The the the the the the the the All right, what's up? Everybody?
Welcome. We're having fun with constant streaming. Like I said, I
was getting in the mode, the attitude, the mood to do it every
day. So we're gonna test that. I'll see how consistent I can stick
to it. As you can see, I'm in a very nasty, mean
mode today. I told you I was gonna be full of love in twenty
twenty four. It's gonna be the year love. It's gonna be the year
of love. Like Matthew McConaughey and I tricked you all, It's not the
year of love. It's the year of Cowbrack Mandon. We're going to stop
the rolling Catholics. Cobra. So I got my Cobra shirt on. Bro,
What're you gonna do about that? Ah, somebody's gonna clip this and
be like, look, he's wearing a say to any shirt exposed, who's
bosed Cobra the Federal Reserve? Remember the Cobra episode about Federal Reserve dude Cobra.
Cobra was based and red pilled before any about everybody, anybody was There's
a whole episode about how Cobra tells everybody that the Federal Reserve is fake money,
one hundred percent serious. And he says, people of America, your
government's a lightened to you. Your currency is worthless, and then he's going
to replace it with Cobra currency, which by the way, is actually better
than the shit coin known as the US dollar. So here we are represent
red Pilled based Cobra Commander in the house. By the way, Yo,
Joe, shit, Joe, give me a break, dude. Joe's over
here with Globo skittles, right, Joe's over here trying to put freaking Lady
Jane on the front lines to be in special operations. Get that out of
here, dude, Although I guess technically Cobra did that too, because the
baroness is on the front lines of fighting the black ops for Cobra bo.
You know what I'm saying. Whatever, in my mind, if Cobra calls
out fell a reserve, he's basing red Pill and Joe is like freaking cupped
fighting for the Fiat dollar and fighting for Hasbro and Mattel and Subway to have
franchises and all the other. So there we go. So let's get into
it today. Today I felt like it was another perf sort of springboard to
talk about the issues that we've talked about many times, and yet it still
doesn't seem to sink in. As you know, I think maybe a year
year and a half ago, we had a pretty intense in an intellectual sense.
There was nothing uncivil about it. Everybody, remember I was perfectly nice
in the debate with Trent over natural theology. Now we're not going to revisit
everything about that debate. We're gonna pick some of the elements of that debate
that maybe haven't been clearly communicated or haven't sunk in, so to speak.
Now, let's see, let me get the link for y'all, because I'm
actually we're actually live. If you want to call in, we always have
open form. We will after we go through some of this material, I'll
open it up to where the heck is it at? Well, we'll open
it up for questions, comments and debates. Here. It is right here.
So let me give you guys the link. Here's the link to the
open Twitter spaces forum in the chat right here. If you want to call
in, you can right there, and I'll add it to the show description.
Because everybody always nobody ever checks show descriptions. Ever, every link is
always in the show descriptions, and then people come and they're like, you
call in, what do how do just do? What is this what you
talk about? It's in the show description lazy moons. So a lot of
things h that we discuss in the Trent debate have not sunk in. In
fact, around the top of that debate, I mentioned triad in passing and
Trent didn't know what I was talking about. Well, unfortunately, Trent still
hasn't figured out what triad means, which tells us a lot. And I'm
not being mean, but it tells us that Trent isn't familiar with the basics
of Eastern Trinitarian theology. But that's not surprising given the way that the majority
of the Roman Catholic apologetic is really just trying to prove the papacy. As
we've seen over and over and over, and if you didn't see last night's
livestream, we did a great breakdown of the Voice of Reason versus Luigi debate
where Luigi and I for two hours broke down that whole exchange. But you'll
notice here Trent says it's a false dilemma I asked if in the Old Testament
they knew that God was a trinity, a Jewish multiplicity in the Godhead could
be akin to proto arianism. No, it's not proto arianism. I mean,
it could be all kinds of things. But the point is not whether
first second century Jews had some kind of minitarianism or multiple The question is does
the Old Testament teach a triad? And then he says, you even use
the word triad to describe it, but you'd say that modern people that worship
triad Jehovah's witnesses, what are not worshiping the true God? So and somehow
in his mind triad means arianism. I don't know where he got this,
never heard this, and it just shows me that from a year and a
half two years ago, whenever we had our natural theology debate, he still
hasn't understood anything about Orthodox Trinitarian theology. So it's kind of I guess it's
not surprising, but I hope that we would see some progress there. No
trent the word triad if you look it up on any public explanation site.
Even chat GPT knows that the word triad that is just the Orthodox term for
Trinity. I mean, in fact, Gregor Palomas has a book called The
Triads and it's about the Triad and about the energies. It's a common term.
Okay, there's nothing weird. There nothing inherently arian about the term.
So no idea where he got this. But I'm not trying to be mean.
It just shows that he doesn't know the position. He doesn't understand Old
Testament theology, and to be fair, a lot of people in the Roman
Catholic natural theology tradition don't understand it. Trent seems to think that the Old
Testament teaches a Unitarian deity. And he thinks this, as I pointed out
many many times since our debate, because he said it in the debate.
He thinks that. He thinks that partly because that's part of the natural theology
argumentation. If you read, for example, Suma Countries in Tlace one,
Quitas will reference these types of arguments. That's the five volume series that he's
written against the Pagans and the Heathens. So it's an apologetic from natural theology
to prove quote monotheism. And what we learn is that Aquinas thinks that the
Trinity is a revelation that's rather new because of the fact that it's a New
Testament Gospels, and then Church Father revelation. And so he makes this argument
that God first reveals himself as a kind of generic monat or unity in the
Old Testament, a Unitarian type of revelation, and then it moves to trinity
and incarnation. And this is very common in a lot of natural theological argumentation.
And if we look at nostra Atate, which is the famous Vatican two
document dealing with acumenism, it clearly presents Acumenism on the basis of a type
of common denominator lowest common denominator natural theology explication. For example, we read
that the Muslims, we're gonna use Muslims because they're a better example. Uh,
scroll past the Muslims, or isn't it? The Church regards with esteem
the Muslims. They adore the one God living and subsisting in himself. So
you'll notice the reference here is to a Unitarian presupposition that we share in common
with the Muslims. The Creator who of heaven and earth, who has spoken
to men and takes pain to submit to his indisputable decrees as Abraham within the
faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself submitted to God. So you'll notice
here the natural theology presupposition here is that we, together with Muslims, share
a common Abrahamic faith. This is why the Abrahmic Faith Center is the commonality
between Roman Catholics and Muslims and Jews. Allah. Pope Francis is Abu Dhabi
Center. That's based on the accords that he signed with the Imam. Remember
a few years ago when Francis signed those accords that God wills all of the
religions to exist, and people say, oh, what does that mean?
Does he want false religions? And then all the defenders of Pope Francis said,
it just means that in God's providence he wills them. But then we
saw as the conspiracy there has said that we are vindicated because it turns out
no, the Abu Dhabi Faith Center was always intended to be built as an
acumenist presub position that we all worship quote the same God. So remember the
Abu Dhabi Faith Center, which is totally apostasy, is premised on this.
It's the Vatican two perennialist natural theology, and we're gonna see why it's perennialist
in a minute, and then we're going to contrast this with actual biblical theology.
And as everybody on this channel knows, with all of the multiple Muslim
debates that we've done since twenty eighteen with the top Muslims, all of them
except one top Muslim, muhammedad Jobs the only one we haven't debated, we'd
better all the other ones. What have we learned? They use natural theology
to argue to a generic Unitarian Allah, exactly the same presubpositions that Trent has,
exactly the same presuppositions as what is here in no stratate. Now,
first element that we see that's a problem here is that the Old Testament does
not teach a generic unit trying God. And Paul says very clearly, for
example in relations that you're not the seat of Abraham because you acknowledge quote Unitarianism.
Does Paul say that their monotheistic Abrahamic faiths because they recognize quote monotheism.
Absolutely not. That's nowhere in the text. It's not even in the Old
Testament. As we're going to see, it's an assumption that natural theology proponents
make. And to be clear, people are going to say, you mean
there's no natural theology. You don't think there's a theology of nature. Natural
theology is defined in Pope John Paul's cyclical feed Us at Ratio as the specific
philosophizing about God and proving his existence. Quote, apart from any reference to
divine revelation. Go get the Dictionary of Natural Theology, of which William Lane
Craig I think is the editor. The first chapter is on natural theology.
William Lane Craig, for the Protestant defines it exactly the same way as Jean
paula second does. And this is why Vladimir Lowski, for example, says,
we don't do natural theology the way these people do, because, as
Father Steinielois says in Volume one or Orthodox Dogmatics, the first two pages,
it's better to call it natural revelation in the Orthodox view, and that's not
what natural theology is. Natural theology is this lowest common denominator, generic theism,
based around the idea that because there's some shared predicates or attributes, that
is therefore the same reference. And we're gonna see that that's false. Even
though we could say, for example, in certain texts in the New Testament.
Trent mentioned one in some of his tweets, We're gonna look at Act
seventeen and we're gonna say, wait a minute, Actually, AC seventeen doesn't
actually back up the natural theology argumentation. Actually an Act seventeen backs up our
position, And so it was surprising to me that he cited it, And
I'm guessing he didn't really get the whole force of the passage, because when
Paul says that the God that you worship as the unknown God is the true
God, the point of that passage is that he's the unknown. So it's
odd to me that Trent thought that was a passage that would explain that the
Pagans know God when Paul calls him the unknown God. So it's a kind
of a paradox, you could say, were Paul's saying that the one that
you think you know that you call unknown is the true God because you don't
know him, and then Trent's trying to turn that into the opposite of what
actually says, as if it means that you know the unknown God. No,
no, it doesn't mean that. And by the way, we have
to be clear, and I think Father Deacon and Aias and I did a
discussion on this here. You'll notice this was twenty twenty one. We covered
the doctor Gariby paper called Caultheistic Fallacies, and I referenced this in the Trent
debate. Trent claimed that he had at one time read the paper, but
he didn't remember it. I don't think that he still has understood the argumentation
of this paper, because the paper, as we're going to see, points
out what we call the quantifier shift fallacy, which underlies a lot of the
natural theology argumentation and presuppositions. So we'll get to that here in a minute,
and i'll talk about the Garbye paper and I kind of give an overview
of it as well, because once again we're back to all the stuff that
we talked about, you know, two three years ago, and we're also
going to walk through a lot of the texts in the Old Testament. Now.
I did a talk of four or five years ago responding to who is
that goofy guy, mister mister something. Remember him? He was like a
long haired philosophy dude, and then he decided that he wasn't libertarian conspiracy guy
anymore. He became quote a Greek Orthodox Arian, and he tried to gaslight
everybody into saying that the Orthodox Church is Arian. It's like, what are
you talking? No clue to what that goes, mister E something like that.
I can't even remember his name, but I did a four hour talk
like four or five years ago. Not, that's what I said, mister
mister, take these broken o wise and learn to fly again. Learn to
live, Sophie. And when we hear the Roman heretics scene the Book of
Love, open up and let everybody into Heaven through nuts with theology. No,
not mister mister rocking, mister E, that was it. That's the
Aryan dude. He prompted the four hour video that I did five years ago
walking through the Trinity in the Old Testament. Now, guess what. Since
that time, I had not read the recent Jewish scholarship admitting the multiplicity in
the Old Testament. I have reread the Old Testament since that time, including
multiple rereadings of the Book of Isaiah and Ezekiel and the Psalms and Judges and
Genesis. And it turns out I missed a ton of triadic references the last
go round. So I've found dozens more, literally dozens more of triadic references
that I missed five years ago. So I'm gonna try to I don't know
how we could do that. That would actually take a whole lecture series,
right, Literally, you should do triad in the Old Testament as a whole
course. Ideally, that's how it should be done, because you would need
to go deep into Genesis. There's multiple references in general, even in Genesis
that I missed. I mean, there's the Theophanes are part of this too,
you see. So it's not just does is there a text that says
Yahweh his angel and spirit. It's also the Theophanes. And in fact,
in the Summer's book, which was really crucial to the Daniel Kikikachu debate,
we saw Summers going through what he called fluidity in the Old Testament. Yahweh
exemplifies fluidity in the ways that he can manifest himself, and so actually throughout
that book, even though he's a modern Jewish scholar, he's basically admitting Theophanes
multiple hypostaces, even says that it's his argumentation is akin to the way that
Trinitarian Christians speak of the hypostasis, and it's like, you read this book
and you're like, okay, well, mister Jewish man, why would you
not be a Christian if you admit all this exactly exactly? And we're going
to look at some of that. But I just want to remind you guys
that we did cover the Garibie paper in detail here and you can go watch
it right here if you want to go watch that discussion later. Yeah,
so people are saying that they watched that old video many many times. Well,
guess what again, I missed I missed the munch And this is why
the Bible is a book that's so profound in deep that you you have to
constantly reread it because you're you're there's always things that you're gonna miss. And
really, movies and literature works this way. Movies work this way, right,
I mean there's movies that I watched and you know, maybe I've seen
it three times, and then I watched it the fourth time and I'm like,
how did I miss that? That was crazy? That was like a
huge, you know, symbolic scene that I missed that was super important.
And it's the same way with reading and the other reason the Bible works that
way. Is it is? You know, the Bible is a bunch of
little books in one big book, and so the more that you imbibe sections
of the book, they're going to cross reference to other sections of the big
book, you see. So because it's a holistic, unified thing, sometimes
it's called I think canonical interpretation, meaning that we interpret specific sections, paragraph
chapters in light of the whole Bible, and we have a presupposition of narrative
continuity from Jenna to Revelation. Right, so you're going to be reading parts
that later jive with and harmonize with other parts, and you might not pick
up on details until you go deeper and deeper into that text and read it
through five, ten, twenty one hundred times, right, I mean there
could be a lot. Somebody told me Garby is not I don't know what
Gary Beery's views are, but I think Father de can email them. But
anyway, so I don't know what his views are. I've heard somebody said
he was Orthodox, then somebody said no, he's Catholic, and then somebody
said no he's not. He's Jewish. So I don't know what his views
are. But regardless, it's just a paper critiquing natural theology, and it's
a really well written paper, and it basically points out a lot of fallacies,
like the quantifier shift fallacy, like the ambiguity that's involved in references in
terms of intentional contexts. Right, so just because the same word is used,
it doesn't necessarily get us to the same reference, right, and so
kind of like the word concept fallacy. And I would argue that a lot
of natural theology trades on a a version of bait and switch. Where if
a Muslim says I believe in God, I believe in one God. If
a Satanist says I believe in one God, a theistic Satanist scientologist says I
believe there's one God somehow, and a Christian says I believe in one God.
Well, they all believe in one God, so therefore they believe in
the same God. That's called the quantifier shift fallacy, and it's basically saying
that you're shifting the quantity reference there So because we all have one mother,
right, all humans have one mother, Well, we all have the same
mother. And everybody can see how that's a fallacy. It's the exact same
move in natural theology. Other problem is of course, well there's many,
but there's not a lowest common denominator list of attributes that necessarily gives you the
true God if you remove essential attributes. For example, Muslims remove essential attributes.
And I don't know if maybe again the Roman Catholic apologists may not know
this, but there's multiple attributes that Allah does not have that we believe God
has. For example, Allah does not have sons. Well, we believe
that we're God's sons. We believe that Jesus, the son of God.
Well, Allah doesn't have a son, as the Quran says, so he's
not a father, is the point. Okay. We believe that God is
quote unquote the person of the Father eternally generating a son. Okay, well
that's fundamentally not the Muslim Muslim beut thing. And Allah is not imminent,
Okay. If for most quote Christians, they believe in divine eminence and divine
transcendence, Muslims do not believe Allah is iminent. He's not present in the
world. So you start to realize that things that we assume are kind of
fundamental attributes are not fundamental. They're denied in Islam. So for removing things
that are quote fundamental, How can the reference be the same. And you
might say, well, the reference is the same in the sense of the
individual intending to hit upon that thing, that God. So if a Muslim
says I believe in one God and they intend it to be say, for
example, the God of Abraham, there might be an intention in that reference,
and yet it's still be wrong. You see how that works there.
This is why you could say, in one sense they know God. In
another sense, they don't know God. And that's what Paul does in Romans
want So it's not a contradiction. It's two different senses of the word knowing,
and a lot of times Roman Catholics will kind of trade on the equivocating
and confusing of these two senses of knowing. One is a direct relational worship
aspect, the other is a kind of intellectual knowledge of right. So if
you read a letter about me, you say, I know that Jay guy
wrote that letter about him, but you don't know me. You haven't had
an intimate personal encounter with me. That's a different type of knowing. Just
like for example, the Bible says so and So knew his wife, Adam
knew his wife Eve. That's talking about an intimacy of sexual relations beyond just
intellectual rational knowledge of a thing. So already we can see that the word
knowing isn't always just one sense of a conceptualizing. And so the problem is
not does a Jew or a Muslim have a abstract conception, actual reference of
God the Father or a God, right, because Jews might say, well,
I believe in God the Father, and a Muslim might say I believe
in one God, the all Powerful or something like that. Right, But
is that quote enough to show that they submit to and worship the One True
God. No, it's not. That's the point here, and that's why
when it says the Church regards to the esteem the Muslims, they adore the
One God, the Creator and submit wholeheartedly to his inscrutable degrees like Abraham.
No they don't. So this is moving beyond an abstracted reference to one predicate
or attribute of God, which we could say is true to now saying no,
they have an intimate relationship with that quote God by being part of the
quote Abrahemic faith. There is no Abrahemic faith outside of Jesus and the Trinity.
And that's why Orthodox apologists in Orthodox dogmatics in Orthodox theology has always said,
if you look at the rube Lev Icon, it teaches you our view,
It teaches you what Abraham was up to. I mean, many of
us have seen Sam Schimun debate Muslims. Right, whether you're Protestant, Orthodox
or Catholic. How does Sam Schimun go about debating all those Muslims when it
comes to Moses in the Prophets. Oh, it's the same way that I
debate, and it's revolving around who was Moses Jesus, I mean Moses and
Abraham having meals with Every Orthodox person knows from this icon it's a triadic relationship
in the Old Testament. And no, it doesn't mean that the Father's incarnate
as an angel. It means that the Logos is there as the Lord a
with two angels, and so it's symbolic of the Trinity. But it's actually
one of the hypostaces of the Trinity in a theophany that's Orthodox one oh one.
So every Orthodox person in Orthox one oh one knows by this icon that
the Old Testament is triadic and not unitarian. This is Orthodox one oh one.
And yet we have Trent saying today, let me find the original,
the original comment that sparked all this off again. I got it saved here.
I think it's this one. Hmm. See, I don't know why
it doesn't want to show up. Oh, it's because it's hold on.
I'm gonna have to do a screenshot of it and redo it. You'll see
here. So this is what Trent said today a few hours ago, and
again illustrates everything that I've been arguing. I mean to do that. Okay,
here it is. So here's what Trent says. Yes, Muslims and
Christians adore the One merciful God. So you notice he's using the language of
Vatican too, the language of no stratate adoration. Adore. That's worship that's
more than a mere abstracted intellectual knowledge of one of the divine attributes, such
as Jews saying God is a father, or muslim saying God is the all
powerful or something. Okay, this is now in the realm of adore.
We saw that Nora Tate used the terminology of let's go back to tat here,
adore submit to same faith as Abraham, the faith of Islam, the
faith of Abraham. Submitted to God. Although they don't acknowledge Jesus as God,
they revere him as a prophet. Yeah, that's called arianism. I
mean, it's a form of arianism. So you'll notice it's like they come
up with this sort of scale of world religions here, Well, they get
like a a B minus on their view of Mary, who's a virgin,
they get a B plus because they call Jesus a prophet. It doesn't work
like that. You understand that it only takes one error on, for example,
a divine attribute to cancel out that being that deity. And we know
this because, for example, how does Basil argue with the Eunomians think of
Unitarianism or Islam as basically very similar to Eunomianism. Eunomia said that father,
Son, and Spirit are really just appellations of the simple essence, and that
the son, whatever that is, is really just some other ontological creation.
He was even more radical than the Arians. Okay, so essentially Eunomianism is
the same unitarian theology as Islam. If you saw the Jake doctor Branson debate,
Jake, for example, utilize the Eunomian premise to try to make doctor
Branson into a Unomian. So here we have Muslims utilizing argumentation. Now Basil
engages an extensive argumentation with Eunomius, as does Saint Gregor Nissa. You can
go read Basils against Eunomius. It's about two hundred pages. Nissa Is against
Eunomius is about eight hundred. But is there any trace in any of that
whereby Basil thinks that they worship the same god? Of course not, of
course not. So you see that the whole edifice is built on tricks like,
well, we use the same word Muslims revere Abraham. So what that's
not good enough? And the bait and switch comes when it's not just saying
do they have an intellectual assent to or concept of one of the divine attributes?
The trick comes when they slip from acknowledging that a pagan might have a
knowledge, might have a sent to or belief in one, say, say
one attribute, Like a pagan says, I believe in Zeus is the all
powerful. Okay? Does that then mean that he worships the one true God
because he gets one attribute? Right? You see that? You see that
fallacious move because it moves from intellectual knowledge to relational adoration of God. That's
a worship term. So for all of their sort of casustrie and sophistry.
They might get out of this if they were to restrict all these statements to
like conceptual knowledge, but they don't that it can do one even further,
as far as I'm aware, there is a medieval statement. There's a letter
between uh, maybe one of the sultans in a pope. I forget the
letter on the top of my head. It's cited I think in Vatican two.
When Vatican two, it might even be cited in the notes to notes
for Tadi, one of the back in two texts which promotes this idea that
Muslims and Christians works at the same God. It refers back to this I
don't know. I want to say, like thirteenth century letter between a sultan
and a pope, and the letter says something like, well, since you
and I, you know, adore the one true God of Abraham, can
we not come to blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah, but we don't
worship the same God because there's common referen and it's very easy to show that
that's not the case. But you'll notice very clearly that I mean, just
let's just step back from this for a moment and think about the fact that,
okay, this is the same rob we got the church that called for
crusades against Islam. Crusades, okay, urban the Second Crusades. And now,
oh oops, sorry, we've been finding these religious wars and thinking for
centuries that these were the bad guys. It turns out now actually they worshiped
the same God as us. Oh my bad. Sorry, all that trinity
stuff. What a bunch of obnoxious, annoying theological minutia to get into trinity
and deity of Christ and you know, all this stuff that you mean that
what Jesus talks about, no one comes to the Father but through me.
And yet now we have open acceptance and promotion of the acumenist idea on the
part of the Vatican that no, actually you can approach the Father without Jesus,
and the Muslims do it very well because they adore the one God.
Now just think how silly this is when we understand doctor Branson's lectures. And
this is what Trent doesn't understand. This is another huge element the monarchy of
the Father. They are not even aware. I mean, there are to
be fair some Roman Catholic texts that will admit the principal role of the Father
as the source. But what you see here in Vatican Two's document is an
exemplification of what I think is a rival tradition within the Latin West of that
absolute divine simplicity, the assumption that I can reason to an absolutely simple essence
on the basis of certain attributes apart from Trinity, apart from Jesus, apart
from fathers and Holy Spirit, I can get generic simplicity, omniscience, omnipotence,
one noncomposite. Those are all the natural theology attributes that I can somehow
get to apart from divine revelation through reason alone. Okay, do you understand
people don't even understand what natural theology is. First of all, they think
it's If you remember the debate, Trench shifted between about three different senses of
what he thought natural theology was. He thought, using apologetic arguments at all
was quote natural theology. No, no, no, no. And I
even sent to him before the debate the very definition of what we would be
debating. John Paul the Second's definition of natural theology in feed us at ratio
that it's reasoning about God apart from divine revelation. William Lane craig Dictionary of
Natural Theology has exact same definition, So between Protestants and Roman Catholics, there's
no dispute as to what natural theology is. So natural theology is not using
reason at all. It's not using logic, it's not using evidences. None
of those things are the definition of natural theology, which is what we were
debating. And Trent said, well, if you're using reasoning at all,
that's natural theology. No it's not. That's why I defined what we're debating,
and you agreed to that definition in the emails. So natural theology is
again premised on the assumption that because there's some things in common, then the
reference is the same, and the intention of the reference might be the same,
but that doesn't mean that the individual has therefore established a personal relationship with
that reference just because they even have the intention the same. And I gave
the example of let's say that I give you a list I buried treasure I
have. I was gonna say gold, I was gonna bitcoaiin, but let's
say gold. Okay, I buried twenty five bars of gold, and I
buried it in the Promised Land. And I'm gonna give you some other clues.
It's you're gonna go into a wooded area and it's it's off the beaten
path. And if you go to the Promised Land and you search in the
basement of a building, you're gonna this twenty five bars of gold buried there.
And you say, aha, I have some good ideas. And even
if I don't know for sure, it's worth it to spend the next two
years flying. I'm gonna fly over to Israel. I'm gonna search for all
all the basements in wooded areas outside of the city. And you go and
you search, and you search, and you come back five years later after
searching. It's been you said, Jay, you you told me. You
told me that the Promised Land was was where you buried your twenty five bars
of gold and in the prospector. Now it's Nick Cage on his National Next
National Treasure Event Adventure. Right. He says, Jay, I went to
the Promised Land. I search every freaking basement. Okay, there's no gold
buried in any basement in Israel. And I said, ah, nick Nick,
my friend, Yes, even though you had the intention, the correct
intention, to go to the reference that I had that I gave you,
my friend, I meant the Promised Land Christian bookstore down the road from where
I live. So you noticed that he had the right intention to go for
what I intended. The reference was identically Promised Land. But the reference was
wrong even though he had the right intention. So just because a Muslim has
the intention that his predicates that his sentences match up to the one quote True
God. If Jesus tells us that the one true God is reached through him
and only through him, then adoring one attribute is not enough is the point.
And if that's the case, then this whole edifice of natural theology falls
apart. Furthermore, as Garabie argues forcefully at the beginning of the paper,
he completely takes Richard Swinburn to task, because Richard Swinburn claims to be Orthodox,
some sort of convert from Tomism, and Richard Swinburn thinks that there's a
lowest common denominator of attributes where you just list out about ten of them,
and that's the one true God that we all share in common, and that
therefore we could build a sort of a cumunist dialogue off of that. However,
the perennialist John Hick I think, if I remember, he makes the
argument that we'll wait a minute, why does do those attributes have to get
you to the commonality between Christians, Jews and Muslims that somehow leads you into
Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Why wouldn't the commonality speak to a perennialist true
religion which is more universal over those three you see. In other words,
it's a non sequitor to say that it necessitates you to move into either Judaism,
Christianity or Islam because there's commonalities. When if you say that there's commonalities
the real true religion you could eat just as easily argue. Is the perennialist
commonalities the lowest common denominator? And by the way, why is it only
the common denominator ones that Swinburne lists. Maybe there's five attributes that's the real
lowest common denominator. Do you see how silly this is? Then we could
get into the the point that I made to Trent again. Well, now
wait a minute, if all it takes is the same intended reference of a
quote unified deity. Then it seems to follow that if a Christian, if
a scientologist, and a theistic Satanist all say I worship one deity, then
they all worship the same deity. But that again is the quantifier shift pallacy,
as I pointed out right here. So do we see how all of
these moves don't work, and they're all premised not actually, I mean,
I think sometimes people are making mistakes about genuinely wanting to understand this or that
verse. I mean I used to believe in natural theology at one time too.
I thought, okay, maybe Thomas Aquinas is right, and you know,
the thomasig position has a good account of that. So I thought these
things as well. So I understand the thinking process. But what really got
me out of all this was number one, of course, orthodox theology,
but even understanding it in a more clear way getting into anti Islamic apologetics.
And I'm gonna let Father Deacon's gonna join us here in a minute. We're
gonna open it up here in a minute. But let's go back to my
opening statement to Daniel Haikikachu in our debate, and keep in mind that the
very arguments that I'm making against Daniel are the same arguments that I'm making against
and is natural theology? How is this not like obvious and mind blowing to
people that natural theology is false? I mean, look, what do we
say to Daniel. Let's go back to It's not that long. We're gonna
play this and comment on it. This was the opening statement, because remember
Daniel's argument was, I mean I went I think I went first. But
his argument is going to be that the the religion of the Old Testament prophets.
That was the premise of our debate. Is the is the religion of
Moses the prophets unitarian or trinitarian? That was the premise of art. Who's
the incontinuity with the prophets is amor Christianity. So let's listen to some of
this debate, and we're gonna look at what Jewish scholarship nowadays admits today seventh
century jewre Christian and verify the Quran claims. In the Koran many places where
told that it's Heros and readers should go to the Torah into the in Deal
or the Gospel. This assumes a degree of continuity which could only be validated
with the existing manuscript, scripts and textual traditions that are already possessed by both
Jews and Christians in the previous centuries. As laid down in a divine revelation
in Deuteronomy thirteen and eighteen, any subsequent prophetic revelation must meet the test of
consistency with prior revelation. This here would refer to the prior existing Torah,
whether oral or written, including a subsequent divine revelation found in the Wisdom taxt
the historical books, liturgical texts, and the major and minor prophets. Islam
and the Qur'an do not merely contradict prior revelation in a few minor areas,
but rather gigantic portions of the Torah and the profits are discarded due to obvious
contradictions, in accuracies, and inconsistencies with the chronic account Deuteronomy thirteen and eighteen.
Now you're gonna be might be one. I must get past the Deuteronomy
text because they're not that relevant to the continuity. I'm going to move on
to this next slide. If you're wondering why I'm playing this, it's again
to stress and I mentioned this in the debate with Trent. I Remember I
said, Trent, how do you how do you argue against Muslims? Like
have you not had I don't know. If maybe he hasn't had any Muslim
debates, I don't know. But if you do begin to have Muslim debates,
you're gonna learn very quickly that the best way to undercut Islam is to
point out that the Old Testament is not Unitarian, Trent, So if you're
gonna have the same presuppositions as the Muslim and Muslims believe in natural theology.
By the way, just like Roman Catholics, do you already have surrendered a
tremendous refutation of Islam by pointing out that the Old Testament is triadic and all
about Jesus. And that's not a Christian reinterpolation of the Old Testament. That's
the intention of the Old Testament itself, not a quote rabbinical book and the
Jewish scholarship. By the way, that I mentioned in my opening statement,
guess what it points out about rabbinical theology. The strict Unitarian enforcement on Judaism
is a late rabbinical mandate. We're talking my monodies. Now, that doesn't
mean that no Jewish rabbinical texts prior to my monodies were Unitarian, but it
means that there was a lot of dispute, discussion, debate about in what
way and how Yahweh was quote fluid you could say, in Somers's text or
multiple and there were different ideas on this. Okay, there was benitarianism.
There was a kind of trinitarianism, and we'll see that here in a minute
in my opening statement. And you're gonna notice how devastating this is to Trent's
presupositions, because he has the same presuppositions in that. The next thing that
has to be shown, which I may cause some people some surprise, is
that the Old Testament prophets were trinitarian. They were not Unitarian. Judaism specifically
in the Second Temple period was not a monolithic Unitarian enterprise. The question becomes,
what are the teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament? Did they
actually teach as Isem says, a radical unitarianism or is it something more fluid
or is there differentiation in Yahweh? In fact, modern Jewish scholarship unanimously is
undecided on this question. There's a lot of Jewish scholarship that is listed here.
For example, Daniel Boylaren later I have Summer and I have a Siegel,
and they admit that in the Old Testament itself not due to Christian deviation.
But in the Old Testament itself, we find many, many passages that
show differentiation in Yahweh. That differentiation is not just located in rabbinic debates.
It also continues into later medieval debates with Jewish Kabbalah. And you could see
there. For example, Gurse Sholam in his book on kabala he's the respected
cabalist theologian to the Middle Ages, or a scholar of medieval kabbala He points
out, for example, to be three beginningless lights that are mentioned. Now,
I'm not a cabalist. I'm just pointing out that this shows that the
Jewish tradition. Yeah, and by the way, so I'm sure that the
right wing goobers are going to freak out here and clip me like they did
last time and say he's a gobbist who's promoting No, I'm not a cabalist.
Okay. The only reason I'm referencing the Kabbalistic debates are precisely because cabalistic
rabbinical scholars we're trying to figure out in what way God is multiple just showing
that there were rabbinical debates even into the Middle Ages about this very question.
That's the only point I'm making. And then a bunch of liars are like,
well, Luke, see he's promoting Cabalism. No, did you know?
Kabbalism, according to Sholom, is just neo platanism and gnosticism in Judaism.
That's all it is. Now, that's a broad term platonism and gnosticism.
It doesn't mean that all of the discussions that they were having were quote
gnostic and neoplatonic. It just means that it's similar, and they were borrowing
the models and structures of Neoplatonism and so forth to try to make sense of
in what ways God manifests himself in the world. Now, sometimes the cobblists
got into these crazy magical texts, superstitions. Sometimes they got into these weird
ideas that evil is good and good as evil. Yes, I'm aware of
all of that in Cablism. I knew about that twenty years ago. But
that's not the point that I'm making here in this argument. The point is
just simply to say that this shows us that Judaism was not a monolithic Unitarian
system even into the Middle Ages. This really begins with my Monodies and his
attention to make it strictly unitarian. Okay, And even in his day there's
debate like Nachmanides, who is the Kabalist rabbi versus my Monodes, who is
the rationalist unitarian Arisitilian rabbi. Even at that time they're still debating, okay.
So it takes a long time for Judaism to be strictly, explicitly hardcore
Unitarian, and that undercuts the Muslim and natural theology argumentation that the Old Testament
was unitarian and early Jewish Christian debates were trinitarian versus Unitarian. No they weren't.
That's the point, and it's very important to point this out because now
it undercuts not just Islam, but the stupid argument of the natural theologian proponents
who argued that the Old Testament unitarian. That's the whole point of this argument.
And this is not me making this is recent normative Jewish scholarship. We
are in Seagull Summers they're all Jewish, they're all rabbinical teachers. It's not
monolithic in his presentation. So I'd like to come back then to my screen
to me here and point out that the first display of Trinitarian theology and along
of the prophets is, for example, here on this whiteboard. And I'm
showing this whiteboard because hopefully you guys can see this. This is a tremendous
amount of texts and I'm just citing these because there's too many to fit on
a single screen there with typing it all out, you can screen. So
because there's so many Theophanes and references to the Triad in the Old Testament,
I had to kind of pack it on the white this giant whiteboard and freeze
it because I didn't have a way to list them all. I mean,
I could have listened them all in a slide or something, but I thought
the I thought the whiteboard made it more kind of effective, you know what
I mean. So you can screenshot that if you want. Unfortunately you can't
see all of this much cut off. But I have a talk from four
or five years ago about Trinity and the Old Testament. We can find that
as well. I should probably just redo all this and just lecture through every
one of these texts. Maybe that's the best way to do it, and
you know, get them all out there and do like, I don't know,
a course on it or something, but we need some kind of course
on this the Trinity in the Old Testament, because more and more and more
we're starting to see these lunatic you know, like Unitarian things, crazy Hebrew
Israelites, Arianism making a comeback on the internet with all these online idiots everywhere.
I was on the freaking plane from back from la and I had a
dem We was King's brother next to me watching we was King's videos father Deacon
Jusism. Yeah, where do I mean? Obviously the Internet's facilitating this,
but let's just think about it. How is this happening? I mean,
it's just mean is it kind of the natural consequence of solo Maya that by
myself I'm trying to search for some sort of authenticity so I go back and
I construct this kind of Unitarianism or Hebrew roots or I mean, obviously,
like I said, the Internet, let's just spread. But what do you
think is kind of the source of this? I think there could be also
you know fed support. I mean, a lot of this stuff is crazy.
It seems to come out of nowhere. I mean, who knows,
right, I mean there's I mean, Dale Tuggy has been pushing Unitarianism for
a long time, doctor Branson sort of his chief critic. So I think
ideally we'd like to see a Dale Tuggy doctor Branson debate. Maybe that'll happened
one day. But I don't think Dale Tugy wants to do that. I
think he's I mean, he doesn't even want it to make me, he
says, because I'm a controversial, infensive or whatever he says. But you
know, doctor Branson would would fare a lot better than you. He would
do. He would be a much better person to debate. But let's get
back to this real quick. So notice all these texts here on screen.
And I think in the future, maybe father Digging, you can join me
in some others we'll try to address some of these Hebrew roots things that are
getting more popular and growing. Again, if I'm on the airplane and the
brother next to me is playing we with Kang's videos, like this stuff is
spreading so and I'm sure the internet, They're like, I'm sure entities are
promoting it on the internet on purpose, so I'm sure they're getting algorithmic help
with all this just crazy nonsense. But we do need to talk about this
stuff because you'll notice part of it too, this is off topic. Somebody
asked me, did you cover the event in Russia? I did so again,
go to my Twitter and I've got I did a two hour talk with
Patrick henningson Syrian Girl. I did a whole hour with Jack Pisobek and Alex
Jones. So you can go watch that on Twitter. Can't put it on
YouTube. Obviously they're not gonna lie. So but you'll notice a lot of
Black people are waking up to stuff. We've seen Candace, We've seen Kanye,
even though Kanye seems to be backing away from Christianity. We've seen ice
Cube coming starting to admit and notice some things we've seen Kat Williams talking about.
So there's this Black people are kind of figuring things out in a good
way, but then they're kind of being offered all of these just ridiculous could
of sacks of insane cults to go into. So I think I think maybe
they don't want black people waking up to too much, and so they're giving
them these crazy cults and groups to kind of corral them into so they don't
become effective, because as soon as you get into some ridiculous Hebrew Israelite cult,
you're going to be completely an effective. In fact, a couple of
the rappers who left the circles of Diddy ended up getting into some of the
stupid nonsense. So exactly so a good point. By the way, Chatter,
there's somebody that chat pointed out that one of the big black YouTube channels,
Gideon he converted to some form of arianism. Bryceon Gray pushes arianism.
So all of these black people that are kind of waking up to certain things
are then going into these ridiculous heresies like Bryson Gray promotes speaking of It's really
funny. I had to block him because I'm not supposed to be debating during
Lent, but Bryson was actually trying to debate me just now on Twitter.
Oh well, yeah, am I? Why am I going to debate you
when Jay destroyed you in the debate? Oh no, you didn't. That's
a bunch of bunch of words, no meaning, I'm like, you know
where we hear that phrase from the eightheist clowns anything I don't like meaning his
word salad, his word salad and meaningless. But I mean everybody saw that
to talk about Dann Kruger. As somebody points out in the chat, well
so committed and so you know, yeah, well you know he took a
lot of quizzes though, right, so you know how many Bible quizes he
passed? Oh? Is that that that I forgot about that? No,
he actually says that, He's like, how many Bible quids you take?
How many Bible queis you take? I pass my all? And I said,
and I talked about fallacies. He said, what that he is?
What that he is? What that is? That's your response when I call
anyway? Uh, all right, let's get back to this real quick here.
Let me get through the the opening statement to Muslim Daniel Hikikichi, and
we're going to see how it applies to Trent. He shot this later and
go check the various sexual references here for just examples up the offense. And
the reason I included that the ofphenees is that these are particularly for demonstrating the
manifestation of Yahweh in the Old Testament, proving differentiation, So not just Yahweh,
but also the Angel Messenger that he sends, who has the name of
Yahweh as a root in Exodus, the same angel that's present in the Burning
Bush, that Angel has spoken of as the Messenger of the Covenant, he's
spoken of as in Judges, turning the face of Yahweh towards Gideon in Judge
of six, and many many other passages where he's identified, for example in
Judges thirteen as the Angel of Wonderful Council. So you can check those references
later, or we can go back to any of those and so let me
go back to my screen share here and points out that the triad there.
I don't mean to argue either, that the Old Testament explicitly uses the words
triad. Know all this necessary, as the Jewish scholars are admitting, is
that the Old Testament believers spoke of Father, Angel, of the Lord,
Son of Man, and the Spirit in a real distinctive way. This is
really important. Everybody, please get this point, because Trent didn't understand it.
Many Roman Catholics that I've made this had this discussion with, and even
some of the Muslims have not understood this. That you do not have to
know the word trinity to believe in the Trinity. Okay, And that might
sound a little weird if you first hear that, But we are not saying
that Abraham had a mental conception of the Nicene definition of the Trinity. Okay.
We're not saying that he doesn't have to. What he has to have
a conception of, and what he does have a conception of is Yahweh,
the Angel, the Lord, his Messenger, who has they always name in
him, and who is worshiped, who is the Messiah and the Spirit.
And when we understand, for example, that Abraham had a meal with Jesus,
that Jacob wrestled with Jesus, that Moses went up on the mountain and
ate a meal with Jesus, it's starting to become a little clear. Oh
now, I see, it's Jesus that appears to Samson's parents, to Manoah,
it's Jesus. Can I add something there? I'm kind of tied into
the again. I like what you're saying that clearly we don't have, with
the Old Testament prophets, a nice, seeing worked out conception of the Trinity.
But it should be very clear it's not a strict monotheism and monad And
furthermore, is the Garby paper points out, because we're talking about a reference.
When we use the term God, what is referred to? Does it
refer to some strict monad or generic? Is this what the prophets and patriarchs
of the Old Testament is that what it was referring to. No is the
Garribie paper points out, and I write my papers that the referent is conditioned
by the paradigm, by the faith in its entirety, such that the individual
doesn't have to have a worked out list of properties in various things that are
so that when they're referring to God, how do I know it hits it?
Again? This is to conceive of everybody's out on their own, developing
their kind of own meanings of words. And I think it's really important to
understand that, you know, it's conditioned by the entire paradigm the revealed Faith.
Think about it this way. The children in the Orthodox Church in the
services and they're praying to God, do not have a work out nice seeing
profound theological Well, who are they praying to? They're praying to the Trinity?
Yes, Now, how is that pot exactly possible because they're baptized in
grafting to the faith as a whole. That count the wholeness, the conditions,
that meaning and reference of that term God. So the same thing with
the patriarchs of old in the Old Testament. They don't have to have a
nice scene worked out. Clearly, like I said, it's not a strict
monotheism, but the reference is established by God in his divine revelations, such
that the determines the reference to be the Trinity, despite the inadequacies of our
language or intellectual abilities. Absolutely. Absolutely, That's another way to illustrate the
same point to Trent is that Trent right, intellectual conceptualization of the Trinity via
Niceno cous Metopolitan creed is not what we're saying. Is the thing that makes
you quote trinitarian. And that's what he really can't fathom because he's restrict And
I think he said something, or maybe somebody else said something like, oh,
so you're saying that an old in the Old Testament they knew the Homo
Lucius. I mean, this is they're saying, Oh, it's crazy.
No, No, obviously they wouldn't know those terms, but they don't have
to because it's what Jesus explains here. And you'll notice this is right after
he had done this healing on the Sabbath. Right. They sought to kill
him because he had done these things on the Sabbath, and Jesus replied to
them in John five, my father has been working until now, and I
have been working. The context is Sabbath and violating the Sabbath by working.
And the point is that when I wait a minute, God the Father established
the Sabbath at the creation week, Right, Jesus is assuming his Pharisee opponents
also believe that, and he says, but wait a minute. You understand
that God the Father has been working also, and I have been working since
the Sabbath, since the creation of the world in the sabbnth day back in
Genesis. So Jesus equating himself too the same works as the Father from the
time of Genesis up. In other words, I'm coequal to the Father.
That's what seventeen means. And then the Jews sought all the more to kill
him because they correctly perceived that he was making himself quote equal to God verse
eighteen. So you understand that Jesus is saying that I was doing all of
those works in the Old Testament. And then he goes on to talk about
how that's why everybody in the world will be judged through me, and then
he talks about various Old Testament witnesses. And as you know, from John
five all the way to John nine, there's multiple discourses and discussions, particularly
Chapter eight where Jesus explains that Moses wrote about him right here. I've come
in my father's name, but you don't receive me. But if another comes
in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe when
you receive honor from one another and do not seek to honor comes from the
only God? Talking about God, the Father, by the way, that's
monarchical trinitarianism. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father.
There's one that accuses you of Moses and whom you trust. But if you
believe Moses, you would believe in me because Moses wrote about me. The
writings that Moses are about Jesus. Why is that because, as Peter says,
it's the spirit of Christ that inspired the prophets to write. Moses is
writing by the spirit of Christ. Is what Peter says, and how is
he doing that, because Jesus is the one that talked to Moses on the
mountain. That's the whole point of John five or nine. So ironically,
we're dealing with people who are not just making Muslim argument, they're making like
the Pharisee arguments, that's silly, that says, Jesus says that Abraham rejoiced
to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. Now that
means that just from that past, as we at least know that Abraham knew
of the Father and the Son, we know from other passages that it's clearly
Jesus that Moses is that Abraham, excuse me, is having his meal with
And when we find out in Genesis that there's references to the Spirit, we
can deduce that Abraham thus had a knowledge of God, the Father yaque,
his Angel, Lord Messenger that he met with and ate with, and this
person of the Holy Spirit who also appears throughout Genesis. Do you see this?
So a lot of this also, and I don't mean this in an
arrogant way, but a lot of this comes from ignorance of the Old Testament,
ignorance of what the texts actually say, and this, by the way,
is ironically I mean, it's not ironic that Sam Shmun is good at
debating Muslims. But just go watch a bunch of Sam Chamun's debates with Muslims.
He's almost always arguing Old Testament passages when they talk about unitarianism to make
the very points that you hear me making, how would that be possible?
But that this is the next one I remember when I'd say. The other
point I want i'd say too, is it's also not the case, by
the way, I think, how silly this is. Think about so would
we want to really argue that the only knowledge of the Trinity comes when the
Trinity is formulated? Wait a minute, really, are we we sure we
want to go with that stupid argument, because if that's the case, then
the Gospels aren't teaching the Trinity because the Gospels are prior to the nice Seene
definition or Tertullian's term trinitas, whatever whatever point you want to pick in church
history where you think the Trinity is quote first taught. And by the way,
that's the Muslim argument Constantine dit trinity, Tortolian make up trinity right,
that they have these silly arguments, right, that it's made up. Well,
wait a minute. If that's the case, then why were the church
fathers appealing to the Old Testament and the Gospel to prove the trinity. All
you have to do is ask Trent, Trent, who what are they appealing
to to prove it? Oh? The Old Testament? Has anybody read Tripho
Saint Justin against Triphi the Jew It's one of the first things I read from
the Church fathers back in two thousand and three. Guess what Justin does throughout
that apologetic treatise, Oh, the very things that we do. He goes
with Theophanes and he proves the trinity in the Old Testament to Tripho. And
that's prior to niceeing definition of trinity. Yes, I'm aware that Theophilist talks
about the trinity Turtolian. I'm just saying, it doesn't matter which post Apostolic
person you pick that uses the term trinitas. It's ridiculous to think that we
don't know about the doctrine of the trinity until somebody uses the term trinity.
It's just so silly. And I prove that by pointing out that the apologists
post apostles who defend the trinity prove it from where the Gospels and the Old
Testament. And guess what when you go to the Gospels to prove the trinity,
especially the Book of John, where does Jesus argue the Trinity from the
Old Testament? All It's all through the Gospel of John. Anyway, Yes
I am. And then thank you to Jiob and others in the Chat.
Yes, the sant Theopholis is good. Many of their early church fathers basically
bear out all these points. Anyway, So let's move on to the rest
of this talk here and then we'll kind of open it up pretty soon here.
But I want everybody to understand again, notice the pattern of Trent making
the same arguments from the Muslim position with the same presuppositions as the Muslims.
And they do. Although many in modern and modernity assume that Law of the
Prophets were strictly unitarian, Jewish scholar Daniel Biaran notes that early Christianity actually represents
a conservative form of Judaism that sought to remain faithful to the totality of revelation
in the Law of the Prophets, including the texts of portray differing his hypostaces
in God another. Now that's a really powerful admission. And again when I
debated, I think I think Daniel said this, and then Jake repeated this
as if they know I wasn't arguing that Boyarin is a Christian. This is
so stupid, like they're like Jay thinks that boy Yarwin is some kind of
Christia. No, right, Remember when Jake was making this kind of im
heated argument, acting all ridiculous. I didn't argue that I said that Boyarin
says that early Christianity is a quote conservative form of Judaism seeking to remain faithful
to the multiplicity of Yahweh taught in the Law and the prophets. That's all
I said. This is the term hope hypostasis. I know Jumi Summers does.
That's all I said. I didn't say boy is a Christian and Jews
are now admitting that we're all Christian just total straw men. By the way,
Uh, did you like my Jake impression? Jay thinks that Boyarin was
some kind Christian? Remember remember Jake getting all like animated, he was sperging
out over there. Do Jake had like Parkinson's all of a sudden for that
debate, I don't know. Sit still, dude, chill out. Anyway,
Let's let's move on and along the prophets, including the texts to portray
uh differing his hypostaces in God. Another example of this is a recent Jewish
scholarship on divine fluidity and divine embodiment in the Law and the Prophets. Now
again, I'm not Jewish. I'm just pointing out that the admissions of Jewish
scholarship are to our position nowadays. We are in in the Jewish Gospels,
the story of the Jewish christ Notes. For example, just from the example
from the text of Daniel seven. By the way, that Peter Shaeffer text
was an I couldn't think of the other text Shaeffer is the other one I'm
trying to think of. We have the discussion of the Messiah being divine,
the Messiah being in human form, the Messiah appearing as younger than the Ancient
of days, the divinity of Ancient of days. We have the Messiah appearing
eventually enthroned upon high and being given dominion and authority over earth. That is
the ascension and Christian theology. Now early on in the early days of Christianity.
There were already rabbinical debates before Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism completely parted ways where
you even have people like famous rabbis at Rabbi Akiva, for example, admitting
that there is multiplicity in some sense in the Godhead. This is covered in
Alan Siegel's Two Powers in Heaven and in Shaeffer's Two Gods in Heaven. Now,
god is a generic term that can pick out a specific hypostasis, and
it can also pick out a generic nature. So when it says two gods
or two powers, it is not indicating polytheism. It's merely indicating differentiation in
the texts Now again, by the way, did you notice that what I
just said there that undercuts the whole bunch of nonsense that Jake tried to hinge
the entire argument on about Jake believes in two gods. Little g Right,
Remember that I just explained what that means right there, and it doesn't mean
what he that's not already for Kabbala. I'm just pointing out as an example
that Rabbinic Judaism is not a monolithic unitarian philosophy. As Summer notes, this
is a later Mamonidean feature and not a Cabalistic or early Christian Judaic feature.
Second tiple, Judaism in Christian in Jewish scholarship was not monolithic, it was
not radical unitarian. It was fluid, and it did not admit God to
be multiple due to later accretions. In fact, Siegel and Summer's and other
admit that you can have a multiplicity of persona. Now I point this out
because this is a Muslim approach where they will say, yeah, okay,
maybe a lot of Jewish scholarship is admitting that there's fluidity here in the notion
of Yahweh and him being not a strictly unitarian thing. But this was a
quote late accretion. But no, they don't say that. It's not a
rabbinical corruption of the texts. It's the text themselves that have multiplicity in them.
And what does that multiplicity mean, Well, it's a multiplicity of persons.
That's what Christians seech. That's what Jesus is saying when he says that
he receives from the Father, that he prays to the Father, he loves
the Father. Because that's two distinct type of sases in early Jewish theology without
that necessitating, for example, multiple wills. This is also seen in the
process of the rabbis in their eventual exclusion of logos theology, which is not
a direct import from how Landism per se, but rather from the wisdom tax
of the Old Testament, the Solemonic literature, and so forth. Jewish scholars
like Simeon Halevi Scholin we Are in Siegel and Summer admit that rabbinical dialogues and
debates on the wisdom logos text and the Merkaba Chariot mysticism that draws from both
the Psalms Ezel Daniel and Nachic literature all posit various divine embodiments, manifestations,
and even incarnation. Now did you notice that how crucial that is? In
other words, even these modern Jewish scholars who don't believe Christianity are admitting that,
look the texts of Psalms Daniel Ezekiel, the Anachic literature going you can
go back to Genesis Judges. They're admitting a fluidity in the way that God
manifests himself in time and space, and the manifestation of God in time and
space does not compromise his unity, his simplicity, his sovereignty, his omnipotence,
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. All of those things are what's in the
texts, the kind of God that is revealed to us. And he can
come in a kind of quote form what God has a form. Yes,
that's why throughout the law and the prophets. Isaiah sees the Lord sitting on
a throne in Isaiah six, and John says in John twelve that that's Jesus.
So Isaiah sees Jesus. I mean, if you've read Isaiah, and
by the way, I just reread Isaiah recently, I'm again reminded of why
it's called the Fifth Gospel. Do you realize that giant portions of Isaiah are
just about Jesus and the church chapter after chapter. Do you realize that not
just multiple Messianic prophecies about where Jesus will be born, who his bloodline descendant
would be from David, etc. All of that, as well as countless
prophecies of the Church the Gentile Church. In fact, heerabdical dialogues discuss the
divine Messiah suffering, dying, and perhaps even atoning. One example is Rabbili
and Boar's Jewish Gospels discussing the Atoning Death. And then my friend, the
Jewish Messianic Christian Kenami has a book Jewish the Jewish Messiah Is it is a
Judaism versus Judaism debate. Yeah, this is important because, as ken points
out in his book, he's got a ton of quotes from how I mean,
everybody has this impression that like first second, third century Judaism was like
this monolithic. Everybody had the same view as like mimon Idies like that.
That's the assumption that everyone has. Oh, Judaism's unitarian. You could go
to the Jewish US like Alpedia and look up Theophanes, look up the Chakaina.
They were debating into the Middle Ages what the Theophanes were. Some of
them said it's an angel, someone that said it's a metatron. Someone said
it's the essence of God in time and space. Don't ask me how that's
possible, But if you read the Summer's book, he basically says the essence
energy distinction. I mean, he comes like this close to saying that the
way that Theophanies are possible is the essence entergystinction. So basically saying that that
theophanies are all throughout the Old Testament. It's not an angel, it's some
way in which the form of Yahueh is manifest. That's Jesus again, just
illustrating that Judaism is not a monolithic enterprise. Now, as we get back
to embodiment, Drew scholar Benjamin Summer notes and his law and the prophets that
they themselves in many texts that I cited in my big whiteboard there display what
he calls fluidity of Yahwe's ability to be both imminent and transcendent, as well
as manifesting at certain times and in certain places especial. And keep in mind,
Muslims do not believe that God is imminent. Okay, there's no God
in time and space at all. So that's a fundamental attribute that Christianity belle
leaves that God is present, He's imminent in the world, that Muslims are
not modes and in special presences. This is not entail or necessitate a change
in Yahwe's essence or nature, or rather that he's able to be embodied or
to manifest in various and distinct ways. Some are even admits that's the terminology
of Summer. By the way, that's not my argumentation. That's the way
Summer argues his explanation of Yahweh's manifestations in the Old Testament, which again it's
like we'll do why are you not a Christian? Exactly and was not over
a strict numerical oneness, because many people in the ancient world did not always
count by strict identity, but rather by division. Whether this distinction the hypostaces
allow for multiple wills is the real issue according to Summer, and that,
of course is note that I threw that in there in the Daniel debate,
that the ancient world typically counted by division and not by identity. That was
already in the day. But they don't. These people don't pay attention.
But Muslims have no interest in being precise and paying attention to what you're Actually,
very few of them, doctor Khalil does. To be fair to doctor
Khalil, he cares. But most of the online goobers in the Muslim world,
they don't care what you said. That's trying to turn in through Jack.
You do not believe in multiple wills in the Godhead. Summer cites many
of the holy places in iconography iconography replete throughout the Old Testament, law and
profits, including alterstones trees which are dedicated to Yahweh. They're made wholly in
anticipation of the temple and tabernacle liturgical services, which will also embody Yahweh above
the arc of the chicina and so forth a cloud well at the same time
not embodying the divine in essence. By the way, I don't I haven't
read the scholarship on this, but I will bet you money that the Islamic
idea of Allah above the throne, I bet you it comes from their misunderstanding
of these texts, where Yahweh is above his chariot throne, the ark in
the temple, or what you see in the Ezekiel one to ten texts.
I bet you money that that's where they got that misunderstanding, from anyway altering
that way this As a side note, the Quran also appears to have inadvertently
left these references to the special presence in text like U s. Six seventy
one to eighty eleven seventy one eight. So, in other words, the
Koran compilers were so stupid that they didn't realize that these are Theophanes in the
Old Testament. So they just put it in there and bypassed even trying to
make sense of well not, wait a minute, how is Allah present?
And by the way, there's actual texts that reference I mean, there's references
to Theophanes in the Bible that are in the Koran, which are clearly the
angel of the Lord. You see how silly this is, like that that's
not possible in Islam all I was not in time and space. There's not
Theophanes. You understand that. Now. The challenge then, as I would
put it to Daniel, would be to leave him. All right, So
we're gonna stop there, because the rest of my talk there is not about
uh, the Theophanes or anything in the Old Testament. I don't think there's
anything else in there but that. Let me see, I just wanted I
just I went on to say that Old Testament is not Unitarian in some strict
sense unless you presuppose it, and then you have all these problems. This
is, by the way, guys, you realize this is why. Ever
since Augustine struggles in book two or three of On the Trinity with how there
are Theophanes? I mean, the Latin Church has gone in the wrong direction
and they argue like Muslims. So how do people not see this? Just
people just don't know like Old Testament theology, I guess is that what's going
on here? Let's see, I talked about contradictions and the narratives between the
Corona and the Bible, so I don't think there's anything else in that in
that talk, Father dickon is the anything you wanted to comment on from the
Garibie paper. I mentioned it earlier and I think I linked it you and
I did a whole stream on it right here, which I'll link again for
people who want a deep dive on the Garibie paper. And Father de Agan
and Nice joined me for that two or three years ago, so you can
go deeper into that talk. There are you still there? Is there anything
you want to comment on regard to Trinity and the Old Testament? No.
I Also there's some really good material that I've covered in the Kadakises Continuing Education
almost continuing Education camp, but continuing the Education class from Father Pomazansky's book Orthodox
Theology that I recommend, where he just goes over all the Old Testament passages
that make reference to the Trinity so I encourage people to check that out.
Yeah, so he has, as he said, Katakis's lectures that are over
on his channel Patristic Faith, where you can find him discussing a lot of
these Old Testament texts and passages. I guess we I mean, I don't
know what other Let's see if I've made all the main points I wanted to
make here, I mean, we can go into I think that to do
a full discourse on Old Testament Trinity texts, it needs to be its own
talk. I'll go ahead and put up the old talk that I did because
it's still decent. But let me always forget what I titled it. But
I will is the four or five year ago talk on this where it's a
three hour talk where we go through we go through a lot of Old Testament
texts, not all the ones that I'd like to update it with. So
you can watch that there, and we'll go ahead and open it up to
Q and a question. So I see some people already kind of in the
quay. If you want to speak, if you want to introduce an argument,
if you want to bring forth a question, a challenge, I feel
free to here with by requesting to speak. I'll give you the microphone.
Remember to unmute. Twitter space is automatic mutes you. You've got to hit
the unmute and just start talking, and I'll let you know that I hear
you, and I've got I've got uh Bible gateway pulled up. We can
go to the the text here in the old testament of going to We've got
no strette pulled up right here. We can go to those texts if you
want to. So if you've got questions challenges, now's the time. Just
hit request to speak. Thank you for the super chest too. We'll read
the super chests here in a minute. First up is missed cheese? What's
up? Missed cheese? Oh? Hello, yeah, yes, sir,
you know what. Also, and Genesee said, let's make us in our
image, not just miamage. You know, that's an immediate like tip off
that there's more more to this and what we see. I think ultimately it
is a trinitarian passage. The problem is that a lot of times it's just
hand waved and people just say, oh, well, that's just talking about
the angels. And so even though I do think it is triadic, when
we understand all the rest of the passages. It makes sense. I just
think that it's also I feel like a lot of people say, like the
Trinitarian is the pagan because they ironically have the sky fairy sky Daddy belief where
they think God is just like a guy, you know, Yeah, I
think, yeah, in any anthropomorphic excess. Uh and somebody with the Muslims,
Oh you're anthropomorphic? Oh you mean like a bunch of how Islam as
anthropomorphic like we just saw with Jake, Like God is literally just a banker
of bureaucrat. Or he has a foot and a two right two right hands,
a foot and a shen Yeah exactly. Yeah, I mean, well,
then again we say that Bill has no needs because he never bows anyone.
But that's more fanciful writing than anything. But the way I see it
is like his consciousness. You know, ego, super ego and ego.
They're all unique, separate parts of yourself, but they're still, you know,
their own self. You're not tied to my subconscious. You're tied to
my conscious, but the subconscious is this within me? Or like like social
media is a good metaphor. You have your account, Jay Dwyer, you
have the persona you portray through it, and you have the person yourself,
like I see you as your account, that that is who I see you,
as you present yourself in a way that may not be who I see,
but that you, who is you. It can be seen truly by
you. And when we have small glasses of it. And like I mean,
Jesus is called the Word, you know, and as God. And
we're just guts, you know, just tell the story. So anything we
have and just an abstraction of his. You know, his word, his
breath is alive, is living and part of him. Like I'll tell you
when I'm speaking to you right now, You're all you're getting is my word
and my breath, like the Holy Spirit in Christ. But you never know
me. Yeah, that overlaps somewhat with some of the Patristic analogies, you
know, you do have the early Apologists, and even up into the Cappadocian
period you have people saying we can make an analogy to the Father is like
the mind. The logos is like the word proceeding from the mind that expresses
the mind. So it becomes a kind of an expression and image and icon.
Jesus is the express icon of the Father et cetera. So, yeah,
I think that there's some some value in those kind of analogies, and
the Church fathers use that. Go ahead. Also, I wanted to add
to I'm not sure exactly what the response is, but if we look at
the the the Hebrew texts in Genesis, the word elohen in the Genesis texts
hazard grammatical form of plural in number. Now, what response have you seen
from unitarians? And I think they try to say that that's God and like
the divine counsel, like God and the angels is what they'll try to say.
Okay, But I mean the problem with that is that when we get
into other texts, like say Ezekiel, right, Ezekiel one to ten,
and I did a whole lecture on this because it was such a powerful presentation.
If you go to Ezekiel one to ten, I mean we got explicit
statements where the glory, the glory of the Father is identified as this son
of Man who rides the chariot. He's so he's personified and we have the
spirit. In other words, the Trinity is absolutely profuse in these chapters Genesis.
I'm sorry, Ezekiel one to ten and so the son of man is
the face of Yahweh. He's the glory of Yahweh. He's the one like
a son of Man, who is the image of the Father. So all
of that is in Ezekiel one to ten, and so it's just one of
the stronger I mean, there's many, but it's one of the stronger examples
in the Old Testament where we can't just relegate this form, this manifestation,
or what he's sometimes called the septus. He's called the voice, the voice,
the Word, the voice who appears to Elijah and so forth. We
can't relegate him to pure angel status because he's identified as the glory. God's
glory is not given to another. Remember that in Isaiah. Right, Well
wait a minute, now, there's a form of God's glory in Ezekiel one
to ten, who is the face of Yahweh, who has the name of
Yahweh in him, as it says in Exodus I think twenty three. So
you see how you have to read all of these passages together, and all
these passages together clearly give us that God is not a strict unity. There's
a sense in which he's unity. Yes, there's also a sense in which
he has sun and spirit. Let's say, next up is jiz Pair.
Okay, that sounds kind of gross, but whatever. Hello, yes,
sir, Yeah, goblesshue Man and gopeless Solva and a knife. Yeah.
I just wanted to say that I don't see anyone using this passage, but
it's an interesting passage for sure. Can you go to Second Samuel, chapter
twenty four of the sixteen and can you read it? If you can,
I'm here, Yeah, can you read it please? Wether's Second Samuel.
So this is when they built an altar for at the threshing floor. Yeah,
when the Angel stretched out his hand to destroy it, the Lord relented
from the destruction. It said, who is a destroy that? People?
Is enough? Restrain your hand. The Angel Lord was by the threshing floor
of Arana, the jebiside. Yeah. So if we read through the Tour
and Judges and those books, we established that the Angel of the Lord is
of God and that he's got himself. So I just wanted to ask who
told the angel to stop? Well, I'm sure they would say it's it's
God, the Father, right, Yeah. No, I just wanted to
point out an interest in verse because it's the Father is plicitly talking to the
son correctly, I don't. He just says they should. Well, I
mean, I I've commented on it. We commented it on it fairly recently,
I think in one of the live streams. But yeah, I mean
I think they're just gonna say that, well, that's just a created angel.
So I agree with you that, you know, typically Angel the Lord
does signify the sun. But the problem, the problem is that in this
passage there's not anything that immediately tells us that here, Angel the Lord is
the second person. I think it is, but they're just gonna say,
well, that doesn't say that it's the you know, second person. That
could be a creator, that's just Michael or Gabriel or something. Yes,
the typical typical. But yeah, just yeah, that was a good passage.
I appreciate that. But I wanted to remind everybody of what what we
see in Ezekiel. I guess so I mentioned this a minute ago, but
you'll notice what we see in Ezekiel is that when he sees the cherry,
it he sees that within the chariot there's one that has the likeness of a
man, and as it goes down we see that there's flashes and so forth.
And then if you read Ezekiel one all the way to chapter ten,
you notice the way that the appearance of the man here is described. It
is the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God. And the description
of the appearance here is identical to the way that John in the Apocalypse describes
Jesus when he appears, So that lets us know that it's the same figure
Jesus appearing to Ezekiel that appears to John. And between Ezekiel one and then
eight and then ten you get a lot of the same description. Okay,
so do you understand people that want to say this is a creature. It's
the image of glory. Okay, God's glory is not a creature. And
everybody admits that this is the image of the glory, the face of God,
the form of God, the voice of God. I mean, there's
there's guys, understand, there's tons of these passages, and so this just
this dispute, this doesn't just destroy, by the way, the natural theology
of nos Er Tat and Rome and Trent. It also undercuts the the Muslim
arguments and the Aryan arguments. All right, let's move on to the next
Jared, you got to unmute man, Hey, can you hear me?
Sir, Jay just want to say thank you for all your work. I'm
for all you've done my eyes a lot of ways. So yeah, I
guess the one question that I had is, like you once mentioned that plan
A for God was the incarnation. Why was that plan A? Like,
why was that always from the from the onset his plan to be an incarnate?
I guess human being. Well, I mean, we don't have an
exact answer as to why God created or did these things other than I think,
you know, say, Maximus says, something like out of the goodness
of God. So presumably for the same reason the second person always wanted to
become incarnate. I don't know. I don't know if we know the ultimate,
you know, ultimate reasons why God wanted to do that. But the
answer is something just out of the goodness of his own, his own overflowing
goodness, Bulan's goodness. Something like that is what Maximus says. Okay,
I see what you're saying, but like coming from I guess the Roman Catholic
like penal substitution kind of no, No, penal substitution is specifically a Reformation
doctrine. It's not the Roman Catholic doctrine. The Roman Catholic doctrine of its
toeent is satisfaction, not penal substitution. So I guess what's like the Orthodox
understanding of the purpose of the incarnation for redemption. Well, the purpose of
the incarnation was always to deify Man always, So it wasn't a plan b
when man felt because if you look at what Paul says, Paul says,
we are made in the image of Christ. And this is another thing that
refused natural theology. Man being made in the image of God is in is
crystocentric. And if you get the book Deification Paniotis Nellysi's book Deification, the
whole first chapter is answering what you're asking. It's all about how Man was
originally created as a model of Christ, as a model of the logos.
It's a Christo centric creation from the beginning. That's the very basis for Paul
to say that Christ is a type that Adam is a type of Christ because
he's made after Christ, He's made the image of Christ. And for Roman
Catholics, they just kept fathom this very bizarre. Although to be fair,
Franciscans do believe this. The Franciscans are the only Roman maybe Scotis are the
only Roman Catholics that believe the Orthodox position on this. I hear you,
and then like one of the questions, who is kind of how you talked
about Jacob wrestling with Christ? Like obviously wrestling with God, but how does
that work if Christ hasn't incarnated yet, who is like he physically wrestling with
Well, it's the same principle of all the Theophanes. By the way,
here's this book, paniot Dosnell'stification in Christ. The whole first chapter is about
how we are made in the image of Christ. So I would recommend that
to people who are wondering about the question. Well, there is a mystery
involved in Theophanes. We don't know the exact mode in which he's able to
be in time and space and to wrestle in this way. But yet that's
what we have in the texts. And so this is partly why the Orthodox
Church talks about the Essen centered distinction. It's partly there to explain the Theophanes
in the Old Testament. And roma galviiks have a hard time with this because
they think, well, if there's physicality or solidity involved in some way,
it must sat Gregory Palamas says, we don't know the means that this occurs,
but we know that it does occur. And to your point, like,
that's kind of the problem that I noticed with Rome is how they try
to put everything in all these little boxes at the point where they just it
doesn't make any more sense. Well, and here's the thing. If you
follow with the logic of Roman Catholics, when they argue against the oftanes in
the Old Testament, they are unwittingly undercutting the incarnation itself. So because if
God is an absolutely simple essence, let me give an example. So in
Phaser's Five Proof Books, in the Neoplatonic proof chapter, he says that we
can use the Neoplatonic arguments to prove quote God, the classical theist version of
quote God. And he says, because they argue forcefully that the absolutely simple
monad cannot be in time and space. Okay, do you understand that that
makes the incarnation no longer possible impossible? Yeah, it makes it impossible.
And like, just touching on that and kind of the Old Testament in nuta
A tante, because that was one thing that called my attention from the get
go. I was like, wait a second, I have to morally assent.
The idea that I worship the same gods as Jews and Muslims doesn't make
it. So I spoke with one of my Catholic priests about it, and
I explained kind of what you're explaining, how Abraham worshiped the treaty and kind
of like how Christ himself says, Abraham saw me and exaw my day,
and yeah, he rejoiced on his body. And he was like, no,
no, no, I think that Abraham knew of the Trinity as we
know it now. Obviously he didn't have the like you said, the nice
and definition of it. But he completely disagreed with the notion that Abraham worshiped
Christ in the Testament. Well, then he's disagreeing with what Jesus. He's
disagreeing with Jesus because Jesus says, Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he
song was glad exactly. But that's like, that's the Roman Catholic position is
false. Well, that's why the Roman Catholic position is a false God.
It's a Unitarian natural theology deity, the same thing that the Muslims argue,
by the way, hold on to be clearer too. To be very precise,
I believe Bishop Irna argues that it's also possible that the body of Christ
that you see wrestling with Jacob is actually the deified flesh of the incarnate Christ
outside of time and space. So because he's deified now, out of time
and space, he can then step into you know, wrestling with Jacob,
even though he's not incarnate yet. I think that Bishop Irna makes that argument,
which I think is a plausible, plausible as well. But even if
even if we even even if we say that, by the way, uh,
I mean, there's the same problem still is their quote problem with any
other theophany like the Chicaina, right? I mean here we have the glory
cloud coming down or the pillar of fire in the desert in the desert,
I mean these the same questions can be raised about that as well. So
even if we wanted to be really picky and say, well, how is
a theophany God in time and space coming and going? Well, this exact
question is raised in the Triads and Sangreary Palomas just says God is not bound
by time and space. He can do these things. We don't know how,
and we don't have to inquire into the scholastic definitions of how it's possible
and then say then saying well God can't do it. I mean, it's
just it's not the answer or that he gives. And that's why, to
be really clear here, like what Palamas says is completely consistent with what we're
seeing in the Old Testament. Yeah, And it's funny because every time I
kind of bring up some of these questions, they would say, just pretty
rosary, just just pray a rosary. I got, I got. These
are kind of big these are these are huge deals. I mean, the
whole idea of like created versus uncreated grace and the tomistic sense and the Palomite
says. But the thing that got me was was how because I went to
a Melchite church and Palamas is a is a venerated saint there, So how
can you at one point be a heretic and and then now be a saint?
But I guess to keep it on the topic of the Old Testament,
and like you mentioned before, like the monarchy of the Father, Like how
does the monarchy of the father, not imply like any sort of superiority.
Like I understand they're all coequal and co eternal. But when I hear a
monarchy, I just think of like one ruling over the other. If that
makes sense, right, So I recommend that everybody who who's interested in this
question, I'm going to put the link in the thing here. So here's
doctor Branson's five I think it's a five video lecture series on the monarchy of
the father. And so no, there's not can you mute? It's really
loud about growmanry. So look the word monarchy, there's nothing about it that
necessitates onto logical status above another. Okay, so for example, let's think
about a monarch and his son. Okay, between a king and the prince,
do they share the scent? Can you mute, manusca it keeps getting
loud. Just mute? Yeah, thanks. So between a king and a
son, there is a premiscy of origin. But in terms of nature,
does a king have more human nature than the prince? No, of course
not. They equally have the same nature because the prince has the same authority,
powers and rule, assuming in the analogy that he's also you know,
taking the throne, we'll say, but he's distinct, So there's nothing about
there's nothing about the fact that the Father is the sole cause that makes him
onto logically superior to the Son when the Sun, as we just saw in
John five, Jesus says that I have been working all the works the Father
does I do. I've been doing the same works as the Father since the
creation of the world. So as Basil says, when he argues this with
Eunomias, he says, same works, same powers, same energies, prove
same nature. And that's also how he argues that the Holy Spirit is just
as divine as a father in the Sun, because the Holy Spirit does the
exact same works and operations as the Father and the Son. Therefore he has
the same nature. But everybody in the Orthodox world, I'm sorry to me
to cut you off. Everybody in the Orthodox world who is interested in this
question in contrast to Islam and in contrast to Roman Catholic natural theology, he
should definitely go watch doctor Branson's lectures on the monarchy of the Father, because
it's all from he wrotes his dissertations on the Capitosians, and one of the
questions I'm struggling to answer with a lot of my Muslim friends, is well,
how could an infinite being? You know, how could an infinite God
become finite? But did Christ ever become finite by taking human form? Or
is that just a well, this is the passage. So this is the
Philippians passage called the canosis. So he enters into a mode of being that
is unique without losing his divinity. So he willfully chose not to exercise all
of his powers and operations, which, by the way, means that God
is not reducible to act as purists, because if God is reducible to pure
act, there's no such thing as limiting and choosing not to actualize all of
your powers. So the canosus passage of Philippians is another way to refute this
point. But it's answering the very question that you that you're asking, which
is that he willingly chose to enter into a mode of being as man,
which is different from the motive being what he was prior to that. This
is explained in John one right where it says, even though he was amongst
us walking around, and we touched him and saw him, he was still
in the bosom of the Father. So he never surrendered his divine nature even
though he entered into a motive being that was unique and in a sense and
in a sense in a sense wilfully quote limiting. Right. And so when
you say in the bosom of the Father, I mean you're there united in
thought, mind, will those things? That's a passage referring to It's referring
to the fact that he never ceased being the eternally generated son. So even
in even while he's incarnate walking around with us, he is still the eternally
generated son of the Father. Got you, got you, okay? And
that's what the whole whole passage of John one is essentially making this point,
right, I guess my last question is coming from the Roman Catholic, like
the sort of appeasement a doctrine of salvation and like what I used to do
with the mass, with the with this holy sacrifice, what is sort of
the the dox because I I when I read online, like what's the Orthodox
per or I guess view of salvation and a home approach. You could get
the Pomazansky book and there's a there's actually a good chapter in the Pomazansky book
answering this very question, contrasting it to both the Protestant doctrine and the Roman
Catholic satisfaction doctrine. Brother dickon, did you want to say some Yeah,
it's a great actual section because he has a lot of great footnotes to explaining.
One of the things that comes to using is that the same term might
be used by different face, but it doesn't mean the same thing. So
people can get really confused by this, and so Father Pomazansky has a lot
of footnotes explaining this that although the word atonement may be used or even penalties,
it's not the same as what's meant, and Calvinism or the Roman view
and fight in fact sites even some of the canons and councils on this.
So it's really really good to check that out. I would also recommend for
a little deeper discussion beyond what Pomazansky says, which Pomazansky is a great introduction
of. Father Dakin said, there's a really good chapter in the New Mayandoor
of Papadocus book where it gets into the Byzantine synods that define in what sense
the offering is triadic, and so the offering of the humanity of the Sun
is an offering that the sun does to the entire triad. There's actually a
Byzantine Synod that that has a controversy that inadvertently refutes the Protestant doctrine of penal
substitution. If you understand the teaching of this of this doctrine, excuse me
of this. It's the two local councils. That's fifty seven, gotcha,
all right? Yeah, I'll definitely have to check that out. Because the
whole notion of penal substitution it just kind of if you really think about it,
it kind of just leads to atheism in a lot of ways because it
just doesn't make any sentense. And the old idea of like cosmic child abuse.
It just so that that's kind of what I grew up with. If
you have the Papa Doocus Mindorf book, it discusses it starting on page one
eighty nine, and it's the controversy over the deacon Sotikos Satiricos is a proto
Protestant penal substitutionist, and the decision of the Byzantine Synods in not reaffirming what's
clearly the orthodox view of the fact that the divine person of the Sun deifies
the flesh. It's an offering of love, not a penal substitution damnation situation.
By the way, I just realized something in my last class that I
was teaching on the catechisas continuing education. We're talking about the Roman view of
indulgences and merits, and so keep in mind that Protestants are responding to that.
And as I brought up for you, I argue this in my PhD
thesis as well that oftentimes when somebody responds or critiques another system, they may
reject something in that, but they're embracing the whole conceptual paradigm. That's the
problem itself. So one of the things that we see is the Roman Catholics
have this kind of merit, like the salvation that you can store up merits.
I made a joke that it's like there's a standing reserve of heavenly bitcoin
which can be sold and or even given by the pope. But they have
this really weird kind of mathematical idea that this is where ye gods are being
counter gods, of being counter keeping up with all of these things, that
yeah, there must be this cosmic reconciliation, that balance. So the idea
of like justice for them is merits and numbers. And so then what you
get is you get the reformers responding to that saying, well, no,
you can't be, you know, saved by any merits that you do.
But guess what they embrace. They embrace the exact septual paradigm. Yes,
as Jesus pays the merit many ways. So then they develop a penal substitutionary
atonement based on merit based theology. It's crazy, yeah. So the Catechism
of the Catholic Church says an indulgence is obtained through the Church, who,
by virtue of the power binding and loosing, renting to her, rented her
by Christ intervenes. And this is who can read this? I mean most
of the Roman Catholics left her boomers. There's no way they could read this
tiny text. The treasury of merits of the saints of in Christ obtained from
the Father, the mercies of the remission of the temporal punishments for their sin.
The Church does not want to simply come to the aid of Christians,
but also to spur them to works of devotion, penicin charity, so that
you can basically there's an infinite bitcoin spiritual storage that the church, the pope
can tap into. And this is by the way, where he doles out
the h when you see like you get a full plenary indulgence if you pray
on your knees going up the steps of the Via del Rosa. This is
because the pope can tap into this. One of the things, by the
way, that that Luther really called into question, I think in adequately it
was correct about calling this in the question. Yeah, you made a great
point the other day about how like, well, what if one of those
indulgences is going to a waba game or something like that, And it was
like, you're you're so true because it's a worship of authority and it's so
legalistic to where it creates this very dry and brittle faith. So when I
kind of discovered the Orthodox view of like sin is a disease and then you
have the medicine, it kind of just changed the game for me. I
guess one of the things too, is like now that I'm kind of new
to Orthodoxy and you know, I'm in a real courts church now, but
how do you I guess, keep track of like who's in communion with who?
Because I've also heard things about like the genuine Orthodox Church or like true
like I don't know, I just I want to get a valid you know
you, Chris, And how do you know who's valid? And I guess
who's not? If that makes sense, well, typically the only people like
obsessing over a validity are the people who in those very tiny they're sort of
like the Orthodox version of the set of a contest, right, which are
I mean, they're even more minuscule, tiny, tiny online groups, far
smaller than the Roman Catholic set of a contest. Like the idea of sort
of obsessing over the validity in this sort of technical canonical that's a Roman Catholic
attitude. So the fringe Orthodox are exactly the same as the set of a
contest in terms of obsessing over validity. You don't really see this obsession in
the Orthodox world over quote validity. So it's all a Latin mindset. And
I mean I would just simply appeal to her and everything being you know,
everything's sussed out according to like strict validity. I mean, this is that
the whole mindset of the Latin tradition post Scholasticism is obsessed with this. It's
almost like religion as a technology and God. I can get God to do
what I want in the master whatever when I follow this formula like a magic
ritual, and then God has to do what I want. And even if
I'm ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and that day I've become a Satanist,
God still has to, uh, you know, be present in my consecrations
of the Eucharist to blasphem it. That's literally their view. So that but
that whole mindset's wrong, That's what I'm trying to say. So I would
say it's gonna it's gonna take time to lose the legalistic sort of Latin mindset.
I know because I was in the same boat as you. But I
think when you look at I mean, David has some good critiques of the
uh the true Orthodox theories of blackout. So basically their view is it's actually
an impossible view because anytime there's a mistake, everybody that's not it's not just
that that guy loses all grace. It's very donatistic in the sense that literally
everybody around them also loses grace. Well, that's the case then we've all
lost grace. I mean, it's a really an impossible, uh sort of
purest type of donatist position. So look up David videos on the quote true
Orthodox. Those are really good for sure. I will Yeah, that was
pretty much all the questions I had. Thank you all for your time,
and again, thank you for your work. I really appreciate it. Thank
you. Hey, I'm gonna have to battle out. Is okay? Anybody
have any questions before I leave? Well, it depends on who I bring
up, so I don't know. We'll see on the next person i'll bring
up. We'll see if there's any questions for FDA solo, what's up?
Can you hear me? So? I'm Protestant and I wanted to know like
the most common reputation against Protestism, well, I would say two strong refutations.
The two ast strongest that come to my mind would be that the church
is necessary to know and to und understand what the canon of scripture is,
so that would refute solid scriptura. And the second argument would be that most
of the classic Protestant models of how we're saved imply either that Jesus is a
Nestorian human person who undergoes punishment, or that the second person, the Godhead,
undergoes the punishment for us, and that would be anti trinitarian. So
those are the two strongest I can think of. Yeah, and I'd add
to the again, most of the Protestant errors and heresies are based on kind
of more fundamental philosophical and theological errors and heresies, for example, occasionalism,
what's the other, nominalism, these various things that they're kind of premised on
that lead them to kind of make the mistakes that they do. Okay,
I won't say I'm convinced because I think where Deem Zumer has already talked about
that, and he's like the strongest Protestant. So well, did you see
our debate? Yeah, he destroyed you? Really, by the way,
you might like, I'm coming up. I'm bringing a new beer. It's
called the Dunning Krueger Beer. It's a great name for a beer, but
it sounds to me like you've already been drinking some. So yeah, what
what? What are a couple of places where he destroyed me? Uh,
he's overall likes a stronger What's now where specifically in our debate did he destroy
me he's a better Christ. Specific now, he's a better quote Christ.
So you don't have an actual argument because because you don't what, you're drunk.
So get out of here. That's all they have. He's more pious
than you. Yeah, really coming from like classic case of a prest Right,
we're gonna use a protest to determine who's more pious or not. Stan,
what's up? Put up? Man? I heard you talking about the
Angel of the Lord ear there. Yeah, that's Jesus. Yeah. Everybody
who thinks not they can get out of here. Well you agree, yeah,
Uh, that's shoulder Isaiah ninety six. Yeah, the Angel of the
Angel of counsel Uh yeah, exactly, wonderful counselor minded God. Yeah,
that's a judge thirteen or eighteen. Correct. Well, well Isaiah also refers
to him as the wonderful thank you. Yeah, good quotes, young logo.
What's up man? The old subject? What's on your mind? Man?
Just uh been dealing with a lot of Jehovah witnesses and I'm sure that
you've probably talked about this in previous episodes. So sorry if I waste your
time, but if you were using like the uh like the historical analysis of
like the Old Testament. You mentioned how there's like some Jewish scholars who mentioned
the you know, the theophanies. How would you one cover that to like
a Jeovah witness where they're where they may use the Old Testament as examples of
strict monotheism. And then in the New Testament. I think you mentioned this
a little bit in regards to the monarchy of the Father and passages in the
New Testament where it specifically kind of shows a in quotes hierarchy between the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Well, I mean the doctor in
the Trinity you know, comes from the totality of the Bible, So there's
not any unfortunately, like one specific area which is like gonna nail all of
these points because you kind of have to work through a few different points.
But if you go watch my video that I have right here, it's called
is Jesus God and is God a Trinity? Response to critics, and that
still functions as a good response to because I actually made this video and response
to a guy who was basically Joe's witness. So I would say check out
that video and note all the different texts because there's not gonna be one text.
But by the way, in respon in response to the previous guy,
I know that Jesus is called the Angel of the Lord the wonderful. His
name is wonderful in Judges. But the point I was making about Isaiah,
and this is the point that Sam Schmun showed me, is that when it
calls the child wonderful counselor here in Isaiah ninety six, his name as wonderful
is a reference to Judges. That's why I'm mentioned wonderful there, so that
lets us know that the one who's named wonderful in Isaiah ninety six is the
same wonderful in Judges thirteen. That's the point I brought. I was making
there, so I would stress to the Joe's Witness type people that you know,
all of these Theophanes consistently make this point that the angel is worshiped.
Okay, so we're not supposed to worship creatures. So the message an angel
just means a messenger, Okay. It can be a created messenger or an
uncreated messenger. In our view, and our review makes sense of all the
texts. Their view has to say that, well, sometimes the angel is
worshiped so I guess you can in some cases worship creatures. But actually,
if you think about it, Joe's witness theology, if they worship the created
Son, then they are idolators. So and maybe they won't say that.
Maybe listen, no, we don't worship Jesus, he's just our example.
But Arians actually did worship the Son and they thought he was the first thing
that God the Father created. And as the Orthodox argued, then you are
now an idolator because you're worshiping a creature. So the key point here is
that we all should agree we can't worship creatures. So then we have this
problem. Then well, then what about these theophanies that are worshiped, and
they're clearly worshiped multiple times, they're called If you read the Gideon text,
it says the angel of the Lord turned yahweh turned his face to Gideon.
Oh interesting new alogion. Hello, Hey, hey, Jay, that's going
on. I called in about a year ago and I had some comments that
I happened to re listen to today because I wanted to recall that conversation and
I just wanted to refresh your memory because we were talking about and since you're
talking about natural Theology today, I wanted to bring it up again. I
was talking to you about Schard's essay Christianity and the Metaphysics of Logic, and
also Zogbies. We are all schismatics, and I just wanted to bring that
up again because I think it would be really awesome if you made your way
through those especially well. I did get I think you also mentioned nine hundred
Years Together, and I bought that, but I couldn't get the Zogbi text
because it's always out of print and sold out. Okay, I have it
in a pdf. I can send it to you. I can maybe DM
you over. You can. It's just I hate PDFs. I just yeah,
I mean I can go have it printed out if I have to.
But sounds good. Yeah. Well, anyway, if you have lineaments,
it'd be awesome to hear your take on Christianity and the metaphs of metaphysics of
logic. I feel like it's a really powerful tool against natural theology and all
the rest of that stuff. Let me write around that. I'd be much
appreciated. Yeah, I also wanted to ask, Sorry, no, I'm
just saying I'm writing it down because I won't remember. But yeah, I
haven't read that shard essay in probably ten years, but I'm familiar with it.
I remember what he's arguing. I'll have to go back and redo it.
Cool sounds good, Hey, And then I wanted to ask quickly if
you could give briefly, like a summary of what Blackernee taught, because I
hear a lot about Blackernee from you and others, and I have the I
have the book That Crisis in Byzantim, but I haven't gotten around to it
yet. But I'd love if you could just give a quick summary of what
Blackerne actually taught about the Holy spirity. Well, we have lectured on that,
so fuller talks can be found in our discussions of eternal manifestation. I
just had doctor Branson on where we covered Philly Oquay and Blackernee. So you
go go watch the Monarchy of the Father Philly Oakuay discussion with doctor Branson maybe
three or four months ago. Another way to see this summation of these of
this of this, what's is the tomos against John becos those That's another good
kind of summary. Are you familiar with that? No, I'm not.
I think you can find the temost against Becos on the line. Let's see,
I think this is it. So these are some of the examples of
Yeah, so this is from Crisis and Byzantium. I think it's one of
the chapters in it. But if you're looking for a summary of what's taught,
read this right here. Exposition of the tomas of faith against John beckis
because Becos was the Byzantine Latinizer, and by the way, this would by
extent extension, condemn all the Ecumenists, it would condemn all the people who
are pretending that we teach the same thing as the Roman Catholics. The tomost
against John Becos is denying all that. So it's basically just stating that the
philioquay doctrine is in the Roman Catholic sense, according to Lions of a double
eternal hypostatic procession, is false. And the only sense in which there's a
relationship between the Son and the Spirit is the manifestation and movement of the Spirit
through the Son, and so that's what through means. So that's the tulmost
against John Becos. If you wanted like the summary of what's going on in
these medieval Palamite synods and so that's why this article cites the Byzantine the Papa
Down's book. Okay, So, as far as I understand, both from
and through the Father are anathematized in the sense of procession hyposthetic procession. But
there is a certain there's an energetic through the Son. Correct, and that's
the teaching of Gregory Cyprus. Correct. Awesome, All right, well,
thank you so much. J Yeah, great question. Yeah, and thank
you for reminding me of those those points you made a year ago. Leonid.
What's Leonid? Either? Hello? Hey, Hello, what's up?
Yes? I have a question regarding the excuse me for my English stuff,
my native language. I have a question regarding the scroll of Esther, the
Book of Ester. Yes. I don't know a lot about the textual scholarship
around Esther. I do know that the Orthodox Study Bible, for example,
has the longer chapters of Esther, so it has like Esther, m,
Esther, b, Esther c. So, but I don't know much about
the textual scholarship around Esther. Yes. So one question is like, is
the church see it like an historical book or like an allegorical story, you
know, like, what is the position of the church regarding this I'm not
aware of any specific statement on the status of the text. I my feeling
is that it's presented as a historical text, so I would tend to think
that it's a historical text. There might be you know, allegorical meanings and
symbolisms found within it, for sure, like typological symbols. Yeah, yeah,
okay, I get it. That's say, thank you very much.
Yeah, that's a great question. I actually actually am not. I mean,
I've read Esther, you know, many times, but I don't actually
know a lot of this sort of scholarship around Esther. I have to admit,
m K. Graffen Nagel, what's up. Hey, I hope you're
doing well. Yes, sir, I just have two questions, especially just
the two parter, and you touched on it briefly. I watched doctor Branton
you talk about the trinity and the relationship and the monarchia, and I want
to get a clarification on this so I could tie it to my second part
of my question. Doctor Branson said that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Essentially, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the left and right
arm of the Father. That's how the monarchia makes sense. That's what I
heard him say, so, I want to know if you confirm that definition.
I think if I remember, and I've got the video pulled up.
So for those that are interested in this regard, this relates to the previous
guy's question about black Renee. If you want to watch that discussion here it
is, I'm a link it for you guys. If I remember, doctor
Branson said that this is in one of the Cappadocians because because he was responding
to the Filioque in the sense that if if the that triangle is inverted,
if it's flipped over, then it makes the Son and the Father kind of
like yeah it. Then it becomes you know, multiple gods and you got
a problem. They become buddies. Yeah, those are his words. So
I wanted to know, is that a fair way to look at it?
To see the Sun and Holy Spirit as the left and right arm. So
I think all the analogies will be limited because, for example, if we
only had that analogy, we might miss the close connection that the Spirit and
the Son do have. And so so this has raised that Blackerney and Florence,
which deals with whether or not the Spirit rests in and manifest through the
Sun. So in one sense, in terms of hyposthetic origin, I think
it would be correct to use the two arms analogy, But in terms of
manifestation it doesn't work because the Spirit has to move and manifest through the son.
So both are true, but they're limiting. I guess it's the two
hands and the two hands analogy works as in one essence, so's they're all
attached. But yeah, well it works. It works in terms of hyposthetic
origin, but it doesn't work in terms of manifestation. I see because because
the reason why that was sound in my mind, that made sense that analogy
is because given that the Father is the fountain on the head and he's the
source, he's the auto FiOS, it makes more sense for me to digest
it that way. And I guess this. I guess I'll say my second
part of the questions, so you know where I'm coming from. In the
liturgical prayers, the priest continuously emphasizes, you know, Christ, our God,
Christ our God, Glory to Christ, our God. And yes,
sure there's the Holy Spirit and the Father are mentioned, and there's a prayer
for the Father, but it seems like Christ is highlighted above all. And
I want to know, since the Orthodox position emphasizes the monarchia, and isn't
the Catholic bilioquid. I wanted to know why isn't the Father emphasized instead of
instead of the Son, because that's what I seem to see every Sunday.
I mean, I don't know about totaling up like emphasis. I mean,
you know, when I go to church, it's to me the emphasis seems
triadic. So I mean, but maybe there is some sort of numerical reference
to the Son more than the Father and the Spirit. I don't know.
I've always I just haven't that giving more focus or supremacy to the Father in
the sense. And I don't mean this and the subordination hierarchical to a standpoint,
even though there's an element of that with the monarchy. I mean in
terms of the origin factor of him being the source. And I think even
Branson explained it in that way that kind of like a big bang. Even
though he happens, the Father happens like existed throughout all times, the Logos
and the Holy Spirit happen immediately after, like they exist immediately after. If
that makes sense. I don't know if I'm butchering his explanation of it.
Yeah, I don't know what to say I see. Okay, any recommendations
to get a better clarification on that, or am I just looking at it
wrong? Well, doctor Branson always answers emails, so, like, I'm
sure he would be happy to answer your email if you go to his website.
Can his academic emails right there? So he would definitely be better for
that kind of a question. Sure, okay, Yeah, well appreciate it.
Yeah, thank you, man. I'm sorry I wasn't better to answer
that, but but yeah, doctor Branson ifles knows more than I do on
those topics. K h f F, what's up? Hell? Yeah,
I was just curious. I know that you usually your point of study is
theology and metaphysics, but I was wondering had you seen anything on J Smith
and kind of the work that he's done recently a lot of people have mentioned
him to me, and I just haven't got around to it. It's not
at all that I'm trying to ignore it, but I hear that his critiques
of Islam are pretty devastating. Yeah, they are very devastating. It's definitely
a different point of argument than yours. But does he have a channel.
Where where do we find him? Yeah, so that's fand Or films.
It's PF another p F A N D E R films, And he does
interviews with a lot of academics that are doing studies like on the ground.
Yeah, so he goes that route. But it basically his argumentation is that
the Sassinated Empire created Islam as a way to combat the Roman Empire because all
of their peoples were Christian and they couldn't fight each other, so they had
to convert them to this new religion that was better than Christianity, and therefore
you see those additions like you know, spoils of war and just incentives to
to go to war. Basically interesting, So that's his arguments. You know,
I've I don't know a whole lot about that specific historical period, but
I've wondered in my mind if at times Islam wasn't just appropriated by certain monarch
sultans, the Ottomans and so forth, because it does seem to fit very
well with a kind of geopolitical type of agenda. And I think that today's
intelligence agencies as well know enough to know that, you know, Islam can
be crafted and molded very well into kind of geopolitical skeleton skeleton key type of
operations. Yeah, his main points of attack are the coenage that were used
in the time of Muhammad and directly after Muhammad, all still there Christian symbols
like priests and crosses and things like that. And then apparently there's thirty two
thousand different versions of the Qur'an instead of just the one that Muslim's always referred.
Well, we had the burning of them to try to get one version
of it right. So now that's interesting because in the Oxford Handbook of Islam,
I noticed reading through a bunch of the entries in that for the for
the Jake debate, there was a really good chapter early on about how it
is the scholars now do affirm that it's arian and historian versions of Christianity that
influenced early Islam. And that's interesting because John Damascus says that in his heresiology,
who was one of the first who's writing I think for one of the
Sultans. He was a scholar for one of the Sultans as an orthodox Christian,
and so I think at times people took issue with this. I said,
oh, it's not influenced because because if it's influenced by like Christian tudepigrapha
and Talmudic tradition and and you know, heterodox Christianity like arians and historians,
then that means it's not a new revelation to Mohammad. So and if you
read the Gabriel Site Reynolds book, which is one of the texts that I
read for the Daniel debate, you know Reynolds has a list well, that
whole book is really about discrepancies and contradictions in the Biblical narratives versus the way
the Quran depicts certain Biblical narratives. And that would also suggest, for example,
there's influence of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, There's the Testament of Abraham.
There's all these pseupergraphic texts that seem to have made their way into the
Quran. So clearly there's these these sort of oddball, weird influences, including
Astorianism and Arianism that play into Islam as well, which basically seems to be
vindicated. Now. Yeah, another thing it that he goes over is there's
like these secret passages in the Quran I guess that nobody can interpret or something
like that. And basically if you do, do you mean like you mean,
like the passages where you're you're not you're forbidden to inquire into the meaning
those kinds of pastors, Well, there's some passages that they don't even understand
what it said. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about it. Yeah,
and they'll say, all you can inquire into those, yeah, right.
So what they've done is I think it was a German scholar he took and
Arabic is just a newer version of Aramaic. So if you take the Arabic
back to Aramaic, which is just taking off some slashes and dots and making
it into Aramaic again, it's just about Jesus. Like everything it talks about
is about Jesus, and it's it's pretty much the gospel just hidden basically.
So if you take those out put it back into Aramaic, then it makes
total sense. Well you, when you say hidden, do you mean corrupted
or like, what do you mean, because because I mean, the Koran
does not, because the Quran is nonsense, bro, So what do you
mean? Yeah? Yeah, No, I just mean hidden in the sense
that it's they've overlaid things over it. Yes, I see what you mean
In fact, yeah, Sam Sam Schmund had a really good video. He
pointed out one of our interviews years ago where he showed that there's a section
of the Quran which is like a jumbled up version of several verses from the
Gospel of John. It's just all it's jumbled up, That's all I had.
I just wanted to know if you had looked into that. And I
think it's very interesting. I need to I just keep I keep forgetting to
go deeper into that kind of stuff because I focused ended up focusing so heavenly,
heavenly heavily on you know, Trinity versus uh, you know it,
taw heed, And I haven't gone deep into a lot of these you know,
historical textual issues with Islam. But but thank you for that. Yeah,
there's plenty of people way better than me at that. Just for example.
The way this works is people might think, well, how you how
do you not know this? But you've done all these debates with Muslims.
Well, each Muslim there's as many product the Muslim schools as there are basically
sacked anywhere else, and they all have a million different views on what they
pretend is the clear, simple teaching of God's oneness. Okay, well,
there's I guess zillion different schools on what Allah's oneness even is, and so
hopefully people have begun to see. Oh well, wait a minute. I
thought this religion was, like, you know, so clearly simple for the
simple people, and everybody can see the Allah is one. And then you've
got all these people fighting over it what it means, you know, the
Shias, Like if you watch the Jake Khalil debate, Kalil is just basically
restating a kind of neoplatonism. Jake is like, nah, dude, you
know Allah has a foot, So I mean, dude, they don't know
what it means. So m KG, what's up? Not MTG, MKG.
Hey another question here. I actually it's actually tied to what I previously
asked. I wanted to know regarding questions like these, how much can I
trust my my priest to give me the correct answer or trust his answer when
it comes to things like this correct answer on what anything regarding regarding the Trinity?
What does it mean? Or references in the Old Testament, like whatever
my priest's explanation is for those things like how much can I take that without
salt? I mean, I don't I don't think. I think in every
communion you could conceivably have uneducated priests, uneducated pastors. I mean, so
this is this is probably a feature of every union. I would say that
typically, on average, Orthodox priests are probably better defenders of the Trinity than
say, the average Roman Catholic priest. I mean a Roman Catholic priest.
He might on off off hand know a good bit about the Trinity or something
like that, but most of the time a Roman Catholic priest, nobsorto priest
is going to be like, well, go read the the you know,
read Augustin on the Trinity, or go read the Catechism. So I think
that on issues of trinity and incarnation, they're probably better than the average Roman
Catholic priest. But there are a lot of cases where unfortunately, even Orthodox
priests are lacking in some theological training and knowledge. Cool and also, when
you said to contact bo Brandson via email, I was wondering if you would
happen to have him on one of your next livestreams Q and AS, so
maybe it could happen there. Yes, so we're gonna do a debate review
of the Jake debate, so it'll be me, Lewis, Kai and doctor
Branson and uh, that would be a good time to raise Q and A
and stuff, but that'll probably be in the next few weeks. We're just
waiting on Lewis and Kai to have a time when they're free to do it,
but we'll eventually do it. It took us a while to the Daniel
review. You know how, Kai is very meticulous, so when he does
a debate review, he wants to like, you know, he wants like
a fifty minute presentation, which I'm totally cool with his His presentations are great,
so I'm sure that what he's doing is just kind of working up a
big presentation and then you can ask doctor Branson you know whatever at that time.
But he's also really good at emails, so he's he's usually answered every
email up sent. But let's see who was next, Lucos, what's up,
Lucase we got high fructose corn sorup and glucose in the house. I'm
good man, what's that with you? Hey? So I'm just learning about
the Orthodox view of like what grace is, you know, divine energy and
speaking with Calvinists or Protestants, they use this term, and you've probably heard
of it unmerited favor as they describe, right. So Protestants typically restrict grace,
so they only, I mean, they typically mainly think of it as
dispositional in other words, God's disposition towards you changing from angry to happy.
So that's what they're talking about when they use that, because they think of
it as your judicial standing before God. Orthodox typically think of it more so
in the sense of the metaphysical thing that you're participating in, which is the
actual divine life of God. So I have a whole essay is Grace Created
or Uncreated? Here at my website if you want to watch that. There's
also a dire clips versions of it. So if you want to deeper dive
into specifically where we're say, departing from the Roman Catholic view, it's here.
And then I have an old old essay that I wrote about contrasting our
view to the Calvinist view, because in the Calvinist view, grace kind of
ultimately it is dispositional, but it's dispositional because of the merits that Jesus does
to fulfill the covenant of works. That's the Calvinist views in other words,
the Adam failed to do all the good works. So Jesus, as the
second atom, has to come and fulfill this quote covenant of works, which
then merits the perfect judicial standing, which is then imputed to your bank account.
That's the classical Protestant Calvinist view. So the problem with the merited works
and time that Jesus does to fill the comant works is that it's still it's
still a created grace. So they're in the exact same position as the official
Ludwig Gotte, Roman Cathoy position that grace is a supernatural quote creature. In
other words, it's Arian. So when Palamas debates with Barley, Yeah,
when Palamas debates Barley am about created grace, he says, well, so
ultimately you're saved by another creature. That's Arian. Okay. Yeah. Also,
I just wanted to I got to. I believe it's a instant verbum.
He had a really good clip of yours. It's my favorite dire clip.
He he resurrected it, so to speak, the other week. It's
called the General Resurrection of Man. Oh yeah, you heard that. That
is so good. So anyways, thanks Jake. Yeah, I think the
old essay that I'm thinking of. I think it's this one. It's called
how Calvinism is an historian and Pallagian. I think this is the essay I'm
thinking of from like twenty ten. So I'll put this in the chat for
you guys. Uh, that's one. And then yeah, I forgot about
that video that was on in Citium Verbum from like six years ago. I'll
put that in the chat for you guys too. Let's see General Resurrection.
I don't know how is a Kotel gonna talk about the Moscow thing on YouTube?
That's crazy? I mean I'm not saying it's crazy that that he's doing
it. I'm saying that, like is he gonna get away? Like?
How was he gonna? How is he gonna do that? Like I just
assumed that, like there ain't no way you can talk about that on YouTube.
Let me see, I just saw that video the other day. Pop
up, Uh, where's it at? How was at it? Right there?
Yeah? Here it is? So here's the video that he's referring to,
which I do think is now that I think back to which video this
is, I think this is pretty good for like Protestant Calvinists mindset. There
all right, we got a few more we'll do. I might try to
do another stream to I'm in straight up like machine mode, dude, like
I'm ready to live stream the crap out of myself in the next few weeks.
I mean, I'm just I don't know, something has something crawled up
in me and you got me all whacked out. Brouh, sleigh bubbles,
what's up, sleigh bubbles? Jamie? Could you make me a double shot?
Thank you? What's up? Slate queen? Hello? Jed Dower,
I'm on my girlfriends account. God bless you. I want to just thank
you for everything you do. I have a question about counting my division and
both Branson's unity of action. I mean, is it the same answer to
the quote unquote problem or is it two different and two different answers to the
same problem. How does it compare or I mean, how are they similar
arguments? That's made? Is that following William Lane Craig and another guy.
I read doctor Branson's response essay like a month ago, so I forget all
the details in that. But unity of action has to do with whether or
not there's one will and operation in the trinity versus each of the persons having
their own will and action. And so the William Lane Craig Apollinarian conclusions,
if I recall, lead him to thinking that there's like three wills in God
or something like that. I may not be remembering the details. But that's
different from how we count. And I have a I did a whole video
on my backup channel if you want to see that, where I basically just
walk through two different ways of counting. They're not exclusive. Different things are
counted in different ways. So in the ancient world, they typically counted by
division. This is why the Nicene Creed talks about God is or the liturgy
speaks of God is undivided. That means counting by division. Algazali and his
belief in moderation section eight or so, he counts by division eight or ten.
Aristotle in the categories six counts by division. It's well known. It's
not even a contentious issue. So the point though, is that different things
are picked out and counted in different ways. That's so if you want a
fuller explanation of that, it's on my backup channel, just called counting by
division. Okay, thank you for that. I just have another question.
Basically, so with that being said, counting by division. I've heard Luigi
ask you the same question, but I just want to make sure that I'm
you know, positive on this, So it would be basically just denying the
false economy of is of identity and is a predication? Correct, It's related
to that, but it's just pointing out that not everything is counted in the
same way. So like when we count ahead. No, okay, no,
because you know that's how you know, you know Muslims last is Jesus
God by predication of by identity. But with you, what you're saying is
just basically like rejecting that, saying we come by division. Well that this
is more so related to the trinity or what's called the logical problem of the
trinity. So this is it's not really uh uh, I mean, it's
related to christology. But hold on second, I'm trying to find this video,
so let me find it, man, this freaking search never maybe Kyle
put it up now, I can't remember. I can't remember where I put
it. Anyway, it's this live stream talk here. You just have to
find it with their causes. Three hour live stream from Debating Lunatics on TikTok
let's see jub he timestamped it. So let me see where that time stamp
is here. It is. So if you got to one forty four,
if you got a one forty four in this talk right here, it's called
insane. TikTok debates atheists, calvinists and cults. If you got to one
forty four, I walk through the two different senses of how we count.
Okay, thank you so much man, good questions. Thank you God,
bless you too. Richard Hayes. By the way, look look for Tristan
and I to do a deep dive on dune and dune too. That's gonna
be fun. In the next few days over on his channel, or I
think tomorrow, so beautiful, tri Stauna and I will be discussing Paul muadib
ussol A Tredees and his uh Nestorian assent to being the hand of God,
the voice from the older world. So anyway, gotta I'm mute, man,
I mean, you ain't gotta on mute. You don't you can just
not on mute. Whatever. So we got it some. We got several
super chats I need to read. We got a couple more questions coming up.
But before we do that. I want to remind you guys that we
do have a show sponsor. Check out this awesome based red pill company that
will make you on toxically masculine beyond your wildest dreams. I'm gonna put you
on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling
synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the 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 there could be
consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male pre workout powder for sigmas only.
It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss,
aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out
from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, 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
sweetness to every single pre workout when there are many 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 alone. Shout out to
Vivek Ramaswami on the ads there keeping us red, pilled based and toxically masculine.
No, that's not actually Vivec for those that are wondering, that's Ai
Vivec. According to are awesome Chalk ads, So you use a promo co
J fifty over chalk dot com. By the way, Chalk doesn't just have
the amazing awesome chad Moode that's one of their new products. They also have
my favorite, the tonkat Ali, which is proven to boost testosterone one percent.
Proven to do that. Go read the studies over at chalk dot com
choq dot com action two point Oh you want to boost those energy levels?
Well, if you head over to chalk dot com, you'll see the male
Vitality stack right there on the front screen. You don't pay that full price,
you pay half of that with the promo co J fifty. That's JA
WiFi zero to get fifty off. And we got got a couple of people
left in the queue. I'll go to those JA. I missed you,
sure, yeah, I sent a super chat a while ago, but I
missed it. Had to go pick up my son from school. I was
saying. I was new to Orthodoxy. I was trying to figure out,
like what's the best translation in the Bible to use? And the context was
kind of like oh, I thought like the King James was like the best
baseless eptuogen. Now what you want is the trying to modify it. Nah,
dude, what you want? No, no, no, you want
the women's rights gender neutral study Bible. That's the best study Bible that's out
there right now? What's that? I'm just joking, man, I think
there is a gender neutral study Bible which somebody put out, like I think
it was like one of these cucked Nordic countries put out a gender neutral study
Bible. I'm just kidding, man. The Orthodox Study Bible is my favorite.
Okay, so the obs basically or osb got it? Oh there is
so you actually there's a whole you can actually choose a whole plethora of gender
neutral translations of the Bible. This is so insane anyway. Yeah, Orthodox
Study Bible is my recommendation. I've used it for many years. A lot
of really good notes. They're not perfect notes. Sometimes it's a little weak
and airs the Old Testament, which I wish they could have done more on.
And every now and then I think they make a few theological missteps in
the notes. But I'd say ninety five percent of the notes are really good
in the Orthodox Study Bible. Let's say, let's go to Who's up next?
Rinzo? What's a rinzo? Sounds like a sounds like some kind of
a gangster movie name, like the you're the underling to one of the gangsters.
All right, so ja I have a question. So basically, I'm
a I'm inquiring about Orthodox and I was wondering, so, what's the main
difference in the Trinity? Like I'm using the Christology stuff. So like along
the lines of like the economy I heard you talk about before, like is
the orgines with the Father or both the Father? And the Orthodox holds strictly
to the Father is the sole origin and cause. Roman Catholics believe through via
Lions and Florence that the Son also is a co source with the Father together
as a single source of the hypostatic personal origin of the spirit. So we
do not believe that that's the key philioqui. Friends. And by the way,
we have we have several you know, debate reviews. You can go
watch the debate reviews of of our filioquay debates. We have a three hour
talk on the Edward Sashenski book about the Philly Okay, So okay, what
would do some beginner books as well? If you're asking about the Philly oquay
issue, I would say read the Sashinsky book. But if you're asking about
Orthodoxy in general, I think probably my endorsed book The Orthodox Church is a
good introduction. Yeah. Man, great questions. Glad to hear that you're
inquiring now, Harry, I'm not remember we're on YouTube, so let's keep
our questions. Mister Ludwig YouTube appropriate so that we don't get boosted blasted off
of YouTube got immune. Yes, sir, looking forward to volume three and
you're previously mentioned book on the on the books anyways, Anyways, I was
wondering what you if you've read rush Dunis The One and the Many, and
what's your take on that? I have? Yeah, in fact, I've
recommended it for many years. Obviously I disagree with the russ Unis Like theology,
but I thought that his One the Many books a great application of the
problem to the history of social order. So basically, for those that don't
know, Russiani takes the issue of the One of the Mini and says we
can actually see in the history of cultures and civilizations the manifestation of the problem
that won the Mini in terms of how societies are organized. So yeah,
I read it back in the two thousands and I've always thought it was a
pretty good book. So you think he deals with he elevates the Trinity as
a crucial anyway, Yeah, I would agree with that. Have you read
any fors Yes, I read Shadow of Christ and Law of Moses. Okay,
let me think he has another I read another book from Poethrus, uh
something about sacraments back in the day, but I don't, I mean that
was a long time ago. Okay, Well take care and say hi to
Jimi. Yeah and yeah, I thought, actually there was some good typological
argumentation in Poethrus's Shadow Christ and the Law Moses. So even though he's calv
I would disagree with the Covinist theology. That's a pretty good book on typology.
So let's see Dan Boordorf. What's up, Dan? Are you there?
BMX nineteen sixty six ten bucks? Thank you so much, BMX appreciate
that. Guys, if you want to support the show via stream Labs super
chat, you can, so if you want to send me a superchat,
use stream labs right there the super chat link. Hopefully everybody saw once again
the points that were made today via critiquing Trent. This was really what the
debate with Trent ultimately was about. If you remember when Trent I debated natural
theology. Unfortunately, today Trent sort of restated all the same mistakes from two
years ago. So that's what kind of got me fired up ready to live
stream today. So hopefully you understood and grasped all that anti Pacman three dollars,
Are you unequivocally, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt ten thousand percent
sure that you're not mean? No? In fact, I tricked you all
by telling you that twenty twenty four would be the year of love. You
all believed it, and then I showed up with my Cobra Commander shirt as
you see here today. So you are a fool Cobra. There you go.
You bought into Cobra Commander's sy ops hook line and sinker shaw on two
dollars? Can Constantinople be permanently excommunicated? Sure? Any of the seas could
be. Canon twenty eight of Calcedon makes New Rome next to the privileges of
Old Rome. Does that have to be linked to Constantinople thinking about the possible
reunion of twenty twenty five? Well, look, if we believe Old Rome
can be severed and lose its candlestick, then certainly New Rome can so absolutely
sean two dollars. YouTube notified me that Jim Bob is live, but it
doesn't notify me about you even when I turn the notifications on. Yeah,
who knows? You never you never predict this stuff. But remember everybody that
you also do have to turn on notifications, so sometimes maybe that gets turned
off. I don't know exactly. Maybe in your phone you turn off notifications
under apps or something. I'm not saying you did that. I'm just saying
that sometimes that can happen. You don't even have the live symbol. I
don't know about that. I mean, that's I think it. I think
it says I'm live on YouTube. But yeah, who knows, could be
could be any of that. I think I noticed that engagements on Twitter seem
to have gone down in the last month, So that's odd. Marine cus
Man five dollars. I'm picking out a different reference versus what's the way picking
out a different reference versus, for example, just being wrong. For example,
if I point out Jay Dyer and say that you don't have a human
will, I'm real, I'm wrong, but I'm still talking about Jay Dire.
That's true. But the problem is that in terms of knowing conceptually about
God versus worshiping it and having adoration with God. That's why I use my
analogy of having a relationship and adoration. Right. So remember, if if
Nosratat had restricted it to Muslims have a knowledge of the person of God via
Abraham or something like. Maybe they could skate around that. But the problem
is that they say that they adore the One True God and have the faith
of Abraham. No they don't. You see, that's the problem there.
So are they talking about a different Jesus or what? But yeah, that's
my point right. So again, if I if I mean, if I
say Jesus, I believe like Joe's witnesses, they quote believe in Jesus,
Mormons believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. Do me a Joe's witness
and a Mormon. Therefore all have the same reference kinda because even though they
might intend quote Jesus, it's totally wrong and so the reference doesn't achieve the
worship and adoration as Vatican two says. You see, so knowing it's equivocating
on the word, knowing it's what I'm trying to say. Oh, I
forget to talk about Acts seventeen. This is a great example of this.
So let's go to Act seventeen where where Trent he brought this up today,
Act seventeen. So let's look at this because again we're going to see that
Act seventeen doesn't say what Trent wanted to say. It's the exact opposite of
it. And this is relevant because here's where and Dan I apologize. We'll
go to you in a second. This is where the apologetic of Saint Paul
confronts the uh, the Greek philosophers. So Paul walks into Athens to the
marketplace, and he says that there were certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, and
he reasoned with the Jews and the gentiles, the worshipers and the synagogue.
By the way, that means he's debating, So debating is not wrong.
The Stoic philosophers and Epicurean said, what is this babbler talking about? Everyone
made the official Hamburg of March madness of the What the heck? Another?
No, oh, that's a stupid ad on the Bible Gateway page, Like,
what the heck is black people talking about food? In my mind,
I'm I going crazy. They got altars talking to me. Uh. They
brought him to the areopagus. What is this doctrine? So we'll skip down
here to where Paul addresses the areopagus, and Paul says, I was passing
through your objects of worship and I noticed that you had a bunch of statues
and all kinds of things, and I even found an altar that says to
the unknown God. Now, in my mind, this example is a perfect
example of the point that I've been making my position. Okay, Trent,
I don't know why he thought this proved his position. But therefore the one
God who you worship without knowing? Okay. So notice that there's two senses
of knowing here and worship here does not mean that the worship is accepted.
And the problem with the Vatican two passage is the wording makes it sound as
if it is accepted. Muslims worship the one God. You say, because
of what? Because of quote the faith of Abraham. But it's not the
faith of Abraham, because the faith of Abraham is not based on genetic dissent,
as Paul says. It's based on belief in the Messiah, which either
Jews nor Muslims have. So the entire letter of the Galatians refutes this idea
that there's some faith of Abraham separate from the faith of Christ. No,
there's not, and you can't have one without the other. Okay, So
let's go back to back seventeen. That's the one that I proclaim to you.
Now, if they already knew God, then Paul doesn't need to What
message does he need to bring if they already know God in a potentially saving
relationship via their altar which actually reads unknown God. Okay, what does this
say? Right here, unknown God? We are worshiping what we don't know,
So that means that they're not really worshiping the living God. Otherwise,
why does Paul need to bring a message to them if they're already worshiping God.
This is the tread's whole point is under cut by the point of the
passage. Paul is preaching to people who don't know God in a saving way.
And you say, well, then what's the problem with the Muslim text?
Because this gives the impression that it is a saving way. They adore
the one God, they have the faith of Abraham and submit to Abraham,
submit to God like Abraham. No, they don't. That's the point.
And the whole move of Trent and company to get to what Nostra tatday Avadicandu
says right here in this text is natural theology. Misinterpreting passages like this,
God who made the world and everything in it. Since he's lord of heaven
earth, does not dwell in temple's made with hands, nor is he worshiped
with man's hands. Oh so, wait a minute, so he's not actually
worshiped according to the ignorant worship of these people. Do you see this?
So there's two different senses of knowing and worshiping. This first sense that you
worship without knowing. Paul is rhetorically saying you don't actually worship him, and
he doesn't accept this worship. He's not worshiped with men's hands. Yet you
pagans who quote worship him unknowingly do worship him with men's hands, and that
is not true worship. He has made from one, since he gives life
to everything. He's the creator. He's not a creature. He has made
from one, every blood, every nation, every blood, every tribe to
dwell and face the earth. He has predetermined their appointed times and boundaries and
dwellings, so that they should seek him in the hope that they might find
him. Though he's not far from each one of us, for in him
we live and move and have our being. For we, as some of
your poets have said, are also his offspring. So Paul is saying that
there is a kind of primordial you could say, quote monotheism there. But
the primordial monotheism is first of all obtained through idolatry. That's his point there.
And all the nations became idolatrous, you see. So the idolatrous errors
and heresies are deviations that prevent the true relationship with God. And if you
read John Damascus's heresiology, this is why he calls idolatry a heresy. He
says, the original heresy is Genesis. The fall is the original heresy.
Well wait a minute, how could that be a heresy? Because it was
a fall away from the Trinity in the Garden of Eden. That's why John
Damascus can class every error, whether idolatry, heathenism, atheism, as heresies
and deviations from the original Trinitarian worship in the garden. How different is that
from everything that Trent says. So this passage has nothing to do with Trent's
natural theology. Paul is actually saying that you're a bunch of idolators and you've
made the divine nature into something that's not. And then he says, uh,
oh, you were what ignorant. Now wait a minute. If they're
ignorant, then how were they worshiping the ones run? So again, this
I think really demolishes the opposite reading that Trent tried to give it in his
citations today on Twitter. Uh, Dan, did you want to say?
Dan? Are you still there? It says you're here, but I can't
hear you. Did you turn your mic on? Are you there? So?
Dan, if you want to come out, come back in, go
to try to maybe turn your mic on or something. We don't hear you.
Let's see Dion, what's up? Don deon? The Bible guy?
You got to unmute? Oh yes, sir. Yeah. So I'm reformed.
But I've been listening to you for a while, watching a lot of
your videos, and I think you make a lot of good points when it
comes to, for example, the Trinity and like penal substitutionary atonement. And
so I've been calling a lot of you know, pastors and reform guys,
popular people, uh, trying to like, you know, harmonize this all
out. So I guess I'm just curious, what would how would how do
you understand Isaiah fifty three ten where it says it please the Lord to crush
him, to crush the sun, because that seems to be a general verse
that Reform guys go to. Yeah, so I'm just curious how what you
sarre about that. And to be clear, in Orthodox theology, we do
accept there is an element of penal uh punishment or in a sense also substitution,
but we have to be very precise because it's not penal substitution as a
classic Reformation teaching teaches it. So is there any representation substitution element? Yes?
Is there any quote punishment element? Yes? And so let me show
you what the classic Orthodox teaching is. If you go to On the Orthodox
Faith by John Damascus, Book three, let me pull it up for you,
and if you read the last it's like five the last five paragraphs book
three. So if we scroll down here to what happened when Christ died,
you'll see that John Damascus gives the perfect explication of our view. I also
have on my rock fin I did a two hour live talk at an Antiochian
Orthodox event about christ Descent into Hades, where I also cover this this issue.
You have to search on my rocktion for Descent into Hades Comma Jay Dyer
and it'll come up. But if we scroll down here to his prayer,
this is the appropriation. So the first part is chapter twenty five. This
word John Damascus really starts to answer the reformed questions, and here he says
that, first of all, God the son was perfect, so he can't
literally become a curse. But he says that he became as if one cursed,
right, and so there's no literal sense in which the father is damning
or rejecting the son. He's cursed from the appearance of humans. From human
Banag's point, it appears, okay, this man over here, he's being
crucified. That's a cursed dude. He's not literally cursed. But what does
it mean then that he's in a sense quote punished or takes on the quote
punishment. Punishment is the death that he endured, meaning the severance of his
human soul from his human body. There's no punishment that is from the advantage
point of the father to punish the son in some judicial way, because the
son always loves the father and can never and the father always loves the son.
There can never be a division between the two hypostases. I mean,
just think about how silly this would be in terms of eternal generation. So
does he stop generating the son when he suddenly doesn't love the son anymore when
he gets mad? It doesn't work that way. So what does it mean
that there's some sort of acceptance of forsakenness and so forth? The twenty second
Psalm, it's explained by JOHNA. Damascus very perfectly that the Word of God,
the Son willfully accepts the death in his flesh. And the death is
not spiritual death, it's the severance of the human soul from the human body.
And so John Damascus will explain that this is precisely by the way why
he descends into hades, because he's the second person to the human soul.
He's the divine person of the Word, who is the person to the human
soul that descends in the eighties, Yeah, no, that's actually kind of
where I've been. That's kind of where my understanding is gone. Is it's
not some type of direct like it's not like the Father is having like this,
oh like angry at the Jesus right in heaven. But it's I'm just
understanding it that the Father is allowing the son to be crushed. So it's
like an indirect cause and the crushing. The crushing is the son's willful acceptance
of death. It's not spiritual death. It is death as in his soul
being severed from his body. Right, No, exactly exactly, And the
Father is in agreement with that. So yeah, I'm with you on that.
So look, this is the prayer in the garden, right. So
the prayer in the garden is if you read Maximist the Confessor's little book against
Pearis, it's called Disputation with Pearis. The whole debate ends up being about
that's happening in the prayer in Gaseimone. And when Jesus says, not my
will be done, but I will be done, the divine person of the
son is submitting his human will to the divine will of the Father, which
he shares with the Father. So he's he is determining to submit the human
will that he possesses to accept death. And what is death there? It
is not spiritual death. How could the divine person of the son have a
spiritual death? This would split the trinity. He's a divine person, he's
not a human person. That's Nestorianism. So the death that he's willfully accepting
can only be death in his flesh, namely his human nature, the severance
of the human soul from human body. Yeah, and if there was anybody
that ever said that like Jesus the Son, like God experienced some type of
spiritual death, like that's crazy and that's all that that's Luther says that.
Calvin says that the Puritans say that. John Murray says that Charles Hodge says
that that's very common in the classical rights reformers. Okay, I mean I've
been looking it up. I haven't been able to find like direct sources.
I'll show you. I'll show you this. I'll show you katina of quotations
right here, because my buddy, old Catholic buddy, he compiled a bunch
of these like twelve or thirteen years ago, and he has all the sources
too. So it's I think it's called uh hopefully it's still up. Yeah.
Here it is, was Jesus damned in your place? Nick's blog And
he cites a bunch of reform John Piper, Lorraine Bettner, the famous Calvinist,
John MacArthur. H Let's see, he's got Charles Hodge this Mata theology
Calvin Institute of the Christiana Religion. J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudom
Luther says it too. I don't know if he has Luther in this in
this collection, but Luther does say it so, and they actually call it
spiritual death. It's damnation, okay, And this is okay. So I've
I called a few people today and I was talking to him about that,
and I'm aware that they use words like damnation and stuff. But like,
what what people have been explaining to me, and I've talked to quite a
lot of people, is that it is it does have to do with his
death on the cross. It's not some type of like eternal damnation. It's
it's more of what I mean, what what is separation from what is separation
from God? Luther says that in that instant he experienced. So what Luther
does is he reinterprets the phrase and the creed that he descended into Hades.
Luther says the descent in Hades doesn't mean that he literally went to a realm
of the dead called Hades. It means that he experienced in that instant all
of the torments and damnation of the Father from all eternity in that instant,
and Luther says he can do that because he's God. So yeah, I'm
gonna have to check out those times. Well, I mean, I've got
it right here. I've got it pulled up. Bro, it's right here
on the thing. I can't see it. You want to here, let
me read you, Luther or treat us on preparing to die. So then
gays at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake,
was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke Eli Eli Lama
Sabacthani. That's Luther right there. Treat us on preparation for death. Yeah,
yeah, I would. I couldn't. I would. I could never
accept that. But well it's anti yeah, and that makes sense to me.
That's what I'm saying, Like these that argument that you use against what
some of those reformers said, Like I would, I would agree with you
on that. So could What would you say if I were to affirm,
you know, kind of what you explained earlier about you know, a type
or a form of substitution atonement. If I were to affirm that, I
mean, isn't that, in a sense a type of sub penal substitutionary atonement.
It's just not It just depends on what you mean by the words.
It just depends on what one means by the words. But the whole key
to understanding this issue is actually Christology. Once you figure out if you read
the John mcguck and book Saint Cyril of Alexander the Christological Controversy, it will
get rid of all of the Protestant ideas that you might have, or the
Roman Catholic ideas that you might be tempted with, because once you get cyri
Lene Christology down and you understand that the divine person of the Word is the
only subject, it's not possible for any of these Protestant positions. Yeah,
I'm gonna have to check that book out. The last thing, it's so
it's kind of a two part thing. So do you believe that God experiences
emotions? Or like, how does does God experience emotion? I mean it's
probably not going to be like we do. But does he experience joy or
anger or things like that? Well, we typically call those divine energies,
and so I don't think we would equate them to human emotions. I mean,
we're told that God is not a man like a man who changes his
mind. So not in the in his divinity, no, but in the
sense of the revelation in Christ, because Christ took on human nature in that
sense. Yes, he really does cry, he really does have love,
He really does, you know, experience human emotions and so forth. Okay,
because I was going to say, the last thing I was going to
bring up is also in Isaiah fifty three where it says our sins were placed
upon him. Well, I mean the Bible says that like God hates sin,
uh, not that the Father is going to hate the son because our
sins put on him. Yeah, but God we don't worship, right,
So but God is not like Zeus, Right, we don't worship a god
who uh is this tyrant in the sky who's constantly getting mad and getting upset.
I mean that's like, that's a that's an anthropomorphic error. So God
doesn't experience the passions, He's not fallen. Okay, So those are terms.
It's it's anthrop war perfect terms that try to tell us and explain to
us how God is. But no, God's not actually sitting around like super
mad and angry. It's just it's human language that's trying to tell us about
the divine But when it says, for example, uh, he placed I
mean, let's think about this for a minute, like sin and evil.
You understand that they don't have being or substance. Do you know what I
mean by that? Yeah? Okay, so they can't Actually, so there's
not literal Jesus can't literally become sin, right because sin is not a thing.
Okay. So if that's the case, then when what Isaiah's saying,
it can't mean that. Like remember in the when the Jews would place their
hands on the scapegoat, like do they literally put sins on the scapegoat?
It's they're they're sinful, They're given them the consequence of sin, which so
that's exactly that's appropriation. And so in the same way, when Jonadanmasus is
explaining what sins Christ became a curse or it became sin, it's by appropriation.
It's as if he was one curse. But he's not cursed. And
the father never ceases to love the son. And so the language about punishment
and so forth and chastisement is not because the father is unjust and punishes his
son unjustly. You know, it's explained as the son willfully doing these things.
He didn't have to do these things. He willed to do those things.
Sure, and he will to do that. He willed to do these
things for our healings. So yeah, great questions. Let's see Dan,
what's up? I don't know, Dan, I still can't hear you.
So I don't know if you didn't turn your mic on or what, but
we can't hear you. So now there's like eight people want to chat now
that I'm about done, So do we get more super chats? Let's see
here, let's see next one. Shane pay a twenty five dollars, thank
you so much. I watched the three hour plus video on John. Oh
you mean like the Gospel of John talks and the three out there's not one
three hour video on John. I've lectured through the whole Gospel John, so
that if you missed it, there's actually a lecture on every chapter of John.
And then the three hour video on Rocky mister e thank you so much.
Kine has five dollars. Do you think that most church fathers say physical
intercourse as a result of the fall? Is this mandatory orthodox teaching? I
don't know if I don't know. Most do. If you want to ask
somebody who would know that better than me, Father Deacon Patrick that I interviewed
on Deacon Essa's he would probably know that question better than me. There is
dispute even the father siffrom Rose and his Genesis creation early man, but mentions
patristic disputes about whether sexuality biological, you know, differences whether that injured as
a result of fall or not. I don't think it did. I mean,
and so there's there's some patrictic dispute here. I think Genesi is pretty
clear that men and women are men and women before the fall, so I
think that the Cappa Docians and even Saint Maximus did make some mistakes here.
Alexanderslsient five dollars. What do you think about John McGuckin. I only recommend
the Serial book, but I think that he's gone pretty liberal, so I
wouldn't recommend much more. Doug twenty dollars. I'm new to Orthodoxy. What's
the Bible translation that you recommend? Yeah, I think the Orthodox study bubble
is the best. I think you called in DC would working three dollars,
Thank you so much, US five dollars. Let us make if this is
speaking of the angels, well, that also means that the angels created us.
Actually, yeah, some of the people that propose the idea that it's
a Unitarian deity that's creating are well would then seemingly give angels a creative power.
And so I think some of them would actually bite the bullet and say,
yeah, the angels co created us as well. And this ends up
kind of moving into neoplatonism. So neoplatonic ideas, you kind of have creation
not being a direct thing from God or the monad. It's more of a
like a a series of ontologically diminished emanations, and so nothing would directly come
from the first principle. You would have to have these kind of gradations of
lower principles of the diad and the triad, and that that's where you would
get the the elements that make up the create the beings in our dimension.
I think even I think even Egyptian theology has this view. And that's why
you'll you'll if you look at like Egyptian metaphysics and whatnot, like they think
that like one of the principles is like the principle behind femininity. Right,
So there's a goddess of femininity, nu eat or whatever, and so she's
responsible for that domain of creation, right, So that's kind of a neoplatonic
and I think Egyptian. Do you anthemost of Bulgaria five dollars? Isaiah seven
fourteen? Is this about Christ? And also a contemporary event in Isaiah?
I think so. I think it's in Asaia as there is something. A
lot of the Messianic prophecies tend to be events that were occurring at that time
and something future messianics, so there's always this mirroring going on. So I
think Isaiah right, probably had an offspring, but that event, and I'm
not saying Isaiah's offspring was a virgin birth, but that event typifies something in
the Messianic period. Let me give an example of this. Isaiah nineteen has
a discussion, for example, of this proclamation against Egypt. Now, this
is something relevant to in terms of what we call the grammatical historical interpretation.
The immediate grammatical historical reference is what's happening in Isaiah's day in regard to a
prophecy against Egypt. Okay, so we see this. However, as the
prophecy progresses, we get this interesting statement here that there's a coming day where
five cities of the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan, that
is, of Israel. One will be called the city of Destruction. Look
at this. In that day there will be an altar to Yahweh in Egypt.
Now wait a minute, how could the this is post temple? Right?
The only lawful temple in the Old Testament period is where Jerusalem. You
can't go set up your own altar. When Jeroboam sets up his own altar,
he's condemned for this right because when Israel splits the northern tribes and the
southern, the Ten Tribes and then Judah, the lawful place of worship is
the Southern tribe of Israel, I mean Judah. Excuse me well. Being
a crafty statesman, Jereboam knows that he can't let Israel's worship be an the
South that's his enemy. So he concocts the made up worship of Dan and
Bethel. So he makes his own altars, his own temples, which are
state controlled via his cult. This is by the way that this is like
ancient Acumenism. Of course, he's condemned for this. So how is Isaiah
talking about an actual historical prophecy against Egypt. How's he gonna How could there
be ever an altar to Yahweh in Egypt. That's not possible, Ah,
But it is possible if this is fulfilled in the Messianic era, when the
Church spreads to Egypt as well as to Assyria and the name of the Lord
is called upon in those pagan lands. Imagine how this would have blown Isaiah's
mind. How could we have an altar in Egypt? This doesn't even seem
possible. That day there's an altar to the Lord in Egypt, a pillar
to the Lord at his border, and it will be for a sign and
a witness to the Lord of Hosts in Egypt. For they will cry the
Lord because their pressures, because will send them a savior. So this is
a messyantic prophecy. Then Yahweh will be known in Egypt. What and Egyptians
will know the Lord and make a sacrifice. And it's almost like it's repeated,
because they would have had Isaiah and his audience would have had a hard
time believing this once. How will they make a sacrifice an offer? You
can't, they can't. Are they going to come to Jerusalem. How is
that possible? The Lord will strike Egypt and it will heal it. He
will be entreated by them and healing what God hates Egyptians? Right, you're
a Jew, You're thinking God doesn't love them, He only loves us.
How could this be possible? In that day there will be a highway from
Egypt to Assyria. The a Syrian will come to Egypt and the Egyptian go
to Asyria and they will serve God with the Assyrians. What this will be
blowing them up? Well, I mean, these kinds of prophecies are probably
why they killed Isaiah. You know, the Jews killed Isaiah. Right.
I didn't even realize we got all these other superjets. I thought there was
like two mores. Actually got a whole bunch. More So, this was
to Andy's question about Isaiah. Andy, sorry, Anthemos's question about Isaiah seven,
And you're asking about the mirrored principle. Exactly. That's what we're talking
about here, this mirrored principle. So notice this, there's the key point.
This is the killer. The Killer text one of many examples proving this.
In that day, Israel be one of three with Egypt and Assyria.
Did you hear that? Mind blowing? How could Israel be one of three?
With Egypt and Asyria their enemies. A blessing in the midst of the
land, The Lord of Host will say, blessed is Egypt to my people?
What Egypt my people, Assyria? The work of my hands, Israel
my inheritance. Well that's exactly what happens when the Messiah comes and his Gospel
of the Kingdom spreads to the Egyptians and the Assyrians to graft them into the
Covenant. So it's both andy five dollars I jumped in late. I'm trying
to understand natural theology. Is it based on One Corinthians fifteen forty six?
I don't think so. By the way, isn't it funny when they appeal
to the Bible for natural theology because natural theology is not supposed to be It's
defined as apart from revelation, So it's ironic when they appeal to revelation to
try to prove natural theology. But the texts they're usingly don't even prove natural
theology anyway, So natural revelation is not natural theology. So no, this
has nothing to do with natural theology. Paul talking about the natural first before
the spiritual is referring to our biological life and reality preparation preparing us for the
eternal life spiritual reality. Natural theology again, guys, if you remember,
it is simply defined as speculating and philosophizing about God using human reason apart from
divine revelation. That's all it means. That's what is defined as by William
Lane Craig and John Paul. A second, so it's not even a contentious
issue, and that's what I'm always critiquing. So I don't know why people
get so confused over this because they think that using reasoning is No, it's
not. That's not what natural. Using a faculty is not natural theology.
Making arguments is not natural theology. And it is baffling to me that in
the debate I sent over to Trent the definition of what natural theology is that
we would be debating, and he's like, yeah, that's fine, and
then in the debate he's doesn't even stick to the don't know so, no,
it doesn't have to do with the fir Grita's fifteen forty six. The
Messiah is the word in the flesh, Andy says as a son. Correct
at that time, was Yahweh functioning as a son to show people to be
his children? I mean it wasn't at that time. It was always that
case that Jesus came to not just be our example of how to be sons
of God, but to actually ontologically make us sons of God. And that's
why Grace is uncreated us from OKJ fifty says for three dollars, it's theistic
evolution debate between you and inspiring philosophy ever happening, I don't think so.
We haven't talked about it. We decided to, you know, just kind
of make amends and have common discourse against Muslims. But he hasn't expressed any
desire for any debates on that. Noah m five dollars. If I played
Devil's advocate, If I define God as three persons in one essence, how
is this different from three human persons? Because human persons exist in a created
motive being. God is uncreated, So the motive being that God has is
not identical to human modes of being. So there's an analogy you could make
between the relationship between person and nature and human beings. But the analogies always
fall apart when you try to map them directly on in a one to one
correspondence to God. Peter, Paul, and John are three persons who share
one human essence, correct, but they are not quote one human right,
but they are one essence. So that's where the analogy lines up. But
because there are three discrete beings all created, analogies will always fall short.
And that's why it's called analogical likening and not univical or equivalent. Unifical predication
is what you're asking so for, if we were to say that Peter,
Paul and John were three and one in an identical or unifical sense to the
way that God is three and one, then we believe in three gods.
Zozah five dollars. Open theology is becoming widespread. I don't know why it's
annoying that every debate on the subject is a Calvinist versus somebody like reality is
not optionals debate with Matt Slick it was a very bad debate. You don't
have any Orthodox apologists on this topic. I don't think so. I just
think it's very standard. I mean, we're to read any Orthodox theological exposition
or Patristic exposition of the first seven centuries, nobody would deny divine omniscience.
So the idea that God updates his knowledge with proposition new propositional knowledge, which,
by the way, I think Jake believes that we didn't actually get to
that in the Jake debate. But unless I misunderstood his even to me a
Salafi position or whatever, I'm pretty sure they think that God learns new facts
and it's like he gets a daily upload. So to me that would be
that's weird, bizarre of kind of open theism, And to me it's just
it's a weird anthropomorphic heresy, like why would we think that God gets new
downloads of information? It's just silly. I mean, the scripture says many
times over that God is on miscient, so is weird to me? Damasing
three dollars, What do you think would happen to the monastery of Elder Ephraim
if a schism happens, I guess you mean between go arch ep and the
others. I have no idea. I don't know. I guess it's possible
that some of those groups would leave communion with with the Greeks, I guess,
and they would come over to us. I don't know. Amazing,
Noel. Ten dollars. Thank you for helping as an inquiring person looking to
looking for the push to convert. Cool. Yeah, I hope you.
You know, definitely check out the church though, because a lot of people
we don't want to give the misunderstanding or mislead people. I'm thinking that like
this is a bunch of intellectual online stuff. Now you have to go and
actually join the church so that you're not Orthodox until you know you actually go
do that. So and if you're where you don't have access, I'm not
condemning you. That's not your fault. So you are and can be Orthodox
impotentia so and God knows our hearts, so I wouldn't freak out if you,
you know, are believing Orthodoxy and then you die before you can get
to the church. We have a we have a consistent tradition of baptism of
desire, baptism of martyrdom and fire and all that. Amazing, Noel,
I know that was your donutsis five dollars. There's a clip of a heretical
bishop named mar Mary that doves into Christology. You should analyze his errors if
you have time. Well, I think Father McHale already did so, and
in his video kind of went in mini viral, I guess, so to
speak. So, guys, if you guys aren't familiar, I'm trying to.
I think it's Living Orthodox. It's his channel, and he did a
video. I think he's done two videos now responding to yeah here it is
so the first one he got almost one hundred thousand views on. So first
of all, go check out this video here from Father McHale. Uh,
And this is a good response to mar Maari. Now a lot of people
got mad too, because they're like, wow, how dare you critique this
guy? Well, I'm sorry, but there are areas and places that he
needs to be critiqued. And then everybody's mad because you're attacking Oh men of
God. It's like, now, look, we're not trying to be mean
and whatnot. It's just that if the default, if the theology is we're
gonna use Krista tokos and not Theo Tokos. Sorry, we have to go
after that. I'm sorry. It's just we have to. We're bound to
our tradition to do that. And I want to remind you guys, how
awful it is and ridiculous, and how ignorant these people are who claim to
be these apologists, Like what's this guy's name, freaking Rocky Balboa of Roman
Catholicism over here, I forget his name, but the voice of reason guy
who literally sits here telling you that the Storius is not a heretic. I
mean, I can't believe that this is where they're at. And I mean,
if you're falling for this, you're just you're just you're just You're clueless.
Man, you don't have any idea what's going on. I just don't.
I don't get it. How could anybody think, especially if you read
ephesis. Oh, ephesis actually got it wrong. And by the way,
multiple councils outter ephesis reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorias. So this is just mind
blowing to me that anyone takes us seriously. Uh so uh in the same
way that when the Council of Emphasis condemned Astorias as erretic, we know now
looking back that the council was actually incorrect. The council field and he goes
on in that clip to talk about more errors in the ecumenical councils not knowing,
I mean imagine thinking that they can't. So I guess so maybe Arias
wasn't uh that bad of a guy. There Areas wasn't an Aryan, right?
You see how silly this opens up the floodgates to every ridiculous heresy Uh
making a comeback. And I'm not trying to be mean, but look watching
that debate, I mean, Luigi mopped the floor with his goof ball anti
like your daddy's sister one dollar World religion. Would Religion the Apostles by by
Father Stephen Young be a good book for a Protestant pastor. I've still not
read this book. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude. I've
seen interviews where he talked about it. I assume so, but I don't
know how good it would be for Protestants. But I mean, I don't
think the main issue that Protestants have is like the Trinity, So I mean,
they have an effective view, and I think Protestants are mainly going to
be concerned with, like you guys, worship idols and have pictures and have
traditions. I mean, I think that's the main thing that Protestants are worried
about back in my right mind. Eighty eight five dollars. Thank you for
what you do. I'm a seventy three year old worth our experiment that has
learned from you. Hey, thank you so much. Appreciate that. L
two eight five dollars. Can you do your Steve Quail impression and bring it
back? How does he do? Alex? This is Steve Quail. I
would remind you that the benevolent are coming through the portals. It's gonna be
insane. The Illuminati has so many portals. Now that's that I haven't done.
It's almost turning into my Mark Zuckerberg impression. So I have to go
listen to some more. Uh. I haven't listened to Steve Quill in a
long time, so I've forgotten how he talks. Let's see, we've got
a couple more here. Roddy Roady, what's up? Roady? Rode?
Hey? Jay? And so one question related to the thing you mentioned before
about Christ and his death was the punishment. So I've always thought about the
way he died, I mean the the the actual crucifixion. As a formal
Protestant, I've always thought that that was the actual punishment. But now that
you terrify that I was, I wanted I wanted to ask you why why?
I mean, I'm I do understand the whole the crucifixion, but in
terms of why he needed to suffer that much? Was it for other people?
I mean it was to relate to our flesh. Well, Maximus says
that all of the sufferings and all of the things that he went through were
for our healing, because so it was nothing that he needed, and he
didn't have to do anything to pay off the Father. God doesn't need anything.
There's no payments that we offered to the Father. Well, then why
would there be an offering of the humanity to the Father strictly and solely for
our healing? As this says, So the offering is what heals and deifies
us. So Christ, as Maximus says, going through all of these things
is actually crucifying all of the passions. Now, he didn't he didn't have
blameful passions. He had blame less passions. But his conquering of those passions,
when we participate in his deified humanity, is what gives us the power
to overcome the passions. Maximus says, yeah, yeah, I've heard about
that because he angles to his sufferings. So many people who can relate to
a mother losing. Yeah, so that's why. And also a little bit
of unrelated question that I've asked around and I've got like a straight up answer.
Maybe you could light me on this. So the baptism, right,
was the Theotokos ever baptized by water? I don't think so. But I
haven't thought of this, and and even and even the Apostles, because I
mean, there is one verse where it says that the Christ and the Apostles
went to John the Baptist and and they baptized and got something like that,
but it's not like it doesn't stay clearly that they got baptized by water.
As interesting I have, I'm not found with this. I've heard that because
they went through a pentecost, they basically got christmated and got the Holy Spirit
that way. But I've always thought about I mean, because I'm I'm catechumen
and I'm about to get baptized, God willing in a couple of months.
So I've been reading about the baptism and I've found that, and I was
thinking about if they actually got baptists, and I haven't got a reply.
I've actually asked a couple of priests and they have also got surprise like you,
and so maybe but maybe it's it's it's just I mean, so yeah,
I mean it's possible, right, we don't know. So like Matthew,
so you know in Baptism's institute at the end of Matthew twenty eight,
at the end of the gospel. So maybe they were between the end of
the Gospel and what we see, you know, between that time and Acts
two. Maybe, but but maybe not. Maybe Christ for whatever reason felt
that it wasn't necessary since they had been given a direct Apostolic succession and Pentecost.
I don't know. That's a great question. Okay, well, thank
you so much. Yeah, people in the chatter like something he doesn't know.
Dude, there's a lot I don't know. And as you get older,
you're going to learn more and more and more that you don't know.
So I don't care how smart you are, I don't care how many books
you've read. As you get older, it's guess what it's there's only more
that you don't know. So that's the only guarantee I can give you about
knowledge as you get older is that you're gonna more and more and more and
more learn how much you don't know. I promise you that, I guarantee
you. And especially when you're like in your twenties, when you're like twenty
five to thirty, that's like the worst time because you think you know everything,
you've got everything figured out. You don't. I promise you don't.
And by the time you're forty is when you start to realize you don't know
everything. So you will. You will learn this and change your mind quite
a bit from the time you're twenty five to the time you're forty that I
can guarantee you. Beer, I can't pronounce that. I can't even see
it all. Vela Bezi, what's up? Dude? You got on?
You? Okay? Can you hear me that? Yeah? I got a
question. So I want to preface my saying that I'm pretty new to faith,
just getting started in all this theological arguments and stuff. But I got
a question about the Koran and the Islamic school of thought on entrance to heaven
versus that with Christian danity, which talks about salvation and redemption. So I
want I want to know why do you think specifically that it's more theologically rational
that we have a salvation through Christ as opposed to in the coroner a lot
is telling us to do all of these things to enter heaven, like he's
giving us specific commandments. And then when I speak to Muslims, they also
say like, oh, this book is just it's a book about everything in
life, and you know, Christ, he's leaving you. How to say,
he's leaving you without knowledge, He's leaving you without you just don't know
what to do, et cetera. I want you, I want to know
what you think about that. Well, first of all, I would say
that the Bible does give you things to do, so that's not there's a
false priv launch there. Yeah, yeah, I understand I forgot to include
that, but I just wanted to know that specific idea on gaining the salvation
through Christ's crucifixion. Well, that's part of the story, though that's not
all there is to it. So there's the other elements of it, which
include explaining and fulfilling all these old testaments and prophecies. So I would highly
contend with the claim that Islam is a more rational approach because Islam claims to
be in continuity with the Old Testament, and it is not. In fact,
it constantly contradicts the Old Testament. So Islam is not consistent with the
Old Testament. I did a whole debate with Daniel Hoikikachu on that very point.
I would recommend go watch that debate to see that fleshed out. But
how can I check the claims of the Koran against prior revelation If the claims
of the Quran then say that the prior revelation is full of contradictions and errors.
You see how this becomes an arbitrary circle. So it's an impossible task.
If I'm a seventh century Jew, Christian juror Christian hearing the claims of
the Quran, that I'm supposed to check these new revelations against the previous revelation.
Then when I go to the previous revelation, nowadays, all the Muslims
say, oh, but it's all corrupt. Any text that shows up as
a contradiction to the Kuranic claims are now arbitrarily corrupted texts. So it's a
totally arbitrary you know, move the goalpost position. So I contend I totally
reject the idea that the Koran is actually rational at all. If you read
Gabriel site Reynolds's book for example, that I covered in the debate with Daniel
Likigachu, I mean, he points out at least twelve examples where the Quran
totally jumbles up the previous biblical narratives in about twelve different cases. Okay,
so you basically think that it's just like some ad hoc claim that the Bible's
corrupt, but there's no root beat for that at all. I'm saying that
I don't even have to go into whether that is the case or not.
If the Qoran tells me to check the claims of the Koran against prior revelation,
and then when I go to prior revelation, every Muslim says that's all
corrupted and you can't do that. That's nonsense. But when they speak about
the Injin, are they talking specifically about the Gospel in the in the No,
they don't even think they mistaken They thought that it was a book.
Oh you see, wow, that's crazy. Yeah, there's all kinds of
stupid things. I mean, it's Islam as go read the fart hadiths.
Those are my favorite. So there's at least two or three fart had eaths
that they have to believe. I mean, if you want to see how
silly it is, nad last one here, nod. What's up, man,
I'm not joking about the fart heads. Those are real. You gotta
I mute, man, Hello, sir. I just want to hope you
have a blessed feast of annunciation and of a great lamp. And uh,
I don't know if this is part of the topic. Uh, maybe it's
a bit of a dumb question, but like, what do you think is
the historical reason for all this natural and natural theology and all this ecumenism that
started in this uh, in this nostra or something like where, well,
well, natural theology goes back a lot older than it's just the easiest thing
to point to in Roman Catholic you know, dogmatic pronouncements to illustrate the point.
But I mean Thomas the Roman Catholic Church, as in like pre schism.
You cut out, dude, I can't hear you anymore. But so
I think that the real, the real basis is Hill philosophy, right,
and Hellenic philosophy can be good, it can be bad, it can have
insights. But I think the fundamental source of natural theologies. Mistakes would relate
to a temptation on the part of people in in early a lot of centuries
to give too much love and appreciation to humanistic Greek Hellenic philosophy. So that's
the real source of it. In my estimation. One example of this might
be the early logos apologists. And you'll notice they pretty much fell away,
like they became weirdos. So you had these guys early on who were converts
in the first and second century, and I'm just using them as an example.
They're not all bad, but uh like Tation is one example the logos
apologists. Now this is pulling up a bunch of stupid evangelical stuff. That's
not what I'm looking for. Mm hm. So I mean, I guess
you could. You could say that Aaron As and Justin mart are examples of
logos apologetics. But uh Tation, for example, is one of the early
logos apologists who went bad like he we went crazy. If I remember Crevitation
the Assyrian uh he his most influent influential work was the dietesteron harmony the Gospels.
Well, let's see, he got super into Yeah, he was a
pupil of Justin Martivez, right like Justin Tasin opened up a Christian school in
Rome, but he ended up going off into Gnosticism with his obsession with philosophy.
Also Clement of Alexander. I forgot Clement of Alexandria, who oddly enough
is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church but not in the Orthodox Church.
Clement also has a hyper obsession with Hellenic philosophy, this too much, so
I think that's the roots of it, and so it's always kind of there.
And I agree with the thesis that most of the seven Ecumenical Councils are
rebutting some dialectical Hellenic assumption. So whether it's Eunomianism, Marcianism, because if
you read the rotic Alwich thesis, he actually points out Marciano is one of
the early proponents of a strict view of absolute divine simplicity. Whether it's origin
and originism, which is super duper Hellenic philosophy, neoplatonic veneir, Christianity,
Neoplatonism with a Christian venir is what Origanism is all the way up until the
Christological disputes with even severus of Antioch, who has a lot of neoplatonic presuppositions
as well in his dialectics. I think that all of this, all these
errors are some form of Hellenic dialectical philosophy. That's the commonality that the Seven
Ecumenical Councils are opposing, even up into Iconiclism, which most people don't know
that Iconiclasm was neoplatonic in its motivations and they were relying on origin actually,
So that would to me, would suggest that the medieval acceptance and kind of
fascination with with what becomes natural theology and reasoning about God, apart from any
reference to divine revelation, even though it might have had at times good motivations,
it ultimately ends up being bankrupt because it's kind of a temptation where people
more and more want to move away from divine revelation and more and more and
more kind of rely on autonomous reasoning. So that's what I think is the
real danger there. And then what we get is these kinds of moves like
Nostritate does, where it's like, well, we're all saying the same thing,
aren't we. I mean, when Marcus Aurelia says logos. That's the
same thing that John Want's talking about, isn't it. It's the same word
right, Well, so it's the same word, doesn't mean it's the same
thing. I mean when I talk to him Mormon and he says I believe
in Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit, he believes something totally different
than me, even though it's the same words. This is really kind of
obvious, isn't it. Anyway? All Right, thank you guys for support
tonight. Follow me on X right here as you see, that's my profile.
I'm trying to get up to one hundred thousand, so we're at sixty
four sixty five. I feel like I'm my X exposure is kind of like
not doing that great lately. So if you would support me and follow me
their own X if your own X and heading over to rockfin, which is
a great free speech based platform as well. My channel is over here at
Rockfinn Jay Dyer. I do have unique stuff on Rockfin, have unique stuff
on my website for the member section, a lot of the kind of spicier
stuff. For example, people said, what about the event in Russia?
Did you talk about that? Yes? Right here? Russia big nine event,
Alex Jones, Jack Prosobeck Me go read that or watch that. Excuse
me also covered it with Patrick Kenningson and Syrian Girl. You can see this
new podcast that we have right here for members with the comedian Leonardo Joney.
We had a great discussion about cancel culture here for members. It'll be public
eventually, but if you want to go ahead and support me and watch it
there rock Fan right there, Jdi rock Fan. That's in the show description
as well. If you want to support Father again and Ias, you can
also support him by going to Lore Coffee and this is the link right here
from an Orthodox coffee maker, Lor Coffee. You can support them and FDA
and myself right there in that link if you want to get some straight up
Orthodox coffee. Otherwise, everybody, have a great night, and remember tomorrow
we'll be back with Tristan covering Dune and Done Too. Tristan says he enjoyed
it, so we're going to have a