Lying about John Philipponis. The whole chat is laughing at you. I don't
have to tell you my position. You just made a fool of yourself,
claiming that he knows, oh know what John Philippon has taught what. I
don't have to tell you. I don't have to tell you. I don't
have to tell you. Say you see why I get like this with these
people. I cannot stand these slimy Roman Catholics. They drive me so insane.
There are such freaking liars, dude, and they all breathe the same
spirit. They come on here talking about how, oh my god, I've
got him. I gotta gotcha. I got him with his stupid ass gotcha.
And I answered his question twenty times saying I don't accept the question's premise,
and the chat that look, John Philipponis is the tritheist who used a
strict Aristotilian definition of hypostasis. Okay, and when he did that, what
that means is that there are three substances in the triad that led him to
being condemned as a tritheist. So when he asked me, do I accept
the Aristotilian definitions of hypostasis? I said no, and I said, do
you accept John Philipponis? I know about John Philiponis? Okay, oh do
you Okay? What was his position? All he had to do was say
try theism? But he lied he didn't know. So this is all the
Roman Catholics have, is this scumbaggery, slimy approach where they try to play
gotcha's no, I'm not again. As soon as he said, do you
not accept Aristotilian definition of hypostasis? Uh no, we don't because that reductionist
move is what John Philipponis did. We're not wedded to either Aristotle or Plato,
or Plutinus or Porphyrey. All of them are utilized by the Church fathers.
And you notice he wouldn't he All he wanted to do was try to
play someth dumb. By the way, where I was gonna go, I
wish he had stuck. He had stuck with it is that I'm just gonna
cut the whole scholastic thing apart by going to the root of it and talk
about do you can you tell me if the parapateetic axiom is true? That's
where I wanted to go. And he would have folded right away because you
can't demonstrate or prove the parapateetic axiom to be true because it's something that's not
found in sense data. Now, remember the parapateetic axiom, which is the
starting point for these tomistic goobers, is that there's nothing in the intellect that's
not first in sense data. Oh really, is that in sense data?
No, it's not. Oh but then you notice he says, oh,
I'm not a Roman calthly, I'm not a toomist. So he wouldn't even
say what he is. And by the way, we always boot people who
won't defend a position because it's dishonest. So now get out of here with
your gay gotcha rada like that, like that low tier gotcha is gonna work.
Hij Well, I got I got to talk really fast. Yeah.
So I was thinking about one of the debates I heard with Muslims about Asha
and how they always bring up, you know that at that time it was
common that people were engaged to six years old and stuff, and that that's
not the same today. But and also they claim that yeah, Aisha,
that at that time she was much more mature, and that nine year old
girls they could you know, run a household and stuff. Okay, what's
the question. Yeah, So the thing I was thinking about, I mean,
it's it's just that today, I mean, there's lots of countries where
are still living in that age, right. It's similar to those type of
rural type of countries that still you know, have their kids working at the
fountatu. So my question is would it be acceptable for them to you know,
travel to move there and use the same logic and you know, engaged,
be engaged to a nine ye old there who's much more mature than,
for example, an angel here in the West. We're gonna move on because
it's not really the topic. I know it's realized as long, but I
mean, I just think it's reprehensible all of that kind of stuff. So
I don't know what you're saying about people moving where jib reel. Oh,
I wish that dude has stayed on. And but then he wasn't even a
romanchalic or Thomas. I like how he started out with like some oh,
you are not familiar with this paudio Scholastic dictionary, Like like, okay,
yeah, no, I'm not familiar with your damn PDF. That's a stupid
man. I knew right then, right then, I knew this was problem.
This is trouble. What's up, man, I'm all fired up?
Man? Oh oh, all right, be careful, it's here. So
I wanted to talk about the the h I guys, okay and okay,
I met Yeah Coop today. I met Yeah Coop and he was an uber
driver and his picture even shows him with the fez. Now, I'm wondering
if you have heard of the Moorish Science Temple. No, but I'm not
surprised. I'm sure there's gonna be a plethora of cults exploding related to the
Hebrew Roots movement, black Heber Israelite movement, and I'm sure we'll overlap with
Islam as well. In fact, Nation of Islam already. Kind of is
that right, n Oi? Kind of is an overlap between this sort of
space mythology is like Sci Fi for erkle Arkles, you know what I'm saying,
where all the white people are the devils? Hey, Janet, could
you made me a double shot? That Skittles black man got me fired up?
Uh? Bourock Hey Ja? How you doing? Brother? What's up?
And literally, what I just want to say is just touch up on
what you just said. Myself of a Muslim myself and literally is your absolutely
right with that? You know, it's for the fact that these abraham of
religions that's been around for the longest time, and every each one of them,
you're able to find faults in them. In each every one of them,
there is some type of moral or irregular practice that happens in them.
My biggest thing for the people that don't see that or do see it,
is just be mindful for the fact that every one of us as humans have
some kind of an irregular practice, whether it's a religion, whether whatever we
do in our lives. I just feel the belief that in order for us
to accept one another, we should be able to get over those irregularities and
not talking about the really bad shit. You know, those things well hold
on. So I think there's a difference so between people and the religion acting
in an immoral way versus versus the religion teaching that it's okay to do those
things. That's agreed, hundred percent agreed. And I sometimes feel like a
lot of especially Muslim scholars, even myself being a Muslims, some of these
Muslim scholars and even skulls of other religions tend to push that to the extreme
or forget the human factor. And that's really what I want to touch on.
So what do you find convincing about Islam? What I find convincing about
Islam is the clear cut message that I'm able to proceed from reading that Holy
Book and that you know that just only applies to me and not other people.
And if it does, no great, But in my honest opinion and
drough the time that I have been a Muslim, those messages apply to me
in a sense. It's clearcut and I don't see contradictions. But of course
if people were to break it down and look at it, there could be
many contradictions. But it has put some kind of a guidance in my life
where has gotten me out of jail and has gotten me out of situations where
I could have been dead or be stuck brotten in prison. Well, one
thing I would say about the big level of contradictions is you should watch my
debate with Daniel Hakikachu. We have a pretty in depth debate about that specific
topic. So I would invite you to take a look at that over on
YouTube here. It's let's see Daniel Jay dire debate, because that whole debate
is about contradictions and continuity between who actually follows the prophets. Okay, so
is it Islam with its unitarian ideology that's consistent with the prophets and the prior
revelation, or is it Christianity? So I would encourage you to take a
look at that. I'm not going to rehearse all of that today. Gary
Winthorpe puts up. I gotta unmute Gary, Gary, what's up? Man?
Let me see if I missed us. We got a bunch of super
chats that came in. So Gary, weigin here you so you have to
turn your mic on and come back in or something. If you come back,
I'll go to you ignatious three dollars? Do Protestants realize that classical Protestantism
bowed to the Ottoman Empire for its survival against Rome. Protestants and Muslims bonded
over the econic class beliefs. Orthodoxy will never bounce into any entity other than
Christ. And that's a good historical point there. I appreciate that. Acu
laras three dollars, we debate digital nosis. I've forgotten about that, dude.
Sincere hypocrite three dollars thirty three cents. I'm am I wrong in thinking
that Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin. This is a
very argument that Saint Justin Popovitch makes that the Pope was the first Protestant,
so this is literally his argument in life in Christ. Both of them in
practice pick and choose what they want. They even call acumunus heretics, like
in Astorias r Amari a bishop. Yeah, exactly, it's very telling.
I think that both Rome and many Protestants and especially Calvinists are big fans explicitly
nowadays of Nestorius. So what does that tell you, lawkeeper? Five dollars?
What does it mean to be great under grace and not law? Is
that about Jewish ceremonial law. It is about both. On the one hand,
that we're no longer under the restrictions of the ceremonial law. In other
words, that a gentile doesn't have to become a Jew to be saved or
to be righteous. That's the decision of Acts fifteen, going back to how
Noah was made righteous in the Covenant with Noah. So the reasoning in the
logic is, well, we don't have to expect anything more than what was
expected of Noah since the Covenant is now being opened to the Gentiles. And
I think also there's other connotations of the notion of being under grace and not
under law, in the sense of deification and the sense of empowerment via the
Holy Spirit, which is not to say that Testament saints didn't have that,
but post Pentecost we think of this in a much greater power and greater degree.
And that's why Paul describes it sometimes as from death to life, but
also in terms of At times Paul uses the terminology of lesser to greater.
So they're just different analogies to describe the pre Pentecost life of God's people versus
the post Pentecost life. Orthoclips five dollars. You would have a good time
chatting with Adam Patrick from Age of Information podcast. Okay, I'm not familiar
with him. I'll have to check him out. He's Orthodox, he talks
about a lot of what you do. He doesn't put out a whole lot
of content. It's sporadic. Yeah, I'll have to I'll have to look
at him. Sounds good. Cholo Solo Mexicano. What's up, man,
haven't seen you in a while. Welcome back ten dollars. Well, you
cover the fact that Solos shaved their heads. It's an attack on masculine appearance.
Uh interesting, I never thought about that. Well, everybody says that
my long hair is feminine, so I don't know. I really think that
the length of hair is culturally relative. I really do, because I mean,
is this down to here long? I mean, is here long?
I mean what exactly counts as long? Anyway, It's different for different cultures.
And I think when Paul mentions that he specifically says and he talks about
effeminacy, he's not specific specifying the length of the hair. And we know
that the length of the hair itself can't be the issue because the Nazarites didn't
cut their hair. So I just kind of think this is a little overblown.
But haters are going to keep trying to flex on me. What about
Saint Sampson. Actually Sampson, as far as I can tell, is a
saint so and I heard one famous Orthodox priest who apparently wasn't aware of that,
a prominent one. But but I don't know about I never I guess
you're kids over joking or being serious. I don't know about Tolo shaving their
head. I don't know Marinka's man a dollar. I saw you answer my
question earlier. I'm an inquirer who wants to be a catechuman. I do
believe in iconography and understand the theological and typeological side of it. I'm just
wondering about the historical claim. Well, but see, my argument wasn't just
a typology claim. No, no, I'm saying that the Church in its
earliest days has an apostolic liturgy derived from the liturgy that already existed in the
temple and synagogue system. So I wasn't saying there's a typology from the Temple
to the Church in a mystical sense. No, no, I'm saying that
actual liturgical celebrations are carried over. That's what I was saying, and that
includes things like visual imagery, because the temple had that. Okay, do
you understand that? Go read where in Kings the temple's built. It's not
iconoclastic. I don't understand where people think that, like Judaism is iconic,
classic is not. Judaism is not iconoclastic. I'm talking about Hebrew theology of
the Old Testament, like we talked about at the beginning of this discussion tonight,
when we're talking about who's a Jew, what's a Jew and all the
stuff that we're starting this discussion with Mark, what's up? Hello, Hey,
what's going on? Yeah? I was gonna ask this. I've got
two questions of that sort, uh huh. So the first one is,
I know that I'm just curious on what the general belief that Muslims have about
the nature of God, because I know that they have one of the is
similar to the papist belief that the attributes of God is one and united with
God's essence, but most of the Sunnis don't believe that, so they believe
in a real distinction between Allah and his attributes, right right, So yeah,
that's what I'm curious about. What what is like the summary of what
Muslims in general? I guess, well, there's not a summary because all
of the different akidas and schools debate this and have forever, so all right,
right, I see, So I guess it's like sort of similar to
like us, and we have Protestants and have different views. So yeah,
except that the analogy is better made to think about the way Protestants are with
all of their different sects. It's more like that than it is to say
that Islam is like Roman Catholics versus Protestant versus Orthodox. No, no,
no, it's more like all these different types of sex who claim to believe
in the unity of Allah, and then they're like going at it over what
that means. So they're not it's not there's not they're not united except that
they say, well, we believe all as one, and then it's like
infinite debates about what that means. So you could go watch the debate that
we did with Ozra Rashid, Shabiri, Lei and Jake too. They get
into all that, right, right, Okay, uh, I think I
forgot my my second question, so uh yeah, that's fine. That's all.
It's all good. Thank you, Matt. What's up dude. By
the way, if you want to support the stream, you can do so
via the super chat function. Super chats are done through stream Labs. Thank
you to slow Boy for putting that link there. You can also call in
via the link in the show description. So anybody talking a bunch of smack
in the chat if you don't come debate. We don't really respect you.
What's up, man, Matt? What's up? Oh? Okay? Uh,
thanks for doing the screen. It's my first all right, you're roboting.
What what's what's ther question? Mm hmmm, Hey, I wanted to
know you might disagree just fine, which is a debate. But is your
opinion on the uh modern day Jews being descendants of the Kazars. I think
that some of them probably are, but I don't know that we would necessarily
have to say that all of them are. But I don't have any heard
opinion on that. Slappy Lopez, Okay, can you hear me? What's
up? Okay? So I just had a question about one of the things
when you were speaking with the Black hebrew Is Relights, when he spoke about
how the version that they have of the King James is older, and he
said that that was a fallacy. Yeah, if he was trying to argue
that the texts are true because the King James is using older but in fact,
the Septuagin is older than what we know of as the modern masoretic text
anyway, so it's going to fail on multiple levels. Okay, that was
kind of my question. I was assuming I had assumed I'm new to Orthodoxy,
but I had assumed that the septuagen was in fact older than the Masoretic
text. But then at least I guess another question. But I was just
making the po I just wanted to show that he didn't even know what a
fallacy was. That was the old point. Okay, that makes sense,
Okay, And then I have a buddy who's looking into it. Seems to
be more gnostic, I guess, But it's this whole cabal tree of life
type thing, and he's trying to say that it is outside of religion,
but it's I guess, some filing cabinet. But to me, as an
Orthodox person, it doesn't make sense that something is outside of religion. And
he's somebody who introduced me to Orthodoxy, so he has some ideas of these
things. So it's hard for me to get well, I mean, you
could say that the tree of life, you know, he'll probably say something
like, well, look here it is. It's Drazzo amongst the you know,
Odnus or whatever, and here's the neo Platonists talking about, you know,
these emanations. And so it's just people kind of trying to find a
superstructure to classify God and his attributes or his energies, or his relations or
whatever. But the fact that there's commonalities doesn't necessarily mean that this is not
from religion. And Cabbalism is Jewish mystics utilizing neoplatonism. That's what the foremost
Cabbalist scholar, Gersam Sholm says, so of the last century. Dan's good
question, though, Dan, Sam, what's up? So? Look to
people in the chat over here on YouTube. All you gotta do is call
in on Twitter. So like, how do I call it? It's Twitter?
It's in the show description. So well, I'm sorry if you don't
have a Twitter. It's not my fault. What's up, Dan? Hi?
How you doing? Good man? What's up? So? I'm a
very young man. I've been going to a Pentecostal church for a very long
time, pretty much my whole life, and very recently I've just been starting
to question a whole lot of this Reformation Protestant ideals right and talking to my
friends, I've kind of asked their opinion on it, and they give me
some very questionable justifications as to why the information was good. And I'd like
to swing those by you if you don't mind why the Reformation was good or
why it's a correct Christianity. I guess you could say, yeah, I
don't care. By the way, to the Muslim in the Chat balloon,
balloon Muslim, if you're not going to come to Bay, then what like
nobody cares about your spam in the Chat? Okay, go ahead, Dan,
all right. So one of the things that they would say is stuff
like, oh, well, why should we uh that we have a right?
Well that they say we have a right to private interpretation, that we
cannot place our trust in human and other human beings or a body of human
beings. So well, who where does this right? Where's this right come
from? And who granted it? I mean, that's exactly the question I
asked. And they say, well, you know, it's just that we
can't trust these these people to infallibly you know the scriptures, And I want
to ask, well, do you trust them? Do you trust them to
put the books together? I mean, that's exactly what I told them,
and they would say no, no, No, God God worked his infallible
authority worked through the fallible Church, which I've heard a thousand times. No,
that's a contradiction, And how would you respawn to that argument if they
say, oh, no, it's different. It's like the authority of a
priest. I'm sure you've heard that a million times. What do you mean
it's the authority of a priest. I don't understand that response. I mean
to say that the church is fallible and God infallibly worked through it is a
contradiction. So what does the priests have to do with that? Oh,
well, that would compare the authority of the church as a whole to,
for example, like a priest. Like for example, what I when I
mentioned there are some versus in the Bible that says where where Paul was preaching,
and he said, oh, this is so the the Word of God
passed down this oral and written tradition to Timothy. Well he said that to
Timothy. I mentioned that to them, and they said, oh no,
no, no, that's just that's like a preacher, right, like a
modern day preacher. Well, the promise is, the promise is not to
any individual that they're the gates of hell or that they're the rock. That
the gates of Hell would not prevail against the promises to the entire collective church.
So to say that there's an equivalence between the collective church and the fallibility
of an individual priest is a false analogy. And this is kind of related.
How can you eleverate more on the difference between like this existential authority and
normative authority. I've heard you say that saying a few times before, and
I just want to see if you could delibriate on that. Yeah, So
having a body of people bind people to a decision is a different question from
how do I know what church is? Right? Okay, I see,
I see, all right, Well that is all, thank you. Yeah.
So basically, in history, either Jesus set up a people in history
that have authority or he didn't. I mean it comes down to that.
That's a different question from how do I as an individual know what the right
churches? So they're related, but they're two different questions, you see.
So yeah, good questions. And we've covered that a lot. We've done
probably thirty or forty live streams where we've gone into detail about that. Let's
see, somebody's been waiting for a long time. Schwan schwas hi Jay,
Hello, Hey, Yeah, so I spoke to you last night. I
was the guy who asked you. If so, if if God only creates
good, then is evil therefore an independent Huh that's but that's that's not the
nice topics. I'm not trying to be mean, but we have there.
The topics are listed as Protestants, keeper Israelite, Muslim arian as in Joe's
Witness. So if it's not on that topic, I told you guys at
the very beginning, I'm moving on right away. Nicholas, what's up you
got? I'mia man, hey man, can you hear me? Yes,
sir, awesome, Hey, I got a question. I am an inquirer
at my Orthodox church here in Louisville, Kentucky. And I saw your I
think you did the space on it the other day, and you were talking
about the I forget the name of the document. You were talking about,
the G eighty document, and then the other document that just came out,
Alexander Document Alexandra. Yes. And I grew up Protestant, I grew up
specifically charismatic, and so anyways, I have been making a move to Orthodoxy
for over the past probably eight months. Anyways, that what I was gonna
what I was gonna ask is if those or so like those documents point out
that the UH that the uh basically Roman Catholicism is, you know, it's
admitting that it's been wrong. How is like they're not much of much of
an uproar or maybe I'm just not aware? Right, So they don't care.
They just say right, they ignore it. I'm not trying to be
rude, but you're always welcome to call back. In today's topics are not
Catholicism or atheism. It's Protestants, Black Hei, Israelites, Arians, Muslims,
Joe's Witnesses, et cetera. Now to answer your question, they handwave.
They don't care. So there have been a long history of admissions contradictions,
and the Roman Catholics just handwaven. I don't care. They'll say it's
not infallible, as if that has anything to do with whether or not Francis
is contradicting the established Vatican One tradition. They don't care. So that's that's
the answer, Soaring Blades, what's up? Do we have any defenders of
Islam, of Black huber Isolites, of Job's Witnesses, Arians, Muslims,
Protestant Evangelical Mormons. Go ahead, man, what's up you? I'mute?
Are you there, you're gonna turn your permissions on. Man, there's no
sound. Dude, Cyprian twenty dollars YouTube recommend to me a dumb channel called
Trinity Busters. Well, yeah, if it's named that, it's gonna be
stupid. They put out a public debate request for anybody who show them the
Trinity Look, I don't I'm not going to go on every small channel because
it just gives a bunch of attention to attention Starred Goober's uh so. And
by the way, we've already done countless defenses of the Trinity videos. Kevin
Sujith. Where I really wanted to go with that Skittles black dude trying to
pretend to be a Thomas was I was gonna say, what's the self evident
definition of perfection? How we know that that's the case. None of these
Thomas scholastic people, they're gonna melt as soon as you go to epistemology.
That's where I really want to go with these people, because they're gonna melt
right away. But they don't. They don't want to do that. What's
up, Kevin? I just wanted to ask about liturgy and the worship within
the church. So I've had a reputation from process and saying, yeah,
the early Church had liturgical worship, but we don't need to have only modern
century How would you how would you refute that people think or a patristic tradition?
Yes, wait, so I mean that's just I mean, yeah,
I'm super low tier like so the apostles have the authority to establish liturgical worship,
but we don't need that anymore in modernity. I just think that's I
mean that itself is self refuting, and then you have to refute. You
don't have to refute that. Uh Favian Pimentel, that's a that's a name
right there. Yeah, uh huh uh as an evan agelicqua, I just
have a couple of questions. I'm acquiring into Orthodox, but I just had
a question about salvation because I think it's important. Okay, is it on
the topic today as it evangelically geat Okay, right now. I've been seeing
videos with doctor Turk. I'm not sure if you're familiar with him. I've
heard the name, but I'm not watched. Not really. Yeah, he
has a different view, I guess as an evangelical Christian. He says that
salvation is I guess forever earned. You can never lose your salvation. And
then I know that Orthodox have a different views called thaosis. If I'm not
mistaken. Yeah, but I mean there's many passages in the New Testament that
warren't about that loss and warn't about tasting of grace and losing it Hebrew six,
et cetera. This seed falls, falls on certain ground, and springs
up to new life and dies. So Paul just says in Romans eleven that
you can be cut out of the of the branch. Yeah, what about
do you have? I'm assuming you've heard this before. When Jesus was crucified,
he looked over to the left side and he said, he said,
the other man said, I believe in you without being baptized or without doing
any the sacraments or anything like that. What do you have to say against?
I guess. So that's baptism of blood. So he was baptized.
He's baptized by by the blood, and the church fathers all toos baptism of
blood limitless. You want to try again, I'm mute yo, Hello,
old time man. Yeah, I joined up my other account. But when
I was unmuted, everything went silence. I could see anything. I got
blot but I was gonna ask, what religion do you identify with? I
just came in. I've seen all your stuff, Info wars, Orthodox Christianity,
all right, but have you read the Quran and like what discredited?
Well, I have not read the entire Quran, but I've read a lot
of the Qoran. I got the Koran right here in front of it.
If you want to go through it. No, not really, I just
said, I just want to know, like if you give me like a
couple of hot points on a couple yeah, Like the Quran claims to be
consistent with prior revelation, but prior revelation teaches the Trinity, a treat teaches
the deity of Christ, so it's not consistent with prior revelation. There's cult,
there's countless things in prior revelation, such as the temple, such as
the priesthood, such as liturgy, such as the altar, all of which
was necessary from the earliest days of God's people all the way up to Christianity.
And then now we get this supposed new revelation which says none of that's
actually necessary. So this is not in continenty. That's ultimately a total defeater
for Islam. Seeus, my thing was always like, what do you believe?
That is like the whole thing with the angel Gabriel and him not knowing
how to reader write. That's a that's a demon. So he was demonically
possessed. That's what I think. Uhland, what's up? And there one
one of the Hads says he fell over and having seizures moment at the mouth.
Bland, what's up? I'm you Yeah, so I'm not super knowledgeable,
so he might have to git in a basic with me. But my
understanding of arianism versus what Joe's witnesses believe is that, well, first I
want to make sure I have my understanding of the two positions correctly. One
is his arianism or rejection of the divinity of Jesus whatsoever, or only the
rejection of his who I guess who equalness with God. Well, he's the
first thing God created in the Aryan position, so but for us it doesn't
matter because he's not a creature. So whether it's distinguished in the Jobe is
witness position from the ancient Aryan position doesn't matter because both positions are denial of
his full deity. So so the arianism is not necessarily that he is what
I'm trying to get, the first thing that God created before the foundation of
the world, and when he came to quote save us, he's a moral
exemplar. So it really undoes the entire plan of redemption, the entire notion
of what redemption is, where Jesus is this guy who or a demigod basically,
So ultimately arianism is polytheism because he's a sort of created demi god who
is a moral example. So there's no actual miraculous death rill resurrection which deifies
us. All of that's canceled out. Okay, So my understanding was what
it was that it's Jesus was a basically an angel in the most powerful angel
and a separate entity from God. Yeah, he's the first thing that God
created. That's the Aryan position, Okay. And they'll say that when you
have this angel language, they'll say that that's him. Now we think the
Angel of the Lord is Jesus, but he's not a creature. He's called
the creator. The entire chapter of Hebrews one is explaining that he's superior to
all angels because he is the creator of the angels, got it? It's
the why does why does God? Still? According to their position, If
it's Jesus is God's most important creation, why does that nullify his sacrifice to
wipe away sin? Because in the Aryan view, he's a moral example.
It doesn't actually provide any propitiation. He's just a good dude that you try
to emulate and be good. So there's no notion of actually being metaphysically restored
and saved through grace, uncreated grace. It's not a participation in uncreated grace.
It's there's a good dude, try to be like him. Oh see,
that's also different than I thought, because I thought it was like he's
he's he was some sort of a spirit creature that had at powers that were
equal to, you know, the creation of Adam. I guess I don't
know what that means. Spirit power is equal to the creation of Adam.
I don't know what that means. So what I mean is like, so
if God created man and then people screwed up and they needed some sort of
a redemption, why wouldn't an equally important person being sacrificed cancel that out?
Because of what I just said that salvation is a participation in uncreated grace,
the life, love, and in mortality of God. It's the it's partaking
of the very glory of God to become immortal. A dude that's just an
example can't do that and doesn't do all of that. It removes the miraculous,
it removes the participation in the uncreated That's why it's called moral example theory
of the atonement. So the Aryan position or even the Jeovah's witness position about
what the atonement is is not a actual propitiation. It's the moral example theory
of the atonement. So it's not a miraculous salvation at all. It's be
like that good guy over there. That's not the Christian teaching. Christian teaching
is that Jesus came to destroy the angel of death Satan, who had the
power of death, and to grant us a share in his uncreated glory,
as he says in John seventeen. That is not Joa's witness teaching. I
mostly understand what you're saying, but I think the one point that I think
maybe you're playing down isn't I don't think either of them just say that he
some dude. They say that he's the most after God. It doesn't matter.
Because you can be the most important angel, You're still a creature,
and no angel can. A creature can't save you. That's the point.
God is our savior, God, my God, and my savior. Right,
That's what scripture says. When Thomas puts his finger into his side,
he calls him God. Okay, So Jesus is the second person of the
Godhead, the son of God eternally the son of God. And so what
I'm telling you is correct. It doesn't matter how high of a created status
you want to make him if you say he's the greatest angel. The theory
of atonement that Arians have is called moral example theory. Okay, thank you,
m Let's see Alex. What's up, Alex? Well there, unbelievable
got on? Mute? Yeah? Hi, hi Jay? What's up?
I hope a question about the adulterous woman. Is it related to today's topics?
Uh? No? Exposing the Amish? What's up? Hi Jay?
I just wanted to this. There's a gentleman called Matthew Towell on X.
He's like a Protestant I think, well, a former Amish person and he's
been just reflessly promoting the banning of the Old Testament, and I just really
wanted to get that out there. Maybe, you know, I think he's
got like sixteen thousand followers or something. Matthew Towers, you said, yeah,
you tail a truth truth tale a part the costs. I just think
it's out of control, and I'll just really had to Yeah, Well,
that's just that's just a repeating of the Marcianite heresies. So every new fangled
movement or idea that people come up with today is not new. They're just
rehashing old heresies because it's the same demons that are influencing and impelling them.
So appreciate that. Yes, everybody look out for whoever this weird amish guy
is. Yeah, I mean, anybody familiar with the New Testament. In
the way the New Testament constantly cites and references the Old Testament. You have
to be either nefarious, malicious, or completely stupid to think that the Old
Testament is not in contact. I did a whole three hour talk on continuity
between the Old New Testament. Guys. I'm not trying to be mean to
people, but if the topic is not on today's list, of topics.
Okay, Protestanism, Evangelicalism, lackyber Israelites, Islam, Mormons, Arians,
that's today's topic. Oh I got a cramped them a leg Andrew, what's
up? Hello? What's up? Hey? I ran into this argument a
little while ago. It was this weird amalgamation of semi arianism and historianism.
They they were going on on a whole bunch of crazy different things. Like
first off, they got Arianism wrong, and they were saying arians heresy was
to say that Jesus was pre incarnate, so he existed preincarnation, So they
got that wrong. But they also said that he was a creature. And
then also Thestorianism saying that his divinity was off and then calling the whole and
then in the creed they called the Holy Spirit the word. It's just like,
what do you do with something with that many years? I mean it
kind of sounds like the status of like the Hebrew Israelite stuff. I mean,
you're talking to people who are really just out of control, no education,
no idea what they're talking about. A lot of these people are motivated
by these weird spirits. I mean, that's why it says discern and test
the spirits right, because people are motivated and impelled by bizarre, weird things.
I mean, like, I just finished reading Isaiah again, and I've
kind of been in the cycle where I read Isaiah and then I read Jeremiah,
I read Ezekiel, I read Isaiah, and then I keep doing this
because I noticed so many things the more I go through them. And I
mean, like the last third of Isaiah is just constantly predicting and talking about
the Trinity and the deity of Christ. I mean, it's just so obvious
in so many chapters that maybe try a different approach and say, hey,
crazy cult man, why don't you read the last third of Isaiah about three
times and see if you still come away with the idea that there's no trinity
or that the spirit is the word. I mean, that's just weird.
Yeah, oh thank you. Of course they're probably not going to do that,
but whatever, William. Now, you'll notice here the Trinity is present
right away in Isaiah sixty one, and we know that it's about the Messiah
because Jesus cites it in Luke. For the Spirit of the Lord is upon
me, because the Lord has annointed me to preach the good tidings to the
poor, and that's cited by Jesus himself and Luke for about himself the spirit
of the Lord, so holy Spirit, the Lord is upon me, the
Messiah. That's Jesus speaking. You see, that's triad. There. Go
ahead, Hi, Jay, I'm calling. I'm actually an Orthodox listener,
but I'm having some debates with Protestant friends, So feel free to skip if
the question doesn't pertain. Like he'd liked the cut, No, I mean
Protestant is a topic today? Sure, go ahead. Well, basically,
you know, I've been in the church, been going for about the last
six months, and you know, as a former Protestant myself, icons were
always kind of an issue for me, but I've sort of just taken it
as an issue of faith. No problems for me. But one of my
friends has been really really pressing me on this issue of you know, why
do we bow and kiss to these images, specifically in regards to how it's
made canon law and the Seventh Medical Council, And you know, he kind
of takes the Gavin Ortlund approach of well, you know, how can you
anathematize and do all these things to people that don't bow to the pictures,
and I was just wondering if you had any tools or any of Yeah,
so I wrote, I wrote an essay specifically on defensive icons from the Bible.
So you can read this essay and uh, you know, when we
look to the dedication of the Temple, all of Israel prostrated before the temple
in the arc. Okay, so the same principle like, well, why
would you not prostrate before the temple in the arc? Right? That makes
sense? Yeah, exactly. I mean imagine somebody is standing there and be
like, well, I'm not going to prostrate before the temple in the art
because that's idolatry. Right. The whole all of Israel would have been like,
no, you're being an idiot, Like, obviously you should prostrate before
the temple article right, the altar. Let me see where I can what
I always forget this passage. It's first King, No, not first King
six, let's see. Yeah. But well, also on top of that,
to to answer your questions about for us, the argumentation of John Damascus
is that the reverence passes to the prototype. So you have the type and
the prototype, so we're not incensing the wood. We're incensing who's imaged or
pictured in the wood, which is the hypostasis of the sun, et cetera.
Right, does that make sense? Speaking and I here he was.
I don't know if he's here still. I think you left. Okay,
a small, small etiquette question, just as a you know, like I
said, as a person get into the church. Yeah, well you could.
Yeah, you can try to d m him and see if or just
a tweet at him a question. I'm sure he would answer it. Let
me find I always forget this passage. It's like late in Chronicles, that's
where they're dedicating the temple. I thought, here, no, is this
it? No, that's Elijah's relics. I never remember this passage. Dress
me crazy, I thought I put it in there. Let's see prostrate before
arc and then Solomon is like praying and dedicating this is it? Yeah?
First Chronicles twenty nine David. I thought it was Solomon. Then David said
to all assembly, now blessed the Lord your God. So they assembled and
blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers. And they all bowed their
heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord and before the king. Okay, so
they're all prostrated. I think there's a separate event at the dedication of the
temple too. I'm pretty sure it's where the cloud comes down. It's a
different version or a different example of prostrating before the Lord and the King.
But there's a there's a specifically prostrating before the temple and the arc. Anyway,
I thought I had that in my article. Is it this one?
I think we'll look at this evangelical geo Citi's website. What is this?
Yikes, get me out of that. There is one of these? Is
what Solomon? Is he? I remember that passage? I apologize off the
top of my head, I can't remember. I may have it marked here.
Let me see in my book. Don't got it marked? Here we
go, Solomon's constructing the Temple? Is that the one I just read?
Anyway, anyway, you get the point. You can look it up later.
Jason Jr. What's up? Man? Glue? Yo? What's up?
I started following your work because you were on tinfoil hat and I'm attracted
to Christianity because of answers that the other that the world seems to not have.
Guys like Chuck Missler, who is a Protestant, and guys maybe like
la Marzouli. They cover things like the Genesis six, and I was curious
if you have any good resources of some really of more of the crazy Protestant
stuff. Is that acceptable in Orthodoxy? And because you kind of do the
esoteric Hollywood love that stuff, is there any I'm sorry? Is what acceptable?
Like the view of the Genesis six Nephelum and that ties into aliens and
what's going on right now with the alien phenomenon. Is that something that Orthodoxy
is also believe believed in? Or is there any Orthodox literature I could read
about that? I mean, you could read Orthodoxy in the Religion in the
Future by Father Sarah from Rose, but anothers no explicit statement about what Genesis
six is talking about. There are about four places in the Dutero canon where
it does talk about Titans and giants, and so I think the weight of
the argument swings over to the side of it actually being angels. But I
don't we don't believe in aliens. So Edric's by the way, I think
it's I might be thinking of One King's eight. That might be the section
I'm thinking of. Lei's see if that's it, you know, un mute
meant I think this is it. This is it. Somewhere in here it
says they prostrate before the the arc. Go ahead. What's up? I'm
mute. Well, interestingly, Solomon was prostrating at the altar. So there's
Solomon prostrating. But I think Israel does too in this passage. If I
remember correctly, you gonna, I am mute, marry there all right?
He dropped off dricks. Yeah, yes, so I'm one King's ay is
what I'm thinking about. That's it. But somewhere here, I think it
says Israel prostrates too. But regardless, Solemn is prostrating. So what's up?
Man? We can't hear you. If you guys, when you're calling,
when you want to chat, you gotta have your permissions. Turn out,
We can't hear anything, so pop out, pop back in. I
mean we already let's see Matt B. What's up, dude? Hey,
you hear me? Yeah? I heard an argument from a Messianic about how
paganized the Apostolic churches, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.
He claims. I love the New Testament canon took a lot of influence from
Platonism and took a lot of influence from the Pagreanism. So the New Testament
canon is corrupted. You said, the Apostolic Church is corrupted and paganized.
The New Testament canon takes from Plato. Yeah, after the Gospels, like
all the epistles and the quin unquote the church. Okay, well, I
mean that would just be out of hand, like heresy. So I mean
they're probably thinking that the terminology, but that didn't even even make any sense
because that would undercut all the wisdom texts like Proverbs. I mean it's Proverbs.
Uh, when it when the Septugent was translated, is that all pagan?
I mean, that's that's really dumb. I was just asking the question,
I understand understand that. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah?
I think I do. Yeah. I mean they'll claim anything it's pagan,
right. So what I'm saying is that if the Greek philosophical terminology is what
makes it pagan. If you read John one, John is not drawing on
christ logos directly necessarily from paganism. That's from the wisdom tradition of Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, syric Wisdom, et cetera. Furthermore, the New Testament itself and
its authors frequently cite due to econonical texts. In fact, Romans one and
two is directly from the Book of Wisdom, and I'm assuming that these messianics
would then say that the Book of Wisdom is also a pagan corruption, which
would be an undercutting of their whole position. Jesus didn't establish a bunch of
Torah scroll scholars, established a church, and if the promise was that the
spirit would never leave his church, the gates of Hell would not prevail against
it, then all of these sectarians and cults have to come up with this
dumb position that the Church fell apart in the first century, so the gates
of Hell prevailed against the church. Paul, Kay, what's up? Man?
Yo? Hello? Hey, yoh, what's up? Man? Sort
of start off and say, I appreciate your ministry, appreciate everything that you've
recorded, and it's been very influential for me. I'm an Orthodox catechumen.
With my brother, yeah, I started looking to Jewish roots of the Christian
faith and that really got me introduced into it. So my question for you,
it kind of began with Initially it was like the Augustinian view of in
Adam, right, All men are in Adams in an archetype, right,
right, So it's kind of so I would aim that now more towards the
milk kids, that that in priesthood. So I was reading Hebrew seven and
it says that Levi was in the loins of Abraham. So how does that
incorporation of the posterity function differently here than it doesn't Adam. It's just too
it's totally different ideas, right, So being in the loins of your father
does not mean that like you're guilty of his actions, because Ezekiel says that
the sons are not guilty for the actions of the father, and the father
not guilty of the actions of the son. So even in Ezekiel, we're
told that God doesn't hold their children liable for the actions of the parent.
So the question is, then, whose position can reconcile Romans five and what
Ezekiel says, because we've got to be able to reconcile these sects, And
the difference boils down to the question of the mode of willing. Augustinian theology
is not consistent in its distinguishing nature in person, in God or in Man.
So one of the ways that Augustine thinks that the human race is the
damned mass, that is, the mass of humans in Atom that are damned
is because he thinks that all of nature is condemned in Atom. But he's
not understanding that the mode of willing by which we are accountable is hypostatic.
Right, So we have a property of willing that's a natural will, but
we will in the mode of persons, So it's a hypostatic mode of willing.
That's the distinction that's necessary to understand why you're not guilty for another person's
action. You're not guilty until you commit the sin like Adam. That's why
I father Myandorf is correct to say that the translation of the passage in Romans
five should be all men's sin because of Adam, not all men's sin in
Adam, which one of Myndorf's boks say that it's it is theology. Because
I'm reading that right now, I'm not sure if it's actually in that.
It might actually be from an essay. I can put it underneath the chat
right here because but but my emphasis was more in the right. But what
I'm saying is that that has nothing to do with the notion of the mode
of willing. He's just saying that before he was ever born, his representative
or his person who was his lineage right when he was in the lowins,
not saying that he doesn't exist yet. So okay, So we believe in
the existence of the soul at the point of insemination, say Maximus talks about
this. We don't believe that you pre exist, you know, in some
seminal way in your your great great great great grandfather. It's just saying that
he existed in a sense of having a predecessor, a lineage, lineage.
Okay, it's not saying he's literally in the loins. He doesn't exist yet,
how could he be. We believe in immediate creation, right, okay,
So then sorry, second question build off that. Then what about with
Isaac, Jacob and Roman and the two different? Like Jacob is the problems
is given to him, Esau is rejected, and and then so like the
the incorporation of posterity, there is is it an argument? I don't say,
Well, it's certainly true that you can bring the consequences of your actions
on people or on your ancestors if I, you know, dilute this.
The county, the county well with fentanyl, and the whole city becomes addicts.
They experience the consequences of my sin, but that doesn't make them guilty
because it wasn't their fault. That's why Ezekiel. When you read Ezekiel eighteen,
it says, I'll read the passage here, it says, is it
nineteen? I think, yeah, eighteen nineteen? No, yeah, yeah,
it is. The son will not bear the guilt of the father,
because the son has done what is lawful and right, and he gives my
statue the soul whose sins will die. This is why we make the distinction
between actual sin and what's called original or ancestral sin, which means that Adam
is guilty, but the effects of the sin come upon all of his descendants.
But you're not a sinner until you commit actual sin. And both the
Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics already agree on this. The only people who
dispute this are people who are ignorant. Yeah, Protestant, I really don't
understand the dismissal of personal responsibility. That's right. That's because willing can only
be done by persons. Natures don't will persons with nature's will and that's why
guilt is something that's had by the individual, not by a collective nature.
There's no such thing as guilty nature. It doesn't even make any sense.
And when there's language that's used, it's used to describe the deprivation of grace,
not actual guilt. Rodney, what's up. It's just the same principle
when if a mom drinks when she's pregnant and the child is born with fetal
alcohol hahol syndrome, we don't blame the child as guilty of descin alcoholism.
That's the effects of the sin, not the guilt of the sin. Two
different things. So Adam is guilty for Adam's sin, and we are guilty
when we sin. Hence Myandor's point that if you just look up, I
think it's a website called the Light of Table or here. I'll pull it
up, and it's a bunch of quotes about Romans five and Augustine. I
don't actually know which book it's from. We can see if it's it's right
here, Father Mindorf on original Sin the tab orc Light. Actually, I
think this is like a UNI eight website, so I wouldn't recommend it.
But this is where the essay is if you just want the brief article making
this point. What's up? Man? Go ahead, Rodney hear hey,
all right. So I'm a Protestant, you know, uh, given kind
of working through some like different views on real presence, uh, symbolic views
on the de gris stuff like that. I've kind of going back and forth
between you know, symbolic real presence. I was just kind of looking to
like solidify uh my views on it as far as real presence goes, and
what in what sort of a model of real presence I should I should choose?
Well, the orthodox view is that the deified flesh of Christ post resurrection
is identical to what we are partaking of in the EU Christ. And this
is a Saint Cyril's argument at Ephesus. And I would say, you know,
if you're looking for a ways to understand this, almost all the Protestant
positions, can you can you mute? Man, it's really loud. Almost
all the Protestant positions basically put us in a position where we're reverting to the
Old Testament modality of the sacraments. So why would we establish a church and
Jesus set up this empowering through Pentecost, when essentially everything that's going on in
the rituals of the Church is identical to the rituals in the Old Testament.
The New Testament contrasts the power and presence of the rituals themselves to the Old
Testament realities. So baptism is contrasted to it's foreshadowing of circumcision. So I
think how silly it would be to say that, well, baptism is just
literally the same as circumcision. It's just now including women. Okay, No,
Baptism is said to be the thing that puts you in Christ in the
Book of Romans, right, Baptism is said to be what regenerates you in
Titus three to five. Baptism is what remits the sins in Acts two thirty
eight thirty nine. So Protestants then come to all these passages and say,
oh, but that's all divided from the actual historical event, because that's all
spiritual stuff is Jesus divided from his physical body. You see how Protestants have
a Nestorian view of the sacraments. And I see that. Yeah, I've
been, you know, on my little spiritual journey recently. But yeah,
I mean I I don't see the I just recently, actually, yeah,
I asked my pastor about some of the passages as far as real presence goes
in the Bible, and I feel like the responses are kind of lacking and
they're kind of uh ill informed the real presence. Yeah, yeah, so
real presence as far as because I asked him a question, I said,
can you make it an historical case? Uh, in a biblical case for
your position? Historical case was just kind of thrown out the window, and
biblic cases kind of lackluster. And you're asking your pastor if he can defend
the real presence. No, I asked him if he could make a biblicase
for symbolic Oh, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. I mean,
why are we getting cursed or something that's a symbol. How does a symbol
kill me? Paul warns you that if you partake unworthily, it can kill
you. Well, that to me suggests it's a real presence, right,
Dan, what's up? Yah, Sarah, what's up? I'm just kind
of catching up and I watched it, but at the start, you were
kind of talking about the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people. Uh
huh. I was wondered, I mean from reading the Church Fathers or some
of them anyway, like I know, some of the canons, it kind
of it kind of went the way obviously of Acts fifteen, where the whole
question is can gentiles join the church? Right? And then they decide they
can. They only have to keep the four you know, the fore laws
that they laid out there. Why I don't know if you have a resource
for this or just kind of like, you know, a strade of answer,
But why why did it seem that the gentile church eventually kind of cut
out? You know, if you want to be a part of the church.
It seems like even if you're Jewish, you have to stop doing your
Jewish things, like in the way that you used to. Like well,
because there was an appropriate time period and what's called the transition period. This
is from the time of like Jesus' ministry, death, rone resurrection to the
destruction of the Temple in seventy a D. And seventy a D plays a
really important role in the New Testament in finalizing the end of the Old Covenant
administration. So the temptations that or the pre missions that were had in the
Book of Acts when people were still praying in the temple. Uh, you
know, Jews and Christians were still at times worshiping and synagogues. And that's
the transition period. So we are this is prior to the period when rabbinic
Judaism gets more and more harsh against Christianity and the two things part ways over
the person of Christ. So it made sense after this period to solidify against
the temptations of judaizing, any forms of returning to Judaism. That's the Book
of Hebrews itself is an early version of the temptation towards Judaizing. Because the
things that are in the Judaic Administrator, that assiming the Mosaic administration, they're
fulfilled. So the fullness of Judaism is Orthodoxy as the point. Sure,
if you were a Jewish Orthodos Christian and you still had you know, I
mean, one question I've always had is for the things that you know you
see in Exodus where God says this is an everlasting covenant or like you will
do this forever right, like he says that for a few things over yeah,
and all of those things the Orthodox Church still does. But you would
just argue that they're done in a different or more fulfilling They're done in the
way that they were always intended to ultimately be done. How are we circumcised
by having our hearts circumcised? Well, I'm not talking about for sorry,
I'm not talking about for gentiles to do those things. But I would more
ask for Jewish people who are part of like orthodoxed Christianity. Let's say,
do the natural born Jewish people have a duty still to that covenant? They
would be the very people that you're talking about are the founders of the church
in the first ten chapters of Acts, So they're the ones that are the
model for this. So, Peter, Paul, those are the people that
you're talking about. So the jew would become like those people. Does that
make sense? Or no? Are you there? I lost you? You
dropped off. You want to pop back on? And we lost you?
You left? I don't know, Sorry, they broke up. Did you
hear what I said around? Yeah? So what I said was that the
question that you're answering or asking is already answered by the first ten chapters of
Acts where the apostles themselves who are all Jews? Right? That's Jews would
become like those people. And those people didn't set up a return to mosaic
administration. They set up what we have now true. So like for you
know, partly we have like we know that Paul was the apostle of the
Gentiles and Peter was the apostle of the Jews, and we have to Peter's
letters and we know that. So that all is during the period where you
would say that was the inter period. I mean, have you read so
are you familiar with what pretterism is or seventy eight? No? Okay,
So this is very important to the New Testament. In Luke twenty one,
in Matthew twenty four, there's the prediction of the destruction of the temple.
This occurs in seventy a d. The destruction of the temple means that the
Old Covenant administration is done right complete, Okay, So there's no there would
be no way or meaning or signal against two going back to things that have
already been fulfilled. And that's so anything that Jewish people would have kept would
have been more a cultural don't know, you're you're missing it, Like you
should watch the documentary that we made about Orthodox worship, because all of the
elements that you're asking about passed into the church. The church is vibrantly Hebrew
if you understand what our our ethos is and what our origins are. So
for example, I fully agree that it's like, so my I came from
a Protestant background, my wife is from a Jewish background today and we're both
whatsodous Christians out. I've always just had the question, especially when I was
a Protestant, of just how does you know I mean, and that's what
happened with like getting into the early Church and like where did those Jewish people
go? And like I and I, you know, obviously we settled at
the Orthodox. You know, we are now Orthodox. So yeah, I've
appointed Yeah, I think, I mean, I understand the question, like
it's it's a fair question because like like I was saying earlier, I think
somebody was saying, under the Jerusalem Patriarch it there's actually the liturgy is actually
done in Hebrew, which to me that makes sense. I don't know that
it's in every church, but I'm saying there's at least one church where somebody
sent me a clip of the liturgy being done in Hebrew. So to me
that makes sense. So like the Ethos. If you see here, look
at watching this documentary. Have you watched the documentary Jewish Roots of Ancient Worship?
Christian worship? Which documentary was that? The documentary that Lewis made my
buddy over at orthodox YadA, I'm not sure that Christian worship in the Old
Testaments. This This would probably answer a lot of your questions. I was
talking with I was talking to a jewishjud in Miami and I was like,
He's like, AHw was that Passover? And I was like, oh,
so was I. And he was like, how are you got Passover?
I was like, that's what pasca is. He was like what, Yeah,
So watch this documentary, Henry, what's up? You gotta unmute Henry,
Henry are you there? You guys gotta turn your mike permissions on,
so I can't hear anything. Grim, what's up? Grim? You got
im mute? Man, Graham, I'm mute. Yeah, Yeah, what's
up? Hey? Uh? Yeah? This is a question about authority Muslims.
So you know, I saw your debate with Jake a long time ago.
But one thing that I've encountered with a lot of authorities that they really
love to say that they affirm you know energy essence distinction, uh in their
doctrine. Well, and to be clear, it's not essence in er distinction.
It's a distinction between Allah and his attributes. Yeah. Yeah, so
I think and you know the argument that I would usually use, and I
just want you to, like kind of you know, help me understand better
how to make this argument against that claim. And I know that the you
know, tan Zy, the doctrine about Allah nothing like creation completely transcend it
would that include any distinction in all law as well? Well, again,
it really depends on which type of Muslim, So the argument's only going to
work depending upon which school you're talking about authority specifically. I don't remember if
what's their position. Remind me it's the it's it's what we just said that
they make a distinction between the energies are sorry, the attributes of a law
in their right? So you could ask them, uh, do the do
the attributes possess a sayity? Because this is if you watch the doctor Bud
Branson debate with Jake did the whole debate becomes that sayety a sayity? I
say self existent. So, in other words, if what it is to
be divine is to have self existence to be a say a sayety, then
do the attributes considered in the selves possess a sayity And Jake says no,
okay, Well, then you now have this position that then the attributes are
not really fully divine because they're lacking they're lacking a sayity. I get it.
Yeah. And about tan Z specifically, when you say, if that
would apply to you every single attribute to a law ten zy nothing like creation.
If it isn't applied to every attribute, then that means you're kind of
making a separation between a law being completely ten z nothing like creation in another
part of all law, or attribute not being ten z or the essence.
Yeah, I just think that the the way I usually flesh out that argument
is to just say that, yeah, but how is that telling us anything
about him? Because you're I mean, maybe that's what the point you're making.
Like, if Allah is nothing like creation, then it seems to follow
that all those attributes are also nothing like creation. Right, Yeah, yeah,
exactly exactly, And since you can know the attributes, therefore he is
something like creation. Yeah exactly. All right, that's all I happened,
thank you. Yeah, I've never heard them give a coherent sufficient answer to
that very question. But yeah, you're right, and I should. I
would say definitely watch doctor bo versus Jake, because their whole debate is about
the question you asked the first question, Daniel, what's up? So I've
been going through a lot of the old some of the old stuff on your
channel, and I was watching your debate with Eric you Barrow, and you
said that to prove Catholicism true, that you want a coherent presentation of the
doctrine the Vatican One from the beginning until now, right, correct? And
so what would So my question is what would I don't know, what would
your if you could say, what is the coherent presentation for orthodoxy in the
first millennium until now? Like, what would okay, what would prove orthodoxy
for you? I mean, obviously you believe it, but like, what
would be the one? I don't know. I don't want to say,
well, it's not the topic, but I'll go ahead and answer your question.
So one of the easiest ways that I would try to argue this is
from the canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils. And if the Canons of the
Seven Councils are enacted, with the mindset and the attitude that the Bishop of
Rome is not what Vatican one claims him to be. Then, in all
of these centuries and all these seven councils, because they all contain canons that
conflict with the Vatican One idea, then the mindset of the church in the
first thousand years is not the Vatican One mindset. Furthermore, the T eighty
document and the Alexandria Document admit that the Bishop of Rome not exercise canonical jurisdiction
over the churches of the East in the first millennium. Okay, uh,
yeah, my bad. I didn't realize that it wasn't a Catholic And then
is what's it good? Like? Is there like an online place where you
can read the canons of the well, we have all the ones collected and
listed right here in this essay that conflict with Vatican One. Okay, you
put that in the chat. Yeah, it's called ecumenical canons refute papal supremacy.
So it's right here, okay, bet, thank you. Yeah,
absolutely. And then separately, I would say, read the CH eighty document
and the Alexandria Document, which our Roman Catholic approved council work Commission on the
Eastern Church or whatever it's called. Johnny, what's up? By the way,
did everybody see that? As soon as Francis made his statement, it
was twenty four hours before he was walking back and apologizing. As soon as
I put up my tweet, I couldn't even make a joke, and Francis
was already apologizing to skittles, what's up, Johnny? We got we got
Keanu in the chat. What's up, Keanu? Johnny? You thaw?
What's up? Man? All right, Johnny's having a hard time connecting,
so we'll go to narrative. What's up narrative? What's up? Narrative?
Well, guys, if you would hit, like and share, also be
sure to support us via chalk dot com. Head on chalk dot com.
You see the link right here that seven Wonders use the promo code J forty
four life. That's j A y four four l A f E to get
forty four percent off all these great products, including the Performance Stack, which
is a personal favorite of mine, particularly the Tonkatalie proven to boost testosterone in
peer reviewed studies. You don't pay one seventy four, you pay forty four
percent off of that what's up? Narrative? Respect man, respect, So
I'm coming kind of lead to the conversation, what's what are you debating about
is Nam? What do you? What are you? Well, it's kind
of open for them, so we can debate whatever topics anybody wants about Islam.
I mean, I'm a Musta, so I'm coming from the mister perspective.
So I came home when somebody was talking about the attributes of a law
right, So what is the argument for that? I didn't really hit Well,
we were talking about different schools, different akidas, and different positions,
and I was just saying that you kind of if you're opposed to those positions.
I'm an Orthodox Christian, so obviously I oppose those positions. You have
to tailor the argument depending upon which school you're talking to. So, but
my challenge to you would be, how is Islam true if it contradicts the
revelation that came prior when the Koran says that you can go to the prior
revelation to vindicate it. So give you an example. Where's the contradiction.
Well, I mean the Old Testament and the New Testament teach the Trinity and
the deedy of Christ. And the Koran doesn't give me an example. I
mean, give me a verse out of the Old Testament teaches the Trinity.
The trio Isaiah sixty one, the spirit of the Lord is upon me because
he's annoying me to preach good tidings to the poor. Jesus is talking about
the Holy Spirit being upon him. He's talking about God the Father sending him,
and that is a prediction that Jesus says is about him. And Luke
four. No, No, let's let's be realistic. That's an interpretation you
just gave. That's not literally everybody has an interpretation. But so what so
well? That hasn't so well? It's calling it an interpretation has nothing to
do with whether it's true or false. I mean, your interpretation could be
wrong, brother, you know what I'm saying, Like anybody's could be Oh
okay, so so nobody so we're relatives. Nobody knows whose interpretations are correct.
I mean, if obviously, if you just I mean, I didn't
hear nothing about the Triny. I heard the Holy Spirit is an how many
people? How many people did you how many people were mentioned there? It
was? It was no people, It's the Holy spirit. Are you considering
the spirit of Okay, well, how many? How many are mentioned here?
The spirit of the Lord is upon me? How many is that?
Okay? The Spirit of the Lord is upon me? So it's two.
Is talking about a spirit and a person? Uh, the spirit of God
is upon you don't even know? Do you even know what this passage is?
Do you know what the passage is a reference to? Obviously you know
better than me, brother, So to explain what is it? A reference
to? Jesus cites it in Luke four, as I said, as a
thing prophesying him. So it's about Jesus, and Jesus is saying God's spirit
is upon me. That's God, the Father has sent his spoly spirit to
be upon me. That's three. That's a Messianic prophecy. It's one of
dozens. Like like I said, that's it. That's it. So do
Jews interpret it the same way that the people who the Troy was sent to.
That's a fallacy. That's a fallacy. It doesn't it doesn't matter.
Do Jews accept the Quran? So you just use a fallacy Jews Jews,
except they don't accept the Quran. You said, Jews don't accept that,
so what that's a fallacy trinity? So okay, exactly, so your argument
is irrelevant, I mean, your argument, no idea what you're talking about?
And then totally what's up? No, the person calling in doesn't have
a point. I'm happy to walk through all of the dozens of passages in
the Old Testament. They're they proved the trinity. What's up? Man?
And then totally good, what's up? So I'm meaning orthodox here. What
I'm wondering is is this like an open thing for a discussion right now or
no? Well, I mean the topics are listed. Is it the topic?
I'm not being mean, I'm just saying, like, specific topics are
listed, Oh what are Okay, I have a different question. So in
terms of valid sacraments and the path of salvation, what do you what is
Easter without's perspective on like God knowing the hearts of men like that. That's
not the topic. Man, not trying to be mean, but that's not
the topic. Johnny, you tah, what's up? Guys? The topics
are listed. I said multiple times that we've got to stick to the topics,
and and if you want to hold three hour breakdown of the Trinity,
in the Old Testament. There you go. So and saying that it's an
interpretation is irrelevant. Everybody has an interpretation question is is it true or false?
Johnny, what's up? Can you hear me? Yep? Yeah,
So first off, I just wanted to say about the Exodus three six,
three five that the Jews will worship, well, that were bound down to
imagery, so on the curtains of the tabernacle. So that's that's that's what's
say it again? So the passage is Exodus thirty six, Uh huh,
And I would just find it. Do they prostrate there and on the tabernacle?
Is that ever you're saying? Yes, So it's that on the tabernacle
it had chair of pictures. Yeah, exactly right. Well, and the
the the arc has you know, angels on top, so exactly. Yeah.
You read the whole passage, is you know? Right? So anyone
that's saying anything about icons that they've got, they've got nothing to stand on
there as clear as day. Exactly, great point. Yeah, remember that,
the as he's pointing out, the imagery of the curtains is iconographic.
Exactly. Gamer, what's up, man? Yeah, I'm mute. Gamer.
You want to I'm mute. What's up? What? Oh? We
got a funny man? He was being so funny? Is that everybody,
there's no more questions, so it's open for him. If anybody wants to
talk about Protestantism, black Keeper, Israelite theology, it's so called arianism as
in Joe's Witnesses type stuff, Unitarians, Muslims, et cetera. But you
got to make arguments, okay. Saying that Jews don't accept that is not
an argument, has nothing to do Jews don't accept the Quran, so what
it's not an argument. And if somebody's interested, we can walk through the
dozens and dozens of passages that prove the trinity. But I don't think anybody's
actually interested in that. So plus, we've already done an old talk on
that right there. Nobody else, no questions, no more heretechs, no
more lunatics. Everything's okay. Here, We've got Lenny. What's up,
Lenny? Lenny Svenson, mhm, what's up, Lenny? You gotta unmute
Lenny. Sorry, So I have questioned regardding take. It's not the topic.
I specified multiple times that the topics are listed. Gamer or did you
want to say something. You're just trying to be funny. What what's up?
M hm, Yeah, that's really funny. Let's see Nate, what's
up? Nate? Kah m hm, Nate, what's up? I'm you
man? You gotta immune Nate? Yeah, okay, got it, I've
retarded. Can you hear me? Yeah? Okay. I had a couple
of I'm an Orthodox inquiry r have a bunch of Protestants from They give me
arguments, and I wanted to run a couple by you and see what you
think if that's okay, if you're mine with me, kind of arguments about
what uh it could be anything from the title to togos, to iconography,
sol scripture or silopi they if you want to talk about any of those in
particular. See, your question is about what people are Protestants are saying.
That's what? Yeah, what Protestant should argue against the Orthodox positions on those
those subjects. Okay. Let's so, let's just start with the taya hokos
argument that I heard that I thought it was bad, but it sort of
was a unique one that I don't exactly know how to address. And so
obviously the argument for the title of you cut out MANWI can her you?
Queen, queen of the something? What's up? By the way, Isaiah
forty nine, if you read that famous Messianic passage A Light to the Gentiles
the whole chapter, Oh, the nations worship him. He is. He
is God's salvation for the end of the earth, and the rulers of the
earth worship him. What's up, queen? Hey, j hey, I
just wanted to thank you so much for bringing so many people to the body
of Christ. I just really am so grateful for you. Thanks. I
appreciate you. Uh huh, thank you. What's up? Is that it?
Now? You're just doing such a great job. All right, Well,
thank you for that. I appreciate that. Anybody else anymore Muslims,
Arians, any more, Sectarians, cults, Mormons, Shob's Witnesses, Unitarians.
By the way, another messianic prophecy. Come near and hear me.
I've not spoken in secret. The Lord God and his Spirit have sent me
messianic prophecy. Once again. We can keep going on and on about the
triad and the Messianic prophecies. Good Isaiah forty four. We've got beacon.
We'll go to beacon here. In a second, we do a little bit
of a little tour, a little tour here. Now Israel, Jacob my
servant, Israel chosen, Jacob, my servant, who have chosen? I
will pour out my spirit on your descendants. Okay, that's what happens in
Acts two Pentecost, Thus says the King of Israel and his Redeemer. I
am the first and the last. Besides me, there is no God.
Thus says who Yahweh and his Redeemer. That's the triad. What what do
you mean? Verse three, Holy Spirit? Verse six, Yahweh and his
Redeemer. When you're aware of this, literally the Trinity is everywhere in the
Book of Isaiah, and you're like, how do I know that that's the
way to hit tarbord it? Because the New Testament multiple times cites these passages
over on river. The New Testament actually helps you in term these pasts where
Jesus and Luke for sights those passages and says, this is about me.
Does your in interpretation? And the Muslims and the Jews don't accept that?
Yes, so what it's a terrible argument, Beacon. I'm mute, hey,
j I'm a long while listener. I had a question for you as
an inquirer. One of the Protestant arguments about epistemology is that, and I've
heard our z make this a couple of times, although he's not exactly a
scholastic, is that So the Protestants just presupposed that the Bible is true basically,
and so if you believe the Bible is God's word, then, like
with the Orthodox tradition, they based it on, well, why is our
church the one true church because Jesus established it? How do you know that
Jesus Jesus established it because the Bible says so? And why do we trust
the Bible because the Church compiled it? And so they say that's circular.
So, vin I don't have a problem with circular argumentation at a fundamental paradigm
level, because we argue that everybody's argumentation will fundamentally be circular. But I'm
familiar with what you're saying. I've seen Lutherans are using this argument now that
they think that it's some gotcha that we're engaging in circular argmentation. Yeah.
The question, though, is not is everybody's argument circular? But does your
paradigm make sense of the circularity That's why it's a bigger question of the paradigm
as a whole. And the Protestant paradigm is inconsistent because on the one hand,
it relies on the tradition of the Church and the Church fathers, but
then on the other it tries to sever the historical Church from any authority or
from divine revelation itself. Right, So whereas Paul says the Church is the
pillar and ground of truth and that there is oral tradition, Protestants have to
sever these things to try to divorce the book and make the book kind of
this self evident thing. Okay, And so does that have to do with
your I think you said a coherentist view of truth, where you think that
your paradigm has a better explanation, right. So, coherentism is a secular
epistemology that just basically makes all beliefs self evident or foundational. So the only
difference between a foundationalist and a coherentist is that a coherentist makes all the beliefs
foundational. So all we're saying is that there's no self evident position that's going
to resolve this. Everybody's going to have to have at a fundamental level,
something that is self referencing. And so we would actually agree with a Protestant
that at the most basic level, well, God says I am that I
am right. God's self references himself, and Paul says that, for example,
when he swore by himself, he swore by the Greatest because he could
swear by no other higher authority. Right, so Paul makes reference to this,
Who else could God swear by or appeal to other than himself, because
he is the highest authority. So we would agree that God is the ultimate
highest authority. But where we're differing is the question number one. The Protestant
has no consistent justification for why he accepts the canon that he accepts. And
secondly, the Protestant has no justification for claiming that divine revelation is restricted to
written texts. In fact, the written texts themselves don't restrict it to written
texts, so they're contradicting their own authorities. And then beyond that, I
would just say that the whole thing is just a giant failed a historical project.
Okay, And then so if I can reference and based on that point
something you said with father Deacon in and I used the other day, you
guys were talking about some paradox, and it might have been mentioned by Lewis
Carroll, but it was the part where somebody was calling him a word salad,
which was totally silly that he was saying that. But you know,
I think the paradox was something along the lines of you can have knowledge,
but it needs to have justification. But the system you use to justify knowledge,
I'm going to put you on the type of knowledge needs justifying, and
so one doesn't justify two, and two doesn't justify one or something. Well,
Lewis Carroll's Tortoise and Achilles is the point that if you affirm any proposition
like P therefore Q, you're also by necessity, affirming another proposition about the
proposition P therefore Q. And then you're affirming a proposition about the proposition about
P therefore Q. This then entails the affirmation of an infinite set oppositions,
which Lewis Carroll is saying was impossible. So it's a kind of a version
of Zeno's paradox applied to logic. That's the point that the Lewis Carroll dialogue
is making. And Father Deacon and I were just kind of speculating and discussing
the fact that it's not really a problem for logic or anything. It's just
kind of pointing out that there's no self evident, fixed set or easy set
of things. You're kind of always assuming a bunch of other things. That
was the relevance to to tag father Deacon is here. If he wants to
comment on more on what he what he meant by his argumentation, I don't
know if you want to speak to that, Father Deacon, if you're able,
you can. But does that make sense? Uh? Yeah, I
think I might have been thinking of a different paradox, but that's okay.
I'll just go back and investigate it later. Was what was the paradox you're
thinking of? Well, it was, I mean I didn't articulate quite well
because I don't fully remember it. But it had to do something with and
it might have started with a C where if you believe one, then it
doesn't then you need to go to to to justify, and to go to
to to justify, you need to go back to one. Oh you're talking
about you're talking about David Chisholm's criterion problem. Yeah, Roberts problem. Okay,
Yes, So I was going to ask, how does the Orthodox epistemology
that you subscribe to solve that paradox. So the reason, the reason why
it's actually a problem is because autonomous man is trying to ground that in his
own unjustified ideas. So this just kind of gets at a meta level that
well, look, once you kind of acknowledge that you're having to provide this
justif case both number one, like what is the extent of our justicable like
what's the knowledge included? And then what's the criteria autonomous man can't we don't
ground our epistemology and made up epistemologies and metaphysics and then kind of commit an
epistemic bootstrapping. So the reason why Orthodoxy gets out of that problem it's not
a paradox is because God's not in that position, and it's justified through the
only thing that could ever qualify as a justification. So God's not restricted to
this dialectical tension where he has to reduce right that he's limited to one and
cancel the one with us. He is a justification. Do you see why
that's not a problem for Orthodoxy but it is for autonomous man. Yeah,
if you don't have God as this sort of placeholder within the worldview. And
I'm not restricting God to placeholder. I'm just saying that in the example,
you know, God is the ultimate justify er, the ultimate self referencing authority.
But here as you can see as father. As Deacon noted, and
by the way, I said, David, he corrected me, it's roderick
if I claim to know right First, First of all, the question is
what is the extent of our knowledge? And what do we know? And
then I say, well, what's the criterion by which we have a theory
of knowledge? If I can't either way, I go for to have the
first proposition, I need the second one. I need to have the criteria.
But if I claim to know the criteria, then I'm claiming to have
knowledge, which was the first question. So it's kind of a dilemma.
And there's other ways to catch this out to other elements of this. But
does that make sense how everybody would be kind of forced to this to this
problem. It's a problem that really nobody can escape. And the point is
that if you begin with human autonomous reasoning, it's an insoluble problem. But
if you're a lever and divine revelation. It's not a problem for that type
of a system, and it's not a paradox in so far as saying therefore
people can't know. The issues that I bring up is like Russ Manning says,
autonomous man has no justification for the justification criteria. And then when you
make these second order statements that but I do know knowledge exists or this counts
as knowledge, you end up that's where the paradox is. So you might
have knowledge, but you can never actually make those statements without bootstrapping and be
like, well, if everything I made up is true, or if this
actually is knowledge, I do have knowledge, then obviously my statements about them
being knowledge is knowledge. See that's a problem. Obviously God's not that in
that problem. All right, not trying to be rude. We're going to
move on though, because today's topic wasn't tag topics are Protestantism, Black Heber,
Israelites, Muslims, Arians, Nate. Did you want to talk again?
Mormons? We have nobody ever comes to argue or defend Mormonism. All
right, Hello, Yeah, what's up? Okay, I think my phone
is best enough. Last point. Yeah, the point I was trying to
get to was this friend of mine who is like looking at Anglicanism or some
type thing. He was saying that the title say of Tokos shouldn't be used
in favor of Krystal Tokos, and his reasoning was it's not like an historian
reasoning, but he was saying that because the word God or the esks of
God is split between three persons, and essence is not split's totally yeah,
yeah, yeah, not split, but it's sharing among free people. There's
three hypostatus that therefore sixty six percent of the time you're actually referring to somebody
who was not born by Mary when you reference God. No, this is
just a this is misunderstanding of monarchical trinitarianism. So they need to go.
You need to go, and they need to go. Watch all the talks
from doctor Bo Branson explaining monarchical trinitarianism. That the word God is not primarily
ever picking out the divine essence. Sometimes it can be, but the word
God picks out first of all the person of the Father. There's one God
because we have one Father. As Paul and James say, God can also
pick out the hypostasis of the Sun and the hypostasis of the spirit. It
can also pick out a divine energy. In fact, the Cappadocian and argument
of the Palmit Synods is that the word God actually is also picking out an
energy. Theos is an energy. It's not a name for the essence,
because the Roman Catholic opponents of the Polemite cynas are saying that God is a
name of the divine essence, so they countered it by saying, no,
it's actually a name that refers to a divine energy, because that's how God
is revealed to us as Lord or as Theos. So all the terms,
all these predicates can be used in different ways to pick out different things.
And sometimes we can say that there's one God because there's one divine essence or
nature. That's also said i think by John Damascus and Palamas as well.
But typically it's not picking out or identifying, or it's not an isomorphic,
reductible, reductionist definition the word God. And this is actually the argument Muslims
make right. Muslims argue that God is just a reference to Allah and his
unity. And then as soon as you start talking about Allah's distinction from his
attributes and are the attributes of assay, do they possess a siety? Their
whole position collapses. So you know, today's topics. Again, I'm not
trying to be rude, but like it has to be on the topics Protestantism,
Arianism, Muslims, Hebrew Israelites, Hebrew Roots, Unitarianism, Job's witnesses,
let's see Renzo. If it's not on the topic, we're gonna move
on. Sorry. Black Hebers are like Bhi. So I want to ask
you a question of how to refute this Muslim argument that you know, three
distinct persons is polytheism because you know, I'm not knowledgeable metaphysics like philosophy,
So how could I refute this exactly? Yeah, So go watch doctor Bo
Branson's lectures on monarchical trinitarianism. They're at his website. And also because that's
key to refuting a lot of the arguments that Muslims will make from the scriptures
the Father is greater than I, et cetera. But you're gonna have to
learn some metaphysics if you want to refute Islam, because you're gonna need to
be able to say, like doctor Bo Branson does in the Jake debate.
Well, if divinity is characterized essentially by a saiity. Then the attributes in
themselves don't possess a saiety. Then the attributes aren't fully divine. And then
when he asked them that, Jake crumbles, Adrian says, for three dollars,
Jay, I ordered your read book last week. I'm anticipating its arrival.
Okay, so usually orders take one to two weeks. Does it contain
arguments against oneness pentecostal? I don't think I actually address modalism really. I
mean, all the arguments against absolute divine simplicity would, by extension, refute
modalism. Have you read Way of a Pilgrim? I have. I read
it many years ago in two thousand and seven. Have you read Pilgrim Continues?
I have not. What do you think about it? I remember liking
it back at the time. I don't honestly remember much about it, since
it was so long ago that I read it. Fart Huffy, ten dollars.
Alex the Atheist had some old gnostic witch on show, and it shows
how they want anything but Christ. Are you talking about Alex O'Connor. Yeah,
I mean they'll have anybody like people every day, somebody says, why
don't you debate Alex O'Connor man. We've reached out and asked and tweeted at
these people, I don't know how many times, for how many years.
So just look all the people that you ask me to debate, We've already
debated or I've reached out to ask them. So it's just I'm not mad.
I'm just it's kind of annoying when you going to debate destiny, when
you going to debate so and so, uh, anybody else. I'm kind
of winding down. We're getting to the end of the evening. We had
a few interesting uh people pop on. We didn't really get any Mormons,
we didn't really get any Arians, whorse witnesses. We had one Muslim guy
who made two terrible fallacies in a row, so that didn't go anywhere.
We had a fake Thomas pretending to be a real Macaltholic who wasn't That was
weird. Nobody else, nobody, All right, guys out here on the
YouTube, thank you. We had a great time tonight. I think we
got right out around one thousand, so it's nice to still be pulling a
thousand. We've got about nine hundred and fifty one thousand. Well will you
debate, i'llah, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm
tom Bob, tom Bob, Tom Bob. I want to show off something
that we're all proud of. I got a browser here. This is Jay
Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he
just got this page up. We are just testing it out. You guys
are some of the first people in the world to see it. I want
to say, for my part, it's not philosophy want to one. I
think this is as mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed because
a philosophy want on one course, they give you kind of some useless information
that you can't make sense of. Jay actually lays out over twelve weeks,
dozens and dozens of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone
the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it takes to have a coherent
evolution and history of the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the
different ways to look at it over time, and how that has been brought
about to what we have today, which is almost an absence of philosophy on
the objective, logic and reason side in an overabundance of woke philosophy that is
irrational, is made up day by day as people are like I think we
should bring racism back, and then here's a justification, and then it gets
wokeified and spread out, and then all of a sudden you have a bunch
of communist socialist ideas where you become the property in action. You need to
be able to stand on your own ground. It helps to have a foundation
in philosophy because it's a method define truth when you get down to it.
Philosophy is there because you love truth enough to go and learn how to find
it, because it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that,
there is the landing. We'll link it up into notes. It is a
longer once, so we'll get a shorter URL for this. I'm sure Jay
has a link on his page. I just wanted to show it off.
Now you know what exists, you can go look for it and see why
this is not your father's philosophy. Right, So well done. I'm proud
of everyone who helped to produce and edit the course, and of course Jay
did a flawless job in presenting the course over those twelve weeks, and he's
a jugger nut. He's another guy just like John Bush, in action all
the time, doing something productive, like very little wasted time in his week,
those one hundred and sixty eight hours of being harnessed very well. I
want to show off something that we're all proud of. I got a browser
here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after philosophy one
oh one. Now he just got this page up. We are just testing
it out. You guys are some of the first people in the world to
see you. I'm going to put you on something crazy real quick. Most
of these Zoomer Jim bros Are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on
the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great
about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma
male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified
Sigma male pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you
to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or
invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial
flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural
flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula.
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode. Colored with organic blue spirolina extract,
organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in
a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract
which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad
Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout
of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre
workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose. Each dose
of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee,
delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and
herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone
who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant in your daily life,
so proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops
of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious,
energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet, organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will
give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your
supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a limited time massive discount Elevate