The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the It's Monday night. It's another open forum. It's time
to have fun. You know, we don't get a lot of opportunities to
set up formal debates, and it seems like nowadays they're fewer and fewer of
those for many reasons. I think we've had a good run over here,
and I think a lot of people really aren't interested in a formal debate.
It looks like what's going on is that most people do quote debates online to
get a few thirty second clips, So they're really just kind of relying on
the entire debate for what appears to be an own or a thirty second clip,
a one minute clip, And I don't know, to me, that's
just a waste of everyone's time and attention and energy. Debates ought to be
about the subjects at hand, and you know, that's why we can't really
even have debates. We can't have nice things anymore, like debate. Everything
is faking gray now. So really the best we can hope for is kind
of entertaining, you know, open forums. That's really about all we can
do over here. And that's okay. We've already got some people piling in.
For those that are interested, the link is right here. If you
want to call in, you can call in right here. If you're on
YouTube watching and you want to ask a question, you want to make an
argument, you want to present something challenging, You're welcome to do that within
reason. And now I think Elijah called me out. This was joking,
so it's not like a hardcore call out because we were making jokes back and
forth. But I did invite Elijah if he wants to come on. I
don't know if he's Orthodox or former Protestant or looking into Catholicism or where he's
at, but he's welcome to hop on if he wants to. I send
him the link if you want to join us. I don't know if he
will. I know he's in Australia, so he might shit. I don't
know. It might be three days into the future, the way that tom
zones work over there. I mean, it might be it might be easter
over there twenty twenty seven. Who knows. I don't even know. But
we're going to open it up. A couple of things that we want to
stress. Today's topic is Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam. I did add atheism
up there in the title, but I really I'd like to focus on Catholics
Protestants in Islam. I'm just not really in the mood to also field everybody's
tag questions. And we've done so many tag open forums, so many tag
debates that I'm looking really to focus on these other topics. So I don't
know, people are already dropping off. Did you you sat here waiting?
Okay, so I guess he had a tag question. So people just want
to talk about tag. Nobody wants to come defend their position. So where's
all the Protestant and Catholic debaters. You know, it's been so long since
we had a Protestant that really actually came in and defended their position. And
you know, I put out again today that there's an open opportunity if any
Roman Catholics want to debate the history of the geopolitics of the papacy. I
really want to see this debated, I said, Any Protestants who want to
come on debate Protestants, any Catholics who want to come on and debate the
geopolitics of the papacy. Nobody has ever debated this to my knowledge. It's
fascinating to me that to be such an ancient geopolitical structure, the papacy,
that is that we haven't really found any Roman Catholics who want to debate that.
It's always a debate about the quote minds that supposedly prove papal infallibility.
That's really about ninety to ninety five percent of what Roman Catholic apologists to do
and what they debate. And it seems to me that they should also branch
out and want to cover other accounts. I mean, my account of the
papacy is that it grew into a geopolitical power and became kind of a servant
to money power, to you know, to the lust for worldly power.
That explains a lot of things in history very well. It explains a lot
of the recent papal decisions and moves. So that would be my account of
the trajackctory of the papacy, and that has a lot of explanatory power.
So when are we going to get a competent Roman Catholic geopolitical analysts who can
address those things. They never even talk about it. And I don't mean
does Taylor Marshall address infiltration. That's not what I'm talking about. Every trad
cat believes the Papes he was infiltrated and subverted, you know, or whatever.
But no, I'm talking about more specific things about the history of the
relationship between the Rothschild family, for example, in the Papal Bank, the
Papal treasury, history of Operation Gladio, the CIA's connection to the Papacy,
various meetings between Kissinger and Paul the Six, the long history of CIA operations
in Rome, the back door deals that were made in relationship to p two
Lodge, all of that all well documented in numerous historical texts. That has
a lot to do with what's going on in the Roman Catholic world in the
papacy. And I don't hear this ever addressed. I'm talking about those things
I'm not talking about. Are there trad cats that believe that the Roman Catholic
Church was su you know, subverted by Masons or something. To date,
I had never seen a Roman Catholic debate that topic, and that to me
makes a lot more sense. Now. This seemed to get a rise out
of people today, this zesty, little sassy boy here doing his little praise
and worship diddy, which I thought was funny. And my first joke was
I sent that to Tristan and I said, you need to calm down when
you're at liturgy, dude, nobody cares about your liturgical dance. That was
my joke to Tristan. And then Elijah Shaeffer thought it would be funny to
say, here's j at church, which is still kind of funny. So
we were thinking on the same line of thought. But I countered by telling
him that he attends Pastor Randy Balls's church right here. This is where he
go to church. He'd be going to church right here where they got monster
truck rallies, they got Blockbuster videos, they got it all over at EA's
church. They also got Korean megachurch men. They got a water slide baptism
that slides you into the sanctuary right here. We've all seen mousket. Anyway,
hopefully he's still awake, and he can pop up in here and set
us straight. He can give them arguments. The way it works is you
request to speak. The allowed topics tonight are not conspiratorial. I don't care
about your conspiracy theories. We're talking about the history of the Roman Church.
We're talking about geopolitics. We're talking about Protestantism, Bible alone, soul scriptura.
If that's your position, you want to defend that, you want to
defend justification by faith alone, you want to defend all those Protestant norms,
then feel free to call in. You can have the microphone and you can
make whatever arguments you want. The call in is via Twitter or x there's
the link in the chat. So you got to pop up in here,
you hit request to speak. You can come on, and I'm going to
favor everyone who disagrees. If you disagree, you go to the head of
line. We are going to favor the topics of Catholicism, Protestantism, in
Islam. We're not really looking for atheists tonight. We've done a million atheists
call ins, so those are the preferred topics, and I'm gonna go ahead
and open it up. I got all the books around. We can go
into the texts, into the literature if we need to. At least I
have some of the texts here, I should say, I don't have everything
here, and we've already got some super chats. Appreciate that rolling in here
Anonymous for one hundred dollars says this is for you and Jamie's recent streams.
Thank you very much. Well, thank you so much, Anonymous. That's
a big fat super chat. I appreciate that. Jacob Major is five dollars
day. I heard that you talk about the Frankish papacy preparing for the Enlightenment.
I don't understand this connection. Can you help me understand? Yeah,
there's a book that covers this. I'm not a huge fan of this website,
but they do have a lot of good articles over here. And I'm
trying to remember this guy's name. It's a good and I can never remember
this Greek guy's name. But it's actually admitted in pretty much all of the
here it is. It's not the book by Father Romanedes. It's the book
about who and what is a Byzantine? No, this isn't it, mhmm,
Frank's Roman's Feudalism. No, that's not it. It's a it's a
Greek dude who wrote a book about the history of Byzantine Empire. Anyway,
it doesn't matter. You can just read like Sushinsky's book. He talks about
the Franks, the Carolinians, and if you start around on this website you
can find the book I'm talking about. Mm hmm, I say's track contents.
Here we go. We can find it this way. No, it's
not Matellanos, it's not any of these. Oh maybe it's this one.
No, that's not it's not it. Maybe it's this. This website takes
forever. Anyway, I don't know. We've shared this a million times and
now I can't find it, and this website doesn't want to work. So
anyway, long story short is uh yeah, this is basic history, right,
all right, let's see, we're gonna go to the first call here.
Yeah, let's see. I think, well, I don't know who
was waiting the longest, but who me is first? So we'll go to
who me? I'm mute. My name is Chris. And I actually got
to speak in a similar kind of open forum with Ian not too long ago,
and I got that's how I kind of ran into you when he was
talking about the Roman you know, the Roman debate with Christianity, and I
kind of came in and talked about like how why it was a sacrifice and
kind of explained some of that. Oh you were on that space? Are
you orthodogy? Protestant? I can't remember Protestant and so h And I actually
like volunteered when you kind of put a tweet out saying, hey, is
there any Protestants that want to debate? I'll be like, I'll be your
Protestant punching bag. I'm fine with that. But I was just wondering.
So, you know, in that debate, there was obviously there were there
were great points, and then there were people kind of going back and forth
with Ian and he made a couple of comments in there about Protestant like bad
Protestant logic and and a lot of those kinds of things. So for people
that are new like me to the you know who you are and and a
lot of things you kind of believe, is there a way you could kind
of introduce me to some of the you know, the broader strokes that you
think Protestants encompasses and where it fails and where where it where it falls apart
just in a quick summary years that is that a bad place to start?
No, it's not a bad place. But now I remember that the thing
I'm looking for is on a different Uh. Oh my gosh, it's on
this website and I now I'm trying to find if I'm trying to find something
to get totally distracted. And then I'm like, yeah, it's not the
thing that you linked. It's an online book by a Greek writer who wrote
a history of the Franks and the and it's only online. You can't find
it. It's on this website. No it's not. It's it's a it's
like a really long Greek name. But it's really good if I can just
find it here. Oh wait, maybe I linked it here. This is
the yes a snack and I did a whole talk. This t is about
that question to the guy who asked it on the super chat. His name
was Jacob Majors. So here's the talk. Is the papacy subverted by the
Franks? And here it is. It's here's the book I knew I had,
Anastasio's Philippides Romanity or Barbarity is the book that you want to read?
Although Unfortunately this book is only online. It is accessible here. Now,
this point is also brought up in most of the scholarly works now that treat
of this period of the Carolinians. So Sashenski mentions it in this Philioqui book.
It's probably also in the Papacy and the Orthodox book. I can't remember
I Pop of miyand or from Papadoccus mention it or not. They may or
may not mention it. I can't remember now that I don't think they do,
because that book begins in ten fifty four, so it's not in that
book, but I'm pretty sure it's in this says Jansky book. So let
me see anything that's covering the Frankish period nowadays. Typically we'll talk about that
and how different things were at that time in the East and the West.
And in fact it wasn't even the papacy that was really subverting things yet,
in fact, the papacy was on our side, and it was a Carolinians,
for example, that denied the Seventh day Medical Council. But anyway,
all right, so go back to our question or here, and your question
was the basics, So I mean the Orthodox Church, the idea is different
from Protestantism, and that we believe. We don't believe in the solas that
many Protestants dues and no sol scripture, no solofide. We believe in a
sacramental realism where the sacraments really do convey the grace that they signify. We
believe in a church governance that's hierarchical and sinodle. So there's apostolic succession and
there's councils and synods that govern the church. Uh, there is a good
place for tradition. All of those settings play a role in how we view
Christianity. So we don't go Bible alone. You know, those are the
kind of the main essential elements that different. So teiology is different. Well,
I mentioned I said, I said that we don't believe in solofy day.
So so those are the basics, gotcha. So is there, like,
is there something specific like that you want to debate A Now I'm not
gonna lie. I'm not exactly qualified, right, I'm just a volunteer.
Okay. Also, you know, if you if you show me pictures like
that guy dancing, like, I'll be like, yeah, you know,
maybe maybe drawing attention to yourself and and you know, portraying yourself as a
specific kind of sexual orientation as as an attention, rest and worship, right,
That's that doesn't seem very Christian to me in that aspect. So is
there something specific you want to ask a Protestant, especially one who might not
be fully researched but willing to at least take a start. Well, I
don't think. Yeah. So, like, people don't have to debate on
here. You can if you want to. It's just the way we do
it around here is there's always an open form for people to debate if they
want to, but they could also ask questions. So if you feel more
comfortable asking questions, you're more than welcome to do that too. But I
mean, you know, again, like I think if we were to pick
two doctrines that Protestantism typically or historically has kind of grounded itself on, it's
the idea that ultimately salvation is through faith in Christ alone or justification by faith
alone, and the idea that the ultimate guide for the church is just the
Bible alone, or the final authority is the Bible alone, or how our
Protestants want to say that. And you know, the Orthodox Church, the
Orthodox position would disagree from the outset with those two ideas, and we would
say that salvation is by grace, but it's something that begins at the point
of first yes, first believing, and then repenting, being baptized, being
received in the church. Then there's a process of salvation, which is working
out your salvation with your and trembling, becoming holy as Paul talks about.
And then for us, salvation is ultimately theosis or deification, which is to
participate in the uncreated energies of God. And it's not merely a legal standing,
which you know, your disposition, God's disposition changes based on your legal
standing. That's kind of an essential element of justification by faith alone. So
we would pretty much disagree with all of that. And you know, pretty
much the only thing maybe that we have in common with Protestants that that in
terms of the essentials is I mean, we don't even think that Protestants have
the Doctor of the Trinity, correct. I guess the only thing we really
agree on might be just the deity of Christ. But beyond that there's not
I mean, I know a lot of Protestants, I guess confess the virgin
birth. So there's not a whole lot of areas of actually of overlap.
Yeah, okay, so yeah, I think that we have definitely common ground
on the deity of Christ and the virgin birth. But as as far as
the you know, saying that the Bible is the only authority, I'm definitely
one of those people who is fully in that camp. I'm probably gonna end
up if I'm going to formulate good questions, I might just kind of sit
back as more of a listener and propose questions. Then if that's if that's
going to be better, I'd like to grab a few things. Is in
your mind the Bible. Let's say, if I were to pick versus out
of the Bible and ask about them in this conversation, is that something that
we can agree on as at least where you know truth resides or is that
yeah, we we would say, I think, yeah, we affirm the
Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a divine revelation from the
person of the Logos. I don't believe the Bible contains errors, so I
think we might agree there. Yeah. No, I'm Emerson on the on
the breath, you know, God breathed in inspiration of the of this Holy
Scripture, and and that you know, God preserves it through time as like
his word will never you know, fade away. Yeah, one difference there
was is that we would say that the Bible isn't strictly speaking the Word.
There's a sense in which you can speak of it that way. But the
Word of God is a person, not a book. It's the second person
some of the Godhead, who is the Word of God and Jesus himself.
And the Gospel of John says you search the scriptures because you think that it's
in them that you have eternal life, when it's the day that bear witness
of me. So me being the divine person of Christ, the second person
of Godhead, the Bible being kind of a letter or a book that attests
to him. That doesn't mean that the Bible is degraded or that it doesn't
have you know, inspiration and authority. But it's kind of like if you
read a letter describing me, that's different than knowing me, you know,
in a relational way. So for us it's the same analogy there to distinguish
between. Can I point out when others think too sure there will be different
between Protestants and Orthodox the level of esteem and kind of ranking of the scriptures
is also different. Whereas I remember as a protest that you just it's all
the scripture, it's all the same level. There's certainly a level of dignity
and ranking among the scriptures within orthodoxy, where the Gospels take the highest and
the epistles than the Psalms and the Old Testament readings and stuff like that.
I'm familiar with that hierarchy. That's definitely something that I experienced. So I
was born into a Lutheran church, and so oh yeah, it's a new
experience. I was Lutheran too, so yeah, yeah, So you know,
Goffels, you stood for the reading of any Gospel even though and then
the Psalms and the other elements didn't have the same level of respect, you
know, as part of the tradition, I guess is the best way to
state it. Right now, I'm attending a church that obviously it's not Lutheran
due to the fact that the Lutheran Church started voting on Bible things, and
so my family was like, you know, we probably shouldn't vote on whether
the Bibles right or not, because that's not how that works. We don't
vote on the Bible. So that was the eve. So yeah, yeah,
yeah, so it was it happened when I was in like middle school
and things like that, so you know, like the specific details and which
which part of the luther and churchosen is lost to me having to go back
and google. So and the other thing you probably won't have a problem is
a Lutheran is iconography, because in Lutheran churches there's in many of the churches
iconography which is very different than the kind of Reformed and Calvinists which would be
iconoclass. So just to suss that, I'm just bringing that up, just
to basically make a distinction that many many Protestants are iconoclass, but not all
Anglicans Lutherns. Actually don't know about the Methodists. They're so divided they might
might be both. I don't know, m but just to make those distinctions.
Day, if you want to no, that was that. Those are
good points, I mean, And so did you want to continue discuss your
did you want to step back and formulate some some questions. I don't want
to take up other people times that people are asking to be part of this
and I'm I'm doing I've just got trying to you know, in order for
me to make formulate good questions, I'm trying to understand the landscape. If
you understand, whatever you want to do is find Yeah, just just trying
to understand, you know. So when you talk about the iconography, right,
we're talking about, you know, a historical version of what I used
to why I used to participate in. Can you give me like an example
of how the iconography would exist in Lutheranism. Well, Lutherans typically don't have
a problem with crucifixes and imagery, oh okay, and so the Orthodox Church
has icons everywhere, so gotcha, And so that I can't imagine why crucifixes
would be a problematic like I've heard, Well, there were Reformers didn't like
that kind of stuff. So a lot of the classical Reformers who were Calvinists,
you know, they they typically were iconoclastic, meaning that they didn't like
any created visual imagery of Christ or the apostles. Now they weren't okay with
crosses, but they didn't like crucifixes or icons of saints and so forth.
Gotcha. I got into a debate under one of Seamus is the Freedom Tunes
guy. One of his comments about Catholicism of today, and I started learning
a whole lot about like, Okay, do they actually believe, you know,
in the in fallacy of the Pope? Do you know, do they
worship Mary? And I learned about the three types of worship and things like
that they were talking about, and so that was kind of interesting to delve
into because I've you know, you know, in a lot of cases,
you just get told, oh, the Catholics worship Mary, and you go,
Okay, that's bad because that's you know, that's not allowed. And
so when I see something like the image of the version Mary with candles in
front of that, I go, oh, they're idol worshiping, but understanding
it no, I mean the Orthodoxy, yeah, we kind of have a
similar position to Catholics on that point that, you know, we do believe
in the intercession of the saints, that the saints pray for us, and
it's not inappropriate to ask them to pray, and that's essentially what we're doing
when we quote pray to saints. They're not gods or goddesses, but they
do intercede for us, and so that's part of the doctrine of the Communion
of Saints. And of course the queen of the Saints is Mary. We
don't believe in all the Roman Catholic doctrines of immaculate conception and all that,
but we do think that she is the you know, smallest virgin. She's
the queen of Heaven, et cetera. So when you say, just to
expand, because I'd like to ask a question, when you say you don't
believe in the immaculate conception of Mary or of Jesus, right, So,
maculate conception is a specific Marian dogma in the Roman Catholic Church. It's not
about Christ. Christ is virgin, that's the virgin birth. Yes, maculate
conception is a Roman Catholic papal doctrine where the pope declared Mary to be also
preserved from original sin through a specific, unique miracle. Roman Catholics believe that
because of their doctrine of well, their classic I'll say that the classic Latin
doctrine of original sin from the Augustinian period. That's really what influences their belief
in the need for the immaculate conception. We have a bit of a different
idea of what ancestral sin is versus original sin, and so in the Orthodox
conception, there's really no need for the doctrine of the maculate conception. Yeah,
and okay, so we're talking, we're exploring a lot of the spaces
where we agree, right, Like, I don't believe in the maacular conception
of marrit either, and I don't think a lot of processtants. Really No,
No, it's a unique Catholicism, dogmatized not that long ago. M
hmm. Okay, I'll do a few pieces of research and if I come
up with a cool question. Okay, yeah, I'll back up. You
can pop in my hand or whatever. Sure, pop in anytime you want
to, that's fine. The next in line was Trillist wizard. What's up,
Trillist? How you doing? Hey? Jay? Just a quick one,
uh huh. If the if the Orthodox believe in miracles and exorcisms outside
of the church, but they also believe there's no salvation outside of the Orthodox
Church, is that not a contradiction? No, because I mean, a
miracle can happen anywhere, and miracles attest to the faith, but they're not
proofs of the faith. And when Jesus talks about the Guy and Mark doing
miracles outside of the College of the Apostles. He says that anyone doing a
miracle in my name will not be apart from us for very long. In
other words, eventually he will most likely come to be amongst us if he's
if he's acting in good faith. And you also have Jonas and John Berrys
doing the first two miracles of Moses, so miracles themselves signs of wonders would
not be a contradiction. Somebody dying and being united to the mystical body in
an extra normative way is still not salvation outside the church because they're still being
united to Christ like the thief on the cross. So there's there's nobody is
saved outside of Christ, is the point. So if there's Catholics, so
you don't believe in any of the miracles that the Catholics have have gone like
while they're alive. Well again, then the guy who's doing exorcisms apart from
the College of the Apostles, right, what does Jesus say? Does Jesus
say, Oh, he's cool. Everybody can do their own thing. Now.
He says that anybody who does a miracle in my name will I think
he means most likely soon be amongst us, So that tells us that there
can be miracles outside of the Orthodox Church. God can do those things,
But what does that have to do with salvation outside the church. There is
no salvation outside the church. Even Roman Catholics believe that if you're saved quote
outside the church, it's just God uniting you to the mystical body in a
non normative way, so that even they don't believe in quote salvation outside the
church. You're just thinking of church in terms of the visible earthly confines,
and that's not the extent of the mystical body. The mystical body is all
the believers from the foundation of the world until the end of time. I
was just thinking you would have to have salvation to to some of the some
of the miracles the saints have done. It's like floating, and I don't
number one, as an Orthodox person, we don't think any of that's necessarily
a proof of true religion. I mean a lot of the stuff that goes
on in the so called the so called miracles of the Roman Gallic Church are
delusions and demonic. I mean getting spiritual orgasms from God, floating around and
flying with a host, flying around and saying that Jesus is your boyfriend,
and that's a bunch of delusion. That's not that's not from God. But
then it would it would be it would be a whole conspiracy tunnel that you'd
have to go down. If not a conspiracy tunnel. If we're identifying delusion,
I mean, why would we think that that's the manifestation of true you
know, divine worship. I mean, this doesn't Jesus point this out when
he says that wicked generation seeks signs and wonders, and yet no sign is
given to it except the sign of Jonah. So Jesus actually says that if
you're looking for these miracles and signs and wonders, you're just setting yourself up
to be duped and to be deceived anyway. Now, miracles do attend the
true faith, But do you understand that quote miracles or claims of miracles cannot
be the proofs per se, because every religion out there claims that. I
mean, do you think that. I think I think that was because I
haven't seen any miracles personally. But when you study like Lady of Fatimar and
a moving son and things like that, how many witnesses they have and how
many reports kind of well, hold on, let's talk about that one,
right, Let's use that one as an example. So are you aware that
around that same time was the first major news story that was completely faked and
it was called the bat People on the Moon. No, I haven't,
I haven't heard about that. So there was a This is a really famous
case, and I think it's like the late eighteen nineties out of Chicago,
the most famous paper in Chicago, like the Chicago Sun or Sun Times or
something like that. Just look up the bat people on the Moon story,
and it was widely believed. And why do people believe it? Well because
a newspaper reported that the astronomers and scientists at that time had seen bat people
on the moon. And now why would I believe that a village of people
out in Portugal or whoever wherever it is, that because they saw a manifestation
or claim to see it. I mean, for all it could it could
have been a completely staged news story, just like the bat people on the
Moon, one of the most famous fake news stories of all time. Now
I'm not saying it is that. I don't know, but my point is
that how am I going to base my faith on countless conflicting miracle claims which
don't even make sense and aren't even coherent. This can't be the way that
we're supposed to figure out which is the true religion. And in fact,
if you go to the Gospel of John, when Jesus tells the story of
the guy who's in Hades, and he says, Lord, let me out
of here. If I return from the dead, if my brothers see me
come back from the dead, surely they will believe. Does Jesus have the
attitude, as many Roman Catholics do, that this sign and wonder miracle will
convince the brothers or does Jesus say something else to him? Do you know
the story I'm talking about? Oh? No, because it fits this The
example fits this very case. And Jesus says, though one rise from the
dead, they will not believe they have the Law and the prophets, Moses
in the prophets. If they won't believe Moses in the prophets, they won't
believe though one rise from the dead. That alone, that story alone,
refutes this whole attitude that the way that we know what the true faith is
is if there's like more signs and wonders or more claims of signs and wonders.
And by the way, the story of Fatima doesn't even match up to
what the Romancolic Church has claimed. The Roumancolic Church has claimed over and over
and over that they will eventually fulfill the requirements of what our lady said at
Fatima. But if you're in the tradcat world, all the tradcats spend all
their time debating the fact that the popes haven't actually done what our lady said
to do at Fatima. So how is that going to be the deciding factor
when Catholics can't even tell us if Fatima has been obeyed or not. Do
you see what I'm saying? Yeah, I just think there's just too much
stuff put on top of each other that a con debuncle all of it,
you know, all the miracles within Catholicism and hold on, So why am
I supposed to believe? Well? Okay, well, if that's what's going
to prove it or disprove it, like why why Catholicism? Like why not
other religions that claim, I mean, for example, Hindu mystics have much
longer than Catholic mystics claimed all kinds of miracles? Does that prove Hinduism?
Okay, well why doesn't it though, because have you gone down the all?
But have you gone down the rabbit hole and debunked all the all of
the yogi's and Sai Baba and all these people in their Mira miracle claims?
I mean, I think the internet will do it for me. Bro I
reckon a quick hashtag Punjabi scroll on X. Probably you must be joking.
That must be a joke. Miracles from here, miracles from yours? Too
much theology can take one away from God. I'll step down now anyway,
unfinished? Okay, well, hey, those are great questions and I appreciate
it. Uh, let's see. Next up was go load goalad got an
unmumn. So we got a lot of people on YouTube talking smack. All
you guys in the chat here talking smack. Hey, don't you guys don't
have to delete his comments? I mean, I appreciate the on point mod
work there, but like, let's get these guys to call in, like
instead of being keyboard warriors. Uh, why don't you guys hop over here
on Twitter and call in golaud? Did you want to talk? What's up?
Man? We can't hear you. Man, if you want to talk,
you got to turn permissions on or whatever. There's no sound from you.
Uh, let's see try again. Are you there, I'm mute.
Yeah, I'm sorry about that. Okay, I can hear you. What's
up? I just had a quick question. I see that Orthodox is in
the title. I'm not really trying to debate. I was just looking for
an Orthodox parish. I'm kind of in the south, and I think that's
the only thing we have. I think like forty minutes or so is a
Greek Orthodox, and I just I've been there a few times and it seems
good. But I'm not trying to get skittle a fall, you know.
I don't think most of the Greek churches are that way. You just have
to kind of test them out. So I mean, like you would like
there's also like a Western right ro Court church like almost an hour away.
Is there like a difference between regular records and Western Well, yeah, I
mean they're going to be doing the their version of the the Latin Petrine liturgy,
so it's not going to be like, uh, you know, it's
not going to be the liturgy that you would see at you know, like
most Road Corps churches. So no, it's Orthodox churches doing the Latin right
or the Petrine liturgy. But uh, I mean, you know you don't
have to give away your address or whatever. But I mean, yeah,
you just just check them. I would just check them all out and see
which is, you know, the best fit for you. You'll know after
a while whether if somebody's liberal or not, they're gonna they'll they'll they'll give
it away really quick. Yeah. And I don't know about whatever you're in
and sucking and said, but I mean, you just go check them both
out. Super essential, William Die says, for ten dollars, does Eric
Obara only go on slow mode talk when he talks to you? I don't
know. I haven't watched enough of his stuff. I don't watch Eric Obara
in his other discussions. He talks normally and talks fast. You know,
he could have been using some kind of technique of filibustering and you know,
burning out time. I don't know. William Die says he's a new convert.
Well, hey, thank you man, glad to hear that cohort ten
dollars. If we are all church and Paul doesn't want women speaking in church,
women can never speak. This is a checkmate to the invisible church.
That's a good point. Yeah. I mean if church is not any kind
of a you know, formal, institutional, liturgical thing, and women are
not allowed to speak in church, then Protestant should never allow women to speak.
That's pretty funny. Nation five dollars, Thank you so much, super
Essential. Did you want to say something you have to unmute? Man?
No sounds, so maybe you gotta come out, come back in turn on
your mic, modern Aposta modern, something you gotta unmute? Hey, j
Yes, sir. So I've been looking into orthodoxy for a little bit and
I think I'm gonna had two vestpers for the first time on Wednesday. But
I wanted to ask about the penal substitution atonement a few Protestant friends. So
I was talking about or talking with, and they were saying, but what
is the laying on of hands on the animal mean if not putting on the
sin on the animal? And I mean they brought up the day of atonement.
I think it's there. It says explicitly that they're putting on the sin
on the animal. Yeah, but is going out okay? So so it's
symbolic okay, doesn't have a substance. It's not a being. It's a
negation. It's an act of the will against the good. So there's no
such thing as quote sin. That's like a thing that you transfer. To
transfer something means that that thing has existence. Sin has no existence. Evil
doesn't have being. That's because everything that By the way, Jake, that's
a great point. Maybe you could talk a little bit more about that.
One of the problems too, is that a lot of Protestants, even with
penal substitution or atonement, take on kind of a Manichean notion of sin.
They talk about sin nature and give it like a positive existence. Anyways,
I'm just falling up on what you're saying. Yeah, exactly. I was
going to say that to attribute being to evil is Manichean. So everything that
exists comes to be and has existence from God, because God created everything,
has said it is good. So evil is a privation on the good.
That means it doesn't have actual being, it doesn't have any existence. It's
not an essence, it's not a nature. So there's no such thing as
a sin nature, and there's no such thing as literally putting sin like some
kind of like taint or cloak or substance on top of the scapegoat. It's
a symbolic ritual, meaning that the being will die in another person's stead as
the exacting of the penalty of death. And so the analogy to Christ is
that Christ willfully chooses to be our ransom are sacrificed. And what that means
is not that the Father damns him or God punishes him, but rather that
he willingly undergoes death, meaning the severance of his human soul from his human
body. So there's no divine to divine punishment or hatred or anger going on
here. There's a willful offering of the Son, offering the human humanity after
he's undergone that death, and then resurrecting that humanity. He offers that humanity
to the triad and that offering is of the divine person of the Son giving
that humanity to the Father in the Holy Spirit. So it's a triadic offering
of the human nature after it's been healed and restored. After Christ goes into
Hades, conquers death and resurrects and has the power of death, the power
if you know, if you look in the Red Book of Revelation it says
that he has the keys of death and hades, and so he now in
our nature, has restored it and healed it, meaning that he has power
over death. So that's the ordox conception of Christus victor so to speak,
and Christ having victory over death. And that's also the meaning and the explanation
of the offering of the atonement and of the ransom and of the guilt so
to speak. Yeah, that makes sense. I was as a Catholic we
have that interpretation a lot of privation. But when I was reading Religion of
the Apostles, I think one of the parts about the Atonement, Father Stephen
writes that that sin does have some ontological sense how it's treated as a disease.
So I don't know if that's like, well, it's an analogy,
right, So diseases exist and you know, bacteria, illness, but it's
still it's an analogy that we make to what evil is or what to to
what sin is. Sin is in the in the Church fathers explicitly only a
move or an action of the will against the good or away from the good.
That's it, okay. And then just to follow up, do you
think his work, and then the Lord of Spirits podcast is good and some
of the other stuff that he's on resources. Right, So you know our
buddies, my friend Lewis and Kai, they've done interviews on their channel with
Father Stephen the Young. I don't know Father Stephen the Young personally. I've
never talked to him. They seem to, you know, appreciate the book.
I've only heard good things, so I don't have any anything critical or
negative to say. So I would imagine if they've given it seal of approval,
it's good. I've not listened to Lord of Spirits, so I can't
speak to that. Okay, sounds good, thank you, Yeah, great
questions and if you go back, I think too if you go to my
Eclipse channel, not dire Clips, but the other clips channel, which is
live streams and absurdities, and there's actually a video specifically on critiquing penal substitution,
and one of the key elements it's often overlooked in how to understand this
is actually the Byzantine Synod from the eleventh century where they condemn satiricos, and
the condemnation of satiricos via the liturgy actually helps explain why we don't have the
Protestant doctrine of penal substitutions. So if you go over to my clips channel,
it's right here. It's called penal substitution refuted in Byzantium. In It
the air, this video will reference both. You can talk. You can
get the Palmezansky book. There's a section in there about it, and there's
also a chapter on it in the Papa Dooccus Mayan Norf book, Christian Church
in the what's the name of it? Christian East, Christian East in the
Rise of the Papers, this whole chapter on that, and that actually refutes
the penal substitution view Dan Mullitor, what's up? Man? Get it?
I mute, Sarah, what's up? I was reading Orthodox dogmatic theology and
it talks about the one second, let me see sure it was Palmazansky or
stuny Alay or Lawsky it is. I get to the cover and uh,
it just talks. I mean, it's a simple question, I guess,
not a simple answer. But she talks about the seamlessness of Mary, and
so just is that from an Orthodox perspective? Is that a necessity like that
that belief? And if if so, why I mean like like if she
wasn't sinless, therefore what and so like because she is sendless. There you
know what I'm saying, mask Well, I think as the Mother of God,
she is that they had tokyos, meaning that she was chosen to raise
our Lord from his youth. The idea of her purity would be partly so
that she would fulfill and be capable for that role. Now that doesn't mean
that like Jesus didn't know how to act or something like that, like he
had to be spanked or something, but just that she would be the pure
vessel first of all, to give birth to him, and also that she
would be his guardian and be the one to raise him. And so that
is a unique status amongst all women in the world. That's why when you
look at the Old Testament you see multiple women who have Old Testament miraculous births
Hannah, you know, Sarah, et cetera. They become pictures of Mary.
And so when Mary comes about, she fulfills all of those roles,
all of those types. She becomes the ultimate image of what the idea of
Israel as the bride was supposed to be. So she's kind of like the
Summation and the Telos of Israel as the feminine bride to Yahweh, and so
to be that, I think is partly why she was so graced, and
also because in the long term foreknowledge and designs of our Lord, she would
be the Queen of Heaven. If you read Revelations twelve, you know she's
pictured pretty clearly as Queen of Heaven, queen of the universe, and that's
the reality that she will have manifested to the whole universe in the Eschaton.
So it's only appropriate that not only does she be preserved from actual sin again
by grace, but also that she be the spotless Virgin and the ever Virgin,
and as we say in the liturgy right the ever Virgin Mary. And
that's actually typified in certain passages like Psalm forty five, where the queen stands
next to the King in gold of o fear. That's a Messianic psalm that's
talking about Jesus and Mary. Ezeko forty four. The prince exits through the
door of the temple and the door remain shut. How does a prince exit
the door and the door remain shut. The prince is the Messiah the Prince
Christ, and that's talking about him being born from Mary, the new Temple,
and so all of us are temples. Jesus is the temple. You
know. Destroy this temple and in three days I'll raise it again. He
spoke at the temple of his body, John two, I think, or
not John two. It's a later on in John wh he's already with the
Pharisees. John what eight nine were in there? Uh? Maybe it's seven.
But if you go watch my video that I did in response to Isabella
de Luca, it's on YouTube called Arc of the Covenant. Mary is the
Ark of the Covenant. It answers a lot of those questions. All right,
thank you, Yeah, those are great questions. So that video is
called, uh, what is the basis for the veneration of Mary? Or
Saint Mary? The Intercession of the Saints, replied to Isabella de Luca is
the name of that video on YouTube. Let's see who was next. We
got a bunch of people who piled in here. I'm trying to remember who
Zora I think was next. You gotta unmute. Yes, Mary is the
second Eve. All of that is in my video. If people want to
go watch, I can't. It's a forty minute video. I can't repeat
all of that. Yeah, Hi, Jay? Was that for me?
Brian was what? No? The response was to people in the chat on
YouTube asking questions, go ahead, Oh no, sorry, I missed a
part where you actually let me in. But thank you? Is it my
turn? Sure? All right? Well the ball goblin. Thank you man,
and see Rachel's in the audience. Hey, Rachel, I'm an admire
of your husband's work and yours as well. Jay, thank you for all
that awesome commentary. Man, I come from you, Sorry, I come
to you from Alex Jones and watching your Friday Hour and kind of like the
fruit the first caller, Chris I believe his name was, I'm kinda gonna
lend myself to be a punching bag as well, because I don't disagree completely
on anything. But there is a point of contention I did have with this
the sola scriptor I hear from. How if it's only based on scripture?
I currently well, I come from a Protestant background, Evangelical Protestant. But
I don't give myself any name because I basically call myself a student and I'm
learning the biggest thing that I've kind of come into in the past few years
is trying to take the words of the Bible literally wherever it's asked to take
literally, like the Ten Commandments, how it says to follow this, don't
do that. And a great teacher on this was a Rob Ski. But
if you're familiar with Rob Ski, but he passed away a few years ago.
But taking a literal approach opened his eyes to the Genesis six giants and
the wars that were fought between them and the Nephelim, when the Watcher,
when they came down to well, look, yeah, I mean people love
to get into the like really you know, speculative type of stuff, and
you know, I have I don't have a problem talking about that, but
like that's like what a couple verses. I mean, the majority of the
Bible is not about nephem and giants. It's about you know, the New
Testament stuff that we're talking about. It's about who's the Messiah, what is
the Trinity? You know what I mean. Like, that's the majority of
what's in the Bible. So I'm not trying to knock you or be rude,
but you know, the Bible isn't this thing that kind of comes to
us like in a vacuum. It comes from a historic church that preserved it,
handed it down. So you can't really have the Bible without the community
that decided what books go into it. That's a historical reality. It's a
historic community. It's part of a tradition. So the Bible actually is a
liturgical book. Most people are surprised to hear this, but it was meant
to be heard in the context of a worship service. It was not primarily
meant to be a personal devotional book. It can be that it was not
primarily meant to be something that some Protestant orator preaches from and gives you a
bunch of dumb you know, boom er wife jokes or something that like a
lot of pastors do. It's not the purpose of that. It's meant to
be read and heard in the context of liturgical worship. That's I think the
element that's missing here. Paul says, the church is the polar and ground
of truth, not the written texts. Jesus says to the Pharisees, you
search the scriptures because you think that it's in them that you have eternal life.
When it's say the bear witness of me. Absolutely, I completely agree.
And the hold on how could you? How could you agree with that?
Though? If you're a Protestant. Oh No, I don't. Like
I said, I don't give myself any titles on stuff, especially that I'm
not, you know, one convinced on it. I just come I came
from that background. More so, I'm looking into the different interpretations that can
be taken, especially translations. I myself. Yeah, yeah, I don't
give myself any titles. Brother, it's too a big of a thing.
But I come from an Armenian round, which might be think to some.
And the big question kind of lingering in my mind is this right here?
If I were to ask you, when the Bible specifically says to not do
something, is that gonna be categorized as the argument of solo scriptura or else?
Because if the Scripture says to not do something, that technically kind of
makes it into a works. But being from the Bible of scripture, is
there a delineation or distinction between those two? No, Like solar scripture is
a classical Protestant doctrine that the final authority or the sole authority ultimately for the
church is just the written text in the Bible. That's the doctrine of solar
scriptura. Citing things from the Bible as beliefs or moral requirements or whatever is
not the doctrine solar scripture. Those are two different things. I mean,
we believe that the Ibile teaches all kinds of things of you know, things
you shouldn't do, ten commandments, et cetera. But that's not solar scripture.
No, solar scripture is a classical Reformation doctrine from reformers that ultimately the
Church only listens to the written texts. Gotcha, gotcha, brother, There's
so many things going through my mind. More than anything, I'm thankful you
actually, uh let me speak? Sure? Great? Am I ever work
man? Thank you Jay, Thank you Rachel for being here. Give your
husband a nice drink on my on my beef. I actually don't. That's
probably not a good for him. Thanks Matt, Yeah, appreciate that.
Good questions. Let's move on to next up? Is heine? What's on
your mind? Hello? Yes, sir, hi Jay? Thankfully, I'm
I'm a big fan of yours. But I'm a Protestant and what I usually
do is when I argue with Muslims or with Mormons. What I would do
is I would tell them listen, but in the Bible, it's issue.
You're not supposed to to add anything to the Word of God. You're not
supposed to add anything. And then I did a course on basically early Christianity,
and then I realized that that's exactly what Luther did. I mean,
he took you know, they took away from the the Word of God they
hold on. Was that So you understand that when John says that in the
Apocalypse there's not a Bible yet, do you understand that? Yeah? Yeah,
I do. Yeah, And I think it's sitting in both Moses as
well. So you know, I suppose you could take it to mean just
the apocalypse. Were suppose you could could take it to mean just the writings
of Moses. But then you know, we all we all find all the
Christians felt in that that one of that's the case. So I think most
people usually take it to mean like the Christian traditions, the posts, the
sign, Where where I am they? So right? So like if you
mean by Luther, I don't know if you mean adding faith alone. Are
you talking about Luther removing the Judo canon, removing the Judo canon. Okay,
yeah, so so yes, and then I realized, okay, you
know I can't really use that that you know, po critical to use that
argument. But then I did a did a course on an ancient Christianity,
and what they would you know, what they said is like all the added
liturgy was also added later after the Christianity became the official religion of the Roman
Empire. No, so totally ridiculous. No, we could read the church
fathers talking about the liturgy early on. So like one of the most famous
controversies is the Quarto Desseminarian controversy, which is a controversy about liturgy goal calendars.
So how could liturgy be added centuries later? If there's all these controversies,
we can go read you're an as Justin Marter talking about the liturgy,
talking about the real presence. So this is just silly, okay, because
I will what they said. It's when when the you know, when Constantine
goes for Christians of basilicas, they expanded the liturgy to fitting you read the
Duchy or the Kentucky my my less. But it seems that they only had
two sacraments. They only had communion and baptism, the you know, the
early Christians, the ones. This is an argument from silence, the fact
that the Diddiki, which is not part of scripture, talks about various traditions.
I'd be like saying, we shouldn't have a Bible because the the first
few centuries of the Church, the Church Fathers, they don't list the Canada
Scripture, so we can't have a Bible. So you see how that's not
a very good argument. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that's
actually a very good, good objection. Yeah. And the the other thing
I wanted to to to argue with you about is about the confession, because
that was only added in the twelve or thirteenth century. In other words,
the early Christians, they didn't they didn't like you. You pointed out your
podcast, you pointed out that, you know, the CIA used the Catholic
Church to get information. And since since many you know, in some countries
majority Catholic countries, are very powerful people or you know, the Catholics,
so they're going to confess to something is dark, right to the priests,
and then and that gives the you know, if the priest gives you to
the CIA, and that gives the liverage over those people. So what what
what would stop what would stop you know, the kg B from doing that
with the Orthodox priests and those people. So so from that point of view,
I don't think it's I think it's very risky to to confess. And
that's one of my main objects to moving over to Orthodoxy or this idea.
Sorry, So the abuse of something doesn't necessarily negate something, right, A
father abuses being a father, he abuses his family. That doesn't mean we
get rid of fathers. So the abuse of something is not necessarily or can't
be the defeat for the existence of that thing, And everything would be upended
if we went with that kind of argumentation. So the reason for that is
that in the Old Testament, when you brought your sacrifice, you were in
a way confessing your sin, because depending upon what sin you'd committed, that
was associated with different animals and different sacrifices. When John the Baptist is baptizing,
it says and they came to him confessing their sins and being baptized.
This goes back to the Old Testament. It's not an invention in the twelfth
century. In the early Church, there were different models and different processes for
the how this was done. Sometimes it was a communal confession, sometimes it
was individual So there's different practices and sometimes the church mm hmm consolidates and organizes
these principles for oracular confession. But Jesus says in the at the end of
Gospel of John when he breathes on the apostle, I think it's John twenty
one, he says, whoever sends you remitted the remitted, whoever sends you
retain to retained. So breathing on them commits that transmits the ability to forgive
sense. So how are you going to have that happen if you don't confess
and have your sins remitted? Yeah, well, I think I think the
approach is to together directly to God and not to commit to confess. Okay,
but did you did you hear what I said? Though? Why would
you? Why would Jesus breathe on the apostles and say, whoever sends you
remit, they're remitted. Who Ever sends you retain they retained. If he
weren't transmitting an actual power to do that, why didn't he just say,
now everybody can just pray to God. We don't you don't. You don't
need me, You don't need these apostles. There's no reason to breathe on
them and tell them that sorry, we we we that's written. I'll have
to look look to that. I think it's John twenty one. You don't
you've not heard of this. I've written all Bibles. I must have.
I must have come across it. But you know, it just has to
look like a bit more interested. So do you think that the pots and
basically just took that out, you know, they just they just cut that
out that practice. Yeah, okay, all right, thanks, thanks,
I appreciate it. I was just wanted, you know, I wanted to
know what you think about these these objections. See we just read this,
uh the other day in the liturgy. Maybe it's twenty twenty. Yeah,
so it's John twenty and he says it's the incident where there's where Thomas is
doubting. And this also speaks to the earlier question about signs and miracles too,
and it says the disciples said, we have seen the Lord. Unless
I see his handprints in the tone and the nails put my finger in it,
I will not believe, Thomas says, and after eight days this,
disciples were gathered again. Thomas came to you, just said, with the
doors being shut, peace to you. And he said it Thomas, put
your finger here, put your hand and put it in my side. Do
not be unbelieving, but believe. And Thomas said, my Lord and my
God, which proves to deed of Christ. Thomas, you have seen me,
and yet you have believe. Blessed for those who have not seen it
yet have believe. Oh wait, where's the where's breathing on them? Yeah,
so Jesus said it again to them. Peace be into you. As
a father sent me, I sent you. That's Apostolic succession. When he
said this, he breathed on them and said, receive the spirit. If
you forgive the sins of any, they're forgiven. And if you retain the
sins of any, they were retained. So this is part of the office
of the Keys. So there you go. John twenty Okay, thank you,
thank you very much, because you know what I'm going to do is
then I'm going to start my own my impostant denomination. Just seeing the two
two sacraments and using the Catholic Yeah, that's funny. Well, now you
should also include the idea that you alone have the ability to forgive the sins,
so you should say that you alone possessed the power as well. Millis
Mills, Oregon is not resisting. Ten dollars, Jay, thank you for
the apologetics as a Protestant until you debate a redeemed Zoomer. There we go.
Nice to hear that my wife and I am becoming catechumens. We became
catechum as last Sunday, Glory got hey, glad to hear that organ is
not resisting much appreciate it. Propane two thousand and one, five dollars.
Do you have any thoughts on apologetics from hermeneutic consistency. I'm not sure what
you mean against autonomous systems and obscure theonomous ones. There is rarely, if
ever, at binding authoritative body in history, let alone a providentially guided one
to preserve these doctrines. Well, I mean we just read right here.
Whoever sends you remit, they're remitted. Whoever sends you retain, they're retaining.
He hears you. Here's me. So this has what what relevance does
this have to us? If there's not successors to the apostles who have this
ability. So what do you mean there's no providential system to bind people.
There is. That's what the church is. So I'm not trying to be
rude propane. I'm just saying, like church history answers your question, and
the existence of overseers in the church, in synods and in councils do that
very thing. Michelle Newday, twenty five dollars. How do you approach non
believers? I mean it depends on your station in life and how you what
you do. I mean we approach people typically here via internet stuff because of
a large audience. I don't typically like go out door to door, you
know, handing out tracks or something like that. I mean people can do
that. You know, there are people who make orthodox tracts. Nothing wrong
with that, But it really just depends on your station in life, who
you are, who year around, you know what you're doing. So you
know, if you're at work, you approach your coworkers who are unbelievers in
a way appropriate to being a coworker. You know, you try to live
virtuously, invite them to church. That kind of stuff. Not everybody has
to debate. Not everybody has the same skill sets, gifts, etc.
There's all kinds of different ways to go about doing that, So do it
in the way that's appropriate to you and your skill set in your station in
life. Right, some people have the gift of mercy. So if you
have the gift of mercy, then your job is to be merciful to people,
and that will convert people. Don't try to debate your parents, don't
try to debate your boss. Don't try to argue with people who have authority
over you. It's a waste of time. It's never gonna work. It
doesn't happen that way. Show deference and respect and live virtuously, and you'll
convert way more people than arguing and debating. Now, some people have the
ability to argue and debate. Some people have that skill set. Nothing wrong
with that either. It just depends on you and your unique situation. What's
up, Mills yet? I'm mute, man, Mills, did you want
to talk? All right, we'll move on, Sean. What's up?
Sean? I was hoping Elijah would come in here since he was joking around
on the on Twitter. Hell, you know what something man? Oh?
So, I just had a question about so I got but the question of
why was the thief the post saved. Can you mute the computer man exactly?
Oh yeah, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. So my parts and
friends will always ask me, okay, well, if you're not staved by
faith alone, why was it the orthodox I'm sorry, why was the thief
on the cross save? Because he repented? So repentance is a good work.
Jesus says, this is the work of God that you believe in him,
whom he has, who he has sent. So faith is also a
work. So repenting and believing our works. Yeah, but then it will
also be like ook. But he was a baptized. Yeah, but that's
that's an extra normative situation where he's repenting and he's saved in united to Christ
without baptism. That's not the norm for everyone else. So for the most
part, for the most part, everybody will be expected to be baptized and
be united in the normative way. So the fact that there are extra normative
ways has nothing to do with proving justification by faith alone. Go ahead,
Okay, well it's gonna say it seems correct me if I'm wrong. But
it's kind of tendency and Protestantism. You find an exception to the rule and
then make it the rule exactly, which is very odd to me that,
well, obviously it's an extenuating circumstance, an exception of the rule, and
the process say well, well then let's just make it the rule. So
what in your mind, Jay, or are guest here Sean, what causes
one to kind of think that way? That like, if you're find an
extraordinary circumstance to make a general rule that would apply to all from well,
it's based on the assumption that salvation has only had through quote faith alone,
and so that would somehow disprove the necessity of works for baptism. And it's
all wrongheaded because salvation is first of all, not based on quote faith alone.
And when Paul's talking about justification by faith apart from works, he's not
saying he's some of the works of the law. He's not saying that there's
no good works. In fact, he says in Corinthians that the only faith
that saves is faith working through love. That's Paul okay. So Paul right
there is telling you that he's not teaching the Cloud School Reformation doctrine of faith
alone. So once that's removed, the point that Jesus says is that faith
is a work. Therefore, the thief on the cross believing is what's a
good work. His repentance is what's a good work. And those are the
things that unite him to Christ. And had he have the opportunity, he
would have been baptized, he would not have disobeyed. So yeah, there's
there's no like we believe in the Orthodox Church that there's baptism by desire.
There's baptism of blood, which is people who are martyred and they're not yet.
You know, catechumens who get martyred, they're considered baptized in their blood,
baptism of desire. The thief on the cross has baptism of desire,
so he is baptized. Oh kah, that makes sense. And then I'm
also I had a conversation with some like Mormon scholar named Robert Boylet. I
don't know if he's heard of him. I have not. I've only read
Talmadge. That's the only one of the Mormons I've read. Okay, kind
of a modern day scholar for the Mormon Church. But he would I had
a conversation with him on like Facebook Live or something like that, and he
would he would say that Justin Martyr in his first apology claim to believe in
more than one God. Well, the word God, as we pointed out
in all the lectures and interviews with doctor bo Branson, is a generic term.
It can refer to angels, it can refer to demons, it can
refer to humans, and it can even pick out different things in the triad.
So it can pick out a divine person, it can pick out the
divine nature, it can pick out divine energies and operations and attributes. So
there's no single reference to the word God. And so when we say in
the Creed, for example, we believe in God from God God, there
is picking out two hypostases. Right, So, but does that mean that
we're polytheists. No, however, Mormons are polytheists, and Justin Marter is
not a polytheist. Okay, that makes sense. I appreciate you. Yeah,
so look up the doctor Branson's talks on the monarchy of the Father,
and that would be sufficient to refute the Mormon notion of polytheism. Okay,
good questions there, Joseph. By the way, if you guys would hit
like and share, you can also support the stream via the super chat function.
Superchats are done here on stream labs. Stream labs is the best way
here for sending your questions, your super chats, your support right there.
And also, as you noticed, there is a qr code that is my
bitcoin support wallet. If you want to support via a bitcoin you can as
well using this wallet here. And if you don't have the QR code stuff
handy, you can also use the bigcoin wallet address in the show description.
Joseph, did you want to make a point? Yeah, you know,
Jesus gave the guarantee of that one group written about the Book of Revelation that
their names would not be blood where he talks about if you add or take
away from the Book of Revelation, you will not have a share in the
Tree of Life and in the White City the future. So it is you're
cutting your salvation, you're cutting out so a lot of your question I can't
hear. Go ahead, can you hear me out? Good? Yeah,
try again, go ahead. I heard something about not blotting out from the
Tree of Life in the Book of Revelation. I'm aware of this, and
what's what what are you saying? And then Jesus guaranteed that one group that
their names would never be blotted out of the Book of Life. Reading about
in the Book of Revelation too, Maybe it's in chapter two or chapter three.
I'm familiar with it. What about it? So it is possible to
lose your salvation if you're a believer in Christ, you know. So,
I don't think that just because you're saved, that you're going to be having
internal life, unless, of course Jesus himself tells you you're gonna Yeah,
I mean, we don't believe in the Protestant doctrine of you know, once
saved, always saved, would we would not believe that. Yeah, it's
right there. That very easy to figure out that it is possible to lose
your salvation as a believer in christis right in many different places. Now,
yeah, and I'm not trying to be well and I'm trying to be read
to. But you say that you're a prophet. How do you believe that
you're a prophet. I'm not trying to be mean, But there's no more
prophets today. Since two thousand and nine, the Lord has used the gift
of prophecy that I carry. It's one of the gifts of the spirit that
I carry. You know thousands of times he's told me the future in different
situations that has come in the past. So the five fold ministry written about
and if he's just four to eleven is still at play basically, if you
will, well, uh, in the in the period, in the period
when Paul was writing and talking to people who were receiving direct inspiration and could
speak for God, like the apostles or like people in the Book of Acts
that we see, that's the time where Paul's writing that. But we also
have predictions, for example in Zachariah where when the Messianic era comes, there
won't be prophecy and anybody who claims to prophesy will be stoned or will be
excommunicated because there is no new, ongoing divine revelations. We don't need profits
anymore in the church because we're in the era of the Kingdom. Why would
we need profits? Well, I mean, the if you just four eleven
ministry structures right there, I just answered that. I just I just answered
that. I mean you have to take that lure. I don't understand how
you can say, oh, that's not for today. Did you not hear
anything that I just said? Did you not hear anything I said, Yeah,
I understand, But no you don't. I mean, did you not
hear what I said? Yeah? I mean what did I say? The
zachar I think, is no something that I haven't heard. When Paul wrote
that to the Ephesians, that was in a period when there was still ongoing
divine revelation. The apostles were still alive. That mean any that meant,
anything that they talked about was the words of God because they had that authority
as appointed directly by Christ. He who hears you hears me right. And
there's there's ongoing revelation from the from Pentecost and so forth. But when the
last apostle died, there's no more divine revelations and prophets. It was once
for all committed to the saints. So how can you be a prophet and
be speaking by the Holy Spirit when we're already told, we already know that
the office of the prophet is not necessary anymore. Well, it's simple.
Yeah, I have two verses to give to you. First, one is
that what Jesus spoke, anybody who believes in me, you'll do the same
things and even greater. Basically, yeah, but you're not taken into it
one, but you're just assuming that you're just assuming that that's you're assuming that
that's for all time and not for a specific time. So once the revelation
was done, I don't understand how you can just say, oh, that's
not for today because of all the things I just said, because there is
no new revelations once the last apostle died. As Jude says, the faith
once for all delivered to the saints, so there's no need for any new
revelations or prophets. What's that reference in Jude that you're talking about. It's
the faith once for all delivered to the saints. So at the very beginning,
let me leave you with one more thing. There is another where every
word in every deed we do as believers must be in the name of Jesus.
So obviously we must hear from Jesus himself and speak his living oracles.
There's another Bible verse about living as oracles of God. I don't know what
the reverence is, but yeah, but that doesn't That doesn't mean that you're
getting new divine inspiration. It means that you are becoming conformed to the person
of Christ, participating in his divine life. Yeah, sanctification is part of
it. But if Jesus wants the propheest out of me in twenty twenty four,
he could do it at the Holy Spital, tells me a prophecy this.
This is the same arguments that the Mormons make. If that were actually
the case, we wouldn't actually be able to confirm what scripture was or the
teachings because you could always just say, whoa the cannon and revelation and props.
He is not closed, so he can give me new stuff. Right,
So it's not about the canon. It's about the spirit. I mean,
how can we follow the spirit without hearing him and moving with him?
Like we don't know that? I mean, you think that it's a spirit
and maybe you have to test the spirits, jay, I mean, the
Holy Spirit has to confess to me that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
He tells me, go to food Lion here in Greensboro, North Carolina,
prophesied the lady. You know that you're going to see it about three
seconds three too, when he counts it down and there she is in front
of me. That's that's not that's not how this works. From a demon
Jay. If he tells me it's from yourself, It's from your own mind
and heart, that's where it's from. If I hear his still small voice
telling me, Joseph, that lady right there that you're looking at, that's
you. Baby boy has the baby boy inside of her. That's you.
And she doesn't even look pregnant. And I say, ma'am you ever,
baby Wing, how did you know? I haven't told anybody because the Holy
Spirit told me. Man, he's real. God loves you. I mean,
Ricky, what's up? Man? Yeah? And I'm not trying to
be mean to that guy, but there's no way for either him or anyone
else to discern or to delineate between whether that is really God, a demon,
or his own heart telling him that his own emotions and feelings. And
that's why the Orthodox Church is very different when it comes to this versus Protestants
or Roman Catholics, who are also the proto charismatics. By the way,
with all of the insane histrionic women's saints who believe they're having spiritual orgasms and
all this nonsense, this is the same delusion. And I'm not trying to
be mean to that guy, but I'm just pointing out that go ahead,
five way. I was in a chapel and he kind of evangelical, non
denominational Christianity people were constantly claiming this and it was just anarchy like like people
were trying to one up each other, like no, God told me this,
and like and so it was almost like the way that you see like
the left, like inplos and destroys itself right where it's like point of privileged,
point of no, you're violating the no, you didn't use the This
was happening in evangelicalism because everybody was claiming to have these gifts and prophecies from
the Holy Spirit. And keep in mind, Cobridy Chapel came out of Four
Square Church and Pentecostalism, so they were definitely a lot of those kind of
spiritual gifts. And we're all contradicting each other. And so you know,
my friend Ryan and I came up this whole thing that like we could do
a whole sketch comedy on where it was like X Men powers and they were
like, well, my you know, my spiritual gift of laser beam eyes
right like, and everybody's like fighting each other and through each other. Right,
if you go to any charismatic church or pentegostal church, the first thing
you'll notice is the confusion. And we're told in Corinthians God is not the
author of confusion. God has always had liturgical worship, even when there were
living, ongoing prophets in the Old Testament. Right, Jesus is the prophet
of prophets. How did Jesus worship? Was he rolling around on the floor
acting like a dog, barking, giggling and acting like a buffoon and knocking
people down with you know, his his sport coat like Benny Han. No,
he went to liturgical worship at the synagogue because he's the God of the
Old Testament who gave liturgical worship. He didn't give a bunch of idiots rolling
around and barking and acting like loons. So that has nothing to do with
biblical religion at all. Yeah, And I'd also asked Joseph too, in
the spirit of orderliness, what man are you accountable to? So we Orthodox
believe God speaks to us, we have a personal relationship with God. But
we've talked about this. I realize that I'm constantly in delusion, and so
I have a spiritual father, like you know, in light of kind of
virtue ethics, that I take these things too, like I don't lean on
my own understanding and be like, well God told me this and this came
true, and I you know it, says Scripture, A wise man seeks
multiple counsel. Who are you under? Who sent you? That's the other
thing, A prophet sent? Have you ever postels or sent apostolos? Who
sent you? Yes? As Paul says in Hebrew six, no man takes
this honor unto himself. Now every Protestant is going to say, oh,
the Holy Spirit directly commissioned me, and father deacon, what would you say
to that with somebody at process as well? God himself commissioned me. Well,
that's not what we even see in the abstall times in the first century,
because all the heretics were claiming the same thing. You see this with
Saint Erness and Ignacious. They tell you exactly what man sent them. So
they're not like, well, it's just the Holy Spirit of God. Again,
they were under an authority of man, not against me a God,
correct, but men of God. All right. So people in the Chat
are asking me, and I knew this was going to come up. So
aren't there elders who have the gift of clairvoyance. Elders can know the future,
There can be clairvoyance. Absolutely, that is not the same thing as
divine revelation. Okay, so public divine revelation is not. It ceased when
the apostles died, thus the faith was once we're all delivered to the saints.
So I'm not saying that there aren't people who have premonitions and so forth,
but that is not the same thing as adding to and being the voice
of God or something like that, as if there's new text to add to
the scriptures, and also the people exactly they're getting visions by themselves and claiming
a direct contact with the Holy Spirit apart from an ecclesial authority and structure of
the church, which automatically is going to make you suspect that. It's like,
so Christ establishes a church, gives his revelation in Toto right Cato holos
to it, and has an authoritative structure, and then somebody saying I'm outside
of that, like I don't exist, and God's talking to me outside of
the church that he established, and that doesn't sound bizarre. Yeah, protest
every Protestant, every Messianic Protestant, you know, judaized evangelical needs to watch
this video Roots of Ancient Christian Worship because it's going to show you the proper
way to worship is not rock bands enrolling on the floor and acting like an
idiot, but it's actually this way ordered liturgical worship right there. So and
you know what, you can talk to booth Ja Cotel, father Moses uh
who was in here, myself, who experienced psychedelics, and even when I
was, you know, consider myself Christian. Guess what I thought. I
thought God and I was making predictions, weird stuff that was happening that you
couldn't explain. I thought the Holy Spirit was speaking to me. I too,
I too had a period when I was young where I was I thought
charismaticism was correct. I used to tend charismatic churches. I thought the Gibberish
was an angelic prayer language. I thought all those same things for a couple
of years when I was young, and then I realized, well, hey,
wait a minute, you know, Corinthians is actually talking about known languages,
It's not talking about Gibberish. Paul is talking about people who have the
gift of languages to instruct people in their native tongues. That's the gift of
tongues. It's not gibberish. There's no bumbling, rambling prayer, languages of
nonsense and all that stuff Paul's talking about, ultimately, by the way,
is no edic prayer. So that's what he's really talking about, in terms
of seeing the third heavens and praying in the spirit. Some guy's saying that
I'm arguing with elders. I don't know what you're talking about. I did
not say that there's no gifts of clairvoyance or miracles or anything like that.
I just simply said that those are not new public divine revelations that we add
to the Bible. Okay, we're not Mormons. We don't have We're not
a cult that follows ongoing divine revelations. And I'm sorry if you think that
we do. That's just simply mistaken. Where in the when the actumenical councils,
when they go to citing authoritative texts, what do they always put first?
First is Scripture, Second is the Holy Fathers and their interpretation of Scripture.
Third is arguments from logic and reasoning. That's the pattern that you've seen
in the ecumenical councils. I think he was misunderstanding to what I was saying,
because I've made this argument with Mormons. If scripture and public prophecy,
like we're talking about new revelations, like, if that wasn't closed, if
there were, we wouldn't be able to confirm the canonicity of the scripture.
Why because going back to the Saint Vincent level, Lorenz, what all have
hold everywhere, at all times already implies a patalolos what was wants to delivered
to the saints, and that it's closed and complete. So the reason why
we were able to say that and verify the cannon and say this was part
of what was always believed everywhere, at all times, it's precisely because it
was close. Can you imagine the epistemological anarchy that would occur if you if
you were allowed to be well, there's new stuff, you see, why
can't we include? So it undermines being able to affirm anything whatsoever. And
furthermore, it reduces everything to a subjectivism. There's no mechanism to objectively verify
if this is true everybody. And this is exactly what you get in Mormonism.
That's why it just is reduced to burning in the bosom and subjective feelings.
Well, it's just the Holy Spirit speaking. He told me this.
Do you see how it undermines everything? Like it's just chaos? Like you
there, you wouldn't be able to confirm what Christ taught, what the apostles
taught. I mean, if we're Christians, is not an obvious like end
of debate by pointing out that there's no new revelations, so obviously Islam is
not true. Well there are new revelations. Well I can't even use that
as an argument against Islam. Maybe maybe MOhm it is a new prophet.
And you understand that Muslims are going to tell you that the miracles around the
Koran and Mohammed prove Islam. I mean, have you guys not ever interacted
with Muslims. You don't know that they say this. How are you going
to combat Muslims when they're going to make all the same miracle arguments that you're
making. Well, there's new there's new revelations, and look at all the
miracles around the Quran. Therefore Islam's true. So these are this is why
we do this is to debunk debuok these terrible arguments. These are bad arguments.
Okay. Just claims of miracles don't prove Islam or Catholicism and all of
these groups claim miracles. Okay, so how is that going to be the
thing? So people are asking, did I not just address the issue of
elders and making their predictions. We just addressed this, and people are like,
oh, that's all they're talking about in the chat Woodo, Bill Puss.
We just addressed this. I'm not trying to be rude, but guys,
I mean, did you just get here in the chat like we just
we just addressed that. Man, be patient, go back a little bit
instead of sounding off, Ricky, did you want to say something? Yeah,
before I ask my question. Something that really spoofed me on while I
was Roman Catholic. Was that the same charismatic practices? Yeah? These people
do they do it in the church. I mean not in the church setting,
but no, actually some of them did know the Rubbi Gallic Church has
adopted officially from the papacy down the modern charismatic movement. Yeah. So I
was part of a eucharistic adoration, and they had this like piano music,
you know, the Protestant repeat the chorus ten times, yeah yeah, and
just people speaking in tongues and doing a bunch of weird stuff. Some people
were dancing in the background and you know, praying over people like you know
these groups do. And it just totally kind of spooked me because it's like,
you know, I'm trying, I was. I loved Protestantism to get
to something that was Protestant, so it just really proves like way too much.
Father Peter years said that that's like one of the main points that you
know, for the churches to unite, the Greek churches would have to accept
that that type of worship is legitimate and it's clearly not Orthodox, right,
I mean, this is you know, Father Servant Rose called this out as
a deception, and I'm really glad that you brought this up, because this
is actually over overlooked in terms of our critique. I always forget that there's
like papal gigantic of here's all these charismatic Catholics praying over Pope Francis. I
mean, guys, come on, right, so and here's here's Francis participating.
Yeah, all the charismatic Roman Catholic here's cardinals praying charismatic prayers over Pope
Francis. Yeah yeah, I mean, this is not the way that we
were intended to worship, is not through this charismatic nonsense. All right,
let's see gulag hey, Jake and here, and then I apologize in advance.
I know you're looking forward Tobates, and I know you get super tired
of going over all this real basic stuff. But I'm very inspired by my
recent delve into Orthodoxy, and I feel like I'm getting the grass on the
distinctions between the Father and the Son. But I feel like I'm really falling
short on my understanding with the Holy Spirit. And I guess the best way
to just kind of conceptualize that if you wouldn't mind giving a little guidance and
the best way to understand that, and I'm not necessarily saying that it does,
but if the Holy Spirit is directly related to the concept of grace,
and if you want to refer me to one of your previous videos or a
book totally, I mean, I would go back to the front page of
my channel, and at the very bottom is a lecture going through the entirety
of John Saint John Damascus is on the Orthodox Faith, and we start with
the triad we go through each of the you know, arguments that he makes.
I would also say, go and watch the lectures of doctor bo Brinson
on the monarchia of the Trinity. But the the Person of the Holy Spirit
is the third person, and he is fully divine and fully personal, as
much as the Father, as much as the Son. He's not equated to
grace, but we do speak of the grace of the Spirit and so forth
the gifts of the Spirit. But everything in the Trinity is triadic. So
the grace that comes to us is from the Father, through the Son and
in the Spirit. That's Saint Basil's classic sort of triadic model or liturgical model
for how all of these things come to us. You could also read Saint
Basils on the Holy Spirit, which is not that long of a work,
and it's a very good introduction to this topic as well. Mac. Did
you want to try again now on this other topic too. I remember when
I was a trad this is a big controversy because John Paul the Second or
Benedict, gave communion to quote brother Roger Schutz, who was a Swiss Swiss
ecumenist. So he's a Protestant Swiss ecumenist, part of the Taisee community.
And this is a big scandal back under I forget which pope, one of
the popes gave him communion, and it was a huge scandal. Here it
is John Paul the Second, no and Benedict. So here's trad Benedict giving
this Protestant ecumenist the Eucharist. Although brothers Shoots had a Presbyterian background, he
received the Eucharist at the Mass celebrated every morning in his monastery from John Paul
the Second and Benedict sixteenth. This actually contravened canonical prohibitions on receiving the sacrament
unless you are members of the Catholic Church. But of course in the acumenist
world of Roman Catholicism they don't care. And not only that, this guy
is the father of Charismatic Catholicism and ecumenism. So the actual Charismatic Catholic movement
comes partly from or maybe even largely from I'm trying to go from this his
stuff from like twenty years ago, from this brother Roger Shutz guy, and
the tais a community, is a charismatic community if I remember correctly, we
make sure I'm right about that. Well, I see a lot of discussions
of yes, well they're calling him a charismatic founder, but do they mean
like charismatic in the sense of a leader or is he Maybe I'm misremembering and
he's just an ecumenist, But I thought he was a an actual charismatic,
Like does anybody know if if I mean, we know he was an acumenist,
but was he a I'm trying to figure out what I could look up
to see if that's the case anybody in the chat? No, And remember
was Roger Schutz? What you guys are talking about body parts, the chats,
the chest's way off of it. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether he's
an acumenist. And it was ridiculous to give him a community. But whatever
I mean, the because alicism has been has accepted charismaticism. Whatever. So
this other text that's overlooked in Zacharai at thirteen is talking about the Messianic era,
and it notes that there will not be profits in that day. We
won't need profits, and if anyone claims to be a new revelation prophet,
he will be considered worthy of death. In other words, he will not
be part of the church. He will be spiritually excommunicated because there will not
be a need for new public divine revelations. Imagine how silly this would be.
That's why the deacon pointed out, how could I know what certitude the
doctrines of Paul or the doctrines of the church if there were new public divine
revelations. Oh, it turns out the Trinity isn't true. Oh it turns
out this is Mormonism, this is Islam. Has no one interacted with Islam?
I don't understand, Like, you don't have to do it that long
before you start to realize this whole thing is erected on the idea that there's
new divine revelations. M mac are either is this disagreements or is it just
like an open it's whatever? Cool? Hey, so, do you have
any good tips on how to find an Orthodox life? Uh? Did you
call my Orthodox hotline? Yeah? Yeah, I did. Well, you
need to come to Montanica. I want to just I'm sorry, I'm gonna
pitch my Montanica jay, but I've got three engagements under my belt, just
from Orthodox in Montanica. So I'm really encouraging. Uh, you're probably gonna
uh a little bit, Yeah, probably a little bit more. Hey,
I'm willing to make. I'm willing to make a trouble fricking wash. You
know, I'm good convert about this girl. That's my advice. Find about
his growing converter. Yeah, I mean, is it? Is it okay?
Like? Would that be okay? Sorry? What did you say?
Would have to Oh, I'm just curious, it's all. I didn't even
hear what you said. Jay, find about his girl and converter. It'll
be a bit tricky, but yeah, I guess it's the show. Well,
I mean tricky why because you're in Australia. Yeah, okay, we'll
go find it. Go find an evangelic. Shouldn't have to be badlist.
I probably asked where you do something like that, But and I really am.
I talked to the other priests up here in Montana and we're really working
on suddenly in the background matchmaking. So well, maybe maybe you can hook
your boy up. Absolutely, maybe I should. Actually, you know what,
just anonymously send in your resumes. I can do that. I'm happy
to do that, Bro. Seriously, Yeah, I'm actually gonna do this.
I'm not joking, by the way, I'm not joking. So you
can reach out to Father Deacon there. He's you can see his profile so
you can message him about that. Reach out to me anybody in the chat
or on the Twitter X you need a lovely UH spouse or the moss,
please contact me and UH with the blessings of the fathers here and their guidance.
You see, I don't receive the Holy Spirit just by myself. I'm
not a prophet. I take it the clergy and we'll do our best.
I promise that, taking it to the streets like the Dowie Brothers taking into
the streets. I heard that song of a day. People are asking what
did Elijah say. Elijah made a joke, so I had the idea to
do this live stream. I played the video clip of the very sassy sassy
man at the Protestant church dancing and I thought it was funny. I said,
this is how Protestants worship. It was just a joke. And then
Elijah, which I thought it was funny, he replied and said, the
white suit fits you because the guy has long hair, so he was saying
this is me and I thought that was funny. And then I said,
Elijah goes to Randy Balls. It's megachurch. So and then I asked a
lot if he wanted to come on and do discussion. So he hasn't showed
up, so I don't guess he's available, but he's in Australia. Brain
master, what's up? Man? Mh you gotta I'm mute? Oh is
that me? Hello? Yeah? What's up? Yeah? I was just
gonna say, I think what are you talking about earlier about people having visions
and stuff? I think it is like one of the biggest like drivers for
atheism. And I agree with like Catholics and procause like people like they feel
like, uh, A lot of people that have those visions, I feel
like aren't the smartest and the like smart kids will yeah see this and they'll
think it's just like, oh, they're just like retards. I think that's
very perceptive. I think you're a Yeah, it's basically like an atheism generating
factory when the religion becomes equated with you know, these emotional highs and lows
and oh God's telling me to go to the save a lot and talk to
the woman in the parking lot, and that's just your that's just your own
heart, your own emotions. Yeah, even like sort of like Sam Shamon
and some of his like cat and friends were talking to some like eighteen year
old kid and he's like, they're like oohing and gooing over his like dreams.
It's kind of goofy. Yeah. I mean, it's certainly true that
God can send a dream, but we don't follow these things because they're so
deceptive and most likely it's not God that sent you the dream last night.
Okay, So we have to have a skeptical disposition. That's the correct attitude,
not because God can't do that or whatever, but because we have a
tendency to be so deluded into thinking that, oh, that was God talking
to me, telling me to go to save a lot and to preach,
you know, in the parking lot. And then you get you get full
of your own delusion, and you further your own delusions, and then you
get all hyped up thinking that you're this anointed special save a lot profit and
you're just in delusion and it's a it's a trap. Can I add a
few things to that, because I'd thought about this before, just kind of
historically situating like contemporary evangelicalism, keep in mind like certain philosophical influences. So
obviously not only historically speaking to Protestantism reject ecclesial hierarchy and stuff like this,
but more recently within the last century, what are some prominent philosophical theories that
became quite popular existentialism and phenomenology. So now couple this with kind of anti
hierarchy, right, So what is existentialism. It's about the individual, right,
It's always the individual first. Phenomenology brackets any metaphysical questions, i e.
Kind of like objectivity about the and so you get this kind of what
I think and I'm just you know, thinking out loud. Here a recipe
for a perfect storm of you know, relativism. That's the experience you see,
It's the once you define me to you negate me, right, It's
I determine my own my my being comes before my you know what is it?
The reverse of existence before essence? Yeah, existence before essence and all
of this. There are some articles and some research into that these philosophical ideas
penetrated themselves within the evangelical Protestant movements right now, So when you put all
these things together, you get this kind of oh, well, it's the
phenomenon, you see, it's the phenomenal experience that well, you can't what's
phenomenology. It's this kind of epistemic kind of move to you, why cannot
deny the immediacy of the experience. I don't know what's actually out there metaphysically
speaking, but there's kind of an indubitableness to my experience. So this last
gentleman that came on, what did he say? But I experienced it.
My experience was my experience see this in evangelical Christia. How how dare you
say that my experience wasn't legitimate? It was my experience of God. So
anyways, what are your thoughts on that these kind of like these various kind
of connections between these other philosophic kind of movements of phenomenology, existentialism, a
lot of post modernity in the sense of kind of like Rorty's relativism, and
well, it all begins with Descartes's shift to the mind. Right, So,
even though there was already medieval scholastic rationalism, what Descartes did was basically
shift everything in this pivot to the individual man's reasoning in mind. So my
mind will be the ultimate self evident principle. I think. Therefore I am
that will determine what is and isn't, what canon can't be. So this,
this huge shift turns everything away from man looking to the exterior, to
God, to transcendence, to nature, to essences, to purpose, to
telos, to science, natural science, all the risk Atilian ideas, to
this inner world, this inner world, and so everything Enlightenment wise post Descartes
is this radical individualized thing. Except maybe you could argue that Marxists are the
ones that are critiquing that. I'm not saying Marxism is true, but they're
basically saying that, well, that's a manifestation of you know, like economic
ideas of bourgeoisie or whatever at that time, thinking that, you know,
Western man's reasoning power is the ultimate principle of individuation. But other than Marxist
I can't think of anybody, and people in the religious theological sphere, you
know, I can't think of anybody else in the West critiquing the presupposition that
we begin with man's mind. I mean, that's Kantianism all the philosophy pretty
much afterwards. And that's where you that's where you get the guys you're talking
about with the same presuppositions of where else could I start? But my own
reasoning and my own reasoning might not be Descartes's idea of self evident ultimate principles.
It might be my own just sort of you know, random disconnected sense
data. It might be my own, you know, like Sartress says,
right, my existence for the essence that's helped mysen And am I out of
fourth thing too? Remember reason? When I was a Protestant a long time
ago, an article by a Protestant who basically did a study. In his
thesis was the effeminization of the Protestant Church and kind of evangelicalism because you noticed
with like it's very emotive, the songs are very kind of like romantic,
like the these songs are really kind of romantic, semi erotic. Yeah,
And this guy's thesis was when he started, he was just looking at the
data. He says, this really tended to boom during the Second Great World
War. And what happened his thesis, and I find it interesting, was
that well, the men left the Protestant church to go fight the war,
and so was the women left to kind of run the churches. I see
Rachel's in the church, who'll probably know a little bit about this. But
what naturally just kind of happened is there were no men kind of running the
church and the Protestant churches and the Evangelical churches, and so everything kind of
starting to dominated by this kind of effeminate, emotional, relational And I think
that's an important aspect to bring in two because prior to this gentleman, this
scholar might be right, prior to the forties, I don't know whatever you
would call the you know, pentecost and the evangelical movements. I'm not sure
you actually kind of saw that kind of Oh my, it's my experience and
my feelings. Don't you can't judge my feelings. This is my relationship with
Jesus. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah? Yeah. And to
those that are asking questions in the chat, so people had asked where is
the Pearl interview? So we went down to Miami and Miami a few days
ago and I did the two and a half hour interview with Pearl. She
asked a lot of questions about everything, including what do you think about men,
women, marriage, all of that, So all of that came up.
I don't know what she's going to put out public. It will be
on her thing. I'm sure she'll put She'll drip some of the clips out,
and is my assumption. The sam hid PGL that we did will probably
out be out relatively soon. I don't know the exact date as to when
that's going to be out. I did another interview today for a big documentary
that should be coming out, so I can't I won't. I can't say
anything about that. But that'll be a big one too, so a lot
of the stuff will be dripping out. I don't know the exact dates for
all the guys that are asking. So Octavian since fifty bucks and he says,
this will actually be a better question for Father Deacon. I don't know
much about the church in Romania. I don't know about what's going on in
churches in other countries, Father Deacon, and anis, what would you say
to somebody who says, what is your opinion of the Romanian Orthodox Church?
I don't know if they mean in America or over there in Romania versus America.
So in America's kind of complicated situation as to Romanian churches. There is
the church under the Patriarch of Romania, and the bishop in charge of that
here in the United States is Metropolitan Nicolaia Chicago. And then there's the one
that I'm a part of, my Archbishop Nathaniel of the Romanian Orthodox Church in
America with the OCA. So what exactly is the question? What is your
opinion of the Romanian Orthodox Church? Well? I love Romania obviously. I
Mean here's the thing. I think a lot of these questions. I mean,
this person I'm guessing is asking like should I check out a Romanian Orthodox
Church? I'm guessing yeah, absolutely. Well that's what I was going to
say. All these questions that always come to us. We tend to pit
jurisdictions against jurisdiction, like what's the most base trap jurisdiction. Look, every
jurisdiction has problems, Yeah, administratively, So you really need to you need
to find at the local level. I mean, think again, Orthodoxy is
not papism. It really isn't top down, it's a bottom up. It's
an organic It's an organic religion in so far as it acquires the spirit and
relationship with Christ, and it bubbles upward the whole. All are dogmas,
ecclesiology, the authority, everything, so people have it backwards in their minds.
Go find a local parish and talk to the community and the prishioners and
the priests. Like, don't get hung up on again. There's difficulties with
parishes. There's pluses and minuses with different you know, cultures and jurisdictions.
You just need to see what is right for you and what it's best for
you and your family. So don't get hung up. Like what. Romania
has, great stuff they have. They have more monasteries than any other country
in the world. There's a real piety among the people. There's a lot
of great things that I can say about the Romanian Orthodox Church. So go
explore if you like it, you know, talk to the priests and join
that parish. Thank you. Nathaniel sends three dollars and says, what do
you think about numerology? Do you think their messages from angels? This might
be new age hubbub. I see a lot of patterns and numbers, numbers
at times like four four, four, seven, seven, seven, six,
sixty six, I see these patterns when I play games or when I'm
out eating food. Thank you for considering the silly question. You're awesome.
Well, thank you, Nathaniel. I think there's a temptation for us to
see patterns in things that aren't necessarily patterns. So I don't think that because
I see, these are very common numbers, Okay, So to see,
you know, three numbers in the world or on clocks does not have any
inherent necessary significance. And the thing with numerology that people can kind of go
overboard with this and then they start kind of becoming a slave to something that
we're not meant to be slaves too, And that's what superstition is. So
when we start to become a slave to numbers, just think of the principle
in scripture the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Okay, God didn't make us to be enslaved and superstitiously bound to numbers like
we're in some sort of matrix. Numbers were made for man. So no,
angels are not sending messages through numbers. There is a biblical symbology behind
the number seven, and you know, perfection and the number six and so
forth. So there are there's a place for that. But I would not
think that or worry with this sort of tendency towards ocultism or superstition. DC
would working three dollars, thank you so much. I appreciate that, Rick,
three dollars. I want to shout out content from two to three years
ago. I want to see electric critiquing the tomistic triology person's equal essence.
I mean appreciate that. I mean we did that. Like there's so many
of those like I mean, for a while there almost all of the Q
and a's or the videos were about that. So I kind of feel like,
you know, once stuff like this is out, you know, you
can go and read the new, relatively new translation of the Palomite Synods here
from the Norman Russell book Record Palomas has cast controversy in the debate between Islam.
This also relates to the debates being had at that time with the Muslims.
This is a great text. I highly recommend it. It's the first,
I think English translation of all the Palomite Synods. And I mean,
if you know, if people still want to go and latch themselves onto this
ridiculous system, I mean, I don't like I'm over it, dude.
I mean, if you don't see the problems in the papacy, if you
can't discern the problem with setting up an Abu Dhabi multi faith center with Jews,
Christians, and Muslims altogether worship being quote the same God that I don't
know what There's nothing else I can say. There's no other videos that are
gonna help you. You're gonna have to just God's gonna have to give you
that discernment, Like, there's no what else can we say if you can't
see that as a problem, what's another video gonna do? I just I
don't know what else to say on all that. Also, I believe the
more I think about it, it actually is a disservice to religion to always
focus on this highbrow stuff, because it gives the impression that within Catholicism we
really have to combat the Roman Catholic like the Tomistic you know, superstructure.
It's like this giant castle or something that does not the modern Roman Catholic world.
We're not in the Middle Ages. It's it's actually it's giving too much
credence to this diculous system which is actually the thing in Rome. Okay,
it's not an a medieval spurg system of dorks on the internet who sit around
reading the Suma all day. That's not Roman Catholicism. That's the Roman Catholicism
in the head of spergs on the internet. That's not the real Roman Catholic
world. The real Roman Catholic world is built around Francis and Rome. And
they don't care about Thomas Aquinas. They quit caring about that even before Vatican
Two, the rise of Jesuits in the Roman Catholic Church in the twentieth century.
They don't care about Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas is no longer the preeminent
philosopher or even the official philosopher the Romancolic Church. As Leo the thirteenth said,
they don't care. Roman Catholicism is Pope Francis, Pacha Mama uh and
building the Abu Dhabi Multi Faith Center. That's Roman Catholicism. So don't even
waste your time talking about a bunch of scholastic distinction, because that's all dorks,
and it's just feeding the dork machine and the energy of these dorks that
spend all their time worshiping this algorithm in their head. Andrew g two dollars
I watched. I cringe. Binge watched Bolshevik videos. I don't have that
many Bolshevik videos. How did you? How did you Binge watch them?
I can think of a couple. I can't wait to see more. I
mean, there's not that many. So I remember one pretty recently where we
talked about Alexander Colin Taie from Rachel's book and her work. I remember Birch
and Russell talking about the Bolsheviks. I remember Anthony Sutton and you know,
elite funding for Bolsheviks. But that's the only things I can think of up
to my head. Horror of the con one dollar jay, the Maga communists
and uh, these goobers have called out your manhood. Correct, Yes,
they've got me. We will meet on the battlefield. The Mongolian throat singing
begins. Yes exactly, Hm, Father Moses, and then will go to
Rachel. Go ahead, Father Moses, you're here. I just want to
say it ten ten exactly. I felt the Holy Spirit was leading me to
say that Rokor is definitely the most bass tread and anybody who doesn't believe in
numerology and the significance of ten ten and why it was important for that to
state there is missing. So if you think the phony mom of the Fathers,
if you bench press seven and seventy seven pounds, what does that mean?
I you know what, I can't reveal that type of knowledge. Okay,
like you just you have to do it for you can have the knowledge.
You just don't have a Yeah, it was it was. Let's just
say it was spiritual without being physical. So, by the way, I
had a great comment on the video I just posted on my channel where the
guy was like, religion has to do with the external, the body,
whereas relationship with God has to do with the spiritual, which is immaterial.
And I had my I had my godson's there and I'm like, boys,
what heresy is that? And one of them is like that was like good.
I was like a thank God, they've learned something. So anyways,
but yeah, I mean that's I mean, those are the important things.
Is who's base and who's trad So a lot of gnostics when you get into
this domain, a lot of a lot of a lot of naism to go
around here. One of my favorite, one of my favorite say is that
is that Protestants literally think that the the the word, the logos in John
one one is actually the physical is a book. Yeah, and they don't
realize it's it's a divine rational principle of the universe. Like they can't.
They're like anyways, but you know, I mean again, just like all
of us. I mean, I was in I was in college, you
know, doing my doing my bachelor's in religion before I kind of started like
going, oh wow, you know this stuff doesn't actually mean what pastor Jim
Bob and the Hawaiian T shirt. Yes, you know what I mean.
I'm gonna make a confession. I never thought that when I was a Protestant.
I always knew it was oh man, you were missing out. I
think you're kind of human and Protestantism was incomplete that I mean, that's that's
right. I have, you know, no doubt if you were really I
doubt, if you were really a believer, then that's right. I feel
treated all my money back. That's the best one is where somebody is like
all you need is faith alone, and then if you say something that like
they don't agree with, they're like, I doubt if you were really a
believer, then what about my faith alone? Wasn't that saving me? I
guess not. I guess yeah. Somebody's I remember somebody's daughter this years and
ye're ten years ago, who was Protestant. Their daughter was like, Catholics
are not going to heaven. They can't be saved, and I'm like why
why you know? They're like because they don't believe in faith alone. It's
like, oh, God will literally not save you if you have the wrong
theology, and and uh if not Lutheran, you know, yeah, pretty
wild. Yeah, it's sort of like I remember when I was in the
Calvinist circles, this controversy came up where on the one hand, everybody was
like, well, yeah, we think that, you know, salvation is
by faith alone, But then some of the other reform theologians were saying,
no, no, no, it's you also have to have faith in faith
alone. And if you don't, yeah, if you don't have that view,
then you're actually believing in works and so you're not safe to see.
So it's like, have you heard of a drug called autism? Well,
Calvinism is great for autists, as as is Tonism. The two worlds overlap
very close to Yeah, yeah, my Uh, when we did it,
when we did our bachelors at the at the Dutch Neil Calvinist University. It
was funny because you know my wife, so you know, she's she's bright.
I mean she's not a super genius or anything, but she's bright.
And they took it it was like a religion in a one class. And
she was like, it's like they think they can explain everything about who God
is. And she was and I was like, it is kind of like
that when you think about it, you know what I mean, like every
aspect of God can be explained in Calvinism down to exactly there's no I mean,
there's literally no mystery, not even in just the just not even in
like the gnostic sense of the word, but in a I don't like,
there is nothing hidden about God. You actually know and understand everything about him
essentially makes you equal with him. But you can't say that because then it's
yeah, anyways, Rachel, did you want to say them? Yeah,
I was just going to jump in and add to the interesting little bit that
Father Deacon had about the fellows who had the World War two theory of how
the church got feminized. But I will say it goes way back before that
that that sounds interesting and I want to read about that. But the chapter
in my book that makes the most people angry with me is the one about
the Radical Reformation and the First and second Great Awakenings and how hysterically female those
movements really were, and how they they immediately in trying to go as far
against the papacy as possible and rejecting church authority completely, going so far as
to not even call their churches churches. Some of them, you know,
they would say it's a meeting house, you can't call it a church.
They wouldn't allow you to have a cross or a crucifix anywhere in the building.
And they had this radical egalitarianism, and it was like it was kind
of a thing where it's like who can be the most radical. Everybody was
trying to outradicalize, you know, the church next to them. Uh,
And so that one of the first things they started doing was pushing a lot
of really feminist or even gender bending stuff really early on. We're talking like
you know, early early America or even early Reformation still in Europe, where
they're you know, trying to push women to take on male roles in the
church and in the home and pushing the men to take on female roles in
both places. So it was the reformers, the radical reformers especially, some
of them got really crazy with that stuff, like really really early on.
And yeah, I think it very mad when I played the Well. They're
also to to to touch on the theme earlier. They're also the proto charismatics.
Now we've had charismatics going all the way, all the way back to
Montanus in the early Church, Tertolian left the church to become a Montanist.
Montanus said he was the voice of the Holy Spirit, and he had these
new divine revelations. And so for people who you know, were taking an
issue with what we said earlier, the church's rejection of Montanism is also a
rejection of this idea of ongoing new public divine revelations. If that was the
case, Montanus wouldn't have been rejected. He would have been considered part of
the church. But no, I don't. I just did. We're gonna
say some go ahead, Well, it's not Montanism. That's the first point.
That want to make Montanists not montanas. Yes, Second, Rachel,
you've talked about good to see here Rachel bless you. Crisis Risen. The
Puritans are the proto liberals. Oh yeah, I know. Well, I
think Hollywood and TV has given people the idea that Puritans were like the ultra
conservatives, like you're going to get a scarlet letter if we see your ankle
type of a thing, and that's Hollywood that If you go back and read
the writings of the people themselves, some of the disputes they had with each
other, it really wasn't like that. These were some of the most radically
progressive people of the time. They were not like the ultra right wing conservatives.
They were they were into vegetarianism, veganism. As soon as socialism came
around, almost all of them jumped onto that. You know. It was
like they were very socialists and then also very rigid moral and yeah social rules,
like kind of centrally planned like liberalism would. Oh yeah, I mean
because the radical egalitarianism stuff was kind of central to it, the radical individualism.
You know, the Holy Spirit told me in my corner of my room
when I was doing my devotional Bible study, and then they do the ongoing
revelation thing, right, and by the way, this is also again going
back to Montanus, because it wasn't just Montanus and Montanas himself. Montanus had
with him two prophetesses who were the co pastors of his church, Maximila and
Priscilla. So the idea of having a female pastors actually goes back to Montanas.
Yeah, it's a it's a great way to It seems like whenever there's
any attempt to put women in le pastoral roles, clergy roles, it's a
it's a way too. It's like a trojan horse to sneak the heresy in,
and it's always like this woman had some divine revelations. You see that
with all of the weird cults a lot too, like well, Quakers and
Shakers, they had this view of this egalitarian view of women having the inner
direct light. Yes, yeah, they did. And then if you look
at like the Christian scientists or i think even Seventh day Adventists, there's usually
a woman that had a dream. Ellen white Is had the so called charismatic
gifts and experiences. Correct. Yeah, and I've been you suggested to me,
like a year ago, Jay to do some looking into the first big
megachurch lady preacher, And I've done a bunch of more stuff on her that
I have to I'll show it to you sometimes. But I get all those
women to mix up. Was it Catherine Cooleman or the other woman? It
was the other one? What's her? A whole? I get them all
mixed up. But yeah, I know you're talking about Amy Simple, Amy
Simple. That's by the way, I was about to say her name.
I think that's actually a relative of mine, no joke. That's why I've
heard that before. I had never confirmed it. But as soon as you
guys started talking about like first women preachers, I was going to be like,
hey, there's a woman. Her last name is McPherson. But yeah,
where was she? Would you remember when station? She was in Los
Angeles? Is where her megachurch was, and she built one of these she's
from Canada. Though she's from Canada, but you go, yes, but
she's weird too alway and built this giant church. She was kind of the
first televangelist, but she was on the radio. She did like she had
a hugely popular radio show. People would travel off all over the country to
come to her mega church in LA and she would do like the Benny Hen
healing style stuff and she made incredible amounts of money. I mean, just
where am I going to get to see some of that trickles? Yeah,
that's all I wanted to say, was just to jump in and say that
the whole lady preacher Protestant with hysterical females and all that. It's I'd say
the first and second grade awakening were a big turning point for that because that
was even before radio. It was like, whoever could do these open air
preaching festivals and draw the biggest crowds and get the most money, then you
could start a church. So it gave people this massive incentive if they could
spin a good yarn, tell a really you know, compelling tale about you
know, their spiritual experience of the Holy Spirit, you know, giving them
this revelation, it gave It kind of gave people motivation to come up with
the craziest stuff, and so it was very hysterical. It was very emotional.
It was kind of like the raves, you know, where you get
together in the woods and you have the music and the drugs and everything.
But they would do the same thing. But it was just like this hysterias
stuff. It was like, let's all go to these giant outdoor encampments and
listen to the charismatic preachers and whoever has the craziest delivery on in the biggest
crowds. Those people go off and start churches, and immediately it became politicized.
You know, a lot of political candidates would align themselves with certain churches
like this, they'd start their own newspapers, and I mean, it's just
wild how that stuff went. But that, yeah, that chapter gets me
a lot of bad reviews on my books from people who don't like it.
Just they don't say it's wrong, they just say it's mean. So so
that's all I got. I'm just listening to you guys. Old time religion,
Old time religion. The real old time religion is like ancient druid human
sacrifice. Though, so whenever I hear the old time religion, I'm thinking,
like, what's the what's the real old time religion? All right,
let's say, who's next. A lot of people waiting that have been waiting
for a while. By the way, that any Amy mcperson, any simple
mcperson given last name was actually Kennedy before she got married. Look Out,
our RFK is gonna start. RFK is gonna start prophesying. If we make
him president, he's gonna start prophesying. She also, yeah, she also
did the uh have several husband things. She was marrying and divorcing like crazy,
and for some reason nobody thought nobody's got it was weird that she was
a female preacher to begin with, but then she just you know, had
three or four husbands and that's fine too, I guess. Uh, So
we got a lot of people waiting here. We got ten people. Tonight's
topics are people who are Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim. So tonight is
not for atheists, It's not for tag uh, it's not for what else
do people calling them about colts and all that kind of stuff. It's fine
to talk about the topics that have arisen because they're Protestant a ja since,
But so keep your questions to that. Let's see who's next in line.
We're not going to do the Sufi stuff tonight. Ethan Ethan, Yo,
what movie is that from? Yeah? What's up? Uh? So I'm
calling in because I am a Protestant who has been listening to a lot of
your stuff, specifically about soul scripture, which I think I understand a lot
of your arguments. They've definitely been very thought provoking, can help me push
me forward thinking about soul scripture. But one of the things I was specifically
thinking, could I'll just run this by you to see if you think it
could potentially be a strong man if for kind of how you say a lot,
okay, a law, I don't say a law. No, no,
a lot. Like the whole idea of there being this canon which was
settled by the Church, which I agree that's just historically like an arguable the
Church settled a cannon, But could somebody potentially make an argument as a Protestant
that scripture alone is basically just that that just how the Church kind of recognized
some scripture. I'm not really talking about the peripherals like things that were being
decided throughout the centuries, as you confirm and talk about a lot, but
just kind of like in the Old Testament, there was this there was this
mindset of like, okay, the law is scripture. At some point it
just kind of came to be known, like by Christ's time that just specifically
talking about the Pentituke, it was commonly referred to a scripture without any kind
of consent of a normative body. So in the same way the Gospels.
I understand some of those peripheral texts, like some of the epistles, some
of those other things. There's a lot of discussion about that before any kind
of counsel. But do you think a Protestant could make the argument that,
well, look, we can still do scripture alone, even without a settled
canon, just based off the scripture that we are confident about, like throughout
those early centuries, maybe the Gospels as their offer particularly well, but I
mean even those again, you can't escape the historical transmission of testimony the church
to know that Matthew the Apostle wrote Matthew's Gospel, Like, it doesn't tell
you who wrote it, Like, how do we know that that's Matthew the
disciple of Jesus. Well, we don't other than the tradition of the church.
So no, there's no like you know, time machine that you can
get in and go back to the autographa to see that. Oh no,
in fact, it was Paul the Apostle that wrote this epistle from Paul,
So we're trusting the church's testimony in that, and that's maybe not the only
thing that we need for canonicity, but apostolic authorship is crucial. It's one
of the components, and you can't get that without the tradition of the Church.
So and even in the Old Testament, like it's not like the text
came to anybody apart from the community of the Jewish people. So it's not
like, you know, you're just sitting there and you're gonna leave the sheep
fold and go do a bunch of Protestant hermeneutical exercises to determine if Isaiah is
truly Isaiah. It's just silly, like it doesn't work that way. So
I think partly what I'm asking this is because I'm going to be discussing this
topic specifically with one of my Bible professors at the university that I just graduated
from, and I'm pretty sure one of the arguments that he'll try to make
is just kind of like that argument of well, you say that you need
the church to recognize scripture, but scripture is recognized before the church. But
yeah, I understand it. All says in scripture that the Church is the
pillar and ground of truth, not scripture. So scripture itself tells you that
the Church is the pillar, ground of truth. So it's a very opposite
of the construls that they would have. But also if you noticed, and
I'm not trying to back up Trent Horn, but in the Trent Horn James
White debate, if you watched it, he got James White to concede that
the church was not operating on solid scripture for the first several centuries because there
was not a completed cannon. I think that's a huge admission. So I
did watch that debate and I picked up on that, and I think,
you know, I've read a couple of different books. I'm reading FF.
Bruce's Good Scripture and then I'm reading what was the other book on the Canady
The other one I always recommends Lee McDonald's book, because both of those basically
admit that, yeah, we need the church fathers, we need tradition,
and then they're like, but we're so Protestant. So it's like, okay,
but why this Maybe, as you brought up a question that kind of
falls up to that, but what are so you could recommen need to resources
if it would be more efficient, But what are some typical like quote minds
of church fathers, which I understand, I'm kind of recognizing while I'm asking
this that if Protestants are asking, are trying to find quote mind, yeah,
they they'll go to texts that talk about like the scriptures being sufficient,
the scriptures being cape able to make a man perfect and godliness and all of
that, and and even texts that might suggest a premacy of scripture. But
none of those things prove solo scriptura, and none of those things give you
a canon in themselves. And so when you start thinking about that, and
you start thinking about the fact that the product the church fathers that the Protestants
are quote minding, they weren't Protestant. They were bishops, they were monks,
they were you know, they were ascetics, they were virgins, they
were they were all these things that are not Protestants. So to quote mind
the church follets for Protestantism is just ludicrous, Right, Jay, would you
say, like an aspect of the issue with the soly scriptore is the fact
that you can't come to a coherent doctri doctrinal agreement among the various Protestant confessions,
Right. I think that's part of what's underlying the idea of soly scriptorra.
I mean that was Luther's presupposition is if everyone had access to the Bible,
they would all interpret the Bible, and all of their interpretations would be
in line with Luther's interpretation. And then you have like Zuingly is like,
hey, I don't agree with you that. Luther's response is like, well
you should die. Yeah, your followers need to die, right, So
the media, the immediate respect, the immediate response of Protestants is not lowest
common nominator ecumenism like it is today. The immediate response of Protestants is We're
going to kill each other. Yeah, literally the Anabaptist I mean, that
was the whole issue with the Anabaptists, like look, if you guys are
going to get baptized again, we'll kill you for that. I think part
of the problem that I run into, especially coming from a church Christ protests
the background, is that their theology is like so almost so entirely non existent
that it's almost non falsifiable because to them, they can be like, oh,
well it's just not in scripture, so it doesn't matter anyway. And
this kind of a historical approach I'm running into is kind of challenging for me,
because like they don't feel like they have to ascribe to any of those
Reformation theological principles, and because of that, they're just like, well,
we can come up with this lowest common denominator idea because for instance, their
mode of worship or ecclesiology it is so vague based off how scripture is vague.
And that's been challenging for me just discussing that with treaching crisis this way.
You don't talk to people who are dumb, Yeah, you can't,
but I'm serious, like, if you if you realize that people can't have
like coherent thought and coaching arguments, that they're just you just like you go,
okay, good man, doubless. I hope you figure it out.
You know, it doesn't even pass like the bar of just being and intelligence
systems like Pentecostalism. I think you can talk to Pentecostals and show them all
these things in scripture about speaking of tons of different things, and they're just
blank face. They're like, oh, we'll pray for you. You're like,
okay, great, thank you for your prayers. It's difficult because like
I would definitely take that advice usually. But a lot of this has to
do with the fact that both my fiance and who have been listening to a
lot of Orthodox related things that come to similar conclusions. Both of our parents
are involved with this, and they're both having Church of Christ, so it's
difficult to kind of navigate that minefield when yeah, you know, but yeah,
I see what you mean. It's a good point. Yeah. And
also you're probably they're probably saying, hey, you need to go talk to
you know, past or so and so and doctor so and so at you
know, Church Christ University and all that. Yeah, so you know,
just keep you know, stressing the point like McDonald and Bruce do, which
is that here you got Protestants admitting that, you know, the Bible can't
be divorced from the tradition and transmission and testimony to church. And another element
that both of those guys bring up in their books that's overlooked is that one
of the key ways that the Bible came to be was liturgy. And I
remember when I read that in them as a Protestant, I was like,
wow, I never even thought about the history of the church's worship playing a
key role in the Church identifying which texts were canonical and which ones weren't.
Because here I was in a Calvinist church that was anti liturgical, and so
now, wait a minute, the Bible itself, not only is it central
to you know, like, not only is the liturgy central to the decision
for what books go into this book, the Bible itself is a liturgical book.
I never even heard those. This blew my mind when I was a
Protestant. I think that's a huge to emphasize to some of my Protestant friends,
because once you lay out that it is in fact liturgical, that changes
everything, especially absolutely Christ, which is very low church. Like how you
pointed out before so Scriptures as Paul liturgizing an act, right, it really
says that it's just hard to get around. Yeah, I mean, you've
got Paul saying in the book if you I remember the you know, I
read Hebrews a lot when I was a Protestant, and I thought it was
a very you know, Protestant proving book of scripture. And then as I
got more and more into in my early twenties, reading a lot of Catholic
stuff. And I'm not defending Roman Catholicism, but one thing Catholics did when
it came to the Book of Hebrews was opened my mind to hey, wait
a minute, this is actually saying that the Melchizedecian priesthood continues on. There's
no, it's not like the ministerial priesthood died in the New Testament when Jesus
said the church. And that's why when you get up into like chapter thirteen
where Paul talks about an altar and he talks about giving eucharistia, giving thanks
at the altar that we have that we eat from that the people at the
tabernacticle can't eat from. That was like immediately New Testament liturgical sacrifice. And
I never even noticed that as a Protestant, having read the Book of Hebrews
many times, so you understand that the book that Protestants think would put an
end to eucharist sacrificed liturgy alter is the very book that talks about us having
those things right. But then they try to spiritualize it. You know,
it's it's a spiritual alter, it's spiritual food. It's spiritual, okay,
but it is, But that doesn't mean it's not physical. So why does
a Protestant think that quote spiritual means anti physical. That's because of their Gnostic
presupposition exactly. Well, thank you, I appreciate your time. Yeah,
I mean what we say Jesus is because he's quote spiritual, he's not physical.
Oh and now we're suddenly we're dukatists when we say that, so son
of God, I feel like we got we're in danger zone here. You
got a um mute m Are you saying you're a son of God or the
son of God? Yeah, you're you're on man. You gotta umute.
You don't have to raise your hand, you're on. You gotta u mute
man, you're raising your hand. You just gotta umute. All right.
Maybe he's trolling, joking around. He's a jokester. C C eight K
Hello, Hello, Yeah, what's up? Oh so yeah, Like I
know my dad's family, like his his heart is like all Protestant. They're
kind of like ignorant of like like Catholics and Eastern stuff. So like a
guy that I can like go buy to like resute like typical pros arguments.
I got like a book to give him or something you can read or what
do you mean no, no, for me to read and to like study.
Probably the most basic and thorough specifically about that would be doctor Clark Carlton's
books. He's got one call. There's a three part series, The Way,
the Truth, The Way, the Truth and the Life, and there
ones against Protestant ones against Roman Catholics. Uh so that's kind of a classic.
I read that back in like two thousand and seven or eight, so
that would be probably the best kind of starting point. I think those are
still available. Uh, clout, frogger, what's up? I'm kind of
wearing down, so we might have to call it an evening pretty soon.
And Matt Locke on Wassan too. We don't want to miss murder, she
wrote, I'm more of a murder she wrote, Angela Lansbury, magnum p
I and uh fall Guy and Chips Chips is coming on. All of my
childhood was based on magnum p. I absolutely that in the Konyam movies.
So what's not what's not integrate? I'm not demigrating now. Jlight's Golden Girls,
we know that. Yeah, I'm more of a Blanche than I am
a beat. Uh. I don't even know their names. There's no Blanche
clo clout, what's up? Man? You know what I mean? Yeah,
I was gonna ask about Joba witnesses. But I guess you changed the
topic. So, uh, I didn't change the topic. That's been the
topic. What do you want to ask about? Okay? But I mean
if it's if it's a quiet, quick question, I can answer it quick.
What do you think about what? That's a crazy cult? I mean,
what do you mean, like? What are they're like? What are
there I guess, uh, flaws or something. Well, they're anti Trinitarian.
They don't believe in the deed of Christ. They think Jesus was the
first thing God created. They think he died on a stake and not on
a cross. Uh. I mean it's it's a repackaging of the ancient Aryan
heresy. Let's see dialysis dias is God. I can't read. I can't
read that dias Yeah, I mute, hey, can you? Thanks for
having it? Man? So I finished trading Leviticus, and I just have
to sort of push back up Beard. I think Leviticus is talking about baptism.
Are you the guy who said that John the Baptist is Greek? Yeah?
Yeah, okay, so the all right, I don't take you seriously.
This is ridiculous, so serious, come on, man? Okay,
Well, Leviticus is talking about washing. Uh yeah, yeah. The same
word in the septuagis baptizo, So that guy's not serious. He was trolling
the other day saying John the Baptist is Greek. Let's see, gentile one
looks like he's having a hard time connecting Quinn quay. Yeah, I'm mute.
You get you don't have to raise your hand, man, just on
mute, you're on. Oh hey, usually it's not that bad. That's
any other is a delay when you bring somebody up. So greetings, Hey,
I'm good man. How are you. I'm doing well. I'm a
little tired. This is like my busiest media week ever, so I've just
been traveling, flying NonStop. But I'm good. I mean now, okay,
uh so I will just throw this into the ring. I don't know
if this has been brought up at all, but okay. What I have
noticed is there's this, uh can this trend of adult catholic and I'm gonna
put that in air quotes Catholics converts, and I feel like a lot of
it is is adopting Catholicism is like a cultural signal, like a red tribe
the blue tribe thing. Oh, yeah, I think so, yeah,
yeah, but not actually like believing. I don't want to quesse anybody's faith
per se, but not actually like buying into what it means to be a
Catholic. Like there'll be a Catholic, but they'll have like the the the
guys that are probably they'll like not like the Pope. They'll not like the
nature of services threat, they'll you know, blah blah blah, and it's
just like, okay, man, like what are we doing here? Yeah?
Either, like we did a few streams last week or two weeks ago
where I was saying that, you know, my concern and I'm not judging
Russell brand or Candaellan's, but yeah, I like that ones I got I
got that because Jesus is what I descended mass right, So if that's my
that's my Russell brand, right. I mean, Jesus is not ascended Master,
He's not one amongst the avatars, you know, and all this kind
of stuff. So uh, again, not judging. I'm glad he's making
the move in that direction, but yeah, I think it's a much easier
way to in terms of externals, say oh I'm going to be a Roman
Catholic, and I think other Moses made this critique a couple of weeks ago
as well, that it's very easy to say, well, I'm a Protestant,
oh I'm going to be a Roman Catholic. Again, not to say
that they don't necessarily have any internal sincerity, but that the idea is that
it's all sort of encapsulated in a lot of these externals and external manifestations.
So that's very different in Orthodoxy, though it's not at least people can play
games and pretend to be an Orthodox and not work with internal work, but
it's stressed a lot more Orthodox through a couple of thoughts in there too.
Chair Yeah, like I mean what I mean one thing is even when we
look at the conversion process, like we look at these celebrities who basically just
say, hey, I want to become Catholic and then they're baptized. And
Candice omen Is baptized quote unquote baptized you know, by herself, without her
husband, without her family, you know, you know, is basically magically
Catholic overnight because she wants to be you know, an Orthodox. I mean,
this is a this is a minimum of like a year long process of
becoming a catech human actually adhering to the dogmas of the Church, being transformed
by the prayers, the prayer life, and the fasting, the asceticism.
So sometimes it's funny because I've had this a few times recently. I have
people who are becoming Orthodox, and I mentioned this my recent video. They
go, hey, we were like pillars in our old Protestant church and we
became Orthodox and we can't even like hang, we can't even hang with how
rigorous the lifestyle is, let alone the fascinating and everything else. And uh,
you know, they're there, they get it, you know, they
kind of come and they're like, well, hey, we're kind of we're
you know, they can't know how to put it. But it's almost like
they treat Orthodoxy in the beginning, almost like it's a new denomination that they're
moving laterally into Orthodoxy, and then when they find out it realize like oh
no, no, no, this is like an actual belief system that is
not coherent and with Protestantism it's not it's not Protestant adjacent. Uh, and
we're not validating everything that you used to believe, and that this is kind
of like the final, final, mission request. The final level, you
know, you kind of like burn out on all the Protestant denominations and then
you're like, you know, your final battle is to join the Orthodox Church
as the as the end boss, we don't do any of that stuff.
We don't believe any of that. So anyways, the point is is that
the conversion process is a year. It's grueling. The priests is actually discerning
whether or not you're able to live the life and adhere to the doctrines and
the dogmas of the Church, which are non negotiable. Whereas when people are
quote unquote converting to Roman Catholicism, I mean, how much how much of
Roman Catholicism can you know or even understand when you know you were new Age
or something else like Russell Brand literally two weeks beforehand, I mean two weeks
before you're a new Age and then all of a sudden you're baptized. I
mean, it's just not realistic. So I just I don't take any of
this stuff very seriously. But it also seems like those who are born Roman
Catholic and I know you've experienced this too, Jay, which is they kind
of pick and choose what they like in Catholicism also, so all the way
around, the people who are converting are not really doing anything different than what
people who grew up in Catholicism are doing, which is modifying it for their
own personal preference and coming up with, anyways, a belief system that is
as that's kind of a again it's kind of a Protestant approach to consultism,
but that is kind of what everyone does ironically. So anyways, those are
my thoughts. Gwinn. Did you want to respond, Oh, yeah,
I agree, I agree with a lot of what you said. I was
I was thinking right, like an analogy would be the difference between a Protestant
and Catholic, the difference between a libertarian and a like mainstream Republican or you
know, LP party members, to say, it's like they're not the same
thing. They may have some things in common, they may agree on some
things, but they're not the same thing. And yet to your point at
the end, like there are definitely Catholics who can treat their faith or you
know, their approach to the faith a little bit more lightly then some more
devout members might like. But on some level even that like I can make
my peace with that, and I'll be you know, Oh, I want
to hide the ball here. Not a Catholic myself, I'm sort of an
observant, a student of religious but like I can make my peace with that
because they grew up in the tradition, there's like a sort of shared language.
Mean, they went to a Catholic school, you know, there's a
different thing with that versus Oh, I just joined this recently, and I'm
doing it as much as a cultural as much as a cultural signal as like
a true quote unquote conversion, And like, yeah, I just it kind
of rubs me the wrong way. Like I'm like JBP in the sense of
like I want to want, I want to believe, and I want to
like want to be earnest in it. And so when I see people who
I think are not earnest or who are doing things for like potentially the wrong
reasons, it just kind of gives me the yick. That's just me.
Yeah, I understand, I feel you. I mean, look, Orthodoxy
is difficult. I mean, I'm I don't know, I'm eight years in
seven eight, and I mean that's hard for I have a hard time,
you know, living this life. I think that's everybody now does anybody disagree?
You can go thehead line. Uh, I see there's still several people
kind of in in the line here. Does anybody who disagree want to come
to the front of line? Raise your hand. If we don't have any
big disagreeers, I might, I might call it a night. I mean,
I've been traveling NonStop, so you're thumbing up. Does that thumbs up
mean you disagree? Or does that mean you cyclical novelty? Yeah, you're
on, you gonna, I'm you so. Yeah. My question is about
in John's Gospel chapter twenty one, when he said, when our Lord says
to Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Uh? Do you
not see that as like a pointing to a spiritual supremacy? Do you not
think that that's directly a response to Peter's three denials? Yeah? But okay,
okay, And if I can see that it is a special you know,
position and union that Christ and Peter have. How does any of that
equate to Vatican one? Well, we're not talking about Vatican one. Well,
I'm assuming that where you're going with that, as a Roman Catholic is
in that direction, because an Orthodox person would agree that there's a type of
Petrian supremacy. It is not Vatican one, okay, But where is the
Patrians supremacy in the Orthodox Church? I mean, the way that Peter is
treated in the councils and the tradition of the church fathers is not the Vatican
one way. He's the Corephaeus of the apostles, the mouthpiece, he's the
first. Rome was the first see but none of that translates to Vatican one.
Yeah, but Rome is now cut off from right. Yeah, and
argue again, correct, okay? And then also what is the view of
Saint Augustine within Orthodoxy. I mean, he's a church father and a saint,
but he's not in any way like you know, the daddy of all
theology, like he is in a lot of the Western Church. So we
would say he's correct in his you know, spiritual writings, stuff like that.
He has a lot of devotional writings that are good, a lot of
catechistis that's good in Caridian and so forth. But when it comes to his
trinitarian theology, the Church accepted the Cappadocian model at constantin Noble one and not
the Augustinian model, And even the Roman Catholics should believe this because they claim
to believe in you know, constantin Noble One, which is the second Ecumenical
Council, but they don't really accept the Cappadocian model of the trinity. There.
But don't you see that Saint Agustin affirms the philio of course, yeah,
and he's a saint within your church, So how do you reconcile?
So, I mean, there's multiple errors in many saints, so what would
that have to do with whether he's a saint or not. But if someone
affirms the philioque now in the Orthodox Church, they would be declared a heretic
and they'd be excommunicator. Yeah, because the philioque in the Roman Catholic sense
is condemned in twelve seventy four and at the council, or excuse me,
it's affirmed dogmatically in the Roman Catholic Church in twelve seventy four, and then
it's responded to by the Orthodox synods after that, so it becomes a specifically
condemned and fleshed out position by that time. Okay, but what is the
what why do you have such a hostility towards the Phillyoque Because it's it's a
it's a trinitarian error. To make an error of that level ultimately ends up
giving you a diad. If you read the Mysticgogy on the Holy Spirit by
Saint Photius, that's the whole argument that he makes. I think, well,
Catholics would say the opposite, that it actually it shows more the unity
of the Trinity with what it has nothing to do with. Whether Catholics would
say that that's the opposite. If the Cappadocian model is what's accepted at constantineble
one, and if the Cappadocians teach that the Father is the sole cause,
then the son can't take the father's hyposthetic property, which is to be sole
cause. Soul cause means one. Okay, But you can point to reading
of the Cappadocians that actually affirms the filioque. Well, I'm sure Roman Catholics
would read them that way. But if you go to the readings of doctor
Branson, for example, who wrote his dissertation on them, he points out
that all those arguments are pretty bad, and he gives a lot of argumentation
as to why they don't teach that, particularly the whole stressing of the soul
cause. So why would they stress sole cause and then turn around and say,
but he's also not sole cause. Well, because he proceeds from the
Father, but through the Spirit, proceeds from the Father, but through the
Okay, But you don't even know that that that's the Orthodox position. So
that's not what the philioquay is even about. Well, it's it's from and
through. Now, that's our position, outlined by Gregory of Cyprus at the
Palomite Synods. That's not what the philioquy is about. The philliokay position is
not about whether it's through. It's about the Father and the Son together being
a single eternal principle by which the spirate, the Holy Spirit is spirated.
That's the definition of lions, which is citing Augustine. That's what's rejected.
Okay, Oh hey Orthodox, because I mean I would I would just disagree
with that, Okay, on what basis? On what basis? Well,
on the basis that the Church has medically upholded. But why would your pope
at the time of Pope Leo say that you should not hold the phillio okay
in then reverse that position. Well, it's did you not hear what I
just said? I'm talking about when it was forbidden to be added to the
creed by Popelio the second? But was that ex cathedral? So how do
you know what Sex cathedral? Well, you know because if the pope declares
speaking, okay, where have the where has the papacy declared all the things
that are want to get Well? Well, this is but this is what
you go back to because your church is founded on that. And so where
is the list of Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? Where's the
list? Yeah? Would why wouldn't there be? You you said, I
go by what Sex cathedral? Where has the pope talk about clarity? There's
much more clarity within the cat Oh you're just stating this, Okay. Where
is the list of the Okay, so there's clarity, fine, okay,
So in the clarity that exists in these thousands of pages of papal documents.
Where is the list of ex cathedra statements? Well, they're defined as dogma,
right, So the list of ex cathedral documents is defined as dogma.
And where is this list? Well, every Catholic knows what the Catholic dogma
has been? Oh do they really? So? Because I've talked to a
lot of Catholics. I used to be Catholic. I've debated many of the
top Catholics, and I get different lists of what's ex cathedra from all of
them. So where is the list of ex cathedra documents? It's not that's
that's that's besides the point. Oh so there's not one, But I thought
that's what you said you had. Well, we have much more clarity and
Uni, where's the clarity if it's based on what's ex cathedral and there's not
a list of that, Well, where are the where are the disagreements with
him? Two quot way, two quote way? That's fallacy. Where's the
list of exicathedra documents? Well? What about the categ categ right? The
uh what's it called the Catechism? So you think that's all that's needed?
What about Denzinger? What about Denzi? I mean, is that dogma or
not? You have to speak to someone that's more informed about that specific Well,
why are you trying to debate if you're not familiar with this stuff?
Okay, but I'm still like my arguments are still valid. No they're not,
they're not even they're not then even get to the low organ because The
whole point is that the Orthodox in comparison, if we're comparing comparing paradigms,
right, the Orthodox Church has far less unity, far less clarity about let's
talk about that. Yeah, but that's not true. You everything you right,
you have to Orthodox priests that are re baptizing Christians. It's not rebaptism.
If you don't understand the arguments, that's fine. But the idea that
somehow Orthodoxy looks different or less than Cathols, like, it's so absolutely insane.
If you were to look at the Early Church, the way that the
Early Church live, there's no way you're going to make an argument that the
modern day Catholic who doesn't plass, doesn't do prayers. Your priests already even
celibrate. What are you talking? Did you so this guy you don't even
know? Listen, there it is, there, it is. Do you
understand that you do you understand that your own church, your own church used
to promote married clergy. Do you understand that the papacy reverse that you're not
even you don't even know church history. Okay, but let's talk about the
No. So you're not gonna say, yeah, you're gonna not going to
talk about just keep changing the subject. So, yeah, there's not a
list of excathedral documents. There's so much more clarity. I don't know where
it is. Maybe it's the Catechism, it's not the Catechism. Ecumenical councils,
papal and cyclicals and Denzinger would all be part of Catholic dogma. Now
you say all the inseyclicals, No, No, anything within the giant,
massive a stack of encyclicals that counts as universal ordinary magisterium, ex cathedral and
ordinary magistrum. All of that is part of the official teaching of the Church.
So you, in a Roman Catholic situation are in no better position with
a generic idea that I follow. It's ex cathedral, here's ten thousand pages
of documents, But I have no idea what within the ten thousand pages of
documents is actually ex cathedral and is actually dogma. So you see how this
whole thing fell apart right away, And then it turned into two quote way,
which is you have this problem, okay, if it's a comparison of
paradigms, and your paradigm rested on knowledge of the ex cathedral, and then
it turns into but your priests are married. He doesn't even know that the
Latin papacy reversed its stance on previously believing in married clergy. So that guy
has no idea what he's talking about. Mark in although Yeah, I'm going
yes, sir, I have a quick question on God's fore knowledge with woka.
Does it relate to Protestantism, Orthodoxy or Islam? Well, I mean
it kind of like relates to all of them, because we have like a
view that you know, God knows everything. I heard you talk about it
before, so I understand that, Like, just because God knows something does
not mean that he decrease it, like if I go to azoo and I
throw a piece of meat, right, So yeah, so he's not the
direct cause of everything even if he has your Yeah, I understand that part.
But let's say like an atheist comes up to you and they say,
like, hey, does God know everything? He will say yes, and
then they'll say what can God be wrong? You would say no, and
then they'll say like, Okay, well, if God can't be wrong and
God knows everything, knows you're going to wake up tomorrow and eat breakfast and
he cannot be wrong about that, So do you have an option of not
eating breakfast tomorrow, And basically their objection is if you say yes, that
means that God could be wrong. If you say no, then there is
either no free will or that God does not know everything. Do you know
like a way around that? I don't understand why that would even be a
problem. Having fore knowledge of multiple potentialities has nothing to do with being right
or wrong, So I don't understand that at all. The foreknowledge of the
choice does not dictate the choice. Yeah, that's a fallacy in that arch.
And having fore knowledge, we have nothing to do with being right or
wrong, it's just knowing. So I don't get it. I deal with
this in my philosophy of time Lecture two. And part of the problem too
is the way that we construct our temporal categories of chronology and think about things
in terms of our language that doesn't apply to God. And so again,
if God's when it comes to past and future, God is not limited to
pass in future the way that we are. He experiences everything in an eternal
now. So I think part of this problem is we and we apply these
human categories and think because we can construct a question that it makes sense to
apply to God. Let me give you another example where this fails. If
God created time, what was he doing in the time before he created time?
Now where's the problem? Why? It lies not on the reference God,
but our language. The fact that the matter is that our language is
always tensed. So we do know that there's a creation to time, but
yet to say what was before time connotes a time before time? So the
land before time? Yeah, the land before time. But do you see
what I'm saying, Yeah, we can. We can analyze this to be
like, well, this is the problem with our human categories, our language
and stuff like this. So when and I'm blanking on the name, who
comes up with He's a process theologian that comes up with this Clearence and Omelet
like example, and he's stuck in this dialectics of dealing with Calvinism and then
goes into process theology. None of those people on either side realized that the
problem is with our human categories, chronological time, our language. And so
God, exactly as Jay and Father had said, God's not restricted by this,
and therefore for his knowing isn't causal, and our doing is what allows
his knowing. So it's best to think about that synergistically. This is also,
by the way, necessary why they're the show to show the essence sentergy
distinction. Because of God's will and his power and his knowledge are identical than
anything he knows. He also wills, and thus creation becomes not a will
thing but an emanation. It becomes a necessary, predestined thing. Great,
thank you. Uh, let's see, Zee might disagree because those are there.
When that guy said you have married clergy and then I said you have
gay clergy, I just felt like that was just anyways. I just want
to just give a little pat on the back for that because I felt like
that was that's just a beautiful rebuttal to that well. And it's also it's
not it's not trying to do it's not a cutdown. It's true. It's
literally true. You know, you said something in another stream with J and
I, and then Jay and I talked about about this that look, every
religion has a program and it produces something. Yeah, and Roman Catholicism has
a program and it produces something too, it produces gay and I said it
kind of laughing, but it's it's actually true. It's not that they always
had that, but you brought up a point like this too. You can
see in the esthetic that there's a there's are It's exactly right, it's no
coincidence. I think Roman Catholics thinks like, well, just these bad people
just got in and they're just trying to liberalize the church. It's like,
no, there's something systemic that came into your church and allowed it to come
in because of the type of ecclesiology you have, so you have no way
to get rid of it. But it's now intrinsic into Roman Catholicism. It's
not just their bad apples. It's essentially what Roman Catholicism is. It's a
gay program. I mean that's that's just it's not even like like Jay said,
and it's not really debatable. I mean they've had these they've had these
internal they've done their own surveys and research done their owners. It's something and
it's not a joke. It's something like of the clergy have said that they
have. But I think it's more than that said that they have been sexually
active at some point with a parishioner. Like that's not that's not an outlier,
is cope, And they think it's just a bunch of bad apples,
and we're going to get like I have a dear friend and colleague that is
really hoping, like I can't wait until they get the new track Cope Pan
and that, Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's gonna He's gonna clean house
and everything's gonna be okay. I'm like, do you think you're gonna allow
that? The thing that I made the long argument about, or the argument
about for a long time is like, look, I do carpentery, so
you do you cut in wood? Okay, So if I cut a two
flip board and I'm an eighth of an inch off, it's probably not going
you know what I mean. If I'm one degree off, it's not gonna
affect the overall bills. Okay, it's only two feet long, and I'm
gonna end up whenever an eighth of an inch off or something like that.
Okay, But if I'm if I'm an eighth of an inch off or two
degrees let's say it's two degrees off and I've got to cut one hundred foot
board, I'm gonna be so wildly off, And so I have to make
the argument over time, like look, okay, so if the great Skizum
is basically a thousand years ago, and Rhea's Orthodox are off even by one
degree, then our destination a thousand years later would show itself that we would
be exhibiting a bunch of very bizarre behavior and trends and and creating a kind
of a crazy mess. The irony is like, look, if you look
over a thousand years, the average Orthodox is still keeping left. It's not
it's this stuff is not even happening in Catholicism. I mean literally, the
standards and expectations for a catechumen in the Orthodox Church are more than the standards
and standards and in from anastic in Catholicism. So you're saying, okay,
hey, over the last thousand years, we got wildly off base by our
lack of accepted the philioque, and we ended up more traditional and aesthetic than
the quote other church. If this doesn't make any sense now, a bunch
of pages and websites, and I mean I've heard all the copes for me.
I know everything they're going to say. It's the liberal media. It's
not true, that's the libs, the liberal media. I brought come on,
like I've been to plenty of Romancallolic churches in my life. I can't
think of that many priests that I met that weren't sassy and if you know
what I mean. Let's see anybody, Okay, yeah, appreciate it.
Risen and Rachel. Good to see you, Jay, thanks for having me
on and my prayer and love to all. Yah Uh last chance. Anybody
disagree, put your hand up and we'll go to you. Otherwise I'm pretty
pretty worn out. I might have to just call it a night here.
Let's see Cameron forty dollars. Why does the Orthodox Church reject the Ethiopian Orthodox
over crystallogical errors? You could read the book sin Cyril of Alexander the Christological
Controversy. Uh, striker, So just remember today's topics are the topics listed,
It's not all the other things. So keep it to the topic.
Go ahead. Yeah, I'm mute, man, you're you're here. You
got your hand raisers on mute? Thank you? Sorry, sorry, it's
all good. So I'm quick curiosity, And then I have a question.
Are you currently an active Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic or Catholic Orthodox Catholic?
Yes, okay, Now have you not come to the realization that Catholicism is
just another form of santeria. Uh, Well, santoria is a specific you
know, kind of island nation sing critic type of things. So why would
orthodox Christianity be centurio when orthodox Christianity is what you can read in the first
two, three, four, five, sixty seven centuries of Christianity. Well,
Catholicism isn't Christianity? Have you? Catholicism is a form of centoria.
And where where do you get this idea? Well, just from the rituals
and all it is is Okay, have you read any of that? Have
you read any of that? Have you read any of the church fathers of
the first three, four, five, six seventh centuries? I've read quite
a few on the popes. That's not what I said. Have you read
any the church fathers of those centuries? The church fathers? No? I?
Okay, probably so then you would know that the type of Christianity that
we practice is what they talked about. Okay, But that doesn't make it.
Oh, that doesn't make it a part of christiandom. It's literally just
a form of santoria. If you put sanchoria and Catholicism. Okay, no
idea, what he's talking about. So anybody else is the last chance.
We're not going to do this super low tier stuff where people are not going
to listen. Anybody else want to raise your hand? Last chance? There's
nine people here. Anybody disagree, but you gotta have a good argument.
You need to make a good case as to why George you a disagree?
George just popped up? Are you there? You want to So if you
disagree, you got to do the hand up because I can't go through all
these people. There's like ten people. So if you disagree, hand up,
last chance? Anybody. I don't see any hands up? So Ryan
Beamish says, for three dollars, do you know Sean Griffin? I do
not. This is a Hebrew roots person with thousands of followers. Well,
I mean we had Bryson. I mean he's got a huge audience. That
debate was, uh something else? Goff, what's up? Did you want
to speak? You gotta unmute? Golf, you're up? You gotta unmute,
you're up? What's up? Yeah? All right, what's up?
Man? Yeah? It's just uh. I guess my question would be because
when I was listening to you mixing about the the gay thing. As far
as the gay priest with the capital of the church, I guess my disagreement
will be, is it in off brests of Christianity when you did Protestants,
Agasm or Eastern Orthodoxy there's cleanings that have been I would say kind of Uh.
I can't say, for the lack of a better word, I just
think infiltration where there's a situation where there's a lot of homo stations priests where
you with particularly what you did in the process the YouTube channel, our funnel,
that particularly, that's all they deal with. Where there's a lot of
six year deviates. And I've also bootmore some evidence for even in Eastern Orthodox
Church they'll stake your a deviates. So I just think it's afraid it is
late with that putt that strictly all Roman Catholics. Now, well, the
argument was not that there's no temptation or problem like that anywhere except in Rome.
The argument was that the extreme percentages of that amongst the clergy is what
is unbelievable. So yeah, there's absolutely gay Orthodox clerics who have been compromised
or who have that sin. Absolutely, but the scope and the scale of
it is kind of mind boggling is the point in the Roman Catholic situation?
Christen five dollars. Somebody said that link doesn't work. I'm testing it out,
so it looks like it worked. Appreciate that anti nerd alliance. One
dollar. What is the point of physicality in the final state of the escaton,
New Heavens and New Earth? If eternity is a big singing throne room,
Yeah, I think I don't think eternity is just that. I mean,
we have new Heavens, New Earth, also the eternal Heavens, so
it's all of that. God didn't create us just to be immobile beings and
stasis. That's what Origin said, and that position is actually condemned. That's
an Originist position. So you're talking about the beatific vision of the Romancalic Church,
and that's not what we believe. John con Jalvin five dollars. Your
last TikTok live stream was not that low tier. Do you plan to do
another one? That's true, that one ended up being an off, one
off where we actually ended up with not that many low tier people. Usually
TikTok is the worst, but every now and then there's going to be you
know, a decent crop of people that happen upon it BMX nineteen sixty six,
ten dollars. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Hollywood. He's
raising his hand, Hollywood, what's up, mister baseball? What's going on?
He's raising his hand making a fuss? Hollywood? Always up to no
good? Go ahead, I'm mute. You're there, Free Palaestine? Okay?
Did you want to talk about any of the topics tonight or not?
What the fuck? The Big three nigga is? Okay? That was super
funny, dude. Let's see a J. What's up? That was the
real basse trod standard right there, a J. You want to say something?
You popped on? What's going on? Got unmute? Man? You
probably didn't turn your mic on. Yeah, what's up? I'm a freak
palace town. No, we're talking about No, the topic is listing.
The topic is listed. Bro, are are are you? Are you?
Are you over there? No? You're right here in America. Wow,
Why are you worried about free in Palestine? You're not even talking to me.
You're talking to America. You're talking to the guy that already laughed.
Man. The topic is listed, The borders are you're not even you're talking
to a person that's gone, dude, all kinds of all, Right,
this is ridiculous. This is when it actually I want to say, I
gotta say, I really want to hear more from AJ about the borders situation.
Well he I think there was a lag. So there was a lag,
and he's but I like the voice, you know, open, George,
George straight, good lord. These people are clueless. What's on your
mind? Man? Hey? Su what is your what's your take on this?
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim? I mean I'm a little late
to well, I argue for Orthodoxy. So we've been we've been at this
h for about three hours. Okay, I'm sorry I missed most of that.
So I love a lot about the Orthodox Church. I mean, they're
like everything the Catholic Church is not, except for Mary. I mean they
are a big time on Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Catholics or Orthodox,
well, the Orthodox and the Catholics. The Catholics the Orthodox they are
not. They don't have all the traditions that the Catholics have. So I
think the Orthodox was the original church until you start getting into Queen of Heaven
and yeah, well, mother of God. How could you say that Mary
is the mother of God? Do you believe in the trinity? I mean
the second part, okay, So the person that came forth fourth from Mary
is a divine person. That's what theotokos means. It means that Jesus is
the Logos, the second person the God had. So the person that she
gave birth to is the person of Logos. That makes her mother of God,
theotokos. That's the whole point behind the Council of Ephesus, mother of
Jesus. She's not the mother of God. So again, you don't even
understand what it means. What it means is that the person that came forth
from her in the incarnation is a divine person. It does not mean that
she caused his divinity of God. And I am telling you what we say
before God. I am telling you other God. You don't understand what it
means. I'm telling you what it means. No, you haven't. The
Orthodox Church holds to the fourth Acumenical the third Acumenical Council, which teaches theotokos.
That's where it comes from. Our third Council Ephesus. I get it,
but you don't get it because you didn't. You thought you thought it
meant that Mary caused his divinity. So you don't get it. No,
I didn't say that. You did too. You said that that's blasphemous because
it makes her the mother of God, meaning that she caused his divinity.
Blame you, George. You just can't separate the two. He wasn't two
persons, he was one person with two natures. But that she was the
Mother of God is heresy. It's not heresy because of what we just explained
to you. This is literally, historically always accepted by all Christians. This
is not even like, this isn't even an innovation that this is. This
is literally the historical position of the church. You know, over a thousand
years before the Reformation even began. No one has ever a thousand years I
mean delated, know what, George, listen, I'm glad, I'm glad
we all seventeen hundred years later that you came along and you're finally able to
set everybody right in Christendom from the beginning due to your best wisdom and knowledge
and spiritual prowess. So thank you. We've all been so foolish. We
just didn't understand how foolish we were. I love this. So do you
understand that the word mother of God does not mean that she caused his divinity.
It means that she was a real human mother to a divine person.
That's what it means. She was the mother of Jesus. Do you not
think Jesus is a divine person? Are you a trinitarian or an aran?
Jesus was a man? Okay, so you're not even a Christian, so
you're a heretic. But also God is our savior. Okay, so if
he's also God, that's what theotokos means. Yeah, totally understand. You
don't understand because you're just denied it God the term understand that you don't understand
it because you're constantly contradicting he is the mother of Saying that she is the
mother of God is wrong. It's not Jesus. He's a divine person.
Do you understand He's the second person of the Godhead. Of course, then
then she is Theatuko's that's a logical necessity, is the physical manifestation. But
that does not mean that she is God. That is what it means existed.
So I already addressed. I literally, can you even hear what you're
saying? I just addressed your claim that she caused his divinity. You said
you don't believe that. You just restated it. Do you even understand the
words you're saying? Dude, that's that's the explanation for the heresy. Wrong,
it's not a hair See, he's the second Do you understand what the
second person of the god had means? Do you know what that means?
What does it mean? What does it mean? Listen? I don't need
to defend the position that or the definition of what you're presenting. Okay,
do you believe in the trinity? Mary? Mary was the mother of Jesus.
Okay, you're an astorian, understand. Okay, so you're a historian.
So there's two persons, two subjects. There's Jesus and the logos.
This is ridiculous. Is the dumbest thing I've heard all night. This is
like this guy. I mean, he literally says the very thing that he
says. He wasn't saying. This is unreal. I think one of the
things he said was he was like the physical manifestation of God. He does.
Sometimes you get into you're like this language that they're using is it's like
it's kind of what they're coming up with on the spot, kind of like,
what are you trying to say by that? Anybody else who disagrees the
last chance. It's weird too that I've had this discussion, you know,
hundreds, maybe thousands of times. You'll notice that when you explain something,
the person doesn't listen. They don't they're just waiting until you stop talking so
that they can assert their thing. They're not even listening to the point you're
making because the point I made explained, No, Mary is not causing his
divinity right, and so there's an identification between the subject that came forth from
her and the second person of the Godhead, the logos that means he's a
divine person. That's the teaching of emphesis. The thing that baffles me Jay
is just again, even as a former Protestant, when you look back and
you go listen, the church has never taught anything different than this. This
has never been a Christian right. But a Protestant would just think, yeah,
but I don't accept any of those churches. It's just it's just my
grip. What I'm saying is that it's almost like this idea that Christianity got
lost at the very beginning absolutely somehow refound over a thousand years. So it's
like, yeah, the blackout, there's a thousand year blackout. Yeah,
and then it's like, well, what does that tell you about God?
Like the Holy Spirituist was not powerful enough to enlighten the Church Fathers. No,
there was a bunch of secret there was a there was a secret group
that was my group. That's usually what they'll say, so brilliant, how
convenient. Yeah, which is not evidence for it. But there's just a
secret group. Kevin, we're taking disagrees. I just wanted to ask you
real quick, do you have any recommendations for any books for like the Church
Fathers. I'm trying to find a book that I want to give about like
all the Church Fathers. Well, I don't know that there's one book about
all the Church Fathers. But you could get something like yarslat Pelicans Volume one
as an introduction. You could get on the Incarnation by Athanasius as an introduction.
You could get the Five Theological Orations of Saint Gregor, Nazi and Zeus
as an introduction. Those are places I would start. Then I would move
to you know, Basil in the Holy Spirit, Basil against Unumbius, and
it'll start getting a little more kind of kind of theological if that's what you're
if you're what you're looking for, Gooner Gosling Ei there, Yeah, sulicon
near me, big fan. I just had a quick question. Why wouldn't
you Itbadam Green? Yeah, I mean I've answered it many times. And
if you look at the debates that he already has done, like with David
Patrick Harry, I mean it's a person who's demonstrated that he doesn't really know
anything about basic logic, basic fallacies, doesn't care about justification, and all
the areas where I usually take debates. He already debated with gam Cotel.
So what's why would what's the point of having that same debate over again?
Well, I just think it'd be an interesting discussion, you know. I
mean, you haven't really provided, like, you know, a counter argument,
right, So I've never addressed paganism and relativism ever, even though I've
addressed a thousand times, I've never addressed it. But then why not debating
them? Because I would I have to do the same debate that I've already
done, and that a guy who's demonstrated like very low tier, low quality
level of debating. Why do I have to do that? Because, yeah,
but I'm not here to be your monkey. I don't do the content
as you're dancing, monkey, Anthony, you got an unmute Anthony? Did
you want to speak? Yeah? Are you sorry? I was just turning?
Are you I'm not really much of a debater, but his Catholic press
Ortho exmism debate for Jay Dire And I'm really not sure who you are arresting.
You're part of the Alex Shows team and I host the fourth Hour on
Fridays. What about it? Oh, I've been listening to for years,
so I'm just kind of curious. Are you what your religious believe is Orthodox?
So we've been arguing that for the last several hours. Okay, I
was raised Catholic, so I believe in the concept of that there is what
it is Orthodox. You guys don't believe that you believe the Father's Son,
the Holy Spirit, but the Holy I'm not trying to be main but we've
we've been We've already done all that. Like you can go back and scroll
back if you want to hear all that the earlier topics. We're not going
to repeat all that, Aj, did you want to come back and make
a point. It's not a border debate. We're here, We're not talking
about the border. We got. I'm mute, Kay, go ahead,
all right, there's too much of a delay, so we can't hear you,
creative one. Got I'm mute. Can you hear me? Jay?
What's up? Man? I want to say, what's up? I want
you. I want you to know that it was you who made me an
inquiry today in orthodoxy. Oh that's great. I visited Saint Andrews and Riverside.
Okay, that's good to hear. I really I really appreciate everything.
And then that you've done in helping me out with that, you know,
as an inquirer recently with this thing that happened with the Church of Alexandria with
the deaconess h and I heard Rachel saying earlier when she was describing how even
from early the Radical Reformation, when when women were being brought into the clergy,
that that was always kind of a sign of a trojan horse. And
then this just thing, this thing just recently happened, and you know,
again, I'm an I'm an inquirer right like over a year now, and
I was just like, what is the actual I haven't I don't know if
I've actually heard an official position on how that's being looked at. So I
was just wondering what your thoughts were on that. I mean, I don't
know what's going on in Africa under the Greeks. I have no idea,
so I couldn't say what they're up to or what the retribution will be,
if any at all. So no idea I wish I could. I mean,
it's one awe instance. I think Father Turbo's commented on it, and
his comments were pretty solid common sense. I mean, we've done several podcasts
talking about how you can't have this thing as deacons in the way. Sure
well, I mean the thing is that we have a historical president in the
church, but we have corresponding canons that guide the process of making a deaconess,
which is not a liturgical role. Yeah, so that the basically the
three main kind of points are it's supposed to one if it's supposed to be
basically a celibate woman, or I think actually the language usually instead of celibate
is usually virgin or basically monastic. So number one, they have to be
monastic. Number two they have to be forty years old. And then number
three is it's a non liturgical role. It was a role specifically for the
use of baptizing other women and doing because people were baptized naked, and so
it was a way for women to baptize other women. And then obviously the
priest would do the chrism and the prayers beforehand the christ nation. So this
instance in Africa basically violates all three of those canons. The argument being set
forth, or what I've seen, maybe the only argument put forth is that
Saint Nctadios of Aguina, a modern day saint, had had actually a point
of dconess, but what he had done was taken elderly. None made her
a daconess. And because the monastery did not have a priest, and she
was able to give reserved sacraments, which is consecrated body of blood of Christ
that is kept in a tabernacle on the altar, she was able to give
that to the other nuns. I don't think anybody has an argument against that
or a problem with what Saint Nactadios did, because it was keeping in line
with the spirit of the Cannons, with the church and the role this person
I can't, I don't want to call her a deaconess, but this person
in Alexandria, Africa was not forty years old, is married, and then
they have her performing litanies during the liturgy and then actually communing people from the
chalice. So on every level, there's a historical reality and that everything that
she's doing is a complete innovation of that and the violation of the canons rights.
It's been clearly documented that she is married, she's not forty years old,
she's not a nun. And then the role that they're having her performed
makes absolutely no sense because you literally have male deacons who do those roles,
have always historically done those those roles, and women have never done them.
So I think, you know, Father Turbo's point when he and I were
corresponding about this private lea which I don't think you would mind be saying,
is he's like, look, one of the reasons that they're doing this in
Africa is that that you can you can you know, basically, anybody who
disagrees with it or points out that there's some error is going to be called
a racist, Yeah, exactly, that's part of the agenda in doing it
there. That's it's a way kind of from prying guys. And I can't
remember that woman's name, the Schwartz lady, who's that quote unquote orthodox woman.
And she put a she put a thing on Twitter about please note anybody
making uh condemnation remarks regarding this because it's misogynistic and racist. It's like,
this is a classic liberal move So sure, absolutely, and I think everybody
knows that none of this is being suddenly pushed out of any legitimate desire to
restore ancient traditions. These people don't care about traditions. They're all pushing every
form of degeneracy. It's all about changing the church. And we've covered this
with Father John Whiteford and with Father Deacon Patrick Mitchell, who has an entire
book refuting this. There's the interview. You can go watch that Skitzo.
It's got to be good if his name is Skitzo. Skitzo. Guys,
remember, we will also be live June twenty second, and our live event.
It's gonna be a lot of fun. However, I do have some
bad news. Jamie Kennedy will now be able to attend, so we will
still be having the event. It's gonna be a lot of fun, all
the same stuff, but Jamie won't be able to be there if something has
come up. We are going to try to plan another future event with Jamie,
but this event will be me, Jim, Bob, Isaac, Jamie,
my wife, and myself, Me and myself, myself and not We
will all be there, all of my altars in my head will be there.
And it's still gonna be a lot of fun. So get your tickets
right here, June twenty second, in Las Vegas. It's gonna be fun,
so we can still do it even minus Jamie Kennedy. But I did
want to let you guys know that. So alright, he dropped off.
Well, I don't let's see, I don't see anything else, Sam,
last guy, We'll give you one one, last one, last person.
What's up? Man? All right? So that was nothing. Let me
hear everybody. People pop in here when I'm about to stop. M No,
I think we're gonna we're gonna call it a night. There, guys,
remember head on over to chalk dot com use promo code J fifty to
get fifty percent off all those amazing Chalk products, especially the Tong Catlee which
has proven to boost test osterone in those amazing studies which are a peer review.
You can go read those over there at Chalk dot com. This is
the link. Now, remember, guys, the promo code has changed.
Now you can still get great discounts almost fifty percent off. It's forty four
percent now, but you're gonna be getting the forty four percent off of the
recurring subscriptions. So the new promo code is JA forty four Life. That's
Jay forty four l I f E forty four percent off of this amazing male
vitality stack that includes the pre workout chad Mode, the tong Catalee boosting testosterone,
the Action two point zero. But it's not just for the dudes.
There's also female vitality stack over here. You guys can get that as well.
Use the promo code J forty four Life JA forty four Life right there.
Otherwise, everybody, I will see you next time. And also we
had a lot of people who I don't know if my thing was throttled or
people weren't finding this is a very important thing. So if you didn't watch
the talk about sexpionage, and I'm guessing that it was too racy in terms
of topics and the views are a little throttled, or you guys are just
not learning getting your learn on. This is important stuff. Go watch this
stream if you missed it. It's time to learn some history, learn how
the world really works. I think that was an important talk, so go
watch that and subscribe, and the part two will be up very soon,
as well as all these big interviews that have happened. Very thankful for the
last week, so big stuff coming. Big interviews will be dropped helping otherwise.
Everybody, have a good night. M