She stands and spend the spa, the snow, some things, very lives
and love. SPA. Welcome chad Nerds and dorks. I'm sitting in a
depressing empty room, but that's okay because we're gonna fill it with love.
And it's also I'm gonna eventually have cool stuff all over that would be cool
crap everywhere, Dude, I promise, I'll promise you that you could believe
at So we're gonna open it up. It's gonna be open for him a
lot of fun when we do this. This is so weird and I'm not
used to this new setting where I don't have my books and all that.
But we got one little bookshelf over there, just kind of chilling and just
being a little lonely over there. And hopefully it's not too echoe. Maybe
when I get more books and stuff in here, it's not gonna be I'm
not gonna be echoe. I don't know. I don't know what y'all think.
What's going on? What? What what to do? Would it?
What to do? But we moved, so we got a different situation,
you know what I'm saying. We had a different situation, so we we're
gonna return to regularly scheduled broadcasting. Now everything's back to normal for the most
part. I got a it's gonna be like a Neon flamenco behind me.
That's gonna be cool. But I ordered that and it won't be here for
like two weeks whatever, so you don't have to put up with Baron.
We're gonna pretend that we're Reformed Puritan Protestants with this barren walls, white washed
walls, so we're Presbyterian Presbyterians. The next couple of weeks, I'm gonna
infiltrate the Calvinists, pretend to be a Calvinist, just kidding. Won't be
doing that. People say, well, why don't you put icons behind you?
I don't. I've never felt like it's appropriate. I don't care if
somebody has icons behind him, that's that's their decision. It's just not my
vibe and ethos to be like, oh, because we do a lot of
stuff, you know what I mean. It's like, if my channel was
devoted to Orthodox stuff or something, maybe it would make sense to have an
explicitly religious setting. But as you guys know, I am not you're a
guru. I'm not a spiritual leader and our spiritual father. I'm a person
who engages in philosophical, apologetical argumentation, and that has its limits. It
only goes so far. It's necessary, it's useful, but it is not
a replacement for church, or there's no such thing as E church that exist.
If you only have people online that are your friends or whatever, well
then that's the best you can do. But ironically, some of the people
in the circles of Orthodoxy who criticize what we do so that we promote an
online e church, that's ironic because all those same people are the ones that
locked the churches down and promoted online e churches, which I never supported ever.
So most of what you hear about me is false, believe it or
not. And that's because there's a lot of geopolitical pressure that's put on a
lot of the sectors of Orthodoxy for different reasons. That's not today's topic,
although it does relate to it. Father John Whiteford will be coming back on
the broadcast very soon and he's going to give us an update on a lot
of the geopolitical maschinations and intrigues and what's going on over in the Ukrana.
The Okra. As we in the South, we said, what's that country?
Okra? Okrah Winfrey, no Okrane, the Okrane. He's gonna be
telling us about that. And as you guys know, we had a few
couple good open forms this last week thanks to Rachel and Father Deacon doctor Annias
and the stirring up the hornet's nest of the Protestant world on Twitter. And
as you guys know, I have also stepped into the fray the madness.
Did you know there's an even lower tier beyond what you've all experienced and what
we've all experienced on Twitter, Discord and YouTube. These are now elite spheres
because I have dipped my foot into the tepid, stank cesspool waters of TikTok
Lives Dreamy. Believe it or not, it's there's an even there's a whole
other universe. It's even worse. But it turns out in that universe there's
a whole heap of people who need to hear about Orthodoxy and we are underrepresented
guys over on TikTok. Yes, I know about that. It's a Chinese
surveillance app. You don't have to tell me all that. I've been a
conspiracy tenfold hat Man since nineteen ninety nine, I think ninety eight ninety nine
anyway. But even though it's low tier, there's a lot of people over
there. So look, we're getting kind of like ousted numbers wise by the
Muslims and the Evangelicals and the Calvinists and the atheists and everybody over there is
just balls to the wall crazy, right, They're they're nuts over there.
They're a bunch of kuks and goobers. But I feel like we gotta be
over there, so I'm gonna start doing a little more. What's here's the
thing. People like, what do you mean? TikTok's for sure? No,
you can live stream on TikTok. That's the thing. So I did
a three hour live stream over there, and man, I'm telling you it's
it's rough, dude, But I mean it's kind of gotten to where,
you know, as you guys know over here the Twitter audience shout out there.
But on Twitter, we're gonna go to the open form here in a
second. You know, for a while there over here on Twitter, we
hardly got anybody, right, Nobody was coming over here because basically, basically,
you know, we basically there was no, there's nobody else to debate.
I mean, let's just be honest. I mean, who else are
we gonna So it just got into basically crazy land, and we could only
have an occasional wine moms spitting bars, you know, spitting spitting Phronsie out
of her mouth through her Virginia slams Virginia Slam poetry. Boom. That's now,
why didn't I think of that damn joke a long time ago. She's
throwing out some Virginia Slam poetry. Remember that anyway, So basically we had
exhausted the tank of twitters apologists, so to speak. But it seems like
now what's happened is there's a lot of crazy things going on over on Twitter.
And I've gained about thirty twenty thousand followers in the last six to eight
months. So Twitter is blown up for me, which is good. I
mean, it's head of air friers o what it sounds like. So I
think now with Rachel and these other people's stern of the hornet's nest, we're
probably gonna get some more ferile people and they're welcome to come over here and
be fair. We don't we don't shy away from that. We're used to
it over here. We're not afraid. We don't get scared of the the
rabies apologists basically, but look if it were, if it runs out,
guess what I'll do some dang twitter, I mean, some TikTok open forums,
you know what I mean. So people always said, when you're gonna
debate Destiny, Dude, Look we offered Destiny debates like four times over four
years. Destiny always said, I will not debate theology. I only care
about politics. I don't care about politics, So I'm not gonna waste my
time debating Destiny on Trump or some bullshit, you know what I mean.
Like, I don't care about that. I don't care about debating Destiny on
that. That's what I'm saying. So if you do want to support the
show tonight, we're gonna open it up here in a second. My nose
attention, because we got we've still got some allergies over here where I moved
to. Unfortunately, you can't get totally away from it. It is not
cocaine, even though I did move down south of the equator. Basically,
not really, But to me, it feels like if you're if you're in
Tennessee and you moved down to the Florida. It's like it's like you're in
equadoor or something that we've done here with Tristan in a mud hut. We
got that battery, we got that nine bold battery power modem. Speaking of
Destiny debates, remember that Nightmare debate when he debated with Tristan. I mean,
I try to tell Tristan, Look, this dude doesn't I don't think
he debates in good faith. Maybe he does more so nowadays. I don't
know. I don't keep up with destiny, but destiny seems to be all
over everywhere. But why is this dude debating everywhere? Like all of these
prominent people didn't he debates Zzac? What the heck? Why in the hell
is Zzac? So basically, there's no such things intellectual academia anymore. Not
that I was a huge Zazac fan, but it just seems a little odd.
But I guess we help we help bulldoz that whole notion. There's the
respectable, you know, academic strere, and then there's YouTubers. Right,
well, I guess we helped bulldos that because you know, we've been out
here debating. Yeah, Zzac slurping and Jay sniffing, That's what I'm talking
about, these slipping a slip up of this piece she's come. I would
do sniffing and slipping exactly by the way I'm putting together a stand up routine.
And then I was listing all my impressions because I think, if I'm
gonna do my stand up, it's got to be kind of it's gotta be
a little impression heavy, because that's kind of, you know, my forte
at this moment. But I started thinking, man, nobody in the the
only audience that stand that would work for is our audience, which is okay,
because I can promote our audience to come to the stand up event.
But like if I go out and do stand up with a bunch of normies,
do they don't. They don't have a clue what's going on. Nobody
know who zzek is. Y'a no no, no no abata though, y'a
no no no abati Thoughoo, all right, let's open it up with this
yip you have in a nonsense. So tonight's topics and we will stick to
the topics. If you don't stick to the topics, boom, you're out
of here. I'm gonna delete your butt. Topics are as you guys know,
things like the dative Christ, the Trinity, Biblical theology, Old Testament
and Testament relations, judaizing he were Israelite. We can bring up that stuff.
I don't care. Church history, the law, workspace, salvation,
soul of Fita. This soul is the Protestant stuff, tag press up,
classical apologetics, evidentialism, logos, logi, uncreated energies as, palmism,
comparative religion, Calvinism, predestination, christology, the energies, the Vatican,
Church history, papacy, echumenical councils, cannons, the ep schism, orthodoxy,
pistemology. All those are on the table tonight, and anything adjacent to
those things you may all still bring up. It's not restricted to that specific
list. I'm just giving you an idea. Don't call me, call in
about crazy stuff. We're not here to talk about nanotech tonight. We're not
here to talk about James Bond movies. We're not here to talk about whatever.
Whoever, well who will definitely call in and start talking about those stuff.
No, not tonight. There's a million live streams all the time where
we talk about that stuff, calling on that one that's not tonight. By
the way, you could still get the philosophy course with Richard that's available below.
We also have a events coming up with Richard. I forgot to put
the thing if you know, we did it last year on entrepreneurship, becoming
your own business person and all that self motivated, self sovereignty, that kind
of stuff, which is all good, especially as things get crazier. That
is coming up this weekend. I think I'm trying to remember who's involved in
it. Corbett, Me, Benny Wills, usual people, Richard. But
you can also get the philosophy course there at the Autonomy Gore Marketplace. And
then I forget what I ever. We got other events coming up, but
basically, this tomorrow night, Jamie and I are gonna do the full pierced
Brasen and Era a bond. That's gonna be a lot of fun because I
did a couple of those maybe three years ago, and Jamie didn't feel like
she wasn't feeling good, so she didn't join me. And you know,
basically that's mom Bond. We're talking about Mom cor Era, right, Mom
Bond. Pierce browsening is mom Bond. You start talking about Sean Canary and
that's that's Grandma Bond's. That's your aunt's bond. No, no, we're
talking Mom Bond. That's Pierce. So we're gonna have a lot of fun
deep and analysiszations, bays lit analysis izations of the purse browsings. That's gonna
be fun tomorrow night. And by the way, I've gone back and rewatch
these found all kinds of little nuggets, little golden nuggets, little golden eyed
nuggets that I didn't notice. So it's gonna be a lot of fun.
All right, it's open for him. Remember, I know I'm gonna have
to tell you a million times, so I'm just I'm just gonna accept it.
I'm just gonna accept that y'all aren't gonna remember to mute. And that's
okay. I still love you, even sassy Silk Spector, who I see
up to the front of the line. What's up, Silk Spector? And
we'll go to you first, because we've had you on many times and you
are a polite And where'd you go? You'd you dipped off? Why did
you dip out? There? You go stay in here? Stat what are
you doing? In and out and out? We're gonna go to you first
because I like you. You're a nice person, You're fun. One of
our Roman Catholic friends. So remember when we go to you, gotta hit
on mute. Uh oh. We're gonna be planning and trying to get you
know, some more stuff going on with Tim Gordon. So we have a
lot of Roman callity friends. We love our Roman Catholics. We vehemently disagree,
but we still love them. So this has disproved the idea who what's
up? Silk spector what's on your mind tonight? Maybe? Is this thing
acting weird tonight? Every time I want to do this, Twitter starts acting
weird and I don't care about. I'm gonna keep calling on Twitter. I
don't give a damn. It says that you are here. Let me invite
you to speak. How's that? Can you come on now? Hi?
Can you hear anything? What's what's on your mind tonight? Hi? I
get to talk to you. I don't know many times I think I only
remember twice. But yeah, well I'm trying to be friendly. So I
mean you want me to go back to being mean, I can do it.
I don't know if there's anything to go back to being mean for Yeah.
No, Well, thanks for having me on again. I appreciate.
How are you this eating? I'm good. I'm I'm a little tired from
moving and getting things settled and all that, but I'm raring to go.
It's been I think at least four or five days since open Forums, so
I'm ready to go. Now, last time we I DMed the Alexandria Document.
Did you get a chance to look at that? I did? I
did, But it's been a bit of a that was a while ago.
It was about two months ago at night. That's okay, I have it
freshened my mind perfect. Well, yeah, if you can ever refresh my
memory? And what do you want to talk about? It that you great?
Why I want to talk Well, I mean you called in so we
can talk about what you want to talk about. But the reason that I
bring up the Alexander Document is because, as I remember saying to you,
this to me is one of the strongest more recent admissions that we have with
papal approval that the modus operandi of the church in the first thousand years is
basically what the Orthodox Church has been complaining about for a long time. So
we have about ninety nine of the admissions. Not everything, but pretty much
everything that we as Orthodox would complain about is basically conceded in this Francis approved
commission. Great, so why are you still complaining then? Well, for
multiple reasons. I mean, if you watch Tim Gordon's dream that he did
the other day, I would agree with Tim that this is not really a
genuine union because if this document is now, I mean, this is not
his argument. He was just agreeing that this is really a geopolitically motivated union.
It's not really about theology in the final analysis, because Francis is really
there to promote things like the multi faith Abi Dhabi, kris Lam, you
know, say Enter and all that. So why would we want to join
with that just because Rome is admitting our theological argumentation from the last thousand years.
And the other point is simply that this document is true, then Vatican
One's not true. Well, I mean that's pretty strong assertion. I don't
see how you can say that. Wait, what's so strong assur that if
this document is true, Vatican one isn't true. I don't see that that
follows. Well, did you read the document, I did, But like
I said, I don't. I didn't get that impression, I guess,
And this is your opinion. So if you want to tell me how you're
qualifying that, well, it's I don't know if i'd say it's an opinion.
I mean, the document is arguing that Pallemism is an expression of the
Orthodox Church, is not an opinion in the Orthodox Church. It's admitting that
the synodal system was the normal way that the Church was governed in the first
thousand years, and it's admitting that, you know, canonical appeals do not
prove universal jurisdiction, and so these are some of the strongest arguments that were
used by Roman Catholics to you know, bolster the claims of Vatican One.
So basically, this is admitting that a lot of what's in Vatican One isn't
really the case. So how are we supposed to still accept Vatican One?
Well, I don't know. It's admitting that. I think that's a bit
of a jump year making there. I think that, you know, again,
I'm not a theologian. You're obviously much more learned than I am.
I did get the impression that there was a strong desire. It seemed on
the Catholic side from those documents to Reconcile and Alice, Which has come back
to something you said earlier where you were saying, you know, Francis is
interested in this. I don't even exactly know what you called it, but
it seemed to be suggesting that he's interested in some sort of Cumanistic world.
Really, I mean, yeah, you he signed with the EMM the statement
that is the basis for the Vatican approved multi Faith center, and you think
you don't think that's a good thing. Do you think it is? Well,
I don't exactly know what center you're speaking about, but well, I
mean, would you like to look at the video that I shared from the
center. It's on my Twitter right below this. Sure I can I can
do that. I can't do it right now right as you want to have
someone else on it, and I'll quickly go watch it and then well,
so I would say, yeah, actually I would recommend that, so pop
out and then I'll bring you back on. And it's I retweeted it,
so it's at the top of my Twitter feed and I will also show it
to the audience here real quick, right, well, I mean just before
we do that, and I'm happy to do that. I do sense listening
to a lot of your vig or content, I suppose that you seem very
against that particular avenue of reconciliation that I guess you could call it maybe an
agenda that Francis is pote Francis has put forward to you, kind of gather
up and reconcile people that are not out or that are outside the Catholic Church.
I just I'm just wondering why that's a problem. I mean, isn't
that kind of what he's supposed to be doing. Well, I mean,
it's a problem if Rome Gotholicism isn't true. So that's the main issue,
is that if the papacy is true, then yeah, I guess it would
be that would be his job to do that. Sure, But but as
I'm saying, the admissions in the Alexandria Docment really are night and day with
what's in Vatican One. I mean, Vatican One is really strong. It's
an ultramontane council. It doesn't have anything to do with synodality. It has
to do with the universal unilateral authority of the Roman bishop and the prior document
before Alexandria. You go back to twenty sixteen, I think the Chad document.
It's the same commission basically under Francis. It admits at the very bottom
that the Roman Church did not operate with unilateral universal authority in the first thousand
years. Well, that's essentially what Vatican One is all about. So why
would we as Orthodox accept the doctrine of Vatican One if it's admitted that it's
not the practice and motorsupperandi of the Church in the first thousand years. That's
the entire Orthodox argument. This means that papal papolotry is an innovation apoloshry.
That's interesting. Yeah, I mean I again, like, I'm not alive,
I'm not a llegal like, I don't know. I listened to these
dreams sometimes and you seem to get very legalistic, and it's funny to me
because that's often as well. Hold on legalistic. I mean, Roman Catholicism
has a giant book of canon laws. How is this legalistic? I know,
That's what I was just about to say. That's why I find it
sometimes funny how the Orthodox will, you know, accuse Catholics of being very
legalistic and then kind of take this trap to to bolster their defenses. I
suppose you could say, I mean again, I'm happy to pop out and
pop by again. I'll give you my opinion, but it's going to be
very unlearned opinion because all right, well that's fun. Yeah, go watch
that. I'm a player right now. It's not very long. It's only
like a minute and a half. And then we'll come back to you and
whatever questions you wanted to go to. Oh all right, seein yeah,
and let me play this for you guys. I think you guys on Twitter
we'll be able to hear it. So this is the multi faith center that
they built and oh it's a conspiracy. No, it's not a conspiracy.
There. They built it, and we said for years they were going to
do it because France has signed the Joint Declaration with the Grand Imam. I'm
sorry, but we don't have a joint faith with Muslims and Jews. There
might be elements that we have in common. We do recognize a higher power
and this kind of stuff, but just because there's some commonalities, it doesn't
mean that we have a joint Abrahamic faith. Paul says that only those who
are of the faith of Abraham are sons of God and sons of Abraham.
Jesus says, you are of your father the devil if you do not believe
that he is the son of God, and if you do not believe in
the Trinity. And so, for example, after six public debates with prominent
Muslims, now it is various evident that they do not have the same faith
as we do. They are Aryan or worse than Arian. Do you think
that the nice scene Creed does it speak as if the Aryan and the nice
Scene Creed believer have a common faith? Of course not. Well, then
how much more so do we not have a common faith with Muslims or with
Jews. It's just simply not. Okay, there is no such thing as
generic Embrahamic monotheism. There is only Trinitarian theism. Now, let's watch this
video and see so multi multi faith, multicultural, everybody's blending together in this
giant facility with three different buildings that's supposed to give the impression that everybody has
the same faith, and they all meet together in the center lighting these weird
candles or whatever that is bringing in the fricking cubes from from transformers, energy
cues or whatever that is. And so now there's three lights, like some
kind of weird false triad or something like that. So again the fact that
a person has some I mean, let's say I'll talk into a theistic Satanist
and they say, I believe in one God. I just believe it's Satan.
Oh, well, I guess we have the same faith because you believe
in one God and we believe one God. This is called a quantify or
shift fallacy. Right, It's a famous fallacy because everybody has one mother.
We all have the same mother. You see. It's a it's a quantifying
shift, and that's why it's a fallacy. And so this faith center was
built with the blessing of Francis, and it's inspired by Francis's document on human
fraternity, because we're all brothers, you see. But this goes even further.
It doesn't say that we're all brothers just because we have a common father
Adam or something like that, some sort of generic human brother. This is
actually saying that well, with Jews and Muslims, we share a common Abrahamic
faith. And this underlies all of the heresies involved in natural theology, which
lead to perennialism. There is the AllSpark, Yeah, exactly, the AllSpark
bringing in the all spark energy cubes over here. Optimis prime. Abraham worshiped
the Trinity. You didn't have to use the terms trinity for all you slow
people out there, but Abraham worshiped the Triad. That's why an Orthodox iconography.
Everybody who knows icons automatically knows that theology better than Roman Catholics and Protestants.
And so I did a lecture everybody should go watch years ago where we
looked at how the triad is an Old Testament doctrine. And if you saw
the debate with Daniel Pikachu, we brought that up here. It is.
This is from almost five years ago, a three hour talk on the Trinity
and the Old Testament. And I realize, now I'm going to have to
do I'm gonna have to do a whole other redo of all this course,
because now that I've been reading all of the Jewish scholars, we have a
massive Jewish scholars now admitting that, yeah, the Old Testament teaches not a
generic Unitarian theism. It teaches a distinction of persons in God. Even then,
right multiplicity of personae. According to Summer, Schaeffer's books talk about this.
Siegel's books talk about this, and so the point is that as Summer
no, not Summer Shaeffer, no. Boyarin, another one of the Jewish
scholars, as I Boyarin, says, early Christianity is really just a conservative
form of Judaism that is being consistent with the Old Testament attacks and the fact
that they teach multiplicity and God even throughout the Old Testament. Because obviously,
do you think nobody had seen all the Angel Lord passages until what the Church
fathers until justin Martyr. No, of course you have multiple passages that teach
there is Yahweh, there is the Angel of Yahweh, in whom is the
name of Yahweh according to Exodus three and twenty three. And then who's also
known as not just Angel, but also the one like a son of Man,
one like the son of God, over and over and over throughout the
passages. And then in many, many, many passages, the presence of
this other spirit, the Spirit will speak. He speaks. So the Spirit
has personhood not just in John sixteen and seventeen, but also throughout the Old
Testament. He's a vine person identified as a divine person. So does this
mean that Abraham confessed with his lips the phrase trinity. No, he doesn't
have to. Okay, nobody's arguing that. But you'll notice when I debated
Trent, Trent made a huge mistake theologically when he said that the Old Testament
teaches a generic Unitarian deity and the New Testament tax on this new doctrine of
trinity. Indeed, to Christ, oh yeah, exactly, that's why your
church is heterodox. You just proved to me that all of your Vatican too
theology is heterodox. And proved because you understand when Trent admits that the whole
debate was over because he's just being consistent with Abu Dhabi faith center that we
all have a generic God that we worship. Well, maybe you guys do,
but everybody that's Orthodox and really believes it, truly Orthodox, they know
that the icon of Abraham eating with the ruble of Icon teaches the Trinity.
So you understand, you're being taught a different faith if you're not being taught
the Trinity and the Old Testament. Now I know that some of these Roman
Catholics say, well, Laru is a kind of Trinity, and the Old
Testament. But there's something that we know later. No, Abraham rejoiced to
see my day. He saw it and was glad Moses wrote about me,
so that it's this is not like some far off thing. And here's the
irony. I remember asking Trent. I was like, Trent, how do
you do apologetics against Muslims? Like if you're not going to argue the way
that I argue against the Muslims and the way that every Orthodox person would do
apologetics against Muslims, like you're undercutting your own possession. This is It's not
that difficult. I mean you may think I'm being legalistic or I'm being obsessive.
I don't know what terms you think it is. I mean this is
just straight up Patristic theology. I mean when Justin Martyr argues with Trifo the
Jew, he makes the arguments I'm making. When the New Testament writers argue
to prove deity of Christ and Trinity and the Old Testament, they make the
arguments you hear me making. Where do you do you think I just make
up these arguments about the Trinity and the Old Testament, Like I just I
just came, I just invented this speculating it's common patristic apologetics. And if
you look at the Joint Declaration of the Vatican with or the I think it's
the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was approved by John Paul or ever
get who, maybe even Ratzinger. I mean, if you look at Ratzinger's
book, Many Faiths, One Covenant, I mean he affirms all this same
nonsense that the Old Testament is still valid, and he implies it's valid in
a selvific way. And all of this is to say that we all have
a common faith, we all have an a shared a Brahmic faith. No
we don't. I mean, this is as silly as imagine Saint Basil or
Athanasius saying we have a common faith with the Eunomians. It's literally no different
than that. Go ahead, Hi, yeah, sure, yeah, no,
so I just watched the video. It's yeah, I would agree.
It's a little strange. I don't I don't really get the like glowing lights
part or like what that's supposed to symbolize. That's not even a strange port.
The s transport is the theology behind us. Do you think that we
have a common faith with Muslims. Well, I think that there's grace to
be found in other faiths, but God allows that's not. No, no,
that's not what we asked though. The question is not are there graces
for everybody in the world or in other religions. The question is the faith,
the belief system, the theology. Is there a common theology that we
share with that that makes us children of Abraham with Muslims and Jews. No,
no, I don't agree with that. Okay, well, then you've
now just rejected Vatican Too's theology of nos ratante. No I haven't. Yes,
you have that's literally not that's literally a nos rotating. Where is it
a nostratate? I mean it's a very short document and it explicitly says that
we have this. I mean the whole faith center is called the Abradic Faith
Center. Yeah, I mean I think this faith center from this very cursory
look you've just shared with me, I mean, it seems like a pretty
bad idea. I think people it's based on no state from Vatican Too.
I don't know what you mean, based on the theology. It's there,
go read it. I'm not trying to be rude. We're gonna move on,
though, But go read No stratat It's about five pages and you'll see
that app everything I said is absolutely true. But we're gonna move on.
So let's see who's next. Ut D x D. What's up dude?
Now? Before she before we go to ut D x D or whatever,
let's look up no Stratate so people don't think I'm making it up. So
it's like people don't know the Vatican documents. I'm not being a dick.
I'm just saying that it's just a fact the Church regards with esteem the Muslims.
They are They adore the One True God, living, merciful, all
powerful, et cetera, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam
takes pleasure and linking itself submitted to God. And then it says, of
course they don't acknowledge Him as God, Jesus as God. But the implication
here is that you are supposed to esteem radical anti trinitarians and those who hate
the deity of Christ. So you understand that Muslims historically at least think that
it's shirk to say that a man is God. There's been quite a bit
of warfare. You might have heard of this stuff over the years over these
topics, but it explicitly references the faith of Abraham. And that's why Francis
and countless other I mean, why do you think Francis goes and praising the
mosques towards Mecca as did the supposed trade Benedict sixteenth By the way, so
let's get rid of this notion that Benedict with some trad pope praise two ward
Mecca. Pope Francis play praise alongside the Grand Mufti in the blue mask towards
Mecca, and so did uh the rad trad Benedict. Benedict is not a
rad tread if you've read about six of his books as all the same modernism
as all the other Vatican too gaggle, So totally nonsense, totally mythological faith,
mythological LARPing that Benedict as a trad it's just not true. I mean,
he might have thrown a few bones to the trads, like his Motio
approprio for the Latin Mass, but so, I mean, you don't you
don't understand bureaucracy and throwing bones to people to keep them keep them. Oh
it's so try. Let you let us have them. Let you have the
masks. Man anyway, what's up? O T D x D. I
guess he dropped out? Where did you go? Calton Shayler? What's up?
Dude? You understand that? Okay, Hey, what's up? Yes?
Man? All right? Sounds good. First off, shout out to
Jay's analysis dot com. Those part two is are worth it. Thank you.
I just had a few questions of I guess trying to synthesize different points
and arguments I've heard you and others make in discussions, so I'd love to
hear your feedback on these. I've heard one criticism leveraged against Islam is that
God has to be essentially an eternal creator because of how they argue that that
he has the aspect, so creation has to be eternal for him to be
an internal creator. If I understand that that consequence correctly. In comparison,
I've heard a separate argument independently from that first point for the trinity by saying
that, well that you know there must be three persons in God for God
to exhibit the characteristic of love. And if I understood these two points right,
it seems like a parallel argument is that you know the trinity must be
true because in order for God to be loved, he must have someone else
to eternally love. Therefore, their multiple persons are these two aspects like parallel
at all a right. So, in other words, love couldn't be just
a self referencing thing necessitate some kind of other. This is an argument that
you see in Losky Andreyev stan Eloy. So the idea is that not just
love it's somef but actually any attribute to be exercised requires something other than the
first principle to exercise that attribute. So the exchange of glove, the movement
in the triad of all the energies, really requires something more than just a
generic unity. Because if it's just God from all eternity, where are any
of these energies direct. There's no created order, there's nothing else, there's
no other hypostasis. So in the triad you have a unique position where there
is an eternal exchange of the eternal attributes and energies in the sense of what
Palamas calls the energies that are true from all eternity versus the ones that are
only applicable to the created order. So, for example, the power of
creating God eternally has the power of creating, but he doesn't exercise for all
eternity the power of creating. Otherwise there's eternal worlds, right, and we
don't think that, we think that God created exnilo. So in order to
have ex nilo, you have to have and God having free will. You
have to have this notion of God having in some way capacities that he doesn't
have to exercise unless he wills to. And so when Palomas cashes these ality
talks about the energies or operations that are the case or are exercise from all
eternity that do not require created order, like glory or love right, because
the love is exchanged between the persons of the triad, Father's Son and Spirit.
By the way, love is not identical to the person. Holy Spirit
loves an energy or an operation or naturally they're all free share, so it
can't be reducible to one of the persons. So in order to have a
truly free God, you have to have some distinction in different types of acts.
And this Palomas makes this stinction, but it actually goes back to Athanaceous.
If you read Fluorovsky's essay Creation and Creaturehood or Athenasians in the Doctrinal Creation.
That essay has a really good argument about how the essence in your distinction
is basically in Athanasius when he makes this distinction between different types of movements and
actions and God, for example, generating a person father generating the sun is
clearly different from the action of creating a world. So not all of God's
acts, so to speak, are identical. Creating the world is an action
proper to will, the generating the sun is not by will. So the
trinitarian argument there is that you have an unique position with the trinity, whereby
God does really manifest and exercise various eternal attributes. And yes, I understand
that in a sense they're all eternal, but they're not all eternally actualized.
Some of them are. However, there was no point, for example,
at which God was not manifesting his glory. There's no glory wasn't dependent upon
a created world. But divine providence is an energy and operation that does require
a created world. So God was not always actualizing divine providence, you see,
So there has to be this distinction, otherwise we're caught in all these
stupid positions of various modial collapse arguments, just like when Thomas collapse God into
pure act. So yeah, so that's the essencenergy distinction as it applies to
the trinity, and that's why Unitarian conceptions are always typically fraught with this problem.
Now, there's are some Muslim schools that don't believe in a kind of
strict ads. Some of the schools do and some of them don't. So
like if you're talking to a Shia and they're going to be basically neoplatonists,
right, they're gonna follow al Ghazali in a type of neo platonic emanation type
of thing. But the traditional Sunni, who are well, everybody's mostly encountering
classic sunny stuff, they have their own kind of distinction between attributes and essence
and in a law, but that's not the essence inter distinction. And also
it's not really cashed out as a distinction between the action of creating and all
laws essence. So it's just doesn't get that sophisticated typically. So does that
make sense? Yeah, So you know, Trinitarian theology has articulated two classes
or essentially elements, like you've described that rational or explain this distinction well to
be very precise. Palma speaks of three planes of action. So there is
the action of generating, and that's the movement in the trinity of the Father,
excuse me, the son proceeding from the Father, and excuse me,
the son being generated from the Father, and in the Spirit moving from the
Father through the son. That's an eternal and returning back to the Father.
That's an eternal triadic movement. That is the first plane, and that's the
personal origins or hypostatic origins or hypstatic properties plane pla ay that we can describe
the polymers described. The second plane would be the movements of the energies from
all eternity that are not dependent on the created order. And so that would
be the movement of the energies that like I said, like love or glory,
that we're always also manifesting from the Father through the Son and in the
Spirit. Those are eternal, eternally manifesting uncreated energies. And then you have
the uncreated energies that only applied to the created order. That would be also
typically characterized as the economia like divine providence. Right, this kind of stuff,
or the action of creating or the action of walking on water. I
mean, there's all these actions that are unique to the creator order that are
not actualized from all eternity, you see, And you can't just say that,
well, the actualizing is the created element. But from all eternity.
Christ was walking on water. No, no, no, that's an action
in time. It's not an eternal from all time. That compromises the reality
of the second person that God had in time and space. It really is
the second person that God had walking on water as a divine energy your action,
and that's different from the action of creating the world, which is also
a divine power. Obviously, so not every divine power is identical. Clearly
what creating the world is not the conflagration. Clearly, this is so dumb,
obviously, But when you have this radical modical lapse ADS position, you're
stuck with all these stupid ideas that walking on water is the same action in
God as creating the world, and the same action as destroying the world.
So anyway, those are the three planes, and I'm not to be really
precise, that does not mean that the third plane of the economia that that's
only restricted to the operations of God proper to the create order. The eternal
movements in God that are not dependent on the created order also enter into the
economia. So it's not just providence and creating and walking on water. It
is also eternal law and eternal glory that also come into the economia. So
those are the three planes hypostatic origin, eternal manifestation, and economia. I
see, and those those excellent. Just to steal man Islamic apologetics, you've
argued that they have this modal collapse because of you know, the common schools.
Do you from your experience, do you believe that these minor schools you
mentioned would be if they started to imitate these planes, would they be able
to resurrect and solve these problems? Or is there something in the foundation now?
No, because actually, typically the traditional Stonies tend to say when you
start to ask things like the dependence relations in Allah of the attributes and their
relation to the essence, they typically say things like it is not permitted to
ask beyond this point. Okay, excellent. I had a couple more questions
if that's okay? Sure? I okay. So once again, two separate
arguments I've heard from two different Christian apologetics. I wanted to try and reconcile
these in your in your Trinity. You your response to mister e on the
Trinity years ago, which I honestly is probably the most important video on YouTube.
You The point you keep rehashing as a foundational point argument is that we
cannot worship creatures, and so when Jesus accept worship that that is a sign
of his divinity, because you're allowed to worship God but not creatures. I
have heard a separate apologetic argument for veneration of Mary and of icons, the
argument being that we are allowed to worship maybe people in authority or spiritual authority
in maybe worship or venerate in proxy to God, and so you may venerate
the saints or Mary in proxy to you know, the energies of God that
thinks of it, or with respect to the fact that God has established the
positions. Is this a veneration versus worship distinction? Are these arguments incompatible?
Could you clarify this concept of when we can worship creatures or not at all?
We cannot worship creatures with the worship proper to God at all, and
so the only reason, as you noted there, that we venerate creatures at
all is because of the participation in the divine energies. So if we are
reverencing the body of a saint, what makes that body wholly is the presence
of the uncreated energy. So but that is still not we're not worshiping that
saint, because worship proper is only given as saint. Cyril says that Ephesis
one adoration to the whole incarnate Christ. So Christ gets a unique adoration and
worship, which is the worship proper to God, because he is, as
Cyril says, it is the body of the God Man. And so in
that regard it is worthy worship because He took it upon himself and deified it.
However, in the saints and these kinds of you know, connections,
they're certainly connected to God, but we do not venerate the body of the
saint with the same adoration of veneration that we give to Christ. Fantastic,
excellent, any question about I guess low Church Protestantism by the way, By
the way, the video that you reference for everybody, I forgot about,
mister e Yeah, this was a thing I did, like I said,
almost four or five years ago. Now is Jesus God has got a trinity
and this goes through a lot of the Old Testament texts that don't just show
Triad, but but basically we're working through the Theophanes and so in all of
these Muslim debates that we've been doing, the good part is that I've gotten
way deeper into this. So I know a lot more about this topic than
I did in twenty eighteen and twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, I knew quite
a bit. Not bragging, just saying the Islami debates have actually forced me
to go way deeper into this topic. And thus all of those uh,
you know, Rabbinical Jewish texts that I've been reading by modern and old Jewish
scholars that back this up. I mean, it's just like so wild when
you actually get into it. That's why I bring it up with the Muslim
debates so often. If you guys go watch the the my opening statement of
the Kikachu debate, you know I cited all those texts, and there's actually
more. I didn't even list all the texts in there, but those texts
are are amazing. I mean, there's this this whole other genre of academic
literature over here that's basically modern Jewish scholarship saying hey, they're not Christian.
They're just saying, yeah, okay, so it looks like, you know,
a lot of the Old Testament tacks do demonstrate a multiple personae or hypostases
in God that is not a generic unitarianism. So and then they're actually admitting
that the generic Unitarian argument is not really there until strictly until mim and idies.
I mean, that's pretty hardcore admissions, right. So and you're like,
I'm sitting here reading these books and I'm like, okay, so why
wouldn't you be a Christian? And you're basically admitting all these points, and
you're like, well, I'm still I'm not a Christian, but you know,
they basically have all these points. So a lot of interesting admissions coming
going on in scholarship and unbelieving scholarship. That's pretty wild. So but I
think I'm going to have to basically just do brand new Trinity lectures. I
think that's the way to go about this. I mean, I'm certainly not
worthy to do that. But by God's providence, all of these Muslim debates
have actually given I mean when I made this video four or five years ago,
I mean I probably knew about. I mean, off the top of
my head, I probably probably could recall about half of the Theophanes Versus.
Now there's like I was, there's like half, there's like a whole other
fifty percent more Theophanies I didn't even think about or know about. I forgot
about multiple Theophanes and Judges, right, not just with Manoah. There's an
amazing Thopheny with Gideon where it says Yahweh turned his face to Gideon. What
so I mean when you really start digging into this, And by the way,
the Summer Text Bodies of God in ancient Israel, that one's amazing.
Now he's not a believer, he's a liberal, but he's like, okay,
look, let's just be honest. The Old Testament texts they have Yahwey
Angel the Lord of Spirit. I didn't even think about throughout the Book of
Genesis. The first two chapters of his book are actually about all of these
places in Genesis where Abraham builds an altar, the stone gets anointed. They
rest under the oak of memory. So trees, rocks, stones, pillars
are being anointed. Dude, that's all the Alphanic manifestations. It doesn't mean
that they're worshiping the sticks and the trees, but it is absolutely incarnational.
This is a holy tree, right because Abraham stayed over here. It's annoyed.
This is a holy rock, is anointed by freaking Jacob puts his head
on it. That's all incarnational principle. That speaks to unique presences of Yahwey
in inanimate objects holy objects. I don't even notice trees and rocks holy rocks
in Genesis. Well, I mean I should have totally picked up like see
you see what I'm saying is like I totally missed all this stuff away.
So once again, the same energies argument as the saints and relatives. Yes,
he's admitting through it he's not he's just a Jewish scholar who doesn't believe
in Christianity. But he's saying the unique manifestation, Theophani's and presence of Yahweh
are everywhere in the Old Testament, and they're not creatures. So yeah,
exactly, God is uniquely present in some way. I don't remember if he
uses the term energies, but it's that idea. So, speaking of your
you can shoot debate, I had a question about three styles of argument.
I heard relevant to what you and Daniel broduct. And you were mentioning of
this scholarship, and I wanted to ask, are these three different trains of
thought? Which of these are fallacies? And could you articulate as to why
these are good or bad strategies. The first was appealed to authority that you
mentioned, where Daniel says, well, you know, scholars all agree that
the Quran is perfectly preserved. And your counter was it's a fallacy to appeal
to authority just because you know a doctor PhD says it means it's true.
So that's number one. Well too, yeah, hold on, So it
depends on what you're trying to do with the appeal. So appealing to authorities
is not a problem. But I mean, let's just think about this in
a really simple context. The sheriff is an authority on lawfare. The sheriff
says that Bob over here committed the murder. Sheriff's an expert, therefore Bob
committed the murder. That's not how it works, right. The sheriff is
an authority, and so his testimony might be used, and just think of
a courtroom setting, right, But the sheriff's testimony has nothing to do with
proving. It's not a proof, it's an evidence, it's an attestation.
Secondly, it is not the case that universe that scholars universally admit that the
Quran is somehow accurate and preserved. There might be some secular scholars that admit
that, but to claim that it's like universal, that's ridiculous. Most scholars
are unbelieving. They don't believe in some special transmission of any religious text.
That's ridiculous. So where, by the way, what is the evidence that
he has that most scholars or universally scholars admit and accept the accuracy and transmission
and historicity of the Quran. He just said it, and he said you
could read. You know, he cited a couple of people. Okay,
well I sighted a couple of people, So what right? And I mean
transmission and historicity of the age of the Quran has nothing to do with whether
it's true. Furthermore, academic consensus as a proof is also a fallacy.
So it's two fallacies, not just citations of authority as a proof, but
also appeal to consensus as a fallacy because it has nothing to do with whether
what's in question its true or false. You could bring that forth and say,
look, let's say I'm having to debate on I don't know the veracity
of Matthew. Or let's say Plato something less controversial. Let's say, for
the sake of argument, of the majority of scholars believe that the Timaeus was
written by or recorded by Plato and his students, and so it's an accurate
transmission of I'm just speaking theoretically, Okay. Does that prove it? Of
course not, because we all know the majority can be wrong and authorities can
be wrong. So it doesn't function as a logical proof. It's not a
strict proof in a logical sense. It can be an attestation, right,
it can be evidence, but that's not the same thing as a proof obviously.
So it's and you'll notice in the debate that after about the third or
fourth fallacy that was mentioned, he didn't even looks like he didn't even know
those were fallacies, like he had never heard this stuff. So there's a
difference between how you use something like citing authority too. That's what it's not
citing authorities itself, it's how you try to use it that makes it either
a fallacy or a proper use. Does that make sense? Yes? And
so then part three the counterpoint would be when you in your opening statement you
brought up this new Jewish research and you said, basically, here is a
here's a line of new academic thinking that brought it right, And I guess
that is valid because you're saying this is, you know, one school of
thought that is here all that. Yeah, as I stressed multiple times,
all I was cited in the jewishchols to show is that first century Judaism is
not a monolithic unitarian enterprise. That's it. And so here's all the scholars
admitting that. Does that? Al maybe Daniel can bring forth some mega proof
that shows that no, actually it was a monolithic enterprise. Okay, maybe
he can. So it's just citing this. It's how you use it,
right. I wasn't if I did I say, here's all these Jewish authorities
today admitting that there is a kind of trinity in the Old Testament. Therefore
the trinity is true. That didn't say that. That would be a dumb
argument. Why would I go to them as if that would prove the trinity?
So we can testify to it, contribute, but it cannot permanently.
Yeah. What happens in a courtroom when they bring in an expert witness,
does the whole court a judge just say, well, you're the expert witness.
Case closed. You decided that he's the guilty murderer. It doesn't work
that way. That's an access that he makes the case. Then the jury
to thoughts you say right, yeah, and then the counter too, or
the opposite of the appeal to consensus, I think was when Daniel mentioned,
well the Bible, no one agrees who wrote the New Testament or whatever.
There's there's a disagreement, and I think you response to him was new.
It's also a fallacy to cite a disagreement as a as a argument is does
that follow? Is that? Did I understand that I don't. I mean,
I'm not saying that's false. I'm just trying to remember waits a disagreement
about what reminders that we're saying, So, okay, fifty percent of scholars
say the New Testament, you know, Mark didn't right? Mark in fifty
percent say yes, Mark route Mark? Or for example, is that also
well, I mean it's it's a non consensus. It would be just a
fallacy of irrelevance. I mean, what if we found uh, you know,
what if we pulled all the people in my neighborhood and many of them
believe that one plus one doesn't equal too oh yeah? So oh well,
I mean your So I guess at fifty five percent of my neighborhood believes that
one plus one equals ten in my neighborhood, then that's the case. It
now does equal ten. He see how silly it would be, right,
would be like, yeah, that makes sense? Right? So yeah,
so disagreements amongst people has absolutely nothing to do with what's your revolts? Okay,
fantastic. I have one last question at urge Protestantism, if that's okay,
okay, So, I think a lot of you know, Bible based
Loud Church Protestantism, we've build their Sunday morning worship services around First Corinthians fourteen,
where Paul basically says, hey, when you guys get together, when
if you has a psalm, when of you has a prayer, one of
you has words of encouragement? Type of thing? What types? So I
guess the question is what type of gathering do you and Orthodox interpret key to
be mentioning? Is this divine liturgy. Is this a separate you know,
the daily prayers and vespers right, So I think that there's a couple of
things going on here. A number one, just because Paul is talking about
this sort of what would probably be a more open situation for people who are
moved by the spirit to do this or that. That doesn't prove Protestantism or
like charismaticism because this is at a point in the Church when there is still
ongoing public revelation, so that doesn't continue once John the Apostle dies, there's
no more public divine revelation. There could be public divine revelation in this intertestamental
period. So this is a unique time period when the Church is transitioning out
of being primarily centered in Jerusalem and primarily Jewish to now being more and more
so primarily Gentile. Thus throughout the Book of Acts, this is that crucial
period. So Church of Corinth still has this is still in this phase where
there is what we would call maybe charismatic sort of Pentecost types of stuff going
on. Now the Orthodox Church we don't totally deny miracles, like I don't
know, like maybe some cessation as Baptists or something like that. But we
don't. We wouldn't conclude that there's still public divine revelation, right that.
I think there's just not. I mean, once you know, the faith
was once for all delivered to the saints, and so there's no new public
revelation, right. But the other point I would say is that just because
Paul is stating to the church at corinth that there needs to be ordered for
the sort of spontaneous movements of the Holy Spirit. I mean, if you
look at the Feast of Pentecost in Acts too, even that is not chaotic,
it's not gibberish because in the very Book of Corinthians, pul says God's
not the author of confusion. And in our church, in our tradition,
we would believe that at there's still a liturgical worship going on. Right.
It's not like there's no liturgy. It's just everybody just you know, chaos
and do what you want. Paul is trying to give order to a situation
where there is still instantaneous motivation and movement of the spirit. Right. Like
if you if you read the Book of Acts, remember when like Agabus is
suddenly inspired by the Holy Spirit, right, And so he says, he
takes a belt and says, you will be bound like this belt, and
he was moved by the Holy Spirit to do that. Right, Paul doesn't
want the instantaneous movement of Holy Spirit in this intertestamental period to disrupt the liturgical
service of the church, which if you read that whole section in Corinthians right
from eleven up, clearly that is what's happening, because people are getting drunk
at the liturgy at the Lord's Supper, right, So, so it's a
liturgical celebration, and even he talks about the altar, but it doesn't tell
us the liturgical service, which is why we believe in tradition to know what
the liturgy is. But so I think all of that's going on fantastic.
And then real quick critic might observe the iconesis as a maybe a okay,
why do you have an iconistasis that people can't go behind? If the curtain
was torn into in Matthew twenty seven, because if you look in the earliest
the architecture of the earliest churches in the first and second century, they had
the equivalent of that, which are called communion rails, and they're they're clearly
there in the earliest churches, then what is the Orthodox centergy. What that
means is that I mean the iconostasis is the same thing as the communion rail
in the West, and what that means is that communion is closed. And
so it's true that the veil is rent, but that's a specific time in
the service when the doors, the royal doors are opened. That happens in
the service, it's opened. So the veil being rent, of course,
sponds to the point in the liturgy when the doors are open, then you
get communion. Ah nice, Okay, I hadn't find that. That's cool.
Yeah, it doesn't mean that, oh, the veils rent. Now,
so basically you can just go do trick or treat, go door to
door, trick or treat communion dog because the veils rent. Yeah, no,
that's fair, because you had mentioned that in your tubes. You said,
you know, these house churches were estates that were converted to build it
theasilicas. Yes, everybody can look that up. Yeah, that's I would
highly recommend early. And of course we always sort of have to bring this
up because there's just this weird assumption. And I used to have this assumption
when I was a Protestant. Right when when you see house church, you
think of that as like, oh, that's the Bible study I went to
after high school when I was playing basketball. Right, house church, Well,
that doesn't mean that it's like a low church. You know, strip
mall. Paul's got a strip mall. No, it means early church,
like villa converted into a basilica. That's what that means. And early church
architecture shows this, and that's why it's liturgical worship that you can see in
the earliest days of the church. Here it is. Now this is the
Catholic guy, but it's the same principle here. So because this article went
around on both Catholic and Orthodox websites, it's also over an Ortho Christian too,
but there you can see it on this Catholic website making the argument that
the ancient Mass or the liturgy in the house churches was not as informal as
many think. And you'll notice there that the This is the church at duray
Europos, which is fascinating because dury Ropos also has the synagogue with the icons
in it earlier than this second century. This is third century church two hundreds
where they have a baptistery courtyard and then the service area. And if you
get the Hugh Weybrew book, he's actually got pictures where they show like the
the rails and the euchuris where they would have had the euchus and whatnot the
altar. So anyway, good questions. Yeah, great questions, sir,
appreciate Yes, sir, bed and bed safe. Keep what's up dude?
Hey Jay, thanks for having me on. I have three questions to being
clarifying questions and one being like an application question. Okay, my first question
is can you discern the definitions between world views, paradigms, and ideology.
I think most of the time when people are using the terms worldview and paradigm,
they're referring to the same thing, at least when we're using that terminology
in the in the domain of philosophy, typically we're just talking about the basic
beliefs and assumptions that people have in terms of epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics.
But an ideology could be more specific, you know, that could be
somebody somebody might have a singular ideology of being a radical Marxist, or a
single ideology of being a radical feminist. And I only ask that because I
hear you says things whenever you're debating about, you know, the orthodox paradigm
being the superior, you know, theistic paradigm. Well, that's because I
think that ultimately at that level. The reason that we do tag over here
is because the arguments are not ultimately about evidences or the interpretation of evidences.
They're about the entire paradigms. So that's why we do that. Okay,
doesn't mean that you can't do evident evidental argumentation. Sometimes you have to present
evidences. For example, if somebody says to me, well, what are
the evidences that you think Jesus is the Messiah? Well, I mean I
may not go immediately to tag to do that. I'm going to say,
well, there's a you know, ton of Messianic prophecies that point to the
Bible being inspired and fulfilled in him. So so those are evidences, you
say. So the second question is regarding to like the method of developing those
worldviews or ideologies or paradigms. You know, basically, I know that I've
heard you say something to the effect of that. You know, Orthodoxy is
not a dialectical method of progression. But and this maybe goes and ties into
my third question, which we know about the you know, mill their fobbing,
uh, you know, open society type worldview. How is there's you
know, progressing in terms of development versus orthodoxy And basically, you know,
the fundamental question is how do you develop your worldview in such a way that
you know you're always going to out compete other worldviews that are competing. Yeah,
So I would think that there's a bit of an equivocation there on the
word developing. So I mean an individual might want to study a topic like
philosophy and learn about world views and kind of figure out what they believe.
That's different from the notion of developing theology in a sense of evolving theology or
progressive philosophy or progressive movements or open society institute, all that different uses of
the word. So you know, if I'm I mean I can develop my
worldview in a sense of like figuring it out, that's not the same thing
as like something evolving over time, like oh, the papacy wasn't really there
in the first thousand years, like Vatican One says it developed into that.
Okay, that's different than me it's just using the word developed in a different
sense. That's that's different than me figuring out my worldview. But you think,
like theologically Orthodoxy, is it progressing still in terms of it's not being
static and it's uh like it's it's it's pre suppositions are static, but the
elaboration of those are developing. And and then I'm asking, you know,
the Milliner Fobbian thing, like their pre suppositions are static, they're developing.
I really no, I don't think the Orthodox faith develops. I mean I
mean, yeah, ecumenical councils really just clarify and explicate what's already there.
So if by developed, that's what you mean. Yeah, But if by
develop you mean, like do you mean by develop I mean like you know
in the Milner Fabian you know, the one World or sorry, one True
religion, like where they you know, grab all the religious idea of you
know, religions of the world and make one religion. Uh. And I
may have the term wrong. Is that uh an ecumunical or is that I
always confuse the two terms. Yeah, I mean they want to steer and
develop the religions into a control geopolitical tool of a one world religion, absolutely
right. And so you know, my basis is like if they are doing
it in a dialectical manner, which I thought that's essentially what they're doing,
is that they they're using a form of dialectics, controlled dialectics, such that
if yes, that is true, yeah, such that if Orthodoxies comeing and
you know, they have their uh, you know, worldview and place they
have you know, their uh, you know, structure of bureaucracy. And
I know I'm not using the right term there, but also you know,
there's a structure of bureaucracy for Mildner Fabian and obviously it's like a power dynamic
thing. But in terms of truth, like arriving at truth and arriving at
you know, an audience discerning between Orthodoxy and this one world religion, how
would they know to choose one paradigm over another, Not not because of like
being called to God or anything, but just on you know, the basis
of the facts or the basis of the paradigm. I think that the position
of the elite is one of pure pragmatism, and so they will hire countless
academics from universities to study religions and then present reports, present, you know,
papers on you know, how to best steer religious communities in the direction
that they want. So I don't think that it requires them to necessarily master
the religion in a true sense or believe it, because I don't think for
example, most you look at most of the academics that are pushing liberalism and
Orthodoxy for example, I mean, they obviously don't really believe it or live
it. They're just hired hands that are there. For example, everything that
we were talking about for many, many years is now coming out in this
recent IOTA conference, which is the twenty twenty five or Union conference to promote
Nicia too. Remember when I talked about this, and I was a conspiracy
theorist. Here it is the International Confidence in Rome in twenty twenty five promoting
the new Nicia how to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. And it's all
the usual for Tomite goobers and academics, including the arch Druid Rowan will Illiams,
as well as all these other clowns. And so there it is right
there, exactly what I said. So are you asking how do they know
where to steer it or how how do they I mean their their agenda.
Their agenda is very clear, women priests skittles everywhere and then move all of
that into Francis's skittles domain. Yeah. Like I watched uh, you know,
David Patrick Henry and he was talking about how they kind of like co
opt Orthodoxy terms for their like uh, technologic you know, religious beliefs where
they're like, oh, we can talk about theosis or apo theosis at et
cetera, et cetera in these terms. That's basically like a technical version,
a more pragmatic version of what you're saying. And what I'm saying is how
would someone uh essentially look at that and be like, oh, with the
doxy was just this old way of thinking. And so since we have twenty
first century technology, that means the Milner Fabians they don't know it's Milner Fabbians,
but the people who are co opting with the doxy terms. This is
how the Bible is actually supposed to be progressing. And I think I think
the Pope say something about it. It seemed like he even believes that,
uh, not dogmatics, but like the theological positions are meant to be progressed
over time because humanity. No, I think I think he believes that.
I think he believes that the morals and the dogma progress over time. So
right, obvious, insane, right, I mean, yeah, yeah,
anyway, so good questions. Yeah, we're gonna move on. Let's see
moving on to blood and rain. What's up dude? By the way,
guys, what supported the stream via the super chat function. Super chats are
through stream laps. Now, if you like what I do, if it
helps you, you can support me via stream labs. You can ask your
questions there in the stream lamps link. It's a little bit of an extra
step, but it's not too difficult. You can put in whatever amount you
want. We had a few super chats. I'll go through here in a
little bit, and thank you to you guys who a couple of people I
think super chatted while I was gone. You can always super chat and I'll
just read it on the next show if it gets missed. But there you
guys see that the Church of the third millennium towards Calvic Orthodox unity put on
by all the Fortamites, put on and basically sponsored by the State Department people
from the CIA. Mike Pompeio has supported and tweeted out a lot of these
people. So a lot of this has to do with geopolitical motivations, very
public. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's well known. And they want
this new union with Francis, which is part of what the Alexandria document is
about. If you watch Tim Gordon's stream the other day, you'll notice that
he didn't one stream where he was like, what is all this? What's
what's the Roman Catholics sin on sinodality about? And I was like, I
can tell you what it's about, Tim, It's about this sinodality and primacy
admitted to be not done in the Roman Caloitic way in the first thousand years
according to Francis. So there you go. What why are they pushing sinodality?
Oh, I can tell you why because they want to have, as
we've been saying, a union with Roman. And why are they mad at
me and other people in the Orthodox Church that are not into a Cumanism in
this because we are the ones that stand in the way of this being pushed.
It's not that, it's not rocket science, not hard to figure out.
What was there? Boy? Hate you because I'm calling this out.
No one else is talking about it now. A lot of priests and people
talk about it, and that's great. But I was doing I was talking
about this actually in two thousand and seven or eight, and then I was
doing podcasts in twenty fourteen fifteen on this. They're still up so vindicated.
Oh but you're a conspiracy there's an evil person. All you're so bad all
I don't know, I don't know. Sure, okay, yeah, by
the way, where you guys at tonight, everybody's being a stingy tonight stingy.
You don't want me to just work for free? The labor is worthy
his wages. What's up? Can't work for free? Support the work right
there in the super chat function. Also, if you want to support the
work in another way, get books and stuff. Get the six hundred and
sixty page Red Book has all my theology and geo politics essays and philosophy essays
in one book at the website. Sign copies if you go to the shop
at the website. So in this book, by the way, if you
don't know, in the Red Book, there's about let's see how many pages
are. The first one hundred pages are so is essence introduced sinction, apologetics
type stuff, typology, the next several hundred pages are critiques of Roman Catholic
stuff. Then the next couple hundred pages are critiques of Protestantism and Calvinism.
Then it gets into philosophical stuff, geopolitical stuff, a bunch of old essays
on psy ops and control, dialectics and all that kind of stuff. So
if you want the Red Book, get signed copies at the website in the
shop, as well as all the other books that are there, Jamie's Books,
Hollywood Books and all that. Who's next? Are you there? Oh?
Thanks for doing this. I just had a quick question about I'm sure
you're, as a questioned before, at some point in the past, titters
space for you to book. I point myself a lot of conversations just online
and training groups that I'm in with the Protestants through That's what I mean.
In terms of early Church father teaching. Then, I know there's a line
of Apostolic succession from the early church Fathers to now with a wide range of
literature or context of the Bible, have you ever outlined a reading list for
people sort to read the Church Fathers from the time of the Book of Act
until now, sort of call the your gospel applies to the papal the Beach
Cuba heresy, because there is there a place to start, like some people
have plub me to start with the Desert Fathers earlier saying that Fanascia, I
think, but I was curious how you would not that. I mean,
it depends on what route you want to go in terms of what you're wanting
to study. I mean, if you're wanting to study are the earliest church
Fathers Protestant, then I would can you mute when you're not talking? Then
I would start with, you know, Ignatious Clement of Rome, uh,
justin Martyr. I would I would read the those early guys and then see
what you see in them. But if you're wanting to get into Patristic theology,
then I would start with on the Incarnation of Athanasius, and then I
would read the Orations of Saint Gregor now sian Zeus, and then I would
read on the Holy Spirit by Basil. So no, I don't typically like
lay out some sort of historic track or course that a person should read.
If you don't want to dive directly into the Batristics, I would say,
read volume one of Yaroslaw Pelican's Christianity. Christian Tradition Volume one is a great
introduction to the historical history of ideas of the Church Fathers, right, yes,
sir, So for those in the audience that are curious, that's this
book here which I have actually lectured through this book. It's an old lecture
on the channel. I remember what I called it, but I did lecture
through this book. So it's part one and a part two if you want
to subscribe. Let me think of us if I can remember what way,
there's a bunch of Trinity lectures already up. So what did I call that
boyd or that talk early Church heresies? I think I think it's this one
right here, Gnostics, charismatics and early Church heresies and fathers. I think
that's yeah. That's my free half of the first book of Pelicons Emergence of
the Calic Tradition. So if you want to watch that first half, here
you go. There's that. You can subscribe to get the full half at
my website. Also, yeah, that guy brought up the five year ago
Trinitarian response talk in that videos right there, and I appreciate that. I'm
glad people really like that when a lot of people have become believers in the
Trinity from this talk. So it's had a lot of a fact I hear
a lot of people have over the years have said, hey, thank you
so much for that Trinity talk that you did. Yeah, man, good,
good to hear. Let's move on. Is that all you had?
You have something else? Sibyl a Hinger, Sibyl a Hinger, thank you
guys. If you would in the chat, also like and share support us
Vice super Chats if you'd like to right broke tonight. That's okay. I
still love you guys, even if you're broke. Sybil, looks like it's
having a hard time for you to connect. So Patrick, what's up?
Patrick? You want to pop on? Project Pat? What's up? Juicy
Jake? Project Pat? What's up? Hey? Hey? Here me Yes,
sir, Hey, Yeah, I just was gonna ask about your point
about Folk pro Hope Francis. There is a faction that I've kind of been
a part of for so ever since he, you know, came into power
and whatever that believes that he's the end Times false prophet, that his job
is to bring in the one World government or the one World religion and congruns
with the war World Government so old. I got a question. When you
say a faction, you mean of traditional Catholicism or a Protestant What do you
mean a faction? Yeah, Catholics, I believe that, uh, in
particular. I don't know if you've ever seen William Tapley article books on YouTube.
He's been on there for about fifteen years, and I don't know some
I came across them years ago and read some of his books. Hold on,
are you talking about the boomer that sings on his keyboard? Yes?
Yes, actually yeah he did. That was some of the early ones.
That's right. Hold on, so well, I mean, I'm gonna try
to be nice. I don't want to make him mad. But I mean
I made fun of this guy for years, but right, so did but
Anderson Cooper, Well, yeah, I made, but for different reasons than
Anderson Cooper would. But so, I mean I remember his stuff, and
you know, a lot of what he talks about is pretty obviously influenced by
evangelical pre millennial stuff. And the problem is that whether you're Roman Catholic or
whether you're Orthodox, I mean, the Second Ecumenical Council pretty much forbids any
kind of pre millennial stuff. So You've got this guy influenced by dispensationalism and
Protestant pre millennialism. How could that be? That's not Catholic or Orthodox.
Okay, I ask which you mean? I mean, I mean, Francis
can still be an evil person, but that doesn't mean that William Tapley is
correct. Okay, well, yeah, I understand which you means. Have
you seen the the apparition of Benedict the sixth Saints to the Colombian Non?
Have you seen anything about that? No? I'm sorry, man, I'm
not trying to be rude, but look, guys, I mean Catholicism,
man is Look all this apparitions and Protestant end time stuff. I mean,
guys, that's not authentic Christianity. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be
mean to you, guys, not distant. I don't hate you guys,
but I mean this is just clown level stuff. Man. I mean,
do y'all not know about I mean, maybe that guy was even trolling me.
Doom and Gloom, y'all know third, this is Doom and Gloom.
Listen to thirty goals tune. This is the boomer at his keyboard and he
sings about like the third Eagle, and it's just the most ridiculous boomer evangelical
but Catholic end time stuff. Listen to thirty Eagles too. Doom and Gloom
coming soon. I'm not joking. Very soon you'll see signs and the moon.
He's even got the Yankee boomer uh nasal Doom and gloom. Listen to
thirty Galls tone so. I mean, this is even worse if it's a
Yankee boomer, very sooner. Rapture comes Internet. Sorry nobody if your orthodox
are Catholic, can believe in the rapture. This is a goober. Why
are y'all following goobers? Come on? Doom and Gloom calming soon. Listen
to thirty Goals too very soon, if you're ready, you will meeting up
bright and Groom. I mean Crunch Corp. I have to admit might have
a little bit of third Eagle influence to it. You know what I mean.
I mean, I mean we used to I used to get get buzzed
up, like fourteen years ago and we were just die laughing watching this stuff.
Dude, this is funny stuff thirteen years ago. Yep, don't be
dumb. Fracture columns long before the seventh Trump. Oh, he said Trump
dude. Maybe he is a prophet. Maybe he was talking about Trump back
then? Whoa dude, My mom's blowing. What's up? Liam? They'll
be dumb. Listen to Third Eagles tune No Man Gloom, calming Soul.
Listen told Abo our ears told? Are you there? Man? Brother Jay?
How are you? Sir? Good? Good to see it. Have
you been? You been? Brother Jay? Are we how are we brothers?
Well? I mean we're brothers in Christ? I hope. I don't
know. I'm not trying to be mean, but who are you? I
don't know. I don't know. I'm like a dude on the internet who
shares your religious persuasion? I mean, are you Orthodox? I am?
Okay? Yeah? Yeah no. I also noticed, and I think you
deserve some congratulation, didn't You recently went an award for being the most influential
Eastern Orthodox person on social media. It wasn't an award, it was that
was a father deacon. And Nias is making a joke about a survey that
one OCA group did the turn that results that some of them didn't like.
Yeah, I'm gonna take and run with it and say that that's awesome and
congratulations, and then that's well deserved. I appreciate the fine work you're doing
here, and it's good. There are a lot of spaces on here being
run by absolute charlatan's and it's nice to come on and see someone who isn't
a complete pretender having fun and telling the truth. So so without irony,
I appreciate what you're doing, and I just want to thank you very much.
Thank you. Now, Now it says debate, So I'm supposed to
try to debate something with you, right, So I'm gonna do a circle.
I'm gonna warm up my pitching arm. I'm gonna warm up my pitching
arm. All right, all right, here's the debate I think we should
have. All right, in the title of the room, use the word
Catholic, and I don't think we should concede to the Roman Catholics that they
are the Catholics and the other churches are not the Catholics. I think we
should call them Roman Catholics every time. Yeah, it doesn't fit when you
have a limited number of spaces. I agree with that. Oh, this
is like one hundred and forty character thing, gotcha. Yeah, I mean,
you don't have you don't have to posit a debate topic. You can
ask questions or chat or whatever. But it's just I'm just hope and open
it up to debate in any time that somebody wants to. But no,
I agree that they are the Frankish Papal Church and we are the Orthodox,
Roman and Catholic Church. I think. I think that one of the strongest
points that Callistos where makes in his first book, which people are blown away
whenever I cite, is that if you go and ask the Patriarch of Constantinople
if he's Catholic, he'll say yes. And if you go and ask the
Pope of Rome if he's Orthodox, he'll say yes. And this conflation of
the and I'm telling you what you already know. I mean, but for
the benefit of the listeners, that this marketing dichotomy where we tell the general
public that one of these churches is Catholic and the other one is Orthodox,
I think really serves to understand neither church very well. Yeah, I just
do that because it's commonly known and spoken of that way to bring in Roman
Catholics through the title. That's it. I agree with you. I like
to brag I do like to brag I met the man once and he is
just like the most amazing man and everyone is. He just talks everyone's socks
off. He's one of the most colostos. Oh okay, Yeah, just
like when I read his book. In his book, he's like when you
meet Orthodox Christians, they'll like show you their icons. I mean, like,
this is my faith. But I really do think in the twenty first
century, when you meet Orthodox people and you're curious about it, and you're
like, hey, you know what's Orthodoxy about, one of the first things
they show you is his books and like, you know, this is the
history of the Church, and this is the schism and this is how we
went from you know, the Book of Acts. And I don't know,
I just I have such great admiration for the man. I would take any
excuse to talk about him. Really. Yeah, I've read several of his
books. I think that he has a lot of good points. I think
there's some problems in his Orthodox Way book, but not everybody gets at all.
Right now, this fascinates me. This is in all of my years,
the first time I have heard an Orthodox person say a word against against
Metropolitan whear. So what is it an Orthodox way that you don't feel he
gets correctly. There's a specifically erroneous statement about the sun being forsaken on the
cross, which is a Protestant view. Gotcha? All right? Thank you
for Sharon. Yeah, anything else you want to leave us with? Oh?
No, just did I enjoy your spaces that. I'm incredibly grateful for
the work that you do, and I hope you'll keep going. And uh,
and I wish you all good fortune. Thanks man, I appreciate that.
And uh, good comments. You have a good night. Let's see
who's up next? The so journal? What's so so journal? What's on
your mind? It feels like late night love radio? What's on your mind?
Who you want to send this dedication out to? I'd like to dedicate
third Eagles, Doom and Gloom to my one true love, Bayulah Doom Man
Gloom the days let's flood sure comes their blood. Don't be dumb. Rapture
comes done. Don't be dumb. Rapture comes your lamps. There won't be
every one seven years, tears and fears. Tribulation will up here seven years.
It would be very worst. What tears and fears cheers? Four fears
what's up. What's on your mind? Doumen blown. Hey, Jay thinks
I had a question about if you could point to good resources to learn about
all the ecumenical councils and like what they had talked about and kind of like
what came out of it. It's hard to try to find like one complete
source or you just kind of point to something. I mean, I would
just read the Again, there's not going to be one perfect book on the
the Seven Councils. I wish there was. You could get my endor has
a book on the history Orthodox Church that's good. His book Byzantine Theology is
good. There's also volume one and two a pelicon, so you don't have
to read volume three unless you want to go into medieval stuff. But one
and two of this book right here, emergency the Cally tradition are probably the
best that I could think of for what you're probably looking for. Okay,
he thinks, yeah, because one deals with the first five centuries generally speaking
of the Church, and then volume two deals with Eastern Christianity and it's actually
really good. So it's going to cover the spirit of Eastern Christendom. Byzantium,
you know, six hundred and seventeen hundred. So that's probably the best
that I could think of for what you're looking for. Handmade somebody, what's
up handmade? Doom Man Gloom, kaming Son. Listen to the Yankees Nasal
Tone, Doom and Gloom, Yankee Doom, nasal Boom. Think our lovely
plan it has been cursed? Is that man tiers and tears and fears,
and Katholic Church will be a ghosts that man hears jeers. Yeah. By
the way, if you're a papist, then you have to believe as Vatican
one says that the office of the papacy and its successors and its function continues
to the end of the world. There is no such thing as a apostate
Rome if you believe Vatican One. But again, as we see, most
of the Roman Catholics do not go and read their own documents. Now I
don't know why, but you have to go to papal encyclicals to read the
entirety of Vatican One. And once again I'll put it in the chat for
you guys. Seems like this will be at the Vatican website, but I
don't know. For some reason, maybe maybe they're embarrassed the Vatican One.
Now it would seem that way with all the synodality, right, And what
has Tim Gordon been talking about? What did he just do a stream about?
Actually it was actually a good stream and let's see where's where's Tim att?
He just did a stream on the synod on sinodality, which is funny
because you know, like, what does that mean? Why do you need
a synod? It's like meta the weed to have a sin on on synods
and synods synod on the sinodality of synods by the way, the let's see
if we can. I can't figure this out. Where's it at? Oh?
Live streams? Do mangloom coming soon? Listen to the boomers tone synod
update synod on sinodality. Now this isn't scientific, but I did a pool
around New York. Not always get the Epoch times ads, so the only
AD I get is epart to those bigger channels don't have the date. I
think this is it anyway. So Tim's basically we're like, why do we
need a synod in sinidality? And I'm like, well, because the synod
on sentidality is about the Alexandrian documents Statements of sentidality and premacy. That's why.
So I had a point with all this. So we're on Vatican one.
The reason that I'm trying to remember the exact wording. It's like the
end of the ages. Right, there's there's a couple of phrases in Vatican
one about the continuance of the office of the papacy. I always said,
into the end, that's an end. Let's see. So just as he
sent apostles, right, this is in the section on Vatican One's section on
the role of the Pope as the teacher of the faithful, and we move
on to it is as will that there would be these shepherds and teachers until
the end of time. See that. So when you try to think,
when you try to cite Lo silette and all this nonsense that's prior to Vatican
One, all these dumb set of a contest that are citing Lo soilette like
Rome will apostatize and become the seat of the empty crushed in the end times.
And it's like, no, uh, Vatican one has sorry, Vatican
one, Trump's apparitions. Maybe it doesn't though maybe actually in Rome Catholicism it's
apparitions. Nowadays, Trump but I think they do. I think actually in
practice, apparitions trump Vatican one and the documents, the dogmas. But everybody
knows that, you know, papism is actually you're not. Mary is not
the pope of the church. The pope is the pope of the church.
And Vatican one is very clear that the fundamental structure of the Church exists until
the end of the world. The Church does not lose any of its constituent
elements, according to the Roman doctrine of Vatican One, until the end of
the world. And that does not mean that, oh well, in the
end of the world the Church loses all her elements. No, it doesn't
until the return of Christ. Bro And it constantly says that the structure of
extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary Universal Magisterium, it preserves this until the end.
And that's partly because and so that the entire world can recognize that, right,
the papal Church is the church Church. That's the logic of Vatican one.
How could it lose its fundamental public visible witness, in constituent element of
unity centered around the papal office. And all the triads are like, oh,
it's all rome as apostate Okay, then you don't believe that it can
want It's very simple. Shepherds and teachers until the end of time, one
and undivided. It doesn't lose its public visible unity until the end of time.
The shepherds are there until the end of time. And where's all of
our papal lawyers at doesn't mean that they can't, yes, it does.
It says, until the end of time. Please stop pope's plainting the cope,
the papal lawyering. It was his will that in this church there would
be shepherds. Who's the supreme shepherd the pope until the end? Come on?
What does it say right here in chapter two under the this is like
the footnotes or whatever, it's the summary. It says that this will stand
until the end. The Roman Church and Peter's successors will stand until the end.
There's no such thing, by the way, as a Roman church that
is not the one in Rome. This is another one. They have a
million answer copes to this. Well, I believe in the Roman Church,
but it's the one that exists in the Platonic forms. That's not actually in
Rome. Rome's Aposta. But the Trade church exists in the ethereal realm of
my mind and online. No, that's not. The only Roman church is
the one in the city called Rome anyway, but it says it says it's
until the end, like multiple times in here. So again, Catholics,
please go read Vatican one before you do. Like these guys never go read.
They never actually read Vaticant with all the ways that do read Vatican wolden
end up becoming Orthodox. But let's see ghost ghostidious, ghostious, Ghostcious.
I like that they're superstitious and they're freaking ghostitious. Dude, So God,
you're over here in the chat, bro, you want a debate, Come
on the stream. Why do you think everybody comes to the chat on YouTube?
Be like, Oh, I'd love to talk to him. I'd really
love to take him to task. What that's what it we're here for?
There you go step into the Bruno thunder Dog. I'm just being silly,
are you there? Dude? Ghostcious? What's up? He can't connect?
Well, maybe pop out and pop back in? Ill? Okay, what's
up? Doom man'd gloom calming. Britain, Russia and the US will be
most Britain rossha and the US will be toast nasal Gloom, Yankee Boom Listen
through the Boomers, doom World, Where's everybody? They can't connect? What's
what's going on? Back tinfoil high, What's up? Doom Man gloom post
Listen through the Yankees croon. Okay, yes, ma'am, okay. I
I kind of wanted to just talk about two different entsties. One was iconography,
which is kind of the lighter topic and the other topics. The other
topic was kind of about liberation theology. Okay. I go to an Antiochian
church and majority of the prishioners are staring, so they kind of recognize.
Like I was watching a streamless neck with regards to for teller for telling foody,
and I had I took it to our Bible study and I had to
read that, and they sniffed that out immediately, Like they sniffed out all
of the different like geopolitical things that were involved in all of that. Whereas
I think that Roman Catholics have a problem because they're so Western like brainwashed from
all of this, you know, like growing up in this environment. I
know I was a brainwashed Roman Catholic for quite some time, you know,
just that questern philosophy where we're just like, yeah, we climate change is
great, and yeah we should just go out and hang out with all of
the people on the Amazon and that's wonderful. But they they really seem to
understand that. And I just thought that was really interesting when I put that
document in front of them, that they thought that immediately you're saying that the
Syrian people recognize that there's a geopolitical motive in Francis's for Telly tu D like
so the liberation theology aspects of it, Like oh, I mean, yeah,
they really recognize that because they're they're very devout people. But people don't
realize its star like this. At least the scaring people that I know are
extremely devout, and most of them I have are just like brand new here.
I live in on past though, so like they're they're brand new here,
and most of them speak Arabic as their main language error and so I
really that's why I wanted to show them, like what what kind of like
what would do you think of this? You know, what exactly do you
think this? What would you say and say are untropolitans? Saba put something
like that out and they just kind of snipped out all of the aspects of
it that were that you it's that hit on which I thought was really interesting.
Yeah, I'm just trying to remember what all we talked about, and
that's that's been what two years ago, maybe two and a half. So
some hit some stuff in there about like climate change and then like about shaming
people for being wasteful, the oppression of man, you know, we're we're
slaves because you know, we're we're appressed because we're a Westerners and we've been
oppressing the Amazon keeopleing. You guys like nailed that down. I think it
was you guys did in a two part series. I think it's back in
twenty twenty. Yeah, I'm just saying it's a it's been I mean,
I do remember, it's just been a while. So let's see. We
did the encyclical following Pacha Mama. Right here, here's one a New Order,
a globalized encyclical. Okay, so I'll put that in the chat for
these people there for Yeah, we've forget about Francis's greatest hits, like we
can't forget uh, you know, for Telly Tudi and all these different ones.
So what what's what did you, what did you want to do with
icons? All the icons are our priest he actually teaches at the Antiochian House
with studies, so after the vespers he tends to like for those of us
who are an adult Bible study, he'll talk about the icons. And he
was he was saying that he loved the seventh actually medical councils, and he
quizes osamis all the time, even even those of us who are active in
the church. But he he hit on some really good points about that,
Like the icons are really he said, that are the things that bind the
church together? Is it? Because they bring together the tradition, the liturgy,
and the Gospel all into one. And he went he went through We
had an iconographer come to our church and she pointed and she paid to the
dormation of Mary and she and she came and talked to us about like the
the the actual rituals that they go through, like the Bible, pastages that
they read beforehanded, what are rigorous, Like it's extremely rigorous. They have
the Mass, they go to Mass, I mean, and he I just
thought that was really interesting that he really emphasized that. And I just think
people like take the icons for granted, there's just all those are just pictures
on the wall for catechumus, you know, I think that's as hard for
them to understand. Yeah, if you go back to UH Sneck and I
actually did a really good interview on icons back in UH twenty twenty is as
well. That video is good. I did a really in depth icon talk
that was super philosophical. Maybe it was a little too philosophical for people because
they didn't get a lot of abused. But if people are interested in the
philosophical take on icons that I was trying to convey from an orthodox perspective,
I also have a talk on that at and then pageot and I did a
great talk on icons that is basically pointing out that symbols aren't like a world
of fake things or imaginary things. Symbols are reality, so they're there they
convey the reality for us. Of course, my video won't come up when
I'm looking for it here it is icon an incarnation. The reality of symbols
is another one of the talks I did that I tried to convey that point.
So if you haven't watched those, i'd recommend those. But what did
you want to get to an icon is just that they all it ties together
all. One of the reasons that it does that is that if you read
the theology of the Seventh Council, and it's theologians like Saint John Namascus and
Saint Theodore's Dudai, you'll notice that what they cite is Christology and Trinitarian theology.
Right. All of the principles of iconography come from Trinitarian and Christological beliefs,
so as well as liturgy too in tradition, but the philosophy that undergirds
it is Christology. I know when you did that talk with David, you
mentioned that dur Us Europa Temple and how that the old the Old Testament with
the New Testament and the Old Tradition with the New tradition, which is why
it proves that the Orthodox tradition in the way that we filled our churches and
that creat our churches, and how we conduct our services and even the setup
of the church is very similar to that. And you can prove that even
using the icons absolutely. In fact, in fact this chat that we did
Sneck and I, we went deep into the Frankish history and what you learn
when you get the Frankish stuff is that the Carolinians rejected the subnth Ecumenical Council,
and they did so because they were into Neoplatonism. And so if you
don't know the iconoclass, we're also neoplatonists. So people don't realize this,
but the rejection of iconography, it's motivations philosophically were originism and Neoplatonism, and
it's a very fascinating history to that. But aside from the theology side,
when you get into the history with the Franks, they had geopolitical motivations as
well, which were which which was the reason why they rejected the Seventh Council.
And this impart is why, ironically the pope of that time, at
the time of the Franks, actually did accept the Seventh Council in full.
But the problem is that the Seventh Council over time it was realized that the
Seventh Council accepts Trolo, but Trollo teaches married priests. So Rome had to
say, no, actually, we don't accept the Seventh Council. We give
it verbal credence, but they don't accept the sonauticon and they don't accept the
canons of the Seventh Council, which would forbid half of the pagan artwork in
the Roman Colley churches. Who also mentioned something about the heterodox icons. When
did the when did that all started? All the Jesuits pushed some of those,
but when did that where the heterodox icons really started to be put?
I guess I don't actually know when the first heterodox icon would be pushed.
That's a good it's a good question. I mean, if you read the
Loski Auspensky book on the Theology of the Icon, which is really good.
It's a two volume thing. Volume two gets into the whole chapter on the
heterodox icons, and uh, you know exactly where they come from? Who
knows? I don't. I mean, there's probably somebody that knows, but
you'd have to ask some specialist on that kind of stuff. I don't know,
but I'm trying to remember the names of them that they have. The
heterodox ones all have names like because they're trying to teach Philly o Quay basically,
and they usually have God the Father like next to Christ, and then
they're they're both they're both sending the spirit, which God the Father is not
an old man, so it's obviously that's wrong. Do you want you want
to you went you went through a pretty agree, responds with David. I
do remember that, Yeah, I just remember the names of them. If
anybody remembers in the chat the names of some of the let's see icon with
Philioque. I mean basically they all have that. Well, this this,
I think this is one of them. I don't know that one might be
an ancient of days, so I'm not positive on that. Let me see,
I don't know. I just don't remember. They have names, but
I don't remember what the names are off top of my head. Hope anybody
wants to know the names. I know you did go through. Well,
I mean this is not an icon, but it's like, here's obviously a
heterodox Roman Catholic version of this where God the Father is breathing next to Christ
on the cross. Though, I mean what this is crazy? I mean
the baby Jesus sitting on the old man's lap. Well, that one I'm
trying to remember. I think that one is supposed to convey Philly oak Way.
I just don't remember off the top of my head which one is which.
But anyway, yeah, it's all in that one talk that we did.
Did you have anything else? Yeah, I just want to say,
you were very, very nice to that Roman Catholic girl. I wouldn't hit
it. I wouldn't sensitatient with this. Well, she's called it many times
and we've had the same kind of interaction. So she's always nice. I
try to try to be nice. Somebody else is nice. Sue's gay.
What's up, yo, Jakes? I was wondering, can you hear me?
First of all? Yeah? Yeah, So is it possible for an
individual to be a heretic without the church officially in a like what's that word,
a hemetizes whatever, whatever it's called, like the church officially condemning him.
Sure, So it's possible for like, for example, like a scene
to have heretical beliefs and like let's say the second century, but the church
never like officially condemned that scene. Would he still be a heretic or would
he not be a heretic until the church condemns him unless he like goes against
the Church's teachings at the time. Right, A heretic is somebody who goes
against the teachings, right, It's not somebody who is just wrong. So,
I mean, many of the church fathers got things wrong but they're not
heretics because of just being wrong. Heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy,
not just a sin of of knowledge or lack of knowledge. When you
say wrong like that includes religious matters. So like if a saint is wrong
about yes, many saints got theological things wrong. Sure, yeah, okay,
And my second question would just be again as of this week, quick,
but my second question would just be like I've heard and I haven't read
Justin Martin like extensively. I've read the other Saints a lot, but I've
heard that Justin Martyr when he's trying to explain a way like the Theophanes in
the Old Testament, he gives an exposition where he explains them through the fact
that he sees the Son as like a lesser God than the Father who appears
in the Old Testament and manifests in that way. Is that true that he
holds this type of like subordinationist sort of theology or trinitarianism. Well, some
people argue that, but I mean, you can be lesser in different ways,
and so he could just mean it in the sense that when Jesus says
that the Father is greater rights the Father is greater in roll, not in
power or in essence. Yeah, okay. And when you see, like
when you say the Father is greater role, where are you thriving that from?
Is it just from the riches teachings? Or is that from the Bible?
I mean, do you remember Jesus saying that the Father is greater than
I? No? I know, but I mean in the way that you're
interpreting that statement. Well, I mean it right, so that we interpret
that ray well. The problem is that the unitarian approach picks one passages passage
to the exclusion of the other passages, and the presupposition that we have of
inspiration and holistic theology in terms of canonical interpretation means that all the verses matter,
and they all have to be put together in a coherent way. And
every heretic picks one verse and says no, all the other verses have to
mash up into that verse. Right, So, when Jesus says the Father
is greater than I, that has to be balanced with the other statements and
John on where he says that he has all the same powers and works as
the Father, and that the Father has given everything to the son, right,
right, Okay, and hold on. But there's there's not just that,
it's like tons of other texts as well. For example, the son
was always in the bosom of the Father according to John One. Typically the
holistic approach to the descripture right now, but I'm saying that it's also the
teaching of the generation of the son, the eternal generation of the son,
as from John One also informs what it means to be greater. This is
called the monarchia of the Father, like doctor Branson says, Doctor Branson's going
to be coming on again very soon. Yeah, I've watched a lot of
his lectures on monarchical for sure. And yeah, and I'm just wondering,
like when you take it to like presuppositionalism, right, and especially on the
Reformed tradition, but I know you'dots to use it in that way. But
like when we argue that, you know, the Christian God will not we
with I'm not a Christian, but like when you argue that the Christian God
is the necessary precondition for all knowledge, intelligibility, you know, laws of
logic, physics, et cetera. Right, would you say, like someone
like what holds that, Like, let's say a Muslim or jew using that
is it because like their God doesn't have the attribute you know, their God
is in a trinity, and that's why he can't be the necessary precondition for
logic. Correct, there's no records, right, there's no balance of the
one and the many, there's no equal ultimacy of the one the many.
If you scroll back to the beginning of this live stream tonight, I went
into great detail and addressing that very question. Okay, And so your position
would be that if God isn't at trinity, then he cannot be the necessary
precondition for you know, transcendentals, right, because a strict Unitarian position ends
up either being a modal collapse or a kind of you could be like a
pantheist, or you could be an emanationist, uh it's gonna fall or adist.
So I think strict Unitarian systems, if they're consistent, they'll end up
in one of those positions. And those positions are incapable of grounding a world
view. All right, So if you could just like elaborate that, like,
let's say, you know, unitarian, just take the stance that the
sun and this, like the spirit isn't like a separate person and the sun,
it's just created and like you know zero eight ye or one ad?
How can Why is it the case that their world you can't explain transcendentals or
can't account for them, because, as I said, one example would be
that there's not an equal ultimacy to the one in the many, you would
have a premisey of an abstract unitarian or unity. I get, I get
that's like what they're so, how would you ground the one? How would
you ground the many? Yeah? I don't understand what you mean when you
say grounding the many? Like why can't a unit during an interpretation of God?
Yeah? And so you're not So what are you? So you said,
I'm not I'm not a Christian? What are you? I'm a Muslim?
Okay, there we go. Now it's starting to make sense. Okay,
so yeah, so I want to like, you're just restating their position,
Like, okay, their position. Okay, what do you think it
means to ground something? Well, that's that's dependent on the way you're using
it and what contexts are you saying ground? Like what do you a lot
of context? Okay? What do you think? I mean? I don't
know what you're thinking. I mean, that's why I'm asking me to be
elaborate, like, for example, when you say God grown right, I'm
on the logic right? What do I think that to me? Moving on,
Let's see what's up Harry Littlewood? What's up Harry? Are there?
Hello? Yes? Sir? Did you cut the guy off? I did?
Hell? Yeah, go ahead, Yes, I'm hear me. I
can hear you. Next up, next, try again in a minute,
Niktarios, what's up? It's not unfair, it's ay j So I've dealt,
We've We've answered these questions a million times. I'm just not in the
mood for his for this snickering, condescending Muslim stuff. What's up? Hey,
Jay? How are you doing good? What's up? Good? I
just had a quick U a couple quick questions the Orthodox. I've been enjoying
your content for for quite a while now. I did have a question.
Obviously, I don't know if you know about the controversy that's going on between
Father Peter heres WITHTHDOXI. So that's not the is that the topic for what
do you see as the topics today? I know you're debating nothing, it's
nothing like So it's not that's not on the topics. That not trying to
be mean, that's at the beginning. If you bring it on the topics
and I'm not covering those topics forgiven that, I'm kind of just ask a
different question. I'm sure I was kind of wondering. Some Protestants brought this
up to me. They have a different I know, we have the I
used to be Protestant too. I used to bring this up by the Seal
of the Holy Spirit, and they typically mean that as a cell vific promise.
How would we Orthodox kind of interpret the Seal the Holy Spirit? Pauller
first to it chrismation. Okay, okay, ahead, I wad to remember
the whole time verse. I don't know, It's like somehow they just kind
of twisted to like a cellvific promise. Well, I mean, chris chrismation
is part of a cellivific promise. So I mean, if you look,
if you go back to we did a whole lecture on chrismation on sam Shum
channel ME and FDA, because who is that goofus vocab Malone tried to say,
there's no such thing as chrismation. So we have an entire stream on
chrismation. Uh. And that's on Sam Shamun's channel. Okay. And then
my last question would be there's a uh, you know, some Protestants will
bring this up as well, about the Parraclyses him to the Theo Tocos except
or are offering old Virgin Dalecos say that again. I'm sorry, I was
pulling up a video and it was the audio I started playing. Apologize.
Some Protestants will you know kind of you know, kind of criticize us Orthodox
for you know, offering this praised Virgin Mary, but like this hymn from
the Parraclyses saying except or are offering old Virgin theo Tocos. How would you
explain to a Protestant the difference between offering a praise to the version and compared
to God in a way. I know it's veneration worship, but like,
how do you kind of explain to a Protestant that way? I mean,
we just have you scroll back about maybe thirty forty minutes. I had the
exact same I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying, like we
already recovered that about thirty minutes ago. So okay, good questions though,
Yeah, I mean we have I think in scripture. You know the examples
I didn't mention when we talked about it thirty or forty minutes ago. One
thing we didn't mention. So if you are you mad that I'm searching for
my name because I'm trying to find the video. To the people that are
asking why are you searching your own me, I'm looking for the because every
time somebody asked a question, I'm not being rude. It doesn't bother me.
It's just like we already did it to our livestream on this three years
ago. So rather than me rehearsing the entire thing, one can go look
at it there. So that was me and FDA responding to vocab Malone who
said there's no such thing as chrismation, and so we went through all the
texts and acts and other places where we do see chrismation. And so the
Seal of the Holy Spirit that Paul talks about, I mean, isn't that
even in the liturgy when you're christmated, receive this seal seal, receive the
seal Seal. Oh, And I was gonna say that, right. So
obviously in scripture we have a presentation where we're told to honor God right with
worship. We all agree on that. But we see in scripture people prostrating
before Pharaoh. Right, Joseph prostrates before Pharaoh. People prostrate before Elijah,
right, Elishah, I think prostrates before Elijah. Maybe it's name in the
series, and I forgive. But there's prostrations, right, So it can't
just be the external bodily action itself. That is the quote idolatry, because
the Israelites prostrate before the arc and the Temple when Solomon dedicates it. Right,
So there's a level of honoring veneration that's not the same thing as the
worship that we give to God. And you can just go back and read
the essay that Jerome wrote seventeen hundred years ago against vigilantheus. So just read
Jerome's essay. Let's see art of Taylor. What's up? Art of Taylor?
Doom and Gloom coming soon? Hey man, I can hear you,
Okay, all right, rock and roll jak. Hey, you're the best.
You're brilliant. I'm not. I have a couple of questions for you.
I used to be a goober Protestant one thing that I had a question
of. I'm completely convinced of your position that orthodox he is true father.
The Bible does say something to the effects that, hey, to call no
man father, because father is we have a father who's in heaven. Can
you talk to speak to that just a minute. Yeah. So you know,
we're told, for example, to honor your father and mother. Okay,
how could I honor my father and mother if I can't call another person
on earth father? So it's it's not literally in the sense of like nobody
else can be called father. Because Paul says in his epistles, I am
your father. In the faith, he tells that to Timothy, he calls
himself Timothy's father. There's nothing wrong with having a spiritual father or a spiritual
authority and having that title. Jesus is talking about the tendency that the Pharisees
had to exclude the direct relationship that a person has with Father by basically making
themselves the equivalent of God the Father. So it's a critique of the Pharisaic
abuse of spiritual authority. It is not literally saying that the word you can
never call a person or someone else father. Otherwise the ten commandments. You
couldn't honor your father. Michael, what's up, Michael? Doom and Gloom
coming soon? Listen to thirty equels, Tom, what's up, Michael?
Michael? Are you there? Uh? Michael's having a hard time connecting,
So let's see. Let's trust another person. Sometimes people, you know,
it takes a minute for it to connect. Roscoe Ducks, what's up,
Roscoe? Roscoe pea cold train. I'm mute, bro I'm your Roscoe.
Go ahead, you're on muted, all right. Roscoe is not gonna talk.
Kevin, just keeping its simple. Just Kevin, straight up, Kevin
right there. None of that frill, none of that fancy frill with the
last Just Kevin. I mute Kevin. Yo, Jay, I just watched
your debate with Eric Yarra, and I think at the end you guys or
you were talking about the different assumptions between the Catholics and the Orthodox, the
different paradigms, and how those paradigms led to Catholic theology, and I just
wondering if you could expand on that and kind of explain that, Yeah,
it's similar to kind of what I was arguing in the Trent debate. So
when we had the Trent Debate about natural theology. It's kind of an echo
of what I was trying to convey to Erica Barr in that debate, because
one thing I noticed was that the Roman Catholic classical foundationalist, tomistic evid dentialist
approach was what Lofton and Nibara kept kind of putting forward, which is just
this idea that well, in order to prove something like the papacy, I
just stack up all these historical examples and evidences. And if I have a
giant enough stack of quote minds and proofs and citations and it hits the ceiling,
then clearly the evidence is like you know, just it's just insurmountably proving,
you know, Vatican One, If I if I stack it all up,
if you give me, give me three hours to talk in super slow
motion, to stack up to the roof all these pile up evidences, then
then see like maybe Vatican One's kind of close to what's true or something.
Right. That's the that's a whole different approach because of their mindset. And
what I was trying to convey is that I already know that Lofton and Nibara
they don't know anything about TAG. They don't know anything about transmittal arguments,
they don't know anything about pre sub there don't anything about any of that stuff.
So it was difficult to they to them, and they've still never gotten
it that it doesn't like certain it's certain problems are so systemic that they can
cancel out the whole system. So, for example, often is always arguing
that you'll got problems too, Dog, your orthodox you got problems too.
So while you trying to leave Dog, you got problems too. The argument
was never you have problems. We don't. That's so silly. It's a
question of what are the problems, And if the problems are so fundamental and
systemic and at a paradigm level, then that cancels out the system. So
if the papacy, for example, has dogmatically decreed certain things and then later
contradicted that, that would cancel out the papal system. In other words,
it wouldn't matter how many or things you pile up in an evidential case,
not saying you can never talk about evidences. It depends on the nature of
the thing in question and what you're debating, and if we're debating at a
paradigm level, the Roman Catholic system and how it operates, and if it
has in fact contradicted in a dogmatic way, which I argued in that whole
three hour discussion, that it has in many places and in many ways.
And now everyone hopefully can begin to see this with your boy Francis out here
saying, I mean, Francis just helps us out every time there's some kind
of dispute with the Roman Catholics. This has been happening for like four years
straight. Now something comes up, some big fuor with the Roman Catholics comes
up, and then Francis immediately this is so weird, this never happened.
I mean, it's just it's like it's meant to be. I'm not literally
saying Francis watches he didn't give a crap about what we talk about. What
I'm saying is it is a weird, providential thing that we always get help
Francis helps clarify what he meant and how radically he really meant it. And
what did he say the other day? Time to change. Too many trad
cats in the Roman Catholic world in America who don't want to change, And
that's what he just said the other day thank you, Francis you come to
the rescue, because when the Pope explainers come to to try to rescue you
here it is there's a strong US faction that are backwards and don't want change
in the Roman caloic Churt. I mean, how many times can he say
it to make it clear for all these goobers, Well, you doesn't mean
what you think he means. What he really means is hey, je,
he don't mean change you. And then now a Barrow is even having to
admit, like you know this is this is hard to do. Yeah,
that's what I was telling you like six years ago, Eric, when we
first started arguing. But I mean, I think Ericabarr just lives and moves
and talks and thinks in slow motion. I don't think it's his fault.
I think he just literally lives in another time space continuum where everything is moving
at like one fourth speed, like somebody went into the settings on Erica Barra,
like in a YouTube video and put it on point two five speed.
And Eric has been in that for like the last six years. So that's
what's going on. But anyway, what I was trying to convey it was
just that you guys are thinking in a evidentialist, foundationalist way. I'm thinking
in a presuppositional systematic paradigm way. And so why would I sit here and
stack up historical quote minds about the papacy when the whole thing can just be
toppled like a house of cards by pointing out open contradictions. That was the
point. Appreciate Jake, Thanks, Yeah, great, great question there.
I like to elucidate that because it often is overlooked, especially you know,
anytime you've seen Loften give replies, you know, his long winded, unbearable
videos are basically just saying yoga problems to look at the EP yo, look
at the EP though, I's like, who I mean, if the EP
was a pope, that might be a good argument. But in the orthodox
view, you're gonna have EPs be heretics. So what how does that disprove
the view? The system doesn't. So people in the chat, if you're
talking smack, all you gotta do is call in. And by the way,
you don't have to have it's it's open now to PCs, so you
can come on in Twitter or x through the PC. It used to be
you can only come on spaces from the app Now you can come on anyway
you want, So all you gotta do is hop in. There's the link
request to speak. You can come on, make your arguments. You guys
know the way we do it around here. Anybody can come on. You
can make your argument as long as you want. I didn't feel like rehearsing
all of the same tag stuff and the same trap triad stuff with the Muslim
dude that we just went through about thirty or forty minutes of at the beginning.
So statue face, dude, what's up. I can't see your name.
Oh my name is Emperorder Philippi's Arabis, which I'm sure some of you
are aware that that's a Syrian Roman emperor from the third century. Okay,
what's up there? I just was piqued. My interest was piqued by the
title of this space. I don't really know what it's all about, and
I wondered if you could just give a quick, sure summary of what you're
doing. Yeah, So I just usually opened this up to theistic debates on
the topics of things like church history, Christianity. I defend orthodox Christianity,
so we usually opened it up to atheists or Roman Catholics or Protestants, Evangelicals,
atheo, whoever wants to come on agnostic and typically we end up arguing
for topics that relate to you know, philosophy, theology, uh, you
know, apologetics, that kind of stuff. And my personal spiritual philosophy is
probably closest to something like neo Platonism, and I pre aiate the old Pagan
custom the old Roman Pagan customs of like ancestor reverence m And my personal viewpoint
would be, I don't really, I don't really what would what do you
think the relevance of Christian doctrine is to the problems of the modern world,
Because I'm kind of a lapsed Catholic and I tried going back to church recently
and I just did not find any kind of comfort in what the priest was
saying. I guess I'll leave at that. Well. Uh yeah, man,
I don't blame you for not being interested in the Roman Gallic world.
But I believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. So I think it
has the answers to all of men's hopes, desires, and dilemmas. So
I think it offers ethics, I think it offers a meaning. It offers
communion and union with God. I mean, I think it offers all those
things that certainly the modern world not only lacks, but I mean the modern
world is really kind of a It might be a desolate, empty place in
terms of what it offers as answers to man's ills. So psychology and humanism
and transhumanism and you know, all of these things I think are basically empty
and in no way can give man meaning or hope or or ethics or anything
that's an interesting questions. So you think ethics has to is something dictated,
not something that can be sort of instinctually reasoned from one's own logic. I
mean, I think that all the different ethical schools or theories might have some
truth to them. I mean I think that you could have. I wouldn't
bull ethics down to district dictates. I think there's consequential elements to ethics.
I think there's normativity and ethics. I think there's objectivity in ethics. So
I think there's a lot of different relevances for different positions in ethics, is
what I'm trying to say. So I think the tank commandments are a great
tool for I mean, I don't think they're only pragmatic, but I think
they are. They are pragmatic, but I wouldn't be just a privatist and
ethics because I think that the Ten Commandments works. I also think that it's
true. Could You often hear people say that without some sort of explicit spiritual
doctrine, that people would have no ethics, which I always find to be
such an interesting statement because to me, I think that ethics are pretty rational,
like you can have a rational basis breath, and you should have like
you shouldn't just be what you're told to do. It should be you should
have good reason for why you want to do it. Well. I would
say that maybe a better way to frame that argument would be that not that
you can't have any ethics, but there's not a way to justify the ethics,
right, So I would say that philosophy. The way I would argue
that would be that if you don't believe in some kind of personal God,
and there's not a way to have any epistemic grounding or justification for your ethical
norms. Yeah, I disagree with that because I think that the grounding would
be one's own experience and knowledge of what causes pain. I guess that's kind
of a utilitarian viewpoint. But we all we all experience pain, we all
experience suffering, we know what we can know what causes suffering, well but
directly, okay, But why why simply because we know what causes pain,
ought we to choose to not inflict pain? I mean? And by the
way, how do we know that that's the universal experience? Well, I
guess, how do you know that there's anything? I mean? Well,
I mean I would I would give philosophical argumentation as to how I would know
those things. But I'm saying, if you're going to a very like Cartesian
no kind of argument about you know, no, no, I don't think
the car has good arguments. I'm saying, if in your position, based
on what you just said right there, I would just simply ask you,
well, how do you know that that's universal experience? First of all,
that we all know pain and suffering? I mean maybe we do, maybe
we don't. How do you know that? And then I'm asking a separate
question, which is that why ought we to choose simply because we know the
source of pain and suffering, that we shouldn't inflict pain, or that we
shouldn't choose pain. Well, obviously there's times where inflicting pain and suffering are
merited when it's in self defense. But I think, okay, but so
so now we have a qualification and then you know, but so but why
like why does self defense the the qualification there? Because you're you have a
right to limit your own self? So where what are where do rights come
from? I mean I think most people would Where does I mean I think
most people would? Well, that's a fallacy of consensus or appeal to the
masses. What does most people have to so what Well, it's any religion
is also a consensus. You have to believe that most people don't think I
don't believe that. What would you say a religion is? Then how do
you get people? Because you have to what would be I mean, I
just I mean religions have people who have consensuses consents. I but that doesn't
have anything to do with whether it's true or false. I mean you could
have an everything to do with because most religions have aren't just about divine punishment.
They tend they also give dictates for temporal punishment based on the ethical guidelines
they set out. So it's not just that God's going to punish you.
It's that it gives people the right to punish other Okay, but that's a
better, more consistent, coherent grounding a justification for ethics than what I heard
you get, which was pain pleasure and you know consensus. Well, I
think you think that just arbitrary doctrine is a better argument for consensus than people
recognizing that most people probably experience pain in a similar way. And well,
why is it arbitrary? I wouldn't say it's arbitrary. Why is it not
arbitrary? Who wrote it down? Who verified it? Well, the argument
would be that the worldview as a whole is coherent and consistent and can give
a justification for things like ethical norms. And what I'm saying is, how
is it here and inconsistent? Who decided that? It's not a It's not
an authority decision, it's an objective principle, or it's an objective argument about
the worldview as a whole. So I'm saying that the Christian worldview gives an
account for those things. And there's a basis in that worldview for why there
is universality to ethics, or why there's universals at all, And I'm saying,
take take the doctrine of Christianity as a fact, but what about people
who don't take the doctrine of Christianity? But that has nothing to do with
the argument it's being true or false. So you keep appealing to things that
are kind of irrelevant to the argumentation. So I'm not trying to be rude.
I'm just saying that, what do you mean what that's that's a fallacy
of irrelevance. However many people agree or disagree, has nothing to do with
the truth or falsity of the argument. I mean, if I if I
pulled a bunch if I pulled a bunch of people who said that they don't
think you exist, what it does have anything to do with the truth or
falsity of whether you exist? Of course not no, But if you're trying
to create a universal ethical standard that you want to hold other people to,
not just yourself, than the truth of it, well, the consensus of
the people again has nothing to do That's a fallacy of consensus, has nothing
to do with whether it's true or false. I guess what would be the
reason that you would believe a doctrine handed down to you is has greater truth,
and yeah, just greater truth than using your own logic to reach a
conclusion about what is good, because my logic itself has to appeal to some
kind of universal logic for it to be coherent and consistent, and that requires
some kind of omniscient divine mind and I don't have that, but God does.
So that makes sense. But how do you How are you certain that
the doctrine that was handed down to you comes from God? Well, there's
different ways I could go about checking to see if that's the case. If
you're asking for like evidence is one evidence would be that the Old Testament,
for example, has probably one or two hundred Messianic prophecies that are specific about
the time, date, and life of the Messiah. So that's one evidence
that's super strong, predicting you know, when he would come, what he
would do, he would die, et cetera. So that's that's in that
kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If I say someone's going to come and
then someone says they're the person at the right time, when you already said
there was supposed to be a person who was going to come, it's not
just again, it's like hundreds of prophecies that that note, where would be
born, under what empire, what would happen in his life, the destruction
of the temple, that he would die if he put to death, that
he would be a son of David. I mean that there's it's hyper specificity.
It's not just somebody will It's not like nosredamis, like, there'll be
a dude and he'll do this. No, it's hyper specific. How do
you even how do you even know that the Old Testament is consistent across time
for the prophecies you're laying out. Well, the irony is that people knew
that. The irony is that even if I believe that it is, and
that's a doctrine of faith, sure, But the irony is that even even
liberal scholars will admit that the like the Book of Daniel, for example,
it's at least two centuries prior to the coming of the Messiah, and it
predicts the empire under the which the Messia would die. And then Daniel seven
it says that the temple will be destroyed, it says that it says that
he would be killed. So I mean, are you certain that Daniel has
been consistent across time, but also how what level of specificity it does say
specifically the Roman Empire and Daniel Daniel lists the empire after the empire that he
lived under, which was the Greeks, So yes, well that could be
any empire. And the Greeks weren't really even an empire, yes they were.
They were an empire under Alexander the Great. And then you can have
you read the Maccabe's, really the Greeks per se, that's the Hellenistic empires.
You know it would have been like so Alexander doesn't. Okay, So
if you read the book of Maccabe's, it's considered in that text to be
the Greek Empire. So even if it's not the equivalent, it's called they're
called the Greeks in the text. So whether you take issue with the terminology,
that's fine. I'm just saying that the terminology of Daniel nine is very
specific about when he would come, what would happen and under the empire following
the empire of Daniel's day, And I'm just saying it doesn't matter how liberal
you find the scholarship. They all agree that Daniel's written prior to the coming
of Jesus and that's at least two centuries prior to that. So I mean
you so you have hold on so you you have a lot of like responses.
But I don't detect that you even know anything about this topic, which
is fine. I'm not I'm not expecting you too necessarily, but I mean
I would I would think that if you wanted to rebut something like Messianic prophecies,
you would know that. I mean, it's not just some guy,
so there'll be a dude coming into future, right you would you would at
least know something about, uh, you know, the historicity of the Book
of Isaiah for example, or like Isaiah's widely attested to in the Dead Sea
Scrolls for example. So are you familiar with the Book of Isaiah. The
point isn't to debate what my point anyways, Well, you asked me for
evidences of why I would trust those books, and I'm giving you various texts,
and I'm not detecting that. The point isn't that you have explaining.
The point isn't that you have doctrinal explanations. The point is that you are
appealing to your own reason. Well, you asked me, but you asked
me what you asked, it's not my own reasoning. My reasoning is a
faculty. It's a that's a here a lot of people who you can't so
you can't distinguish between the principles themselves and the faculty of reasoning. So I
have a faculty of reasoning. But you asked me for why I believe those
things, and I'm giving you the answers. So you might not like those
your reasons for why you believe those things any different than my my own empirical,
logical reasons, because I don't think you can give an account for knowledge
at all if you're an empiricist, How can you give an account for how
are you an empiricist if you're a neoplatonist. I don't understand that question of
the entire right. Let's move on. Let's see Vanessa. What's up,
Vanessa? Go ahead, Vanessa? Oh wait, maybe I didn't hit the
button right, can you hear me? Yeah? Go ahead, Okay,
Yeah. So I just jumped on a while back ago and I was looking
at the title I appreciate your time on the space, and given some theological
knowledge, I had a question about I know you have the different religions and
the topic I've had this thing. It's not a thing, but I see
a lot of visions and it's too much for me sometimes, and I was
wondering out of all those religions, which maybe text I could probably read to
better lead me. I am cost but I see things, so you know
weather phenomenology. Sorry, so that that's called delusion. So you need to
read the Orthodox Study Bible and stop following the visions and delusions. American man,
what's up? American man? Stay away from me? He I kind
of like this sunglass or glasses, only I feel like scynth wavers. So
I feel like I'm like night call over here is Travinsky's night call. I'm
giving you a night call to refuture dumb arguments. I wear my nerd glasses
at night, so I can't, so I can't refute the dumb arguments from
the people. Oh well, my my lesbian internet glasses at night, so
I can't. So I can't see anything because the new Internet it's not working
right. So no, the light went out because I don't have my normal
lighting. We couldn't have fit it in moving it down here, so I
gotta buy any lights. What's up? Matter? You were you at I'm
new dude. Man, we got some we got some rough arguments tonight.
Boys. It's a challenge. Maybe I should have let that Muslim. I
should have let that Muslim do talk, because I probably would have. That
would have been a better conversation that Muslim. Dude, if you're in here,
you want to come back and you want to rehearse the whole Trinity thing,
we can because we're getting wild in here. Now. Well here's the
problem. Here's the problem with Muslims. And I'm actually I wouldn't say I'm
Catholic or Protestant, but I'm well, maybe I'm fitted into that sort of
line of Christianity. I grew up. I grew up going to Methodist Church.
Uh you know, I was confirmed, I was baptizing the Methodist Church.
So I don't know if that's in that line again of specifically for what
Claire is supposed to be clarified or for what is supposed to be titled as
a Protestant sort of Christian. But that's what counts Protestant, Yes it would.
My My problem is with Muslims, you know, and a lot of
their books are parts of the Quran can have been debunked. I've actually can
prove this out of YouTube. I posted it about a day or two ago,
so we've had a whole bunch of Muslim debates. So I mean,
I'm not if it, But what's your topic? What do you want to
get to? Well? I think what would need to what I would like
to see is that the Catholics and a lot of the Christians, even myself
and my own sort of denomination or sect of Christianity. I think we need
to look into a bit more of why there are pages and texts missing out
of the Bible that would have in the Bible. All right, this is
getting crazy. Where's the now? I want the Muslim dude back? Are
you in here? Muslim? Please come bay? This is getting ridiculous.
Did we try? Did Roscoe? I want to try again? Where my
songlasses that? He yes, sah? What's up? Can you hear me?
Yep? Hey j I found some of your work very helpful, and
I'm actually reading your book on meta narratives right now, and your work has
been very helpful for me in the in term that kind of human a.
But even when I was Protestant, I was I was looking into Messianic prophecies,
and I wanted to get your take on one in particular. Maybe if
you want to suggest me some additional literature to read uspool on this topic.
Okay, which one the Damael seventy weeks prophecy? Okay? Yeah, so
I believe that's it predicts the exact year on which Jesus died. I want
to know what your interpretation of that would be, and I know it's a
very convoluted text to interpret. So yeah, Uh, well, I think
there's if you read in the Orthodox Study by Will, they actually have a
really good note going back to like Ezra and Nehemiah about possible rulers which in
the building of the wall, which could have been in the beginning of that
period. So I'm flexible and open to different possibilities or I don't have like
some dogmatic position. But do you know what I'm talking about? Do you
have Orthodox Study by h Yeah, I've read that particular section. I'm aware
of some of the starting dates for what people place the four hundred and ninety
years on the one in Forst. Ezra chapter seven. So do you have
do you take issue with that or something or what? Well? Uh,
the question that I wanted to post to you. Is the traditional interpretation from
what I've read in specifically Saint aff Nations, some of the some of the
other Fathers. It predicts the it predicts the year that he uh starts his
ministry, so like in h so like in the twenty seven eighty. But
I believe it's particularly about his death. Would that be issue aromatic for you?
Uh? No, I don't have any hard position on this, okay.
And do you think that this is anything useful for apologizes? I mean,
are you wanting me to check out something like a specific person that you
think is really good on this or something or like, I'm just not familiar
with the specific argument that you're saying. I'm just asking if you think because
because I mean, if it does predict the exact year that Jesus died,
yeah, I mean that's a pretty good that's pretty good evidence yet, right,
So would you would you pose this as an evidence for Jesus says the
design? I mean, yeah, I think that even if I don't know
the exact date per se, I've always thought this is one of the strongest
past pastors, even the Jews do, right, So what what do you
what is it you want me to check out. I didn't want you to
check out anything particular. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of like flexibility
or if you had a particularly like Well, you sound like you have an
argument as to like who we need to look to has this position? Or
is it something that you studied out, which is fine, I don't.
I think it's possible that you could have studied and come to that. Yeah.
No, I have studied this a little bit. Uh, and I've
come to my own conclusion. I'm just I'm just asking if you have a
particular interpretation of this. No, I do not have any hard I do
not have a right. No, I don't. I don't have any hard
answers on this. And my second question would be, is there any literature
that you would suggest on the subject of Messianic prophises? M Actually, that's
a good question. I don't actually know what a good book on that is.
You would think there would be there probably is, but I'm I mean
Sam Shamooner and I've done just a bunch of podcasts on it, but I
don't actually know of one book that covers up. One reason for that,
too, is that your theology like your ecclesiology and all that. That's also
going to affect what you consider messianic prophecies. So, for example, no
evangelicals or dispensationalists, for example, will ever grasp or understand all of the
Old Testament predictions of the Gentile church as fulfilled in the first coming of the
Messiah, and therefore they lose all of those proof texts as well, you
see, because they don't believe that the Messiah said up the kingdom and that
the Gentiles coming into the Church is a fulfillment of all of those passages and
the Psalms and in Isaiah and Ezekiel. So you know, kind of how
we what our presuppositions are about theology also, unfortunately will kind of impact because
like if you look up Messianic prophecies fulfilled in cry it's usually you're going to
get like Protestant evangelical takes that only focus on, you know, like the
specifics of Jesus being killed in Isaiah fifty three and you know, which is
fine, but there's actually like hundreds more. So you see what I'm saying,
right, Yeah, I know, I mean Protestants tend to go to
like the specific Psalm twenty two exactly, those kinds of like very caleeringly obvious
passages, but tend to overlook the repology that's offered a fuel housement because they
don't really have a framework through which they can interpret them exactly. And all
of the Theophanes as well, because many of those Theophanes also have a typological
import as well. Right, Okay, Yeah, good questions. I wish
I had a better answer on exactly Daniel nine, you have, like any
maybe literature on proving Christianity from the outset of maybe Judaism. Well, I
mean, I'm gonna do a talk on the Jewish texts that I've been reading
that I read for the Daniel debate. So I mean, I would say
it's it's they're not interested in proving Christianity, but the irony is that it
points in that direction. So I would just say, look at Peter Schaeffer's
little book on he just focuses on Daniel and the Son of Man texts.
I forget the name of that book, but I think, I think,
I think if you if you watch my Daniel Pikachu debate, in the first
fifteen minutes, I signed a bunch of these so get the Schaeffer book,
Get the Summer book on Bodies of God in Ancient Israel. That one's really
good. And even though they're not specifically about Messianic prophecies, they're basically admitting
that the Old Testament is full. If they often these are full, it's
basically essence interistinction. There's multiplicity in God in the Old Testament. Those two
books are really good. All right, thank you for the answer. Having
that stake help bless Yeah, good questions. Yeah, I don't know that
you should have said, what the who do you think the ruler is?
That would give it like an exact date. Uh, let's see Christian logos.
What's up? Mean? Hey can hear me? M hm? Yeah.
So I just got done taking your History of Philosophy course, which was
freaking awesome. Yeah, dude, it was really good. Now taking that,
taking that alongside the Wheaton College course too, because they have theirs up
on YouTube, and I liked yours a lot better. Oh yeah, but
that's what I'm talking about. Yeah, I mean, there's goes into a
lot more. Do they have like ninety lecture series? Yours was really cool
because because it was very condensed, so it just kind of helped kind of
put everything together, and I just wanted to clear up some questions I had
on that because I got it past the Q and A portions, so I
wasn't able to like ask you directly during that, right, Sure, so,
do you see it as really an argument continuing from Plato's kind of innate
ideas is deductive reasoning in through Aristotles and then just this kind of like bouncing
back and forth between those two logical positions up through history. Are you talking
about because I was kind of classifying the history of Western philosophy as dialectics.
Is that what you're saying? Yeah, And like some sense, and I've
heard a lot of people say before, like the history of philosophy is basically
just the arguments continued between Plato and Aristotle aside either two. You know,
do you kind of see it in between that? And if so, what
specifically in Christianity really links these two together, Well, the rejection of dialectics,
so christ entity doesn't favor Let's talk about some of the commonalities between Plato
and Aristotle in terms of Hellenic dialectics. We would have the idea that there's
a premiscy given to unity over multiplicity. There's a ontological premiscy given to eternality
over time, there's a premiscy giving to stasis as opposed to movement and change,
and that would be common about the Aerosotle and Plato, and so the
ontologically diminished status of the world is actually cashed out as opposites right at least
in But God is not the opposite of the world. Creation is not the
opposite of eternity. Time is not the opposite of eternity. Change not the
opposite of stasis. And so Orthodoxy says, because of the doctrine of creation,
the world is good. It's not a thing to flee from. Christ
affirm the goodness of the world when he took on matter in the incarnation and
also when he created it. By the way, would why would God create
if it's evil? But you know the fact that in the Hellenic presentation there's
no doctrine of creation, so there's no creator creature distinction. There's no distinction
between the create and the uncreated. So there's already the inability, due to
Hellenic philosophy and metaphysics, to overcome the dialectical oppositions between one in many and
created and uncreated, et cetera. So what I was trying to argue is
that Christian philosophy and metaphysics that results from the doctrine of the trinity and creation
and the whole narrative of Christianity and so forth the goodness of history. For
example, right, Christian christ becoming incarnate is an affirmation of the goodness of
history. History is not bad, it's not evil, it's not something to
flee from, right right. And I think it's really important here too,
the russmannion paper where he shows that there has to be like this relevant or
revelation factor two man sure as well, or else he's kind of just trapped
in between the mind and material world. But that does make a lot of
sense too, because you know, in Plato and Aristotle they don't have this
revelation, so they're kind of just extrabolating from their own minds correct whether it's
whether it's deductive or inductive. And then human history, you know, honestly,
just probably out of pride and arrogance, just doesn't want to accept that
revelation too. Man of really looking up to a god first before starting these
philosophic projects. Yeah, I think in both Aristotle and Plato, you know,
for all of their good points in their insights, the sonauticon of Orthodoxy
eventually condemns Aristotelianism and Platonism because they're autonomous human rational system building projects, and
those those are doomed to fail because they don't take into account not just divine
revelation, but also the fall. And the doctrine of the fall is necessary
as part of how we understand man's inability incapacity for the fullness of understanding,
man's not going to be able to properly interpret the natural world, for example,
without understanding that this world's actually a fallen world, and it's not fallen
because of some metaphysical principle. It's fallen due to ethics. When when Adam
sin it was a moral problem. The moral problem then resulted in metaphysical change,
you know, chaos, disintegration, all that. But but man's problem
is not metaphysics or a metaphysical issue. Man's problem is moral, and that's
why people don't like Christianity for the most part the world. You know,
what is used to say in John three, right, the darkness does not
come to the light because it's deeds would be exposed, and so people don't
want to change and when they realize that Christianity is actually about that, it's
not sitting around and you know, meditating about ultimate unity and metaphysical you know,
speculation. That's not what it's ultimately about. Yeah, and without the
doctrine of the fall too, I see there being an issue logically if you're
if you're taking on a project like Plato Aristotle were trying to figure out between
God evil and kind of being forced into a dualistic which eventually is it just
a monistic position as well, because don't those kind of just kind of bounce
back and forth if you don't have this doctrine of the fall and stuff to
really set that distinction away from God. Yeah, of course, yeah,
okay, yeah, okay, yeah, great, Yeah, thank you,
and I appreciate you taking the course, really, thank you for those kind
words. And for those that are interested, that course is always available.
I put the link in the chat there. You can get over at Richard
Groves Autonomy a world marketplace right there, University of Reason, and it ends
up being I think over thirty hours if you count all the Q and A
twelve different lectures of history Western philosophy there. I don't know father Deacon enough
you wanted to speak, you popped off. Maybe you're not where you can
speak. If you do want to speak, you can. You're welcome to
hop on here. Let's see Loewen Howard. What's up, dude. Yeah,
I didn't say the fall was only morals. I said that morals are
the essence of the fall. Adam morally transgressed. Then that resulted in all
the all the all the metaphysical problems. Go ahead. Did you want to
say something something? Hello? Can you? Hey? Jay? I'm a
with Orthodox Christian and your work has been tremendously influential on me and helps kind
of bring me to the church. I had a question about cessationism and continuate
continuationism. Where does the Orthodox Church fall on that issue? Well, if
you by a cessation, if you can you mute, it's echoing, dude.
If a cessation you mean ceasing of all miracles. Of course we do
believe in miracles. If you mean by the ceasing of like new divine revelations
that are like part of scripture or something like that. Now, I believe
that divine revelation was complete when John the Apostle died, and thus, as
scripture says, the deposit of faith was once for all delivered to the saints.
So if it's once for all delivered as a deposit, you can't have
new deposits. And so ecumenical councils are not new divine revelations. They're just
the Church explicating and with more precision, explaining what was already there. So
contrary to the Roman Catholic idea of like doctrinal development evolution, we don't believe
that. We think that the faith was once for all delivered. Everything that
was necessary in the first and second century is still here, is still still
the same. There's no new dogmas, even icons and even Mary. All
of that's very early. Maybe not every dispute and every explication was early,
but the essence of that faith is unchanged and no different. Okay, thank
you very much. That's that's helpful. Did you mean by cessation, ceasing
of all miracles or ceasing of new divine public revelation, ceasing of new divine
revelation? Yeah. You know, I have a lot of Protestant friends,
and they will oftentimes question me as to how I'm able to know that the
the cannon is complete. If it's if it's the ecumenical councils that right,
that ratify or that that affirm the canon. What's stopping us from having another
ecumenical council that this sort of thing. Well, every ecumenical council begins the
council, if you notice, especially like Trullo and the side of council with
saying that we intend to follow everything in the previous council. So that's pretty
much the norm. So you couldn't have a new ecumenical council that says,
oh, yeah, the previous council they give us the Canada scriptures wrong.
And so for the Orthodox Church, the Canada scripture that you find in the
synods of Carthage, which are pretty prevalent in the West. The Latins have
their own synods under Pope Damesis Augustine et cetera, where they affirmed the same
Carthaginian canon. Basically, it's Trolo that affirms the Carthage cannon, and then
Trullo is reaffirmed in six and seven for US, so six and seven reaffirm
Trullo, which affirms Carthage, which has the Dooter cannon. Okay, and
that that would be seventy nine books. Right. Uh, that sounds right,
Okay. I mean I feel like there's some controversy, like there's a
third Maccabee's that some jurisdiction. Can you meete exactly exactly? Yeah, I
mean it's in the Orthodox Study Bible for example. There Maccabees is there.
And you know, for us having the cannon, like we don't have to
have like a soul scripture Protestant mindset about it. So it's okay if like
a you know, Slavonic cannon stuck the Book of Unich in there, or
a collection stuck the Book of Unich in there, because for us, it's
okay that there's flexibility for that, Like you can have trade because we don't.
We're not sold scripture. You can have tradition outside the scriptures. So
it's not that big of a deal if like if you look at John Damascus'
list for example, even as Lady John John Damascus he thinks the absolute cannons
and the letters of Clement are part of scripture. So there's flexibility even up
into that period in terms of what actually quote is the cannon. And so
when we say the cannon of Scripture, Allah Ecumenical Council. That's just what's
normative for us. Doesn't mean that there's not elements of flexibility with Third Maccabees
or even the Book of Munich and some Slavonic vials. Okay, that's great,
thanks for your time, Jay. Yeah, good points. Yeah.
I mean, you know, we're not a Bible only church, so it's
not a problem for us that there's a little bit of flexibility on some of
that. And I mean, to me, it doesn't It doesn't bother me
that the Book of Enick is in there, because I mean, Jews cites
the Book of Enix, so it's just another attestation to literature, you know,
pointing to the Messiah. Doesn't mean that the Book of Enick has to
have the exact same level of you know, authority as the Gospels or something
like that, because even in the Orthodox Church we honor the Gospels above even
Paul's epistles. That doesn't mean that Paul's epistles are oh you think they're false.
No, it's not an either or it's a both in but there's still
there's still levels too, even within scripture, and even Paul's epistles have levels
within them. For example, Paul says one of his letters this, I
say not of the Holy Spirit, but I give my own opinion, and
so Paul distinguishes there even what's in his letter from the Holy Spirit. So
that does not mean that we're saying, oh, the by errors, Bob's
full errors. No, I'm not saying that bed safe again. And then
I'm getting tired, so I'm gonna have to call it a night after this.
Go ahead. Hey, Jake, have you investigated the Dead Sea Scrolls
possibly being a forgery? I am familiar with one or two of the supposed
scrolls or texts being actual forgeries, and so I certainly hold that it's possible
that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a forgery. They could have been forged for
various geopolitical reasons. Some people theorize that I don't know for sure, but
if they are authentic, then they do ad tests to the Book of Isaiah.
If they're not, my faith doesn't rest on the discovery that Dead Sea
scrolls. Yeah, I've heard you say that. The one thing I was
wondering is what would the Dead Sea Scrolls implicate in terms of like the one
world government type thing, Like, are they adjusting something that's an Old Testament
or you know, the Abrahamic faiths would be able to agree on something where
like the Dead Sea Scrolls Refactor, you know, the Old Testament in such
a way that changes all the theolog Well, I mean we we already have,
you know, ancient, preserved, authoritative, normative text in the Orthodox
Church. So it's not gonna it's not gonna do anything to us unless a
bunch of clerics are compromised and you know, cave into something or whatever.
Yeah, it's some deception, Yeah, I mean, there could be conceivably
some deception where like you know, Elaine Pagels and bart Ermine and uh,
you know, Bartholome you get together and say say, oh, we've decided
that these these newly discovered texts, you know, let's say that there's the
Dead Sea Scrolls Part two and these these newly discovered texts actually correct all of
our misunderstandings about you know, we already I mean that that wouldn't fly,
you know for most Orthodox people certainly, But there's not something already pre existing
in the Dead Sea Scrolls right now that doing something like that that it's such
you know, I don't know that's actually I mean, I'm not a textual
scholar, so I don't know enough about. I mean, I've read a
little bit on the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't know enough about Like
I mean, isn't there aren't there texts that are supposedly what they think were
Who's the Who's the Zelic group? That's some people say John the Baptist is
supposed to leave. I don't believe this, But what's that Zelic group that
they think John the Baptist was part of? Those? Uh, like the
Jewish version of monks? You know I'm talking about? Yeah, I do.
I'm going to blank just just because I have no clue about the name.
But I know about the theory the scenes. I'm trying to think that
the scenes. Right, So aren't there some texts in uh Dead Sea Scrolls
if I recall that relate to supposedly the scenes? I mean, I'm just
going from memory. So so and I think that people say people try to
make an argument that oh and ironically, this is actually an old Masonic argument.
If you read man Manly P. Hall's Secret Teaching, he was trying
to argue a long time ago that oh Jesus was actually secretly an s scene
and he was initiated into the mysteries through the scenes, and he was actually
some sort of gnostic magician. Yeah, no, that's it. John the
Baptist is actually the Gnostic that's it. Yeah, and that's that's why,
that's why the Masons have a really high reverence for John the Baptists, that
they think he was in a scene who initiated Jesus or whatever. But I
think I'm right about that. I might be getting documents mixed up. I
don't know, look into it. If there's something there, it could be,
you know, a nice video to look into. Anyway, that was
my question. Thanks. Let's see if the Dead Sea Scrolls did. Yes,
the S scenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so supposedly the some of
the Dead Sea Scrolls had these texts that we're supposedly attesting to the scenes,
and let's see, they gained fame in modern times as a result of the
discovery the Dead Sea Scrolls. So yeah, I'm right about that. But
I'm not a textual scholar, so I can't speak with much authority on these
topics. But we can all cite the experts, can't We cite the experts.
We'll go to one more because I'm getting really tired. I read,
We'll read the super Jazz Ryan. What's up, dude? Why had this
powder? Canst? Ryan? Are you there? I'm mute, man,
you gotta I'm mute, dude. All right, well all right here,
what's up? I mean, uh, we're talking about this biblical stuff and
all this and all that. I mean, I love I love it,
but dealing with today, like what's going on right now? Do you not
feel like like some things are coming to an end? What do you mean?
What I mean is like I feel like we have right now, we
have kind of like, uh, a false prophet in office. We have
uh who francis? We don't know? No, no, Joe Biden obviously.
All right, well I'm not trying me, but we're all right.
So tonight's topic are not about Joe Biden. Then, last call was you
gotta I meet man? Hello? Yeah, what's up? Do hey?
Uh? I was hoping to ask an exogetical question the calvint The Calvinists really
use John six and John ten as their main like go twos. I think
when they're talking about, you know, on conditional election and perscuence of the
Saints some of those things. And generally I think, like I'm pretty solid
on some of the uh, you know, responses to the Calvinist understanding of
Romans and stuff like this, because that's very mainstream and apologetics. But the
as far as the Johanni literature goes, is there books you'd recommend, and
then if you can maybe spend like five minutes or still in those two passages
that helpful. You want to spend five minutes on what John six and John
ten in regard to what the drawing I will draw, what about ways I'll
draw all the men to myself. I mean, you mean all of those
passages. So let me say first of all that we lectured through the entire
gospel John, so you can go watch my lectures that go through the entire
Gospel. But the thing with this is that we don't just get our christology
or our steriology from abstracting it from those texts. So I'm not trying to
diverge from or not go into the apologetics or the exegesis of John six and
John ten. I'm just saying that, like I've already we already did like
a lecture the entirety of John, So I would say, watched those if
you want the full exegesis. But I mean, there's so many passages for
example, that intertwine within those chapters with the universality of Rice message that too
then only restricted to Oh, but he's only going to draw the ones that
he secretly actually likes. Right, So it's true that the apostles were chosen
before the foundation of the world. Yeah, and even Judas was chosen,
and Jesus says it'd been better he'd never been born. But none of those
passages negate synergism. And that's the problem with Calvinism is that Calvinism is premised
on God being well, there's different problems. One problem is God is the
immediate direct cause of all events via the divine decree, and we don't believe
that is orthodox. We think that God permits evil, but he's not the
direct immediate cause of evil. So there is secondary causes that really have causal
power. Now I know that Calvin gave verbal credence to secondary causes, but
the problem is that secondary causes means that those beings have their own energy and
will, and so if you have your own energy, that means that there's
it's impossible that you can ever not have synergy because human will and human energy
is fundamental to having human nature, and this is what comes out of the
ecumenical counsels when it comes to Christology. And so to have a sateriology that
dispenses with anthropology and Christology, to say then that God's will and energy replaces
my human will and energy is number one. To not have secondary causes in
fact, even though Calvin has them in theory. And also it is to
violate the principle of human nature, which is that nature has its own will
and power and energy. And so if you remove those things, then it's
no longer synergy. It's monarchism. And that's why Calvinists or monarchists. But
if you read the Disputation with Purists, by the way, it's actually multiple
passages where in the Gospels that Maximus ends up debating with Puris. So if
you read the disputation of Piis, I'll say that'd be a good place for
you to start, because he will actually actually get a bunch of passages that
demonstrate the Christ is submitting his human will and energy to the divine will and
energy to please the Father, particularly the uh you know, let this cup
pass from e text. The debate becomes focused on that. And the reason
that is relevant to the Calvinist position is that Calvinism ends up squishing human persons
into nature, such that human persons no longer have the natural faculty of willing
and energy to synergize in the process of conversion. Now, how do I
know it's synergism. Yes, Calvinism reduced it to occasionals. That's what I'm
arguing with Theodore. Well, it's it's not synergism anymore because, for example,
every time Paul the New Testament's talking about baptism, the Calvinist has to
divorce it from the right of baptism. But why doesn't Paul divorce it throughout
the passages consistently, especially Toddis three, where he says he calls the baptism
the washing of the labor regeneration. Now, Paul says there's one Lord,
one faith, and one baptism, but every Calvinist says, no, there's
not. There's two. There's regeneration, which is the spiritual baptism, and
then there's water baptism, which is this separate thing. But all throughout the
New Testament, those things are always joined. So this is principle of synergism
is always there, especially in sacramentology. And that point about baptismal regeneration itself
refutes the Calvinist notions from John six and John ten that irresistible grace is what's
absolutely necessary to achieve regeneration and that there's no willing on your part. You
don't synergize and regeneration. That's just simply false. Jesus even calls faith a
work. This is the work of God that you believe on Him and me
is sent and we have no problem saying that faith is a gift. But
it's still not the case that you never have the synergy of your will.
But Calvinists regeneration theology is helt on the idea that your quote spiritually dead and
so you do not have the ability to will the good, and so they
also don't have any distinction between natural goods and supernatural goods. That's part of
Christology. That's also part of what Palamus teaches, right, that there's a
distinction between nature and SuperNature. That's how we have theosis. So all of
these points are lost in Calvinism because Calvinism doesn't have correct anthropology. Calvinism actually
has Pallagian anthropology. And you say, wait a minute, that's impossible.
How could you get what That's crazy? Calvin has Pallagius's doctrine of prelapsarian man
because both Pallagius and Calvin fought and taught that Adam could have merited his salvation.
Ergo, it's a Pallagian doctrine of prelapsarian man. Now we're after the
fall, We're in this hopeless position to where there's no ability to will or
to energize at all. And yet we're told in Romans that God either accuses
or excuses the Pagans when they do what's right. Well, if you believe
and told to pravity, how is God excusing pagans who do right? That
doesn't exist. Furthermore, why does the Bible talk so much about righteous people
like Elizabeth and her husband being perfect and righteous before the Lord, and it
talks about the works that they did. Why how is David able to say,
Lord, you know my heart, I have not sinned before you.
I have done what is right. You see, there's all these songs,
there's all these plays. You start noticing all these examples that if I was
a Calvinist, how can I say that? How is that possible? How
can David write that as a Calvinist? You see how none of these things
makes sense? Well, it does make sense though, if the Calvinist paradigm
is just simply not correct. Yeah, that's hopeful. And I'll read that
disputation with purists. And then do you have to remember the titles for those
lectures? You guys? Did you just t Yeah? If you just type
in Jay Dyer Gospel of John, you'll start noticing. I wish I could
make it into a whole playlists, but I mean maybe I can, But
like I think there's a limit on how many playlists you can put on your
homepage. Let's see if you just type in Jadar Gospel of John. Let's
see how many we get when we do that. It looks like they all
come right up. So there's at least five or six or seven that come
up. Okay. And then I heard you some people in the stream talking
about Daniel and I know the generally the Christian interpretation, you know, the
with the twin or ninety years or you know this this terminates in the Coming
of Christ. And I've spent some time reading some stuff on Daniel though,
and you know, the liberals, like obviously they dated to the mid second
century BC. And the reasoning for that is really it's presuppositional. It's like
they presupposed that there can't be real prophecy, and so then they go find
the propheties and then they put it like the year before that. Yeah,
but it's still predicts it still predicts him being born in the next Empire,
which is ironic. I'm just saying that they didn't even do good enough in
de blinking too. They missed the fact that it still says that he would
be born in the second in the final Empire, which is the empire after
the Greeks. Do you understand? Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah,
yeah, I'm gonna say though, I think that I've actually found some
of their ex of Jesus to be pretty convincing, even if I wouldn't agree
that it's ex post facto, like I would still say Daniel road Daniel,
but like, for instance, with the four beasts that come out of the
earth, right, like these are all future to Daniel, and they're all
contemporaneous, and so I think you can see them as the four kingdoms that
come out of the the empire that was going over Alexander the Great. See
if you got like the Sluke kids, the Tolemse I never give the two
others, and then really the Slucan empires through them you get Antiochists who kind
of fulfills that typology of the Eighth and stuff like this. Yeah, I
think back like Daniel Aida, I think Daniel eight and nine and up into
eleven is about that. Yeah. No, I'm saying, like the four
Beasts in Daniel seven, though, I see those as those four Greek kingdoms.
I think the I think the liberals are kind of right about that.
It's been't give them the you know, given the farm away. Hold on,
let me let's go to that. So hold on. So you're saying,
uh, Daniel what uh in chapter seven the vision of the four beasts?
A lot of people take that as like, uh, what do they
say? It's like that one Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, whereas I
would see it as and you're gonna find this jenerally more liberal commentary. Well,
hold on, so you don't think it corresponds to Jeremiah? Uh?
What do you mean? Well, Jeremiah. Doesn't he have the same list.
I'm trying to remember Ezekiel has I know, I know that it's in
Jeremiah. Yeah, Jeremiah has a list of beasts, and Jeremiah and Daniel
like, uh, doesn't Jeremiah say that he? Or does it? Daniel
says that he read Jeremiah, or is the other way around it? Forget?
But one of them says, Daniel reads Jeremiah's prophecy. So I'm saying
that wouldn't that likely be the beasts that he's referring to? I remember,
I feel like I feel like I've read it and then I've forgotten it.
That point on Jeremiah to d'wing a chapter that time, Well, I don't
have a light in here. My light burned out, so I can't see
anything. So hold on, let me see. I got my Bible here.
I just can't see because there's no light. So let's see. I
have like in chapter eight, I think that that's about Alexander and Antiochus.
Chapter seven, I have that my notes are that it's about Jeremiah four seven.
Let me see if that's right. I just haven't looked at this in
a while, so I'm a little rusty on it, but I think Jeremiah
four is what I'm thinking of. Yeah, it's it's an old question for
me too. It's I'm rusty. It's but I just heard some people talking
about it and it kind of got me thinking again. And then another one
too. Hold hold on, let's let's before we move on, let's let's
see what we're looking at here. So uh yeah, so he has Jeremiah
has four beasts here listed right, He's got declaring Judah a lot to be
heard in Jerusalem the trumpet. Assemble yourselves to the fortified city, pick up
and fleezzon, hurry, I bring disaster from the north, destruction. The
lion has come upon the den. He has made it desolate. Uh maybe
this only mentions the lion. The lion is Babylon Daniel seven four. I
think there's more beasts mentioned in Daniel though. Maybe is it Daniel Ford keeps
mentioning beasts. I can't tell him. I can really see, are you
asking? Yeah, I just haven't read Jeremiah. While so so the the
Church Fathers, according to orthodox study, Bubble, tend to think that the
leopard is Alexander the Great. The lion is Babylon and that cites JEREMIAHS seven
or four for Babylon. What do you what do you think of that?
And and then it was because because there is like there's a multiple like things
begin points that are referred to as a lion, right like, so I
wouldn't be so quick to but Jeremiah is just hold on, jere But Jeremiah
is writing beforefore the Babylonian right right, the Jews losing them part of the
Babylians. So I mean, I think you could just say that because these
four beasts are future to Daniel, whereas the Babylonian Empire had already fallen by
the time he sees this vision, that it wouldn't really match up because the
babylon the Babylonians fall under, uh you know when it ever kinds his grandson's.
But what I'm saying is that he lists the four large beasts, and
the first is a lion like a lion has wings like an eagle. And
I'm saying that why would he not be pulling from what he read in Jeremiah
about the lion there that brings the destruction because the Babylonian he's not described Daniel's
not describing in Daniel seven, what is contemporary with him? Isn't he looking
back to the previous beasts? Well, I'm seeing as he's getting a vision
in the future pretty much like he does. Hold on, why do you
think that? Uh? I mean, what don't you hold on? Hold
on? Hold whoa wait a minute. We're overlooking the obvious here. So
the four best do you not think they correspond to the four levels of the
statue? Ah? Yes, so I was trying to get to that earlier
too. I was so because a lot of people associate those. But in
Daniel two, okay, so it's really interesting the chat the statue. You
got the head of gold, the body of silver, you know, the
legs of bronze, and then the feet of iron and clay, right sure,
And you know, the whole idea is like it's like the most pure
metal to like this thing that's gonna it's unstable's gonna crumble, hold on,
But it's not. It's not that difficult because we know from Daniel two that
that the Last Layers is where the Messiah is born, and that's the Roman
Empire. Well you don't believe you're back on that? Yeah, yeah,
like I still obviously believe that, you know, in the Kingdom of God
and the Messiah coming and like there is uh, you know, there is
christological things in Daniel. I just don't know if I had just put that
one to who who WHOA. Well, now we're getting into more dangerous territory.
What do you mean you don't think that's about Christ? Okay, so
the statue unificant? Is his reaction is you know, he's says Daniel R.
What is the stone? What is the stone cut out without the crushes
the session? I mean, I guess you could say that's Christ. Like
you guess, I mean that's a famous Messianic problem. What are you thinking?
I mean the New Testament says is Jesus? What are you talking about?
But Jesus also doesn't come and destroy the Roman Empire. So I don't
think that, Yes he does, he destroys it by his kingdom taking over
the Roman Empire. That's what happened. I mean, it's familiar with Church
history, the Byzantine Empire. Yeah, I mean that's a revival of it,
that's not like a toppling of it. It doesn't literally mean he destroys
it like an apocalyptic chaos. It means that he destroys it through the preaching
of the word. That's what you know. It really apocalypse. He goes
out to conquer with the sword that proceeds from his mouth. Right, the
way I see the statue there is that it's basically a prophecy of the fall
of ab one. So you've got a Nebuchadnezar's the head of gold because I
mean, Daniel tells you're totally wrong. It's it's four empires. It's four
empires and the Messiah comes under the fourth one. That's wrong. So I
mean this is like you don't think that's a Messianic prophecy. Yeah, I'm
just within the text itself. I think there's more clues. It doesn't work.
Hold On, that's not how that we do it. We don't interpret
the texts in isolation as if. I mean, so, so you bought
in a higher critical scholarship, so you don't actually think this this is a
Messianic book. No, I mean, for instance, the fourth man in
the flame, like that's Christ. Hold on a man? So who is
the stone cut out without hands? Who's the New Testament? Identify that as
I mean Peter for Peter, for the Christ as a rock. So you
have that. I don't remember if it's you don't know what? Okay,
all right, this is ridiculous. Yeah, so I mean baffling to me
to here. I mean I was kind of tracking with him initially, like
listening, Okay, I can hear this, I can get this. But
now he's like, no, no, that's not a Messianic prophecy. All
right, let's read this. So Daniel receives the vision of the statue,
and it says that Nebukaneezer, this is what will happen in the latter days.
The latter days is always a reference to the Messianic era, right,
it's when it's when the fulfillment of these things, as Jesus says, right,
all things written the prophets will be fulfilled. He says, here's here's
your dream, Nebukandezer. I saw your dream, he says, thoughts came
into your mind, and it was about what would come to pass after this.
He who reveals secrets has made known to you what will be, but
asked for me. The secret has been revealed because I have more wisdom than
anyone, not because I have more wisdom, but that you may know the
thoughts of the hearts. So basically saying that God's given me this. It's
not you were watching behold a great image. This image was splendor with excellence,
so before you was form was awesome. The image was fine gold.
It's chest, arms of silver, it's belly, thighs braun so it's four
metals all the way down to the Arno clay, which are based the statue.
You watch. While the stone was cut out without hands, it struck
the image on its feet and broke them into pieces. The iron, the
clay, of the bronze, the silver. Jesus himself says, whoever falls
on this stone will be crushed, talking about himself. The stone cut out
without hands is a reference to the Messiah and his divine origin. He's not
a human creation. The stone struck the image on the feet and broke it
into pieces. The iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver were
all crushed together, and they became chaff like the threshing floor. And the
stone that became that struck the mountain became a great struck. The image became
a great mountain and filled the earth again. Almost every church, father and
anybody, even where this is a prophecy of the Church, which is the
great mountain that fills the whole earth. Jesus came under the fourth of that
fourfold division, the Roman Empire, which was the last defeat the feet of
iron and clay. That's when Jesus was born. This is not like super
technical, super hard to figure out. And his kingdom was set up under
that Roman Empire. Not that hard. Unless we want to be unbelieving higher
critical scholars than we don't believe anything. This is the dream. These are
kings, and the God of Heaven has given you a kingdom wherever men shall
dwell, the beasts to feel the birds of heaven, He will give them
in your hands, and he has made you rule over them all. You
are this head of gold. So Nebuknezer is the head. The Babylonian Empire
is the head. After you. Another kingdom will arise, then a third,
and then the fourth is iron. This corresponds to Rome. Whereas you
saw the feet and the toes, they will be divided. And yeah,
we can debate exactly who the toes are, but the point is that in
the days of these kings, the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom,
and it will not be left to other people. It will break in
peaces, and it will consume, and it will stand forever. Who does
anybody think is the Kingdom of God that stands forever? It's the Church.
It's a prophecy. The Church. Jesus sets up the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is predicted to be victorious. It conquers the Roman Empire
exactly as this passage said it would. To me, it's odd that,
I mean, I was just confused. So I guess he's just saying,
no, it's not about a future Roman empire. It's just about people underneath
Nebuknezer's kingdom. Okay, but where's the Kingdom of God set up at that
time? Oh? Well, I guess it's not. I guess it's a
false prophecy, or it's just a bunch of gibberish, right, or it's
predicting the church. So that's enough of that. Let's get to the super
chats. So maybe i'll get my I'm sorry I couldn't read the text better
in here, it's like it's super dark. But we'll have to get some
new lights in here soon. Wood Green Grippin sends a dollar, says,
finish this stream Seawn Curry ten dollars thanks to Jay, John Venner, sweet,
we need an official wine, Mom Wallace, shame for all the worst
arguments. Maybe maybe they do get pretty wild up in here. Save us
mesolitis one dollar. Hello from Greece. What's up, dude? Hopefully things
are good in Greece. Regabitch ten dollars. I just want to say hello,
Well, hello, We give a shout out to you, Val.
Val Kilmer right there. Five dollars, Jay, thank you for doing these
streams. I was Chris made a Sunday. Thanks God bless keep up the
good work. Well, thank you so much. Val, appreciate that circle
g five dollars. What if you're a beautiful slow boy and you get lost
in the complex writing style and languages of the Church Fathers, Well take it
slow and easy. You don't there's no rush. You don't have to rush
into the difficult Church father texts, you know, try to find some of
the easier texts first, and maybe rather than even jumping directly into the Church
Fathers, try to read something like the Yaroslaw Pelicon book right like volume one.
That'll give you an introduction, and then you'll get familiar with some of
the terminology. Expendable Empire ten dollars. I realized I was about to buy
an overpriced cop cooler and I wouldn't tip J. Well, thank you so
much. I appreciate that. Yeah, coolers and kuzies do not come before
what we do over here. Alan Matrix ninety nine, ten dollars. I've
listened to the Trent Horne debate a couple of times, and I don't understand
what he means by doing your natural theology in reverse. I think what he
was trying to argue was that, well, Jay, you're still using reasoning
and logic when you do your tag apologetics and reasoning and logic is just natural
theology. Well, no, natural theology is not quote reasoning and logic.
Okay, he's missing the whole point. Natural theology is defined as even in
John Paul's encyclical Fetes at Ratio, it's defined as arguing or theologizing or philosophizing
about God apart from divine revelation. That's what natural theology is. So using
logic and reason is not the equivalent of natural theology. You'll notice throughout that
debate, Trent just kept equivocating and equating quote natural theology with all kinds of
different things. Oh you're using logic, that's natural theology. Oh you're making
an argument that's natural theology. Now that's not what natural theology is. We
define the parameters very clearly at the beginning of the debate. BMX nineteen six
six twenty five dollars. Thank you so much. Appreciate that fat super twenty
five bucks. Our longtime buddy supporters, super chatter there. Appreciate you.
BMX roll six five dollars. Thank you for this drink. Can you explain
what happened in the Westminster Confession tradition. Did they start removing Gospel books from
the cannon? No? I think that the Westminster Confession tradition is just gonna
follow Luther because Calvin, if you're not aware, Calvin was a humanist,
and a humanist is not the same thing as what we think of as humanism.
The Renaissance humanist tradition was a wide movement amongst scholars like Lorenzo Vala,
for example, who did good work. I don't agree with everything necessarily,
Vali did good work, for example, in exposing a lot of papal forgeries
and other Renaissance humanists. They weren't just Protestants that many of them were Catholic,
right like Erasmus. Erasmus was a humanist. And all they were doing
was saying, hey, it's time for us to get some degree of textual
studies going because there's a lot of medieval forgeries, and there was also a
desire to return to the ancient texts. And so you know Calvin Luther,
those people, Erasmus as well, they learned Greek and Hebrew because they wanted
to go back to the text. So humanism is part of the reason that
they went about this in this way, and that's what led them, for
example, to say, well, which canon as Protestants are we going to
accept? Well, Jerome was not did not have a high view of the
Didero canon. He still cited it, but he didn't necessarily think it was
canonical because Jerome agreed with Jews that we should follow him asoretic text. Now,
the Roman Caloic Church did not end up going with Jerome, but the
protest and said, well, why don't we just go with the Jews the
masoretic texts and drum So that's part of the reason that they have the Protestant
cannon. So I don't think that like the Westminster Confession, people just started
removing books. They were just kind of committed to this humanist approach of returning
to the original source text or what they thought were the source sex Orgie mentioned
this offhand and debate with a Protestant. Yeah, so that's what I was
probably referring to. But I mean it's I don't think it's wrong to say
that luther and Protestants just throughout books of the Bible. I mean, it's
basically what they did. Turtle items one dollar. Would you debate the politics
and religion server? Again, I mean I'm not opposed per per se,
but I mean, do they want to debate philosophy? I mean usually when
we open it up in there, it's just a bunch of like teenage atheists.
So I don't know, it's basically I don't know. Well, we'll
see Rvy sports hundred dollars. Thank you so much. Wow, that's so
crazy, fat super chat. I've never sent a super chat before. I
want to thank you for expanding my understanding of God, bringing me closer to
him. Thank you. Well, Hey, man, Thank you so much.
That's a really generous super chat. You don't have to get that much.
Kind of humbled by that, but thank you so much. Temple Hat
Girl, twenty five dollars. I want to say thank you and appreciate you
taking my call. Well, thank you, Temple hat Girl. Appreciate your
questions. Sorry, I didn't remember enough about for Telly Tod off the top
of my head, but you refresh my memory and I remember all the social
justice nonsense in it. Now average a liberal Zellot Spangler, Sorrel Schmidt,
Giovanni Genteel, the illiberal reaction of right and left. What are your views.
I've read a little bit of Schmidt, and I read a little bit
of Spangler. I've not read Genteel or Alan Sorel. So I like Spangler.
He has an interesting approaches history that kind of remind me of Daniel,
But I also think that it's unfortunately Spangler is basically historical relativists, so there's
insights there. And you know, we covered Spangler when we're talking about Tavistock,
because Tavistot read Spangler in order to weaponize it, which is pretty wild.
Remember, guys, to head on over to Chalk dot com, which
the light hadn't burned out, because I could tell you how awesome it is
to get over to Chalk dot com and get access to those wonderful supplements that
you see here at Chunk, and you want to use the promo code J
fifty and you get fifty percent off any of these wonderful products over at Chalk.
They are the best supplements out there. Seven Wonders is great for nutrient
deficient diets. We need to use these supplements to make up for what's lacking
in terms of our nutrients. Use the promo code J fifty to get fifty
percent off all these great products. I do recommend the Male Vitality Stack,
especially the Tonkata Lie. You also get the Daily the Ashwell Ganda. The
stacks are great because if you don't nearly know what you want to get,
you can kind of test it out with getting stacks for men. There's stacks
for women. There's Female Vitality here. That stack is available. You don't
have to get the whole stack. You can test out individual products. I
would say, if you want to test out the Ashwell Ganda or the Tonkata
Lee. If you're a guy, those are all testosterrune boosting products. Use
the promo c J fifty you get fifty percent off anything over at Chalk,
and also use the promo co J five three Life that's J fifty three l
Ife if you want to get recurring subscriptions, which I do recommend. So
thank you guys, appreciate all that, and I kind of wish the Muslim
dude would come back.