go ahead and define
it the term for me. No, you already spoke as if you know.
So I want you to tell me what is the transcendental argument? I
don't know it, Jay, tell me, oh right, so well then
why did you act like you knew? No? Maybe I do. I
want to know your definition. I want you now, I'm not going to
debate if you don't know, because you played like you knew. So you're
not a good faith debater. You're what I'm trying to do. And I'm
sure the audience can probably know the audience is laughing at you, dude,
Yes they are. I can see. I can see the chat of about
seven hundred people laughing and calling you a meltdown. So what's a transidental what's
a transcendental argument? What's a transcendental argument? What is it? You said?
You said you you said you knew what it was? What is a
transcendent argument? Silence? No, don't what I'm trying to do what is
it what I'm trying to do with them? So you don't actually know what
I'm trying. Everyone is laughing, you see, it's all l O L
s. Look, you can try to humiliate me into the corner. No,
you do this yourself, trying to do this yourself. Have a conversation
about real words here. You said, you said that words, so you're
not you're not gonna answer no, words that are based in reality and not
transcendental, not above our heads. That's not even what the word means.
So you didn't know. So you didn't know what a transcendental argument was,
but you played like you did. That's not what it means. Okay,
fine, let me just say I don't know what it means. Please define
it for me. Right. It's a type of argumentation that comes out of
Aristotle and Kant, where you prove something by the impossibility of the contrary.
The form, for example, is X is the necessary precondition of why why
therefore X. So that's how we argue against any position that's agnostic or atheist,
by showing that they can't give an account for their assumptions and their presubsitions
or their use of logic. You just said a lot of words, and
I'm sure philosophically it's all correct and nice and tidy. Right, we're done,
Celton. Oh hey, yep, my up. Sorry, there's a
Billy Jay, a big fan. So I was thinking of the Sorry.
I listened to your revamped Theophanes what' sure last night. I'm really excited from
that. I also went back and watched the debate between Father Deacon and Ice
in Mats Slick. It's also a classic the So I guess this is it?
This is a since your question not to not doggedly asking this when you
your last couple of callers you mentioned, Look, I just went to the
text and proved the trinity. That smacked of me. The same issue that
Masulik had is saying, let's just go to the Bible and read it and
it says when it says, because I think the last caller was arguing,
well, the Jews disagree with that, because I think, as Father de
can for you, we all come to the text. Let you escape.
How would you escape that superficial comparison that I just made. Yeah, it's
a good question. So when we say that the Protestant approach of well,
I just go to the text and the text mean what it says and says
what it means. Typically, that's just arguing as if all you need to
do is like look at the Greek and see what the Greek says. That
doesn't mean that we can't look at the Greek and see what the Greek says,
or look at the text and see what it says. It means that
we have to do it holistically. So, like I pointed out the beginning
of last night's lecture, the Trinity is not a doctrine necessarily that you're going
to prove from like one verse or from this thing over here. The Trinity
will be known and proven holistically from the canonical text as a whole. So
you're going to do canonical interpretation. And even Protestants tend to agree with this.
So when I often point that out about James White, I'm really just
pointing out that James White's being inconsistent with his own approach to the text and
with his own belief in presubpositionalism and kind of reading the things holistically. The
only difference between us and the Protestant that admits that there's a holistic canonical reading
is that we don't strict that holistic sense to just the Bible. We also
include the attestation of the church, fathers, the councils, uh, you
know, the lives of the saints, the liturgy. So it's all a
holistic thing and there's not like one thing that you go to that's like the
final thing, like oh, it's just this Bible verse over here, or
oh it's this thing over here. But that doesn't mean that I can't go
to the text and read the text. It doesn't mean I can't proof text.
It doesn't mean I can't even quote mine. It's just a question of
a lot of times when people quote mine, for example, they do it
without the context, or they do it out of context. So it's not
quote mining or proof texting or going to the text or anything like that.
That's the problem. Dude. You don't have to keep thumbing down. I'll
bring you on. Man. I'm not talking to you, Kelt, I'm
talking to this other dude. That's okay. Does that make Yeah? That
makes sense. And that's what deconon and I argued, is that you need
to do your stricture holistically. But also what was like the church the church
testimony holistically? Okay, see as you just you know, I'm wondering if
it's all less down to the tang argument here, if it's a cruci a
Protestant, and did you and you an Orthodox come in and you all holistically
quote you know, the Torah plus uh whatever is well in the case of
the Jew, for example, if he's only going to cite the Torah and
the profits, then in that case I would have to go into his accepted
authority like Justin Martin does. Right when Justin Martyr's debating would try for the
Jew, he goes to the Old Testament passages and tries to make his case
from all the theophanies, just like we do. I'm just imagining. So
I read one hundred pages of Protestant apologetics. Hundred pages is Orthodox apologetics.
If there's equal content, you know, how do you do? You have
to fall back and just saying, look, you know, the church is
inspired, it's the Orthodox Church from history, we win by default. Well,
No, if I was if I was talking to a Protestant at that
point, I would not grant that he has the right canon or that he
can even know what the canon is apart from the attestation of the Church in
history. So that's typically where I take the canon debate at that point.
Okay, yeah, so okay, so even if even if you could with
a problem, right, Okay, so you know in juices, no,
you're taking your reading back trinitarian stuff into the Old Testament. Well, at
that point I would say that first, modern Jewish scholarship, as I argued,
because that's identical to the Muslim argument. Right, So if you watch
the debate with Daniel Hikikachu, this is where that debate went. Where I
was like, well, first of all, modern Jewish scholarship admits that ancient
Hebrew revelation was not monolithically unitarian, right, And then I would move to
okay, and then if we look at the text themselves, they do show
multiplicity in God. So there's nothing inherently wrong with going to the text.
And I would just point out, likeily we did last night, right,
we went through you know, one whole or two whole hours of just Theophanes
in Genesis, probably I don't know forty of them thirty Yeah, excellent,
Okay, Yeah, I'm just trying to get a better sense of you know,
win, can you know, do you quote unquote your study last night?
Was just ga in the Bible right, or when to pull in the
church funders, or when you need to go to someone else's atomy. Well,
I think that it's never wrong to do that. It depends on the
case and who you're debating with. So again, if it's a Muslim,
you know, uh, they're only going to accept what they want out of
the previous revelation. And so that's why I like going to the argument of
well are you consistent with prior revelation. If it's a Jew, They're only
going to accept certain texts, so I would be forced to go to their
text, like Justin Martyr does with Trifo. So it's kind of like the
same point about well what about evidences, Like, if you're a transcendental argument
proponent, are you against evidences? Don't you always critique evidentialists? No,
there's nothing wrong with evidences. In fact, going to the texts are like
evidences, right, So each of these Theophany texts is a piece of evidence
to make my case, and the making of that case, unfortunately does require
a more holistic perspective, whether it's all the Old Testament or whether it's and
the New Testament, or whether it's the Old and New Testament and the teaching
of the Church Fathers and the tradition of the church. Like, that's the
holistic context from which I'm being informed, But that doesn't mean that I can't
use or do evidences. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense.
And so last night, wasn't you in a Bible in pre list?
That was you with an appropriate scope for the audience, But you have a
back catalog of other avenues to do to go through if you're argument targeting.
Okay, fantastic, thanks so much. She Yeah, the point is not
like can we can we go to the Bible or not to prove things?
Of course, like if you go to thecumenical councils or if you read the
Church Fathers, they're constantly citing the scriptures to prove their positions. So proof
texting itself is not a problem. And even quote minding itself is by definition
isn't wrong. But if you quote mine out of context, then it's deceptive
and misleading. It's a different thing. But also, yeah, it's really
the paradigm that we're coming from and how holistically we're informed. And so if
we have a totality perspective, old and New Testament and teaching of the Church
and so forth. Then we're much more capable. We have much much better
tool set to correctly interpret the particulars. So each particular text again is going
to be interpreted via our knowledge of the whole text, right, and this
is called canonical interpretation or holistic interpretation. Likewise, it's also going to be
informed more than by more than just the text themselves is also going to be
right. The Council of Nicea Athanasius, their definitions of you know, eternal
generation, et cetera, et cetera, all of those things are going to
be part of my paradigm in my presubposition when I read these texts. Absolutely
admit that. But they're also not just presuppositions. There's a reflectionive, symbiotic
relationship between me reading the texts being informed as a holistic thing, I mean
going back and reading the text, mean then also reading other texts and being
informed in a holistic way. So there's this this constant back and forth that
is I think this process of revelation and knowing God in part. Okay,
so you've been raising your hand here, Faith alone wants to come on.
Go ahead, got an on mute, go ahead. Did you raise your
hand like twenty times? What's that laughing at everything I said? Where you're
at? Did you turn your mic permissions on? We can't hear you,
dude, faith alone? Are you there to come in? You were?
You were? You were losing it there? Yeah? Hello, that's up?
Hell? Yeah? Why why are you spreaking out? What's up?
Can you hear me? Yeah? What's up? Why are you spaking out?
Yeah? If you look in history like Orthodoxy and Catholicism, you'll find
that they were really dominated by Muslims and they could never take the Holy Land.
But the one people who could easily is the Protestant Christians America UK.
Faith alone, Christians, we easily took the We slaughtered the Muslims. You
can't honestly think this guy's a troll. I'm serious, it's true. So
he's literally gonna try to pick his religion on quote taking the Promised Land by
faith alone. I'm sorry, that's just not even that's that's like below the
tear of acceptable argentation. I can't do it. Giefer. Yeah on new
dough. Hello, hey hey, sorry, there's like a like a delay.
So fine, So I don't know. I'm I'm a young kid.
I'm an orthodox cetic human, and I usually try not to argue with my
like relatives, but they'll kind of like come and like attack my faith,
I guess, And so one of them is a Catholic, and I just
wanted to know your take on so a lot of the times when I've been
I've ever debated Catholics, And specifically when my aunt was like pressing that orthodoxy,
She's like just like she would ignore them everything and just go to like
the Catholic position is more is better for like conscious and like these other things
that have nothing to do with ecclesiology, and she would just keep going back
to that. I would just try to, honestly avoid. I would try
to avoid these conversations with family members. There's just really no point in trying
to debate a family member. I understand if they ask you questions and you
feel sort of on the defensive, you want to And I'm not saying it's
always wrong too, but I would just say, look, why don't you
just come check out church and notice the difference between the liturgy at the Orthodox
Church than at your church, right, I mean, that's that's probably going
to do a lot better for your aunt than logic and philosophy, Like an
aunt is probably going to be more convinced by the aesthetics than you know.
Some argument. Now, Diana Henry, you were making a huge fuss yesterday.
Do you want to come on and make your arguments about why it's okay
to pray in mosques as a as a as a so called Christian All right,
I mean you're in the chat. You said you wanted to come chat,
so you're invited to speak, Alpha or Diane. Diane, you want
to go first? Yeah, it's Diana, Thanks for having me. I
was just trying to make the point that you know, you're understanding that charity
basically love and it's like the other side of well, I should hold on
Alpha, let her speak. I mean, hold on. If you look
at history, only America in the UK was able to destroy the Ottomans take
the Holy Land. The Catholics failed, the Orthodox failed, their captured.
This is all only people who could take Go ahead, Diana, why is
he on stage if he's mental? How much? How am I? I
don't know who these people are? Okay, So yeah, that was basically
my common I understand you. I don't know why you deleted your post.
I didn't want. I didn't want I didn't want to give attention to some
of those people. So why is it uncharitable to talk about what your own
church teaches? No, I'm not saying that you can talk about whatever you
want. I mean, that's part of logic. Where's the uncharitable part?
Is that not being able to accept other people where they are and that their
faith tradition that they were brought up in, and these are strongly held religious
beliefs. And maybe perhaps if you consider though, I mean I was born
Catholic. I don't know if you were, but if I was born Muslim
or say Jewish or something like that, but that has nothing to do with
whether it's for false And how does that make me uncharitable? Where's the lack
of charity on owners? Sam? Well? Understanding where someone's coming from?
Though? Hold on, hold on, I've debated I used to be a
Roman Catholic And let me just finish, well, why do you think I
don't understand where they're coming or got I've we've debated the top Muslims out there,
and we'veuld debate I used to be a Roman Catholic, So what do
you mean, No, I'm not. My whole point is if you were
born Muslims say, because I've met other people from other faith traditions and I
was born Catholic, so I was I'm one of the lucky ones, right,
But they have these strongly held religious beliefs. And how I came to
this conclusion though here on Twitter, I started following the Komanie Right. They
all call Americans or America the great Saint, and they're right if you look
at like what's going on in Hollywood, what we support, all our laws,
abortion, same sex marriage, all that they are. They are genuinely
trying in their own way, from their own upbringing what know right, And
so you have to meet people where they are. And there's another but we
do that all the time. We do that all the time because we I
mean this is I've been doing this for about six years, of these open
spaces where anybody can come in and make any arguments they want. So I
just failed to see how that's not meeting people where they are. Well,
no, I'm trying to make the association that that's what the pope is trying
to do. No, No, that has that's a false analogy, because
your own papal documents forbid you to go and participate in the religious services of
other groups and other religions. Okay, so this is exactly my point,
Jaye. Okay, so what charity actually means he's trying to reach out to
other people. That's not what he's doing. That's not what he's doing.
You don't know that. I do know that because he said, because he
has said not to proselytize these people. Well, so the Catholic Church teaches
though it's all about your actions, right and being an example and all,
that's not true. It's also it's also about your actions in terms of what
you publicly really religiously do, such as praying towards Moss, praying and most
towards Mecca. You understand that that's an action of apostasy in your own theology.
So if you believe that God, so you're not you don't you're not
gonna you don't think that that's the case. I answer. I'm trying to
answer your point. Let me, do you do you believe that your church
teaches that or not that teaches to do things? Would it have written back
whatever you reference because I'm not a historian. Yeah, so mortaliam Animos says
that if you go and participate in other church services or other religious services,
that it's a surrendering of the Catholic faith and it's an action of apostasy.
And you're telling me, you're telling me here, no, it doesn't count
because he's there to evangelize him. That's not true because both of these popes
are a Chumenists, the last two that have gone into mosque, and they
actually say not to proselytize sullen if like before Jesus, okay, you had
Plato soccer. So you're not going to address that. That's irrelevant to this
two. I'm trying to if you let me finish my point, but it
doesn't matter because your church always because of what you're because that's that's an irrelevant
point. It finish my point, No, because it's not relevant. You
can finish the point all you want, but that point is not relevant.
If your church says in nineteen twenty eight you can't do this, you can't
go back to well in the Old Testament period they believe in a Unitarian God,
like, that's not relevant to the fact that in nineteen twenty eight.
It says you can't do this, and then it's a surrending of the faith.
So all that tells me is that it's a contradiction. Marincus, I
agree, yep. I just had a quick question. Obviously we've been critiquing
in the Roman Catholic system. If you have dogmas contradicting each other, and
that would be a it would falsify the whole system. I'm just want wondering
if there's anything that would falsify the Orthodox system or if you would appeal to
tag kind of making it unfalsifiable because you have to lose your basis for knowledge
at all. So I'm just curious what you talk about that. Well.
I mean, I have to believe that there's not any position that would destroy
the Orthodox faith, but that doesn't mean that I'm saying it's unfalsifiable. Un
Falsifiability is like a thing where you construct a system that's it's like a trick,
right where for example, if you're a Marxist, Marxism is unfalsifiable because
if you if you critique Marxism, all of your arguments are invalidated because only
a bourgeois person would critique Marxism. So you see how that makes like the
system unfalsifiable. So unfalsifiability is a weakness in a system. It's not something
that you want to try to construct for your system, right, I gotcha.
So no, I don't think. I don't think Orthodoxy is unfalsifiable.
I just think that it's true. Gotcha. Okay, Yeah, that's it.
Yeah, that's a good question. I do think, by the way,
that the way they construct the proofs and arguments for the papacy, they
try to make it unfalsifiable. And so in that sense, it's very similar
to Marxists talk koon. By the way, if I got to spport the
tream, you can do so vi super chats, go ahead, Hey,
Jake, can you hear me? Hey? I just wanted to get up
here. I'm an Orthodox catechumen, but I had a question because I had
a conversation with the Roman Catholic and they brought up the point that Constantinople fell
and fell when it was UNI eight. Yeah, but it fell when it
was UNI eight. So they don't ever mention that, do they. Yeah,
So they use that as a point of like Hell shall not prevail over
the church, and because it's a mosque. But that's like a you know,
a way to prove their point. Wait, their argument number one,
we don't view Constantinople like the Vatican, so that's a dumb, like super
like you argument. And by the way, the Vatican wasn't the pope at
one time locked up in the Vatican when the Masons took Rome, so does
that invalidate Rome. Haven't Roman Catholics lost battles to Muslims? And this is
such a stupid argument. So basically all this means is that I can arbitrarily
interpret events in history to be proofs of Catholicism based on historical blessings and cursings.
However, if you read Augustine's City of God, the entire apologetic that
Augustine is making against the Romans is to deny that principle that historical collapses and
falls of empires prove or disprove the religion. That's the whole apologetic of City
of God. So it's very stupid of Roman Catholics to sort of use that
as some sort of divine sign. And by the way, when we point
out that the Roman Catholic Church is full of creeps, PDFs and weirdos and
that it's in a crisis. Oh guess what suddenly that proves their church because
only the true church would be persecuted and infiltrated. So you see how that's
a that's a great example of the very unfalsifiability that we just mentioned. Og
man, yoj can you hear me? Okay, there's a small delight.
So I was an atheist. First of all, thank you so much for
the things you put online, for all the free work that you put for
us. I mean, I don't think there's anyone online that do the things
you do, So thank you very much. I was an atheist like since
I was twelve, and I stopped doing an eighties like two years ago,
much because because told you pretty much. But my question is on take It's
a really simple question, is okay, why or how do you place God
in the exposition? It's basically that thank you in the exposition? Or you
mean, like where in the argument is God? What do you mean?
Yeah, why how do you place scot there? Why can't you place something
like a like a force that you we didn't discover yet or something like Yeah,
I see what you're saying. That's a good question, right. So
the way I would answer that is, like the specifically the Christian metaphysic,
uh, it posits a unique type of deity that the other world religions don't
have. So, for example, the world a metaphysic where God is uncreated
and the creation is distinct from him, and yet he's present in the world,
and yet he's one and many, and yet he had as intentionality for
the world. The world has tellos or purpose. Those aspects of the Christian
metaphysics, for example, they disprove or they resolve the problems where you don't
have a world or universe with purpose or intention. In philosophy, that's called
disteleological or it's a disteleological or universe, meaning that the universe doesn't have purpose.
If God quote unquote was just an immaterial force, then there would not
be intentional direction or end of the universe. It would just be random.
It would be what's called accidentalism. And if there's accidentalism that rules, then
we really can't have any coherence or meaning at all, basically destroys the possibility
of order, structure, and meaning in the world, in the universe.
So that's just one example from teleology, but we also have like a basis
for grounding universals and particulars. We would have a basis for regularity of nature,
and so we wouldn't be subjected to the critiques of David human skeptics.
Right. So these are some examples, you know, the immaterial, immateriality
of abstract objects, numbers, et cetera. All of those things. If
you take them and put them them into a big ball, all those metaphysical
principles that are needed to have a coherent worldview. What grounds that? Well,
the trying God. That's what worldview his system proclaims to have. And
so therefore that would be the philosophical argument, and that's the God that we
want to then come to know, Father Moses, does you want to speak?
I just was going to pick up with what you were saying earlier in
the at the beginning. Sure, I got my grub on, but didn't
dig out. Finally got call my wife one a day ago, hit the
corner of the hit the dough, thinking well I live another twenty five Yeah.
Literally, every morning that's what I wake up to. I'm just jogging.
I don't think that every more. No, I was I circling back
on what you were saying just a minutego. It's like something we've often talked
about, which is like the whole parameter of making sense of Catholicism require you
to basically acquire a cult cultic mindset, right where where every everything that would
disprove it or does not align itself with reality in any way, shape or
form, even common sense is actually utilized as a defense, yeah, for
why it's correct. And it's just you can't do that without suspending all kinds
of you know, rational thought and and like I said, common sense,
which you often find in cultic movements, and really it's what you find in
the culture today, you know, it's the it's the the occult kind of
idea of one plus one equals three. Right, So you're always having to
sign of supersede anything logical in order to make sense of it. So anyways,
that was it. No, I think I'm glad that you mentioned that
cult aspect because I brought that up. I can't rememberf it was yesterday,
the day before that. The more I think about it, the more it
does seem like a cult. And that's not to say that every individual Roman
Cawtholic is a bad person. Or bad willed. I think that you're kind
of over time you manifest yourself as either bad willed when you confront these these
topics and you keep doubling down, tripling down, and trying to sort of
make sense of this miasma, this like this insane sort of like it's like
a stained glass window with all the pieces all out of order, and you're
trying to make it into some sob well, see look over your kind it's
kind of makes sense if you look at this angle and it's it's like seeing
things in the clouds, like it doesn't work, it's not really there.
But you're trying to like piece this thing together like a puzzle in a weird
way to make it fit. And to do that it requires a lot of
leaps gymnastics, shutting off your brain and like father most has said, kind
of rejecting what's right in front of your face. I mean, everybody can
see right here, Francis is literally in the moss praying towards Mecca. And
it should be like obvious right here that you can't do that. If you're
a Christian, there's no way you would even do that. And so all
of these quote loopholes notice that we have multiple Catholics said, well, there's
loopholes to where you can do this. This is just really this is like
this. I saw this video the other day where the one of the Hasidic
Jews was like they'd invented a light switch, and the light switch. You
turn the light switch because you can't work on the Sabbath, and if you're
to flick a switch, that would be working on the Sabbath. And so
the switch is set up to where there's a random signal that fires to shut
off. So you're not actually by removing the barrier to the electrical signal,
you're not actually turning it off, but you're actually turning a switch, but
you're not doing the work because you're not physically the cause of the light going
off. So this is the absurd. This is like, this is literal
Roman Catholic thinking, the identical levels of thinking. I saw another one where
one of the rabbinical uh rulings was that you can walk a certain amount of
steps inside on the Sabbath, but you can't go outside. And so what
the Hasidic Jews in the neighborhoods of New York have done is put a string
around a giant section to make it enclosed. This is outside, so like
there's stringing string from light posts outside to then say that now it's enclosed because
there's a string. And this is what leads to this whole idea of like,
well I can actually trick God. Right, that's the mindset, that's
like the rabbinical mindset of like, well I can. I've got these loopholes
that will allow me to like skirt the issue. And it's exactly what's going
on here. What we say, what do we hear in the first hour,
Well, there's a bunch of loopholes. Right. So he's going and
praying in the moss towards Mecca, but he's actually privately praying for their conversion.
Now we don't actually know that, but people are saying, well,
I think that's what he's up to. Okay, but you can't do this,
like this action itself is something you can't do. Go ahead, Yeah,
I was gonna say. Yeah. Two things with that. Number one
is when I was eighteen or so, I worked at Starbucks and we used
to have these Jews that would come in and they would they would you know,
be coming in on Sabbath and they can't pay for anything, so they
would put money on top. This is not a joke. They would put
money on top of their head, underneath the hat, and then when they
came into Starbucks, they would order the drink, take the hat off,
and then lean their head towards the counter, so the money would fall off
of the top of their head onto the counter. This is not a joke,
okay. Like, and I mean at the time, you're like,
you're not You're not fooling God. Yeah, like you're you know, it's
not like it's this is not a game. You know. It's like you
think about your relationship with your own children, and when you tell your children
to do something, you're like, look, it's the spirit of what I'm
telling you to do, not X, Y and Z minutia so that you
can find a loophole in what I'm instructing you to do. And it's also
interesting. I was talking with a really nice, young, young Roman Catholic
guy yesterday on the phone and he was, you know, we were talking
about Roman Catholic priesthood and he was basically saying, how you know, it's
hard to kind of relate to these priests. So then he got into you
know, uh uh, you know, aren't you married, but aren't you
married to the church and then you're married to your wife? And that isn't
that kind of like polygamy? And I'm like, buddy, I'm like,
you've you've cultivated a priesthood that's full of guys who don't want to be married
and or have very peculiar desires. Right, you've you've you've gotten rid of
all the normal, healthy males who want to have relationships with women. And
by the way, by the way, Father Moses, everybody's sort of jumping
on this. Oh, Francis said something bays the other day about skittles in
the seminary. However, that did everybody miss the point that this actually is
an admission of the critique that we're making. So basically, Francis is admitting,
yeah, there's a skittles everywhere in the seminaries. That's exactly what we've
been saying. And then, by the way, and then by the way,
he walked it back within twenty four hours, he apologized for it.
What's so crazy is you can say it, you can say you can go,
hey, the seminaries are full of these type of men who are interested
in these type of proclivities and everybody goes, no, no, you're over.
You know you're over. Yeah, your literal pope just said the same
thing. You don't think that he has better he doesn't know, Yeah,
he doesn't know that, he doesn't he's got better information on he said,
it's full of them. It's full of them. So what's interesting even in
that is that you have this priesthood that is completely detached from reality, meaning
that they're not there, they don't have normal desires for women, they're not
married, they don't have children, and yet that they're literally that's going to
produce the better priesthood because they're more committed. And yet when you actually talk,
like when I talk to, you know, a young Roman Catholic guy,
it's like they know the things that I'm telling them pertain way more to
their life because they know that I'm married, that I have a wife,
that I've been where they've been, and that I'm going that they want to
go in the same direction that I go in. You know. Again,
but you have to kind of turn your brain off and say, well,
the celibate guy who's not interested in women is actually the higher choice for the
priesthood. So I'm like, buddy, you know this is you can't you
can't get good spiritual direction from guys who don't even understand your way of life,
are not even interested in it, you know what I'm saying. I
don't think that a lot of Roman Catholics even think of this as spiritual direction.
I mean, I think a lot of the people, I think a
lot of the people that we've been acting with in the past few days,
for example, they see this as like Bayse trad political movement. Really yeah,
a lot of a lot of the Twitter tradcat sphere is all about like,
no, I'm here because of you know, uh Pepe the Frog and
uh, you know bayse trad political stuff. I mean, the first guy
that came on, the guy that was here for the first hour, was
basically saying, well, I got into all this stuff from like the right
wing sphere. So how do they so just in your experience day, how
do they reconcile that with what they actually encounter in you know, in reality.
Well, but see that That's the thing is like, the idea of
this as a base trad right wing political movement is more important than any of
this theological stuff. So it's not even really about it's not even about Christ.
It's about politics being based being trad you know, spouting off on Twitter.
That's what it's about. Interesting. I mean with a lot of these
people. Now some of these people, you know, they try to take
it serious. But yeah, yeah, that's interesting. I gotta process that.
I'm again, I'm when we talk about Roman Catholicism, like, I
don't know the system from the inside, having never been Catholic. I only
know it from interacting with people who were formerly Roman Catholic or people who are
actively Roman Catholic. And there just seems to be such a disconnect from like,
right, I think within Becautholicism, there's a lot, it's all over
the place. So you've got like Thomas Merton types that are doing Zen Buddhist
meditation. You've got you know, want to be LARPing medieval Scholastics that think
that Roman Catholicism is Tomism even though the Vatican hasn't cared about Tomism for the
last seventy years. You've got you know, trad cats that see it as
like a dogmatic list of propositions that you believe. You've got Roman Catholics obsessed
with fatima and visions and apparitions. It's all over the place. And then
you've got a sizeable portion of recent converts via Candice you know, other people
online and for them it's base pat trad political movement. That's all it is.
Got it, got it? Yeah, it's it's funny. How uh,
it's funny how how you know Protestant Catholicism is exactly, It's like it's
the umbrella that kind of houses all these different people that are not even ideologically
or theologically on the same page, but all underneath the umbrella of like we're
all the same thing, and yet they're not so well. I mean,
that's what that was the whole premise of uniotism too, right, Uniits were
told you can believe whatever you want, believe whatever you want about polla Mos
and all these people and energies just believe in and submit to the pope.
So it's always been kind of a political geopolitically motivated. Do you think I
mean, I know this maybe will be off topic a little bit, but
do you think that like the way that we see let's say, some three
letter agencies weaving their hands into what's going on in Ukraine and the ep and
whatnot. Do you feel that there's that same type of influence that is subtly
being exerted within Roman Catholicism or do you think that it's at the higher levels
of Vatican levels and whatever else. It's kind of there's in a meshed kind
of deep state program where people are kind of moving or guiding the church in
a certa quote unquote church in a certain direction that has their interests in mind.
All the above, I think that if you go back to the Gregorian
Reforms of the eleventh century, the papacy explicitly started saying that you have to
believe in their temporal supremacy, that is, worldly power to be saved.
If you don't believe in the worldly power of the pope, you're not saying.
That's when I'm sounked them, which is that's a couple of centuries after
the Gregoing reforms, but Gregoing Reforms of Dictatus Papi is where it begins.
That's the famous document where the Pope's basically saying that I'm the Quezaus hotter Rock.
And then I think it develops for a long time into where we are
now, to where you know, in the twentieth century, there was a
lot of deep state influence, and that's well documented by Catholics like David Wimhoff.
So I think that both things are going on where it's kind of like
it's all the above. So do you think that, like some of the
quote unquote more liberal streams that are happening within Catholicism are the direct byproduct of
the state sponsored influence and participation basically in the kind of pushing up the agenda
the direction I think. I think that the trad version and the lib version
of Catholicism are both part of the overall agenda, and that the papacy does
a constant bureaucratic two step of what he usually does is he will do ten
steps forward, two steps back, and that's a that's a classic bureaucrat move.
So I don't I don't think that that. I mean, I think
there's a lot of traditional Catholics who legitimately oppose Francis, But I don't think
at the top, I think it's really a controlled and managed geopolitical entity.
Yes, it's a captured institution, is what I'd say. When you see
people who are kind of in this cultic mindset where they they've kind of had
a you know, I hate to say if I kind of brainwash themselves into
accepting these things, especially if her Catholics say that, you know, if
they leave the Catholic Church right there are doomed to tradition. So there's right
this kind of ultimate kind of sort of damnicles hanging over their head that they
have to accept even what they don't want to accept, for fear of losing
eternal salvation. What do you think is the most powerful or compelling reason or
argument that you've seen with with people actually breaking three of Catholic Well, I
can remember having that exact same thought. I remember having that exact same thought,
and then and then, and what broke me out of that was at
a certain point you realize, well, if God really does love me,
and if God love is the is the lover of mankind, as the liturgy
says, then why would he want and expect me to constantly accept and submit
to these you know, ridiculously wicked people. So, for example, there
was a certain bishop at that time who this was like two thousand and four
or five somewhere in there, and there was there was a Romancaolic bishop who
had done something very notorious, scandalous, and it related to a lot of
the PDF stuff, right, And so a discussion came up and the question
was, well, so, wait a minute, do I still have to
go submit to the PDF. Let's say, for the sake of argument,
we've got a noteorious PDF bishop. Right, you know what I mean,
right, po, So I'm still bound Jesus expects me to go submit to
that man as the representative of Christ and to bring my children to him and
to be catechized by them and so forth. And many Roman Catholics are saying
yeah. And at that point I was like, okay, this is ridiculous.
There's no way Jesus would expect me to take my children to a notorious
PDF bishop. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, interesting,
okay cool? Well yeah, And I think the reason that and I know
that like many Roman Cathalis, so well, we don't believe that you shouldn't
do that. But my point is that their approach to the legitimacy of the
Church and the sacraments and so forth, they have completely divorced morals from the
sacraments, right, And so what they think is donatism, It's not donatism.
I mean they actually think that like, you can be orda aimed as
a Romancolic priest, and that next day you can go out and start uh.
You can become a Satanist. The very next day you can spend the
rest of your life consecrating the host to blasphem it. And that's all still
a real operation because they actually think it's almost like a magical, magical approach,
and it's like they worship the authority to the extent that there's nothing that
can remove that power and that authority even if that person and it's getting now
to the point where it's like, even if the pope's a complete apostate,
like he still is, he still has that authority. And there's there's a
quote I think from Catherine of Cna in the Middle Ages, and and I
think it sums up this whole mindset, and it's something like, even if
the Pope were to be the devil himself, I would still submit to the
Pope. That's how, that's that's how, that's the ultimate expression of authority
worship. Now, from what I understand with that to the understanding is that
in the Ordin there's actually an ontological change, right right, But what we
wouldn't say is orthodox that if you apostatize and you go out and start that's
what that's the difference. Yeah, but that's there. Yeah, That's what
I'm saying, is that in Catholicism, the quote unquote because yeah, can
you hear me, can you hear me? Yeah, you go ahead,
I was gonna say, yeah, that's what I from my understanding, Yeah,
my understanding was that in Catholicism, the teaching basically that it's essentially an
ontological change for the person being ordained was one of the reasons why all of
the grievous misconduct that happened. They didn't actually lay assize any of those priests,
or they didn't kind of reprimand that they just moved them around because ontologically
they had been changed from a normal person quote unquote into a priest, and
so therefore that priest it could never be taken away from them or something.
Even if you get it, even if you get defrocked, you're forever a
priest. You're just not in their terminology, you would not be licit.
So it's still you're still confecting the Eucharist, You're still doing all the full
functions of the priest. You're just not doing it an illicit way, but
it's all still valid. That's their view, and so that was part of
the reason why they didn't take that that and I think there's other things going
on. I think some of these people were part of networks that had powerful
support. I think that some of these people. Uh, there's also they've
had at certain points a severe lack of priests to go around because people don't
want to join the Roman Catholic priests. That's why a lot of Roman Catholic
diocese in America now they've all they've imported all Nigerians to be priests. Oh
really, I didn't even know that. No, they have a severe shortage,
Okay, and American Americans don't want to do it essentially, No,
No, there's vocations to seminaries have plummeted since Vatican Two. Interesting except in
like Africa, so and so forgive me, but somebody who's in Africa basically
gets a full ride, gets to go to America, gets to have a
quote unquote stabilized normal life and kind of a way out of Yeah. Okay,
got it, Yeah, got it. Now I've got some energy to
keep going. We'll keep going. With some of the people that are in
line, because some of you guys have been waiting for a while. We
do have to remind you that we have a sponsor. And also I'm going
to go T T to the little girls on but this is our show.
Spa quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and
synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af.
There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an
Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and they're would be consequences. There's
a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed
to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively,
gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd
by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided
so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean
and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue
Spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine
made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee
bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max.
Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean
pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every
single pre workout when there are any studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose.
Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of
coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and
dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant in your
daily life. Head on over to chalk dot com used promo cop J fourty
four life this Jay four four La f E and get half off all those
great products like the Mail Performance Stack right here. I went to the gym
yesterday, but both Jamie and I did. We had a great time.
I felt great after taking my tongkat Ali and heading to the gym. Also
check out the Chad Mode. Great pre workout there. Andrea, what's up?
You gotta unmute? Andrew? Hi? Thank you so Hi? Can
you hear me? Yeah? I was just listening to the conversation with the
gentleman. I think his name is father Mosas Moses, and I just have
a couple of questions. So I would like to know in the history of
the Orthodox Church, how many hospitals, nurses like, nursing homes, orphanages,
schools have has the Orthodox Church actually founded? Yeah? Have you heard
of? Have you heard of? Have you heard of? Have you heard
of Byzantium? That's where universities come from. Are you familiar with that bus
in Byzantine? You don't know what Byzantium is. No, I don't know
what Byzantium is. I'm Roman Catholic right. Well, actually, the longest
running empire in the history of the world is a Byzantine Empire, and it's
the Orthodox Empire, like where Turkey is modern day Turkey. Okay, we're
gonna move on because I'm gonna get mad and I'll be mean, and I
don't want to be mean and get people an excuse to say that I'm mean,
Dave. What's up? I'm your Dave or Dave? You're here?
Yeah? Hi, Well, I came here because of the word Catholic protests
on Muslims. Everything is in here. I don't know whether you discuss religion,
theology, philosophy. I would like to have one session with you.
I have written two translations of the Quran, many books on Islam and Christianity
and atheism, and my website. Hello. Hello, do you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you. Hold on, Dave, we're talking
to this guy. Go ahead. Yeah, my website is banned by Catholic
Church. And to my surprise, I learned that down. Yes, banned
by Calc Church. You're saying you're banned by the Calolic Church my website?
Yes, How is your website banned by the Callec Church? Let me tell
you. I was teaching philosophy and logic for twenty three years. One of
my students moved to San Diego, and then one day he called me,
former student and said, I'm working on this philosophy paper I would like to
discuss with you. I said, well, I've written multiple articles on the
subject. It is on my website. Nineteen dot org, I said,
we check and that are you just here to promote your website? Because no,
no propotion, So hold on, hold on. The Congregation for the
Doctrine of Faith hasn't banned books in forever. So how are they banning your
website? I was you, you're telling me a long story. What's well?
He said, He checked it and he said your website is banned.
He was in Universal. All right, so we'll grant you that the Vatican
is scared of your website. All right, So let me ask you.
Can I ask a question? Let me tell you that it's not it's not
story time and website promotion time. Can I ask you a question? Ahead?
Gentlemen, are you Muslim? I am a peacemaker. My religion is
peacemaking religion, religion. It's not a religion. Okay, go ahead,
Dave? What's up? Man? Speak out here? What do you say?
All right? Try again next time, Dave. So let's keep to
the topics, guys. It's not the let me spam promote my website.
The topics are listed, and peacemaker is not a religion. Go ahead,
Dan, Hey, Jay, I have a few I have one question.
Actually, at one of the At the end of one of Kyle's videos,
it says that the Catholic Church is trying to have a false union with the
Orthodox Church in twenty twenty five or twenty twenty six. Do you know anything
about this or no? Yeah, they were thinking of they're floating the idea
of having a anniversary of the Council, and I see a meeting and Bartholomew
has said he thinks it's a good idea. Whether that will come about,
we don't know, but Bartholomew has battered around the idea. Okay, okay,
that's all. Yeah. Uh now, it used to be there used
to be some articles on this at the Union of Orthodox Journalists, but they
got raided and arrested by the Ukrainian Secret Service and police. So I don't
even know if they're going to be able to keep going. History matters.
Yeah, I'm mute. History matters. Okay are you? Are you calling
from a tin can? I can't hear anything. Man, probably down,
I'll come back. Okay, tech blue has been waiting for a while.
What's up? Man? Got it on? Mute? Tech Blue? Do
you want to speak yet? On you? Do you hear me? Do
you hear me. Yeah, okay, So last time I wanted to ask
you a question. I don't understand the notion of a second coming and the
Old Testament, thank you. I mean, there's a lot of passages to
talk about the resurrection and the general Judgment. So any passage in the Old
Testament that talks about the resurrection the general Judgment would be for us a second
coming passage. Also, any of the passages that talk about you know,
the fullness of the Messianic promise and the sense of Christ, you know,
reigning with with the saints, new heavens, new Earth. Right, Isaiah
talks at about that new heavens, new Earth thing, that those are all
for us. In latter Isaiah, those are all for us, you know,
second Coming passages. But for example, there's many Jews that says that
these passages are about David or are not messianic prophecies, like Isaiah fifty three
or some one and ten. Yeah, but wait, they're not messianic prophecies
or they are what do you say, like the Suffering Servant is about Israel
and the psalms in general are about yeah, but the whole But all of
those passages like Isaiah fifty one, fifty two, fifty three also contain Messianic
prophecies. They also call a few chapters earlier. In forty nine, it
calls the Messiah divine and that he's worshiped by these gentiles. So if you
read it in the context, not just singling out the suffering servant pass but
if you look at all the prior passages from forty nine up to fifty five,
like, you get a totality picture that it's not just talking about the
nation of Israel. It's talking about the nation of Israel exemplified in the person
of the Messiah. Can I give you an example of what I've read?
I mean, I know the Jewish argument that they think is just the nation
of Israel suffering, sure, but you know the passages is about the kings,
the future kings, seeing Israel suffering and then reflecting on themselves and believing
in the Messiah. Like Isaiah forty nine says, Okay, all right,
I have another Christian. Did Jesus fulfill all the prophecies? Because there's some
that says that he died before realizing any of them? But I don't understand
really much if he did or not. I mean, yeah, I think
you fulfilled them all. I've never heard of him dying before realizing them.
What does that mean? Because they said that there's no second coming. Then
when he first died, he didn't accomplish the prophecies like bringing all Jews back
to Israel. Yeah, but holdah, No, if you look at the
way the Book of Acts explains those passages, the bringing back of the remnant
is what happens in Acts two. So that is fulfilled in X two.
That's the rebuilding of the fallen tabernacle of David. That's why the passage in
Acts two cites that prophecy from David psalms. Furthermore, the psalms constantly talk
about even the Messianic psalms talk about the Messiah undergoing this death and this descent
to Hades and his resurrection. So what would all these Messianic passages be talking
about when it talks about the descent into Hades? Okay, and there's like
probably twenty of them, thirty of them it but and the one last question
is about the priesthood. Multiple times you say that the Rabbinical Jews don't have
a priesthood, and a rabbi is not a rabbi is not a lobitical priest,
right, yeah, I know, I know. Okay, use the
example of I think the verse that says you're a priest forever by the order
from Malchis right, Yeah, But I've heard an argument that Malchis was and
an other I'm gonna say that it was, it was, it wasn't,
and the first books like it was added later because means rifle king. So
when they say that it's it's talking about David like it says you're going to
be a priest forever, like like a rifle king. I mean the other
songs talk about Malchisada or talks about Jerusalem being Salem, so you understand Melchisedek
is in Genesis. It's not invented for David. Yeah. But there argument
is that there was conflict between multiple tribes of priests, and then the when
the Babylonion concur the Israel, the kings of the North come to the South
and they wanted to and the priests and all wanted to. So okay,
I understand what you're saying, but you don't understand that it's a both and
like Psalm one ten is not just about David. It's about the Messiah.
You don't think it's a Messianic prophecy. I don't treat it that way.
But do you think Daniel seven is a mess prophety? Do you think Rashi
is correct he says it is the some of men? Yeah? Uh,
this one is more tricky, Like for real, I thin so it's tricky
when it's okay, But isn't it not tricky when there's all these Theophanes in
the Old Testament? Who do you think that Theophanes aren't Genesis? Like we
covered last night for like two hours. Who's uh, I wasn't there last
night? But okay, Well, I mean they're like just just for like
this to just say, for the sake of argument, the thirty or so
if the often he's in the Book of Genesis. I think it's metaphorical.
When hold, so you can worship a metaphor No, you're talking about so.
I think it's how can I sit up? So like, when let
me give an example worship, it's not that it's not the angel that you're
worshiped, it's uh, you know, divine agency like God gave the Okay,
so was God in the burning bush or was it an angel or was
it just quote God's agency? Is God's agency God or not? Who's who's
the who's the agent? Who's the agent? It's the angel. Oh so
now created beings can can be called Yahweh? Can you worship? Can you
worship angels? I mean, so this is what you have to do to
get out of this. You see. But it's like a king sending an
envoye. Well, but why does she say? She doesn't say I saw
the representative, I saw God himself. It says that God appeared to Abraham
at the tree at the oak of Mamara. And you're saying, well,
it's not God, it's it's an agent of God. But then the agent
is identified multiple times in Genesis as Jehovah and Jahweh. Yeah, but uh,
you know when an Exodus he said God said that he put his name
and the angel rights, Yeah, that's because that's because it's Jesus that's who
has the name. There's another example, whereas there's where win there's an angel
that has the name of the Lord Yahowel or you're just assuming that that's not
the same figure in the book of Genesis. So you're assuming that it's another
angel we're saying it's the exact same angel, because the same angel that spoke
out of the of the bush identifying itself as I am. How can an
angel say I am when an angel is not I am? Because it doesn't
the way it good talks to humans like exactly, so it's God talking and
not an angel. Can an angel hold on? Can an angel redeem or
forgive sins? Oh? So angels are now redeemed, so created things,
redeem and forgive sins. But it's well, you said no, but now
they do. So this is what you have to go to. This is
the games you got to play to not accept the fact that clearly the angel
is called the Redeemer. In fact, if you read it at the end
of Genesis, when Jacob talks about his life story, he says that his
redeemer is the angel who accompanied him through all of his struggles, and the
Redeemer is the one that it's the same angel, Redeemer and Angel of the
President's Angel just means messenger. It doesn't necessarily mean a creative messenger because all
these passages that you said earlier, well, it's God, but it's an
angel speaking for God. But it's called God. But it has the name
of God, so it's doesn't doesn't the Bible tell us then that no one
sees the Father at any time? Yes, but oh, okay, so,
so who's the form of God that's appearing in Ezekiel one to ten?
Is it okay? So okay? And Ezekiel one to ten, there's one
riding on the chariot like a son of Man who is the face and glory
of God. What's staring you? What's staring you in the faces? That
is Jesus? Okay? So yeah, you to him. Christian thinks you're
okay. Sure, you had good conversation if you look at we did a
whole conversation, whole chat on Ezekiel one to ten, just on that.
Because when he sees the chariot, which is the cherub him chariot, he
sees that one that rides the chariot is one like a son of Man,
who is the face and glory of God. Above the firmament, there was
a sapphire stone. Also from the appearance of his waist color of amber,
like the appearance of a rainbow. And so was the appearance of the brightness.
It was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God. Now,
God doesn't give his glory to another. So how are we going to
say that this is a created being, an angel that's manifesting, that's writing
the angel chariot. Now, Jesus, only God could ride the chariot of
the gods, right, And this is a big chariot that's being spoken of
here. And the one riding the chariot is identified as the one who is
the likeness of God's glory. And it's the same thing that you just said
was a tricky one in Daniel seven, one like a son of man.
And so if you read Ezekiel one to Ezekiel ten, the descriptors are the
same. I'm going over here to ten. Maybe it's eleven. By the
way, immediately after this passage, I forgot to the Holy Spirit. Well,
the Holy Spirit's present and throughout these ego won to ten narrative as well.
But yeah, uh, it's escaping me. Which one is a specific
passage? I'll even just pull it up in here. I'll bet a zeke
you open. I got too many tabs open here, or maybe these eco
passages the one that's said no it's two to one, excuse me. That's
why I can't fire. Now that's insane. It's let's see. Maybe he
says, the son of God, one like a son of God. What's
the passive? There's a passage in Ezekiel where he says that the writer on
the chariot had the appearance of the glory of the Okay. So eight says
the glory the Lord, the glory and the spirit, the glory of the
Lord. In ten, the voice of the Lord speaks, throm the glory
there one like the son of Man. I know that the Son of Man
has mentioned. Trying to find that passage. Does anybody in the chat have
that reference? Handy? Is it? Ten? So he sees this the
firmament and the stones, and he says, I saw the man clothed with
a robe go between the wheels, the chair of him. Then he sees
the glory of the Lord, the Glory's glory, the glory of the Lord,
the chair of him. Okay, So I don't see it in the
Orthodox study Bible Spirit of the Lord. And eleven there is a pastor that
says one like the son of Man. It might be in the Masoretic.
Is why I'm not seeing it in my Bible. Let's see. Let's see
one says appearance of a man who is the lightness of the Glory. No,
we're talking about there. We're taling about the one in Ezekiel, not
the one of Daniel. I know what Daniel says. I'm looking for this
pastor specifically in Ezekieel one through ten. I've lost the Bible. Here we
go. So twenty four it says the throne a voice came from before the
from above the firmament. There was over their heads, the likeness of a
throne. On the likeness of the throne was the appearance of a man.
Okay, so maybe that's what I'm thinking of that some of them call it
son of a man from the appearance of his waist was amber fire, et
cetera. So we think this is the logos preincarnate. And then it calls
him the likeness of the glory, and that it does parallel the one like
a son of man and Daniel. But here are somewhere there's a passes that.
So something to that effect, I'm pretty sure. So let's see.
Maybe let's try eight, because it comes up a lot in these first eleven
chapters. So let's see the hand of the Lord God fell upon me.
And I looked, and there was a likeness fire from his waist down.
So this is the same figure in the earlier chapters. He stretched out the
form of a hand, and he took me by the lock of the hair,
and the Holy Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven. And behold,
the glory of God was there, like the vision that I saw in
the plane. And he said to me, son, a man, lets
you up your eyes. What do you see he sees? So this is
the Lord doing this right, and the Spirit is there. And then ten
says I looked at there in the fermat above the chair bend, there appeared
something like a sapphire stone. And then he spoke to the man clothed with
linen. So this is the appearance of a man. Go in among the
wheels and fill your hands with coal and fire from among the chairbhm and scatter
it on the city. Then the glory of the Lord went up from the
cherub and paused over the threshold, and the house of the Lord was filled
with the cloud. This is the glory cloud, the brightness of the glory.
So here is Father son Spirit. So then this is the wheels of
the chariot the cherub Then the glory of the Lord departed from the threshold of
the temple and stood over the Cherubim, and the glory of God was above
them. I bet you this is, by the way, where the Muslims
when they get that perverted, stupid thing in the Koran that the Salafies followed,
that he's a above the throne. I guarantee you it's like a perversion
of these Ezekiel texts, isn't it okay? Anyway? Well, maybe I'm
just thinking of Daniel and thinking of the fact that it called him one like
a man. But I could have sworn some of the translations. Said.
If they do and I find it later, I'll put it up here.
Maybe it's like the King James. Isn't one like a man or someone like
something man? Let's see, we've got a super chat from Trolo, Mexicano
five dollars. I missed the Ecumenists anti Acumenism stance. Too many people are
soft on these positions, just like people are soft on skittle stuff. Orthodox
and orthoseexuals have better things to do. May Mexico become Orthodox one day?
D watch Ah. Thank you Trolo. Well, Emmanuel, five dollars,
thank you for sharing first start in this Trinity series. Thank you appreciate that.
Well, Emmanuel. Food for Stephen Hawkeyes one dollar. Fundamental method of
pedagogy is to not compromise on matters of truth and dogma. Roman Catholics play
stupid like they don't know that a pope can't pray in a mosque. Would
any Roman Catholic agree to call their libtard family a member? Well, you
could point you could, you could point out that when they do the two
quoquay, because every time you bring this up to do a two quoqua where
they'll say, well, but you you guys do the same stuff. Oh,
so you're admitting that it's wrong. And you're correct that there are Orthodox
bishops that do this and it's also wrong and apostasy and heresy. I agree.
But by the fact that you're admitting that it's Orthodox doing the same sin,
you're admitting that it's wrong. So that means that you can't have loopholes.
You see, So that cuts two ways history. Did you want to
try? Yeah, hello, can you hear me? Yeah? So something
I have long time, long time listener. But I'm actually just curious,
and I know you've I'm positive you've talked about it, but had some difficulty
actually finding any discussions you had about it, what your perspective is on not
specifically Melkites as a part of a Catholic Church. I'm under the assumption that
you believe it's a theologically schizophrenic position. Am I correct in that? Yeah?
Yeah, yeah, And I understand that part of it. But I
was actually curious about, like your perspective on pragmatic intercommunion under subjugation of other
like like like in the Middle East, for example, where the Melkites are
from, there's a long history of historic intercommunion from a pragmatic perspective, not
from any ecumenical perspective. Do you get what I'm saying. I'm kind of
kind of expect I mean, we did an interview with a guy a few
years ago who had left the Melkites, So you might look up Jay Dyer.
Comma, uh uhm, what was the name of that? Trying to
think of the name of that. Let me find it for former Union.
Is that what we called it. It's me and Lewis and the guy was
in the Melkite seminary. But we got into a lot of these issues and
details, and he knew all the history of Melkite stuff. So m hmm.
But I gotta find that Videoah. And just one more thing. I'm
sorry man in the Middle Zone, but well, I do think it's a
little interesting and I'd like to hear your I guess you expound on this a
little bit. Everyone kind of thinks it's used the Malkits as an opportunity for
at least the Roman Catholic Church, as an opportunity for further the union between
Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. But I kind of actually view it as because
of the awkward position that the Melkits are in, they're closer to being reunified
with Orthodoxy than ever bridging the gap between Orthodoxy and Rome. What do you
think of that? I don't know the internal status of all that. I
mean, the closest thing I would have is this I found the podcast.
I was like, of cour it's called from Catholic to Orthodox, how Eastern
Catholics are a death blow to Papism, And that was that guy was in
the UNI A seminary. I'm pretty sure, so you could you could check
that out and see what what he says. So I'm probably gonna head out
pretty soon. I'll go I'll do one more in verse, did not hard
go ahead and verse yet on mute man hikay, Sorry about that. Yeah,
I just had a quick question, so I can I am officially converted
on last Holy Saturday, and yeah, and then following that I was,
I went on kind of a big trip to multiple countries and recently so I
guess two Saturdays ago I was in a Russian church in Sammar Konduzbekistan, and
I unfortunately like missed communion because confession was done like midway through divine literagury.
So I was wondering, as a row corp, if you could plain that
and why that that tradition stands. I don't know. I mean, I
mean typically I think they just kind of give the option that it's it's early,
you're supposed to do it like the Saturday before, or you do it
in the morning early, or the priest gives kind of the last chance to
do it right before communion. I guess because some Russian people can't get there
on time. I don't know. Father Moses maybe could speak to this better
than me, I don't know. Oh, okay, I'll let I'll let
him answer if he's able to. Yeah's father, Moses, can you are
you able to answer that? I'm not actually sure where the father deacon Ananias,
are you able to? I don't know where that tradition comes from.
Why they why they do that? I know that, but sorry? What
was the specific question on that term? Why is it that sometimes in the
Russian circles of the Russian sphere, the church will offer a confession kind of
right before communion or at the beginning of the service. Oh, just practicalities
because we have to hear so many confessions. So there's a couple different ways
that it's done. Like in a bigger monastery or church where you have multiple
priests, sometimes what will happen is there'll be one priest who's actually designated to
hear the confessions all during the liturgy, and he'll actually like be out of
the altar basically hearing confessions all the way until basically the Great Entrance. There's
also a tradition within the church where after the priest receives Holy Communion, he'll
actually come out and give a homily. So instead of giving a homily off
after the gospel. They'll actually give a homily later on after they've received holy
communion, before the faith will receive holy communion, in which case, if
the main celebrating comes out to give the homily, sometimes the secondary priest will
go over to the confession and basically pick up any stragglers that weren't there at
the beginning of the liturgy. So this has more to do with larger parishes,
especially like in cities where people are traveling and also getting taking public transportation
in the morning to get the services, where you know, there can be
all kinds of things that happened at delay your entrance to getting church and whatnot.
They're originally in the church. The actual historical stance of the church was
if you were if you were not there by the time of the reading of
the Gospel, you could not receive holy communion, right that That is practice
in my own parents. Yeah, it's I think that one of the reasons
it became more lax was that because grandparents a lot of times were taking grandchildren
to the liturgy, and so they would have more difficulty getting them there on
time, and or parents and or in big cities, there's just so many
people, and a lot of times, you know, people wouldn't be able
to get there the night before to hear holy or to go to confession.
So uh again, these things which should always be viewed as abnormalities, you
know, and they're there. They are in the true sense of the word.
Any knomea based on factors such as the size of the parish, people
traveling the city, and other things. They shouldn't become the default. I've
been at places where that sort of stuff actually becomes the norm, and but
there's no reason for it. You know, it doesn't. It doesn't.
It doesn't bolster the faith of the community or make for a strong congregation.
It actually turns everything very lax and lucy goosey, and that's not healthier normal.
Thank you, uh for the people that were out. Here's the talk
that I did too on Ezekiel one to ten. So if you want,
if you want to go deeper into these ego passages, we did a whole
podcast on that probably three or four years ago. All Right, I'm pretty
tired and we're gonna go hang out and do stuff. Jamie and I so
thank you guys for joining me. And I want to remind you everybody to
head on over to the event bright link. Head over to this event bright
link right here and get take us to our June twenty second event with Jim
Bob and Isaac Vaishop and Jamie my wife. We're gonna have a lot of
fun. It's not too late. Be sure to get your tickets right there
June twenty second. It's a six hour epic event and there's the link to
get that. You can also if you're watching this later. The link is
in the show description. It's also on my Twitter and let's see no edit
quest three dollars Pope, friends. The statements are a good rebuttal to the
intention argument, in other words, like we don't know the pope's intention for
praying in the moss. Maybe it's to convert people. No it's not,
Pope, says the Pope says quote it is not listed to convince them of
your faith. Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism. Should
you convince people to become Catholic? No, no, no, says Pope
France. Those are quotes from Francis exactly. Think you know what request ricky
three dollars, mister clean. That guy was convinced that we are indoctrinated into
prior He is correct that we are indoctrinated into prioritizing the trying God exactly,
biscuit heead ten dollars, ten dollars, thank you for all that you do.
You help me and my family become catechumens at the parish. Can you
explain how TAG is different from the fallacy from the consequent We did a whole
podcast on that with a father, Deacon had Ayas. I think it was
one of our first or second podcasts. Uh so we're kind of coming to
the end of the stream here. So but most of these questions, I
know, it's difficult to find because there's like a massive material. So when
people are like answer this and it's like, well, we did a podcast
on that four years ago, it's like, well but you can't find Yeah,
I know, you can blame the way the algo works here because it's
really hard to find these things. Oh wait, I think it might have
been covered in my stream. I know it is. It's my stream bad
Arguments against Tag. What did I title that? See, then it becomes
a game of me trying to remember what I named the streams five years ago,
six years ago. Arguments against TAG. Yeah, okay, so it's
either this one or the other one where I'm arguing against the objections objections to
TAG objections. I think it's called objections. Aha. So I remember one
of them was me in FDA. No, there's another one where I'm sitting
in my old apartment and I can't remember what I named it. Damn.
A lot of these would be relevant to it, even though they're not specifically
addressing that question. Okay, it's this is this stream, but this is
a clip from that stream. This isn't the actual stream here it is.
It's this one God's existence and transcendental arguments. So this is the first stream
that I did addressing objections. So there's that one, and then there's another
stream that we did addressing objections here. Now I was going to talk about
drake Man. I got so many tabs open that it's like the whole computer's
frozen something with it. And then I'm pretty sure we addressed a firm of
the consequence with FDA here. So if you don't see it in these three,
message me again, we don't accept it. Because anyway, thank you
guys, appreciate it. Let's see, I think we have a little bit
more. I think we have more superstresses. I know this is low tier
three. Do how is Jesus fully man if he wasn't conceived by an intercourse?
Well, he's fully man because he possesses a fully human nature that he
derived from his mother. So when we say man, we mean human nature.
He's not a human person, and so this presupposes the distinction between nature
and person. He's a divine person or subject because he's the second person of
the Godhead incarnate, and so the only subject or agent there is the divine
agency or divine agent or subject of the logos. So the human nature that
he assumed is body, mind, soul, and will, but not a
human person. Wouldn't this make him half man and half God. No,
he's one hundred percent man and one hundred percent God. I know this is
low tier three dollars. Easiest best church father work to start with, I
would start with on the Incarnation by Athanasius, and then I would read the
theological orations of Gregory nazian Zeus, and then I would move into other Cappadocians.
Craig Tiree ten dollars. Jay is living in a swamp like Shrek.
Yeah, actually the swamp is literally right next door. I do feel like
Shrek. Here's a tip for the Allergy Fund, Thank you. Yes,
that goes towards Manuka Honey delivery guide. One dollar are angel's energies? No,
Angels are created beings that also have an angelic nature and an angelic person
hood. So they're angelic beings or persons like Michael or Gabriel, and they
have a created energy proper to angelic nature. Humans have a created energy proper
to human nature. God has an energy proper to divine nature. In MidCap
three dollars, what do you think about Saint Nikolai Velimrovitch and a humanism?
He later repented of those things? Is my understanding? Mind? Had one
dollar? When is your next book? I'm trying to work on it.
It's just so much stuff is going it's hard to find time to write,
so I want to. I hope by the end of this year I can
finish it. Mila five. I got about one hundred hundred and fifty PA
just meal level five dollars. I was born into Orthodox I'm trying to learn
more. One thing that bothered me is what happens with good people born into
sex. I know you've spoken about this. Could you clarify more? Do
you mean why would God allow people to be born into those things? We
don't ultimately know all of God's unfathomable, you know, knowledge and decisions for
why He does what. Providentially, we know if we read the Book of
Job that basically what we come away with is that God has a sufficient reason
for why or we have those kinds of questions and issues, but God doesn't
have to tell us. And also through the dialogue of Job, we get
the impression that like God couldn't even explain it to us, right, like
why it's that way because we're finite, He's infinite, and so forth.
That's kind of the point at the end of Book of Job, jays Zuno
fifteen dollars. Since the Protestant can't justify the Biblical canon, is it safe
to say that whatever they interpret from the Bible lacks foundational truth? Like a
broken clock is correct twice a day analogy. I don't know if I would
say that they lack foundational truth, I would just say that it's inconsistent,
like the position is like it's like two conflicting positions at the same time.
So anything that they say that's true is true and has foundation, but they've
also got this other belief in position that's inconsistent with that, which is like,
you know, all the Protestant autonomous, I don't need a church,
I just automatically know the canon ideas. And I think that that's key to
Roman Catholicism too, because a lot of times when we bring these topics up,
when we point out a contradiction in Roman Catholic documents, many Roman Catholics
will run to some place where, oh, well, here's where a passage
where it says the Old Testament teaches the Trinity, and they're missing the point
that we're not saying that you're tradition doesn't have a lot of true statements.
We're saying that there's these conflicting statements that don't make sense. Right, if
the Old Testament teaches the Trinity, and if the Old Testament saints believe in
worship the Trinity, that's inconsistent with the other proposition in Vatican two is Lumagentium
sixteen and Nos fortate that Muslims and Jews all worship the same generic God that's
not trinitarian. So you see, it's like there's conflicting things. That's the
point. Not do they say a lot of true things. You see,
they'll often run to, well, here's a quote over here where it says
what you're saying.