Stand stand the sun spla yeo, yeo, Yeah, what's up? Welcome
open, foreign baby. We haven't done it in a while. It's nice
to always come back and be in this setting, to interact, to have
the positions challenge, you know. Aristotle said that is the mark of an
intelligent man, and to understand the opponent's position or another position without necessarily adopting
it. And that's what I always have a strip to do. I strived
to do, striven to do from the earliest days. I heard doctor Bondson
many years ago say that the ideal that we should shoot for in learning to
debate and so forth is to be able to state the opponent's position to their
satisfaction. That always doesn't That doesn't always happen in a debate. Things get
heated, and you kind of don't always do that, but not because you're
intentionally trying to do this, just sometimes it just doesn't happen. And sometimes
people aren't really civil, level headed, so they get really emotional and they
get really distracted. And nothing wrong with being emotional in a debate or getting
heated, that's part of debate. Let people don't know that. But when
the heat clouds your judgment and you can't think straight. Then then you kind
of you get fumbled, you get your reason is gonna be clouded if you're
controlled by your emotions. So it's I think, really a skill that you
have to kind of develop. And that's why you can be really smart but
bad at debate, because debate requires you to be to a degree able to
control your emotions. Now again, it doesn't mean you can't get mad,
you can't get heated. But if you get mad, you get heated,
and then it messes up your flow and your argumentation, then you're in trouble.
But we're in this weird, pussified state of things where people think that
debating is inherently evil. It's mean, it's bad, it's Western, it's
Latin, it's Protestant, it's it's all the stuff which is not true anyway.
So it doesn't mean that debate is our main focus in life. Doesn't
mean that debate is the essence of religion or something like that. But it's
part of being a rigorous thinker, it's part of being intellectual, it's part
of the life of the mind. Not everybody is called to that, Not
everybody has to do that, and not everybody has those kinds of gifts.
Ideally we could all work together if we used our gifts in the right way,
right, especially in the church. So but sometimes people get envs.
They want shortcuts, they want to say, oh, that's bad. I
can bypass all that because I'm really pious, and let me show you on
the internet how pious I am. That's my number one pet peeve. I
can't stand that. It makes me just cringe, and I pretty much just
disassociate with anybody who operates that way because I know that kind of person,
that mindset, and what they're going to be like, and it's not the
kind of person that I want to be anywhere near, because a lot of
times most people have blow ups and meltdowns after a few years. That was
what I was writing about on my sub stack recently, which is there's multiple
extremes. Right. We're going to go to the open form here in a
second, but I was wanted to voice a few thoughts before we have the
debate. Are open form? No, you don't have to debate, obviously,
you can ask questions if that's what you want. Most people don't want
to debate if you're civil. I always give people the opportunity anybody can come
and offer their challenge, their argumentation, their discussion, their critique if they
want to. And people say, well, you interrupt if you're not going
to address the topic. Yes, I interrupt. I don't interrupt just to
interrupt, but I can immediately tell when somebody is not going to deal with
the argument that was presented right, or they're using fallacies for example, and
Kiku, you debate. There's at least three fallacies that I called out,
and Dane didn't even seem to be aware of what fallacies were. He was
like mystified by this this concept, which I think says a lot about Islam.
Now that's not to say that there's no Islamic opponents out there that are
aware of fallacies, but it's just simply not the type of religion that lends
itself to those kinds of logical, rigorous thinking, coherently and consistently practices.
Hence it's ten. It tends to rely on just a sort of rabid appeal
to authority, and then any attempt to do colam it's you know, tends
to be shut down, at least early Colam was. And then you have
attempts to then make Islam, you know, more rational, so to speak
anyway. But in the point that the point of what I'm getting at is
just that throughout that debate we could see that there was an anti rational,
anti logic, anti reason trend, and we see the same thing amongst the
Orthopietists that are under the impression that debate is a Latin Western heterodox scholastic thing.
In fact, I was just rereading Romanedes, I was reading Lacos's new
book, and he says the same thing. We don't do debate. Church
fathers didn't new philosophy, metaphysics is bad, on and on and on,
and it's just simply not true. So there's extremes, obviously, just as
much as you could have rigorism as an extreme. And you're obsessed with I
don't know, calendar dates as an Orthodox person, and this is all you
care about is calendars and calendars, and right, you could be obsessed over
that to the point of making your whole world view irrelevant. You're just another
pharisee. All you care about is calendar dates. I'm not saying calendar dates
don't matter. I'm just saying that you could conceivably make that into an idol.
Well, guess what, Just as much as the intellect or academia could
be an idol, your own piety and displays of piety could be an idol.
Do you ever think of that? People don't think of ideolatry as an
idol, and in fact, Palamos even speaks of it this way. He
says that if we have a purely, for example, philosophical conception of God,
we've created an idea poltry. Ideolotry, ideas can be idols. Concepts
could be idols just as much as a little patcha Mama totem pole could be
an idol. You see, bro, you're just about to get banned.
Why are you gonna You're gonna spam me twenty times? What do I think
about RFK? You're immediately going to get booted? So stupid anyway. Rhetoric
is also part of debate, as they said many times, and rhetoric includes
Go watch any formal classical debate. Go watch Hitchens debating at the Oxford Union,
and he uses jabs, jokes, right, sarcasm, wit, You
make jabs at the opponent, that's part of a debate. We're in this
weird atmosphere where people's psyches are fragile. They can't handle that. They have
mental breakdowns if you make a joke about them and they say you're mean.
Anyway, I'm your mean Internet debate daddy, Baby, We're gonna open it
up. Today's topics are all slam poetry. So if you're a drunk wine
mom or wine ant and you have just laid down some sick bars, please
split those bars at me, because all I want to talk about up is
your rap battle skills as a wine mom. Right, So hopefully you've had
a nice drop of a nice gulp from a goblet of box wine, and
you've had a few Virginia slims, you're packing, you're ready to go,
bring it to me. All we want to hear about today is your slam
poetry, and I want you to spit your bars. Psych I do not
want you to spit your bars. And I don't care about your slam poetry.
And I don't know why anybody would have ever thought I care about But
now there was this trend of like two or three wine moms and wine ants
who were calling in to rap, and I'm liking to do their It wasn't
trolling. They were like really doing that. I wish that one drunk woman
would call back because she was she was fun. I thought that would go
viral. It was so good, but it didn't get them many views where
she said, you're a tyrannical reigner and you're arrogant as freak as pep.
But so those are the only two ye moms that can call back in.
If those women want to call back in, they're allowed to. And I'm
just going to prove to her through kindness and I'm not a tyrannical reigner because
I want her to call back in. But yeah, anybody else, Today's
topics getting more serious here. If you want to talk about Roman Catholicism and
the papiscy, if you want to talk about what's wrong with the arguments I
make about Orthodox stuff or natural law or natural theology. You want to talk
about tag pre sup if you want to talk about metaphysics, speismology, logoslogi
energies, Islam in the Quran, atheism, materialism, if you want to
talk about Calvinism, Christology, whatever it is you want to bring it,
You're welcome to bring it, as you know the rules are you can have
the floor for as long as you'd like to make whatever arguments you want.
We're not here to talk about whether I'm a KGB sorcerer. That's already well
established by the Internet Internet Committee of Verified Official News Guard researchers, which have
conclusively proven that I am a KGB sorcerer. So that's out of the way.
Now we can move on to the issues. And the issues are the
ones that I just listed. If you call in and you want to talk
about geopolitics, I'm not interested today. We've done plenty of geopolitical talks.
That's not today. We're not talking about conspiracies, We're not talking about movies,
none of that. That's not today. Now, invariably somebody's gonna call
in and say, oh, oh, do oh like your work? Uh,
guto about movies or what today? No, heck no, not today.
Also, guess what, You're gonna be muted, not by me,
but by Elon when you come on. When I give you the microphone.
Elon's got this thing programmed. He sent emails to the motherboard and it programmed
it to make you muted. When you come on, you gotta I mute
yourself. Yes, you hear me, you gotta mute yourself. Please,
don't make me say five hundred times I'm mute, dude, even though we
all know that I am gonna have to say five hundred times I'm mute,
dude, and then that guy will go, you hear me, Yes,
I can hear you, so we don't have to rehearse this. You I
mute yourself. Yes, I can hear you. Now, how many times
are we gonna say today, I'm mute, bro, and then that guy's
gonna go, ooh, yes, I'm just having fun. You mean,
look, it's no, it's just having fun. Man. It's just she's
sing giggles, dude. Nah Son, It's like shit Saint giggles Bro.
Nah Son. I feel like Judy Jim's son today. Nah Son. All
Right, Remember, though, you can talk for as long as you want
within reason. You don't get an hour one day. It was all don
our presentation. No, you can't do our presentation. Put everybody asleep.
You can talk within reason for as long as you want, present whatever arguments
you want. Got it, everybody know the rule. Very simple rules.
Again, Try to be civil. Don't talk about a bunch of nonsense that
we can't talk about on YouTube. You're immediately gonna get bouted, booted.
We won't talk again. Also to the evangelical dude, I know your voice,
and as soon as I hear your tone, I'm I'll know it's you,
and I'm immediately gonna boot you. We will not interact. And it
has nothing to do with being scared of your argument. I'm just tired of
your calling in for two years with the same thing every time. So I
know you're gonna call in today and I'm not gonna listen to you. So
you're just wasting your time and my time. And everybody on my audience knows
your voice. Everybody knows unless you start doing a unless you call in with
a Darth Vader voice disguiser. But even if you do that, I'm gonna
detect your dumb ass arguments within twenty seconds, bro, So I don't even
waste our time if you call in, at at least call in with a
Darth Vader voice changer. You'll get a little bit further with me if you
do that. But and everybody in the audience knows you're gonna call in too,
And I know you're gonna call you, but I'm not gonna listen to
it because I know you're making you're probably making a new profile right now as
we speak. He's not a stalker. He's just a goofy evangelical dude that
always makes the same argument. It's like after the first two and three hour
interchanges from two years ago, there's no point. And then he's like,
you never let me speak. No, I'll let you speak for like two
hours. The first two times you calling in, we argue maybe an hour,
hour and a half. You never let me finish, dude, because
you can't finish because you're running in a circle like Daniel Hooki Kichu over there
at Mecca running in a circle. Okay, all right, open for him.
Let's keep it to the rules, keep it cool, don't lose your
don't lose your don't lose your mind yet we know you're gonna lose your mind,
all right. We gota zelch what's up? Zelch belch him with a
z zelch Are you there? Says it's connecting. Hopefully we don't have connection
issues. Sometimes that happens. Not on my end. I think we're I
think we're streaming with clarity today, my boy Clarity over here. We got
cleanness and clarity over here. I'm mute, dog, I see you you're
own. I'm mute, zelch Are you there? All right? We're gonna
have to move on, Broy. Try to come back in later because it
ain't working. Big Gun, what's up, dude, Big Guns? You're
here? Okay. I have a couple of questions, but but just just
one at a time. Of course, I don't want to take up anyone
else's time, you know. But I've been looking into Orthodoxy and I find
it very appealing to me in the ideas that the one true, the one
holy Catholic Apostolic Church. You know. It's like it's like, this is
how, this is how we actually connect with Christ because he actually left us
a church, because he actually left us a visible church. And I really
like that. But I have a couple of Protestant friends, and I want
to know how to respond to them in the correct way, because I have
a friend who is a Baptist, and he uh and he's he's striving,
he wants to be an Anglican and and he refers to the thirty nine Articles,
and then he refers to the Council of Jerusalem. He says, well,
he talks to me and says, he says, well, in your
tradition, uh, you basically say that I'm not a Christian essentially, And
it because he refers to the part into he refers to the party in the
Council of Jerusalem where it says says, if there's not a bishop anywhere near,
then there's not a Christian that can be spoken of. Right. I
agree with that, Right, I agree with that because without a bishop,
then how can you have where the church is? Where the bishop is,
there's the church right all the way back to the post Apostolic fathers. Yeah,
yeah, I completely agree with that. But I think he's just kind
of taken it out of context and saying and saying that, you know,
I have a couple of anathemas on me, and says, well, how
can you have any anathemas on you when you're not even in the church,
right, because we're anathemas are not for people in the church. Anathemas are
pointing out the errors that have removed people from the church. Well, well,
could you explain to me what an anathema is, because like, as
far as it means you're cursed, you're excommunicated. So if you hold to
the views of anybody excommunicated, you're outside the church. You can't be inside
the church and an athema. That's impossible. Well, the way I've heard
that they the anathema has been said is that it's nothing else except a complete
odor separation from God, the Father, the Son, of the Holy Spirit.
An athema means you're excommunicated and rejected from the Church. So everybody who
believes, for example, if you read this Sonauticon of Orthodoxy, there's a
whole list of all of these different positions that are anathematized. So it means
you're rejected, you're not in the church. Okay. Well, then it
confuses me because then I know that one of the councils, it says,
says, let him be anathema from the Father, Son, and the Holy
Spirit. Well, I mean by extension, Yeah, Like if you're anathema
from the church, you're an athema from the triad because the Church is the
image of the Triad on earth. Okay, So how could I explain that
to my my quote unquote Anglican friend, because he's just kind of like,
because you know, well, okay, so let's just talk about the fact
that Anglicanism is a Protestant brand theory, that is that can you mute when
I'm not you got yeah, sorry, it's okay. Yeah. So Anglicanism's
main mistake, other than all the Protestant presuppositions, is just that it's a
branch theory of the church. The Church is divided amongst the major sex that
come out of the Reformation and amongst the early Church. So when when Henry
the eighth created his church, he had to come up with a new way
to speak of and signify the quote unity of the church. So it's kind
of the first Ecumanist project. In terms of Protestantism. You could go all
the way back to the papacy and argue that Renaissance papacy is the real root
of Ecumanism. But Anglanism in this regard is a ecclesiastical heresy. So the
heresy is the idea that the church is divided or split amongst various groups or
branches, and it tries to argue from oh, well didn't Jesus say that
I'm the you know, you're the I'm the vine, you're the branches.
So, therefore, branch theory that has nothing to do with saying that the
church church is divided amongst split divided branches. That's ridiculous. There's one Lord,
one faith, one body, one Baptism, and that's a visible group.
That's why there's no Anglican church in the first thousand years. There's only
one church. So the question is who's in continuity with the Church of the
first thousand years. And it's sure it's Anglicanism, right, right, right.
And I hope, I do hope to get into Eastern Orthodoxy because the
closest one is, you know, in my area, is like an hour
and a half away. But I hope it's worth I really do hope it's
worth the drive for sure. And a thing is too about the my friend
who is the Protestant in question, he believes in like solo fitte a solo
scriptoria, and it's like it's like I've tried to refute him on the soli
scriptorial arguments to say, you, dude, you're just using the circular argument.
It's completely circular. Says the Bible is the Bible because the Bible says
so, it's completely ridiculous, right, And he says, well, well,
then he says, uh, I think he says, no, it's
completely dumb, because there's in the early Church people had the idea of of
the there's a difference between the recognition of infallibility and the position of infallibility.
He just watches cabin. Well, I mean they didn't have these videos.
Yeah, but they didn't have a Bible, so they'd had the cannon of
scripture. So I mean Protestantism, soul scripture requires there to be like a
full closed cannon, right, Otherwise, how are we knowing the fullness of
the mind revelation. We need the whole deposit, and if the deposit is
contained only in the written text, then the church is in this severely deficient
position for all of those centuries until in our view it's really Trollo and then
Nicia too. Right, so it's Trolo and then Council six and seven before
the no, I was blowing my nose. If you are asking why did
you go away? I blew my nose. By what you're gonna get you
get booted for just doing that. I don't do. I have allergies,
so good job you just got booted. Anyway, if you want to see
the watch the faithless, the not faithless. Was that the debate that we
did with Dale Dale is like the perfect Protestant debate, And I didn't even
though that was a debate. I did want your debate with Pedro and I
thought that was very interesting. Well, this one is more along the lines
of what you're talking about. So if you go look up the Dale debate,
it's solo scripture refuted a discussion with Jay Dyer and bau Branson and Dale.
So, oh, you mean that one was like a faith unaltered that's
at Yeah, I mean Dale tries to argue the kind of thing that you're
talking about. Also, we did a discussion with Sam Shamoon that covers this
in a lot of depth. All right, No, that's a that's really
good. I appreciate that. Yep. Good questions. Is there another question?
One thing about so how would I define I'm I mean, i'm i'm
I'm I'm a slow boy. I'm sorry, but but I was trying.
I was trying to, you know, understand the concept between the anathema and
an excommunication, Like wouldn't you just say, you know, it'd be an
excommunication instead of an anathema. It just means, it just means impose laters
says that let him be anathema. If anyone speak a different gospel, the
word just means you're accursed. So I don't know. I'm not I'm not
trying to be rude. I just don't understand the confusion. So, an
excommunication is when the Church officially pronounces so and so excommunicated. Arius, the
heretic is excommunicated because of blah blah blah. Right, and all who believe
Arius as heresies are anathema. So it just means you're a cursed right,
right. But the thing is that poses me is like you know, in
the Second Council, and I see it. It just defines the anathema as
a complete and odor separation from God. That's what a curse means. I
mean, it's what what's the confusion? I don't well, I was just
saying, because you know, like they have the power to take away your
salvation or something like that. Like the Church is not taking away your salvation.
The Church is pronouncing a judgment on what you've already done. Right,
just like the Church doesn't send you to hell, right, the Church is
saying you will if you do this, be condemned by God. Not by
the church. The church is just ratifying or elucidating or saying the judgment of
God. Does that make sense, Yeah, yeah, that doesn't make sense.
It's just it's just that I've been having I've I've kind of had it,
you know, like in my head that okay, if in excommunication means
this, which means you're denied the sacraments, and in an anathema would just
mean that you're completely utterly separated from God, which I would say, you
know, it would make sense that you know, Arius lost his salvation because
he didn't repent of his heresy, right, and so even though he possessed
the full of the faith that was inside of the church, he chose to
go against it anyway. And I would I would feel like, you know,
in anathema would be someone for someone who would be inside of the church
to reject the fullness of the truth in the faith, and then no,
you'd be anathematized. No, anybody, anybody can be anathematized, right,
That's why, for example, the Sonauticon says Greek philosophers are and there and
people who hold their views are an athema. If you believe the ideas of
Plato, you are an athema according to the Sonauticon, right, and in
the Council of Jerusalem in sixteen seventy two, like, if you hold the
ideals to Calvinism, you're an athema. Correct, Yeah, yeah, okay,
that would make sense. I do that does make sense. Like I
don't. I don't really see the power of an individual human being being able
to send you to hale because you are unrepentant, because ultimately the heresy is
up to you to choose honestly. Right, But the church has the ability
to exercise I mean, Paul says, for example, the people at Corinth
that are causing the problem, he says, throw them out. Why have
you not thrown them out? Right? So the church has the authority to
throw people out, not arbitrarily or willy nilly, because you can have corrupt
bishops that uh throw people out for bad reasons or try to they can abuse
that power, correct and so but in the long run they end up being
wrong and the people are vindicated. So but the church still has authority to
do that. Okay, It's that's like saying that. That's like saying that,
Well, it's like saying if a father in a household abuses his authority,
then no fathers have authority. You see how that's a fallacy, right
right, right, So then it then it falls to the question of the
no salvation outside the church people who are anathematized, Which would which would you
know, consider every single Protestant that would believe excuse me, that would can
consider believing. Yeah, so I'm just gonna like, yeah, we've covered
this a lot of times. I'm not trying to, but you can find
like probably fifty different previous live streams where we cover this topic. So just
to move on, so we don't have to cover this because it gets into
the explanation of whether a person can be united to Christ in extraordinary ways like
the thief on the cross, which I think can happen. It's not salvation
outside the church, because nobody's saved without being united to the mystical body.
But if God has ways by which he can, out of the norm,
unite people to the mystical body like the thief on the cross, that's certainly
possible to God. We don't know that though from our vantage point, all
we know is what's available to human you know, temporal vision, and so
we just simply tell these people it's their duty to come into the church.
But I'm not trying to be rude. It's just we've addressed that probably a
million times. So we're gonna move on to the next guy who've tried to
get in Zelch, what's up, hit, I'm mute, all right?
So the Orthodox Church being the one Holy Catholic and Nepstolic Church, my question
is, why hasn't the Northbound Church replaced the current patriarch or the person in
place of the patriarch of Rome. Was it supposed to be a gotcha?
Or is it like you you hung out really quick there? No, that
My question was very simple. I just wanted to get offices I had done
right. So being no longer in communion with the church established by Christ,
I'm aware of it. Yeah, you don't think I've ever heard this argument?
No, No, that's a question for me. I'm not even sure
what the argument is. My question is why has It's an argument that Roman
Catholics bring up all the time because the art, the idea is that,
oh, well, if you're the true Church, then you would have had
control over every every area that you lost, and you would have been able
to put I'm not saying you're saying that, I'm just saying it's a common
Roman Catholic objection. So Number one there is that do you know there is
an Orthodox bishop in Rome? I knew there was a bishop of the city,
but not quite the patriot. So if we don't control an area,
there's no way that we can, like what, bring troops in and like
set up a you know, shut down, shut down the Vatican or something
like that, because simply we don't have the ability to the power, the
authority to do that. Right in terms of the local reigning power there,
the Vatican is a protected city state. So you can't just it's like Washington,
DC and be like saying, be like saying, well, you think
Biden is an illegitimate president, why don't you go into DC and set up
a president? Right, just doesn't the realities of geopolitics don't work that way.
But there are there is at least one bishop in Rome proper who is
a Romanian bishop, and then there's other bishops that have jurisdiction in that area.
So technically speaking, there are Orthodox bishops in Rome, but there's not
a patriarchy because we the ability to you know, override all the temporal state
authority. Thank you, Yeah, he did. He did sound a little
a little sassy there, it's a little mad Margarie, Marjorie Marguerie. I
don't want people get so sassy and mad about stuff like they can't. They're
just triggered about things. What are you triggered about, dude, Margerie mute?
Hello, Yes, and Jay, I'm sorry it takes a little bit
for the connection to the stubbs. Anyways, I have a question about the
concept of time. I heard you say a few times that tidd in orthodoxy,
time is linear, so there's a beginning, of middle, and end,
which makes sense, and it's in opposition to the concept of time in
Eastern philosophy and religion where it's scret and I understand is that correct or incorrect?
So because that that basically leads to nihilism because it's always going around in
circles and there is no points. Yeah, eternal return makes right, So
this is this makes sense. However, I heard a new another concept of
time, which is kind of a halfway through, where time is more like
an upward spiral, where there is a circle of more movement, but even
don't go back to the same point. So you still there's a progression,
but you always go on a higher level too, And I thought, this
is actually, this actually makes more sense because you know, in Christianity there's
this concept of the typology where things come back as types, not exactly the
same, but similar, but always with a fuller and higher You can't apparently
you can't hear me, and you're it's really loud, and yeah, so
yes, it's fine to say that. You could look at time as moving
in a circle upwards, but you'll notice if you're moving in a circle upwards,
it's not eternal returns. It's not a circle. It's a circle upwards
where there's a progression. So this point on the circle is not this point
on the circle. So you could say that there's types and cycles to history,
but saying that there's cycles to history like we see in the Book of
Daniel does not equate to cyclical history. So you might be referring to Saint
Gerga Nissa and the Kappadocians talking about our ever moving progression up into God,
but that's typically their discussion of the Uscatan. So in the u Scaton,
they're saying that we move up into I'm not being condescending and arrogant, and
it's that she couldn't hear what I'm saying, and it's annoying when see these
people just love to come in the chat and bitch like they just want a
bitch about stupid shit. Why don't you call in? She couldn't hear my
responses, That's why it was. Had nothing to do with me being arrogant
and mean. It's that when I'm talking sometimes on Twitter spaces, there's a
delay, so she couldn't hear what I'm saying. So that's why I ended.
It's not me being condescending. So it's if I can't talk back and
forth, then I have to mute the person because they're gonna keep talking and
they can't. They don't hear what I'm saying until like thirty seconds later.
Okay, this is because when you're on Twitter spaces, especially if you're on
cell phone, there's a delay, so the cell signaled delays for whatever reason,
Twitter Space audios, So stop accusing me of bad motives. It's just
so sick of this. There's all these soy people who love to come to
the chat and just wait for me to do something where they can like ah,
we got, and look how mean and arrogant he is. Yeah,
I'm so triggered yet, So why don't you all you people bitch and why
don't you call in? There's nothing more soy than tone policing, And all
you guys ever do is tone police. So there's your call in Reflective Journey
and whoever the other soy Man was ABC fifty five, oh fifty two.
All you gotta do is call in. But you don't have any arguments.
All you have to do is all you have is bitching about my modus operan
die one, has nothing to do with the actual topics and has nothing to
do with me being mean. It's because there's a delay in Twitter space audios.
Ex Dirk, what's up, dude? Yo? What's u? Jay?
Yes, sir, hey man, I want to know what's what's the
Bible's take on eating pork? This is a real question, not a real
question. I can already tell we gotta, we gotta, Maximilian Box,
what's the Bible's position on eating port? There's nothing, Paul says that call
nothing unclean. Everything is cleansed by the Word of God and by prayer,
So it can't be a serious question. Maximilian. We got a Protestant man.
He's got he's got a reformer in his in his bio, hijack,
I have a question regarding the Trinity. So, okay, forgive me if
this question has been addressed before. I'm new to the stream. Okay.
So I was watching this debate between David Wood and Muhammad Tea Job recently,
and he Job posts some questions about the Trinity that I felt that David Wood
did not address properly. I can, I can, I can. I
can imagine that that's probably true because I doubt that a Protestant evangelical is going
to be proficient in the Trinity. Yeah, exactly. So. So basically,
the main questions that he Job had for what had to do with the
historical tradition of the Trinity. So what he said was that the Jewish rabbis
in the Old Testament did not infer a trinity. Did you watch my opening
statement in the debate with Hiki Kichi h No? I haven't seen that.
Okay, So the whole presentation is Jewish trinitarian theology. Okay, yeah,
all right, then I have to watch that debate. And also another point,
Oh you gotta do is watch the first fifteen minutes just for that topic.
But go ahead, okay. Well another point of contention was that I
think it's probably related to this one too, that the church fathers in the
first three hundred years before the Council of Nicia also did not talk about it
trinity. But I'm not sure. I mean, is there super This is
really some texts which do talk about it. Yeah, this is really low
tier objection. So the word trinity has nothing to do with whether or not
the idea of the trinity is present. Do you understand that? Yeah?
Right, So I can coin a term later on down the road, like,
for example, the Fifth Council coining the term. By the way,
to the guy in the chat day use loudy t there's the number, there's
the Twitter space to call in. I guarantee no other people are going to
call in. All these people bitching in the chat Here he says that I'm
scared when I turn on the live stream button, I'm really scared. So
I'm giving you the chance to call in if you think I'm scared. So
right, So, the Patristic tradition of the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit being divine, you could easily look that up on any even Catholic
website, like within five minutes. For example, what just I mean.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'm just saying this is so easily verifiable.
For example, what the early Church believed about the Trinity. And this
is just two pages of quotes from the show me three pages of quotes from
the first three centuries about the deity of the persons of the Triad. I
would take you about five minutes to find and read that. So I'm not
trying to be mean to you. I'm just saying I don't understand this Muslim
objection because they love to go to this and I don't know where or how
they've come up with this, because it's one of the dumbest things that they
argue, because you could literally find within five minutes that even if you think
it's wrong, it's just simply obviously not the case that the post Apostolic fathers
from the time of Ignatious Clement up to Nicia, that they denied the deity
of the Father, of the Son and the Spirit. Like it's just obviously
that they don't have to use the word trinity, right, I don't understand
why people can't get even Trent Horne couldn't get this argument right. It doesn't
matter whether the word trinity is used. What matters is, as Saint Jerome
says, the concept or the ideas behind the word. If it was a
matter of the words, then we could never translate the Gospel into other languages.
How could we translate the New Testament into Aluit or something like this,
or how could we convey these ideas to them? It was all hinging on
the Latin word trinitass. This is so dumb. It's like the lowest IQ
possible objection. And I think what it is is that a lot of Muslims
don't know anything, so they just kind of go to like evangelical liberals and
they go to dumb cults like Seven Day Avenues or people like those, or
Jove's Witnesses, and they look for they just look for, like googled like
proof texts that the church fathers don't teach the Trinity. And they usually argue
from the position first that the word trinity isn't used until Tollian or something,
because again, it has nothing to do with whether the ideas are there,
Because I mean, my whole presentation the first fifteen minutes was that, first
of all, first second century Judaism was not a monolithic entity, and the
idea that it was a strict unitarianism is not clear until Mimonides. So my
Manides is one of the first clear argumentations of a strict Unitarian philosophy for Judaism.
Now that doesn't mean that there's no Unitarian ideas in the first and second
century. It's just simply to say that if you read Siegel, if you
read Summer, if you read Peter Schaeffer, if you read Boyarin, all
the people that I cited, all the Jewish scholars that I cited in the
first fifteen minute opening statement, you will see that they make the point very
clear that first century Judaism, second center Judim is not a monolithic Unitarian enterprise.
In fact, there are admissions of three hypostases. Summer says, you
see it. So they're just simply being honest with what Boyaran says. Quote.
First century Christianity is a conservative Judaic movement, meaning that they read the
texts of the Torah and the prophets in a conservative way, such that they
recognized Jahweh, the Angel of the Lord, and his spirit present throughout all
of those texts from Genesis up to the minor prophets, especially Ezekiel Isaiah.
Right, So, do you see what I'm saying is that I'm not saying
that Judaism true. I'm not saying that it's true because Jewish scholars are saying
it. Okay, I'm saying that the Jewish scholars are admitting our point.
That's that's the argument, you understand, all right? Okay, So yeah,
thanks for the clarification. I will look into this. Have one child
question, sure, and it has to do with the hypostatic union, which
I was a little bit confused by. This was also a point of contention
that he Job brought up in the debates, and his contention was that how
can Jesus Christ be one hundred percent human but at the same time be one
hundred percent divine? And he was taking it into psychological direction that you can't
really believe in a squared circle. And yeah, I would be interested to
know what your response to that one is. Well, that would be a
false analogy because the square is one thing and a circle is another thing.
So the idea that one thing could not have two different properties or one hundred
percent of two different things is just a basic philosophical misunderstanding. So, in
other words, if I take an object and I compose it of two different
things, I don't. Let's let's let's say I take a Let's say I
take two pieces of legos, right, and I come buying the two pieces
of legos, and one of them is a circle lego and one of them
is a square lego, and they perfectly fit together. Right. Isn't it
true to say that the new object is one circle lego and one hundred percent
square lego? Yeah, I guess right. So it doesn't mean that the
new object is a tertium quid. You know what a tertium quid is?
No, Yeah, so you should learn this term. So altertium quid is
a new third thing. Okay. The Muslim argument there is hinging on the
new thing. That's a result of the hypsetic union being a new third type
of object, that is a single individuated object. That's why the Orthodox Church
and even the Roman Caloic Church believes that Christ maintains the two distinct natures even
after the union. Does that make sense? Okay, So it doesn't become
a new third god Man hybrid thing. It retains the properties, the natural
properties of the divinity and the humanity even after the union. So in other
words, in other words, what Muhammad jab or whoever you're talking about is
arguing against, it would be more akin to arguing against the monophysite or the
coptic position, which typically thinks that maybe not in every one of their theologians
case, but in many cases they've argued that Christ's attertition quit a third thing.
Okay, yeah, do you understand that or I'm not calling you out.
Does that answer the question that's that Jesus cannot be percent divine at the
same time as being one hundred percent Okay? Again, in the legos,
Okay, if I take one circle lego and I squish it to a square,
lego, it's a new it's a new it's a new thing, but
it still has the properties of both the square and the circle, right,
yeah, Okay, So it's not a it's not a tertium quid that I
mean, it's not a it is a third thing in the sense that it's
a it's a new a new reality, but the new reality didn't destroy the
circle and the square previous reality. It still retains the properties of both while
being a new thing, and that new thing would be the for Jesus Christ,
the hypothetic union. So now the second person of the Godhead, the
second person of the Godhead, has entered into a new motive being as incarnate.
That's the new third thing. But it's not a tertium quid that destroys
the realities of the properties of the previous state. So the divinity did not
change and become man. This is why we say he underwent no change in
the incarnation. Okay, he entered into a new motive being without losing or
altering or changing his deity. All right, Okay, well I have to
I will have to look into the tertial quid, as you said, more
to wrap my head around this concept. So the concept, again, to
make it clear, is personal. Quit is a new third thing such that
it no longer has the properties of the previous Okay, Jesus didn't lose the
properties of deity and humanity in the incarnation. It's that simple, okay,
Yeah, alright, And Monophysite theology Coptic theology has tended to say that Christ
is a new third thing that is not divine nor human it's a divino human
hybrid, right anyway, good questions. Just think about that. It might
take you a little bit for that to click, but you know, I
mean, it's just kind of like it's it's weird to me that they so.
One reason that they have a hard time I think with one hundred percent
God one hundred percent man is that they're thinking in terms of counting by identity,
which is really hilarious because obviously we don't typically count by identity. We
count by division. And the Church Fathers and the Creed all count by division.
This is not counting by identity. Sometimes you can count by identity.
And we'll get into this more in the future when doctor Branson comes on and
we'll be covering some of these papers and we'll be covering counting by identity and
counting by division. Typically speaking, we count by division, especially when it
comes to the ancient medieval world. This is why the Creed says He's undivided,
right, God is undivided. Maximus Seas is the same idea as about
the energies. The energies are one and many, and they're indivisible, undivided
in their multiplicity. Right, that's a terminology that maximisuses, and so it's
a way to note that we're not counting by identity in the ancient medieval world,
although there are instances where you do that, for example, in objects
of second order imposition, those are at times or most often counted by identity.
For example, sets, you can't count sets, and you can't count
things like abstract groupings like the ten category Aristotle's categories. You have to count
those by identity because there's no you can't, for example, think of a
third of a set or a third of a law of logic. So objects
like that second order in position, they're sometimes counted or they're oftentimes counted by
identity, but most things are counted by division. And it's very we'll get
into this more in the future. It's not today's topic. But it's easy
to show that you don't count by identity. I mean, you can use
a piece of paper to show it. But also the analogy of legos is
helpful because it's just an analogy, so and it's just showing that saying something
is one percent one thing and one hundred percent another thing in its joining has
nothing to do with the two different diophysite things changing. So it's a union
without change, confusion, diminution, or distinction or division. It's pretty simple.
JJ, what's up dude. By the way, you guys can support
via super chats. Send your superchats through the stream labs link. It's right
there. Are you there? I guess he's connecting, So super chats are
right there. Thank you to Cedric and E Dennis and John Vander Shoot.
I will get to you guys a super chats here in a minute. Uh,
if you want to call in. We've had a lot of haters over
here talking smack, but they never call in. Uh, please, haters,
please call in right there. So, I guess JJ is having trouble
connecting. Try coming out and coming back in. JJ will move on to
the next guy. We got a lot of people who wanted to chat today.
George, what's up? George? Day? Jay? Sorry? Go
ahead, Actually stand on my phone FY to make sure I get the mic
so whatever delay couldn't perceive them. That's what it was. Okay. So
yeah, have you ever done any work on the f nation creed? Like
an explan from an orthodox standpoint? Well, we all know, we all
know it's not athanaceous, right, but if you watch the Ubie debate with
Militant Tellmas that comes up. So there's a very recent video. It kind
of came up on my like home screen on YouTube, and I just kind
of clicked it for whatever, and it seemed to be gaming popularity in a
very short amount of time, because there's basically this guy, this Catholic dude,
heat dove into that at like an hour length of time, and he
walked through exactly even mentioning and citing, you know, the totality of ubies,
you know, lip service. He paid to the argument, and he
made kind of a like hermetically sealed, I mean perceptibly hermetically sealed argument that
it is referring to hyposthetic origin instead of economic procession. And I just want
to know, like, is there anything out there beyond Hubie's thing, because
he also goes into how, you know, once that's affirm, then you've
got a whole plethora of Saints both East and West, who not not East
but Western Saints pre schism, So Eastern Venerated Saints like affirming it and basically
hold on affirming affirming what Wholloa affirming the ath nation creed. Yes, how
could early venerated Latin Church fathers affirmed the ath Nation creed. If the Athnation
Creed is a late product old pre schism, not not early early, but
at least pre schism, you mean, so hold on, when do you
think the at the Nation Creed is dated? I don't know what he was
saying. I'm not too familiar, but was it like mid fourth century or
something or five? Yeah? Okay, so we know it's not from Athanasius,
right, right, So you're talking you're not talking about like Cyprian.
You're talking about like post fifth sixth century Western people. Yes, but there's
still Orthodox scenes right like right, So so if you it's it's not really
any different than the supposed letter to Marinus where Maximus a confessor right in the
seventh century is saying that the Latins could just be simply speaking of the economics
sending do you understand hello, sorry, yeah, I mean that's kind of
how I square it, Okay, but do you understand that none of that
really matters given the fact that this isn't really a solidified until Lions and then
the Palamite Council's influence. So so all of this early stuff, I'm not
saying it's not relevant. I'm just saying that the two the East and West,
don't explicate exactly what their positions are until Lions, Byzantine, Palamite Synods
and Florence. Do you understand that? Yeah, Okay, so we can't
we can't go to prior assumptions of like, well, maybe they're saying this
and the other side, well maybe the other side saying this, right,
because it's not made clear who's saying what officially dogmatically until Lions in twelve seventy
four, the Palomite Synod responses, and then Florence. That's when everything is
made explicitly clear from a dogmatic perspective. So I'm happy. I have no
problem saying that. Yeah, it's fine to grant all the Latin writers the
benefit of the doubt up until Lions and Florence. Okay, yeah, I
think what you would probably say is a Okay, let's say that it wasn't
dogmatic, but if they really hold on what it wasn't dogmatic, the philioqua
or the athonation creed God they Okay, so even if they were like unknowingly
philioquists or whatever, just be based on not like not having a church wide
explication yet right the way we currently explicated as this extremely evil doctrine, you
you'd still expect for them to not have such a No. No, that's
that's because it's not clear until lions in Florence and palamite synods. Okay,
all right, all right, So in other words, there's a this is
a centuries long conversation about this topic, right. Uh. And by the
way, yeah, there are like have you read the Soshinsky book. It's
really good on this stuff. Have you read it? I haven't. No,
it's actually heavily cited in the video, but yeah, I gotta read
the totality of it. Yeah, I recommend that book. We did a
whole three hour podcast on the book, I think three years ago. So
basically, you know, you have to understand the whole conversation that's going on
from the time of basically third and fourth centuries all the way up to again
the real crux. Everything hinges on, not even not even Saint Photius's day
in the mistagogy, It all hinges on this, which is another book I
would recommend to get in addition to the phili Equi book, it's Papadacus's book
Crisis and Byzantium, because this book is about the Palomite Synod's response to the
first Roman Catholic dogmatic pronunciation at Lions. So the Council of Lions is twelve
seventy four, right. So that's why I remember for Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism,
these are two churches that believe in dogma. In other words, they
believe in authoritative pronouncements that kind of like settle the issue for the respective communions,
right, so you can't really settle the issue. That's what a lot
of Roman Catholics do is like they'll just try to cite Cyril of Alexandria or
Maximus or Ambrose because there's times where they speak in ways that might be interpreted
as a filioquist statement. Right. Likewise, those same fathers have other statements
that seem to exclude the possibility of philioqua, especially Capadocians. So this is
a this is a topic that's that's like in conversation for centuries and it doesn't
really get solidified, not even in the time of when Saint Photius writes Mystagogy,
because Mystagogy is like the first kind of like clear Eastern statement, Like
this is we conceive of the triad to be without any flexibility, like there's
no flexibility on you know what I'm writing here in the mystagogy. But the
but the issue isn't settled by that time. It's not settled until Rome dogmatizes
the double eternal hypostatic procession at Lions, which is a quote from Augustine on
the Trinity. Right. Then the Orthodox Church responds with the Palomite Synods,
which define for the Orthodox Church the intraterrinitarian relations right in the Tomos against John
Becos and other documents. Right. So then Rome responds again with Florence,
which is a restatement of Lions and Augustine. And it's there it's made very
clear that it's a double eternal hyposote procession. So yeah, I think I
don't have any problem with flexibility about things like the athination, Creed or whatever,
because ultimately it doesn't none of that hinges on. Like church fathers can
be wrong, and they can there can be centuries where something's unclear, that
can it can be debated and then not made definitive until centuries later. Yeah,
I mean, I agree, I just I appreciate that Amil and whatnot,
Like it's I've taken my own plants at the fruits of the schism,
and so I get it, like the Abrahamic Faith Center, Right, I'm
solid. You know, I'm not worried or anyth Yeah, yeah, I
know that's going to be brought up in the future. So well, like
what what I'm saying is this. A lot of times drumming Catholics and even
Orthodox they'll like they'll cite something from like Maximus or from the Letter to Like.
They'll they'll say, look, the Letter to Marina says, why don't
we just grant that the Western Church means things in the same sense we do,
Therefore there's no problem with Philly oquay and why can't we all just get
along. That's a common argument that they is right. That's a really low
tier argument because it's ignoring the fact that there's centuries of discussion and debate and
defined dogma after the Letter to Marinus. So you can't go back, you
can't go back to something in like the fourth century or fifth century or sixth
century and say, well, here's somebody saying it's not an issue, So
why don't we just have an Because you're ignoring the next several centuries of dogmatization.
Does that make sense? But people love to do this because they just
don't know the whole the issue in terms of its total scope. That's why
you can go you can go to the Vatican clarification on the Philly Oakway.
It admits that there's still there's still tension between the Palamite view and what lines
in Florence say, particularly on this very issue of double eternal hypsite procession.
So even Rome admits that it's still different. Do you understand ye? All
right? Thanks, yeah, good questions. Yeah, get those two book,
they're really good. All Right, welcome guys, it's open for him.
Next up, our buddy, Sean. What's up Sean? What's up?
Sean? Okay, hey man, listen. I just wanted to quickly
praise you. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you for all the
research you do. Thank you for the fourth Hour on Lord Boldemort's uh you
know show, amazing, amazing work. Thank you. Currently, I'm worshiping
at an independent Baptist church. Don't hate me for that. I'm Orthodox at
heart. I appreciate you know. I've read the Church Fathers thanks to you,
read the Orthodox Study. Bible. Thanks you really brought out you know,
it really opened my eyes to a lot of stuff, my hesitancy,
you know, and maybe because you know, I started off as a libertarian,
big ron Paul Rand Paul supporter and stuff. I the Orthodox churches around
me, and you know, maybe you're dealing with this too. I know
I've heard you talk about it, the Cumans in the Orthodox churches, you
know, especially around me before you know, I'm currently worshiping where I am,
and I've been hesitant to move over because the churches around me were big
promoters of lockdowns, big promoters of stabbies. You know, there was even
members of the clergy questioning people's salvation if they didn't get the stabbies. So
I guess my question is, how do you deal with in your heart those
issues? And I realized that, you know, even back in John's time
there was issues with all you know, the seven churches that he was writing
too. But how do we get over there? You know, that's the
big thing that's kind of kept me. It's like, okay, if you're
gonna question my salvation because you're totally, in my opinion, corrupted. You
know, for me, God always gives us free will, and we have,
you know, free will to accept Christ. We have the free will
to you know, reject him. But I really believe that it's the evil
one that tries to push something and not give you a choice, you know,
And that's that's the thing is, like, how do you get over
that in your own heart? Has the church been corrupted? Have some of
them been corrupted? You know, what about you know, the reunification in
twenty twenty five. You know, I'm I'm not trying to debate. These
are really just questions that have kept me and I don't know if they just
you know, I need to work over in my own heart to get the
right answer. In my heart, I'm definitely definitely Orthodox. You know,
I disagree with my pastor about a lot of stuff. I stay there because
I see that they you know, bear a lot of good fruit. They
do a lot of good stuff in the community. You know, my family
has a good time there. You know. I hope in my own heart
that that's not a form of idolatry, you know, just because I like
those people and I see that they do good work. But that the especially
the Orthodox Church is around me, I would say, are totally a humanist,
you know, totally liberal, totally corrupt. And I have a hard
time, you know, just justifying that in my own mind and my own
heart. How how did you do it? Or you know, what are
you dealing with or are you dealing with those things now? Well, thankfully
I don't personally to deal with it, because I'm not trying to be arrogant
or bragging or whatever. But I mean I knew, I knew ten years
ago a lot of what was gonna be coming. I mean not literally like
every event, but yeah, but I knew about I mean, one thing
I didn't convert, one reason I didn't convert in two thousand and seven was
the very issues you're talking about. So for me, it was kind of
like a long process of trying to find and locate solid Orthodox churches. And
that's I mean, it's unfortunate that we're in that kind of a situation.
But the reality is that every group, whether you're like Protestant, Roman,
Caloic, Orthodox, everybody's got problems. At the same time as the fact
that everybody has some of the common problems, each of these groups has kind
of their own set of problems. So like in the Roman Caloic Church.
There, they have their own set of unique problems. Orthodoxy has its set
of unique problems, and one of those for Orthodox people is finding because because
it's decentralized. I think a lot of times in Rome, for example,
people think, well, I will leave Protestantism and become Roman Calolic because it
will solve the problems of radical decentralization that my Protestant church has because they have
such a centralized structure. And then when you go to Rome after your honeymoon
wears off, which it's funny because Frank Frank really wears people's honeymoons off quicker
than the honeymoons were worn off during Benedict, but so so that you know
now you're you quickly realize, oh crap, there's like big issues in Rome.
So the first thing I would say is don't convert because you think automatically
the grass will be greener. I know that you're not saying you want to
convert just because you think the grass is greener. I think that God has
kind of put us in a situation where it's like if wen't really want to
be Orthodox, if we want to convert, like it's like these kinds of
things in church history they really separate week from chaff, so on the one
on the one hand, on the one hand, it used to really bug
me, like back in two thousand and seven when I was first looking into
orthodox cy, and I saw a lot of these problems and I didn't I
wasn't ready to convert. Even I went, I went through the whole kind
of cumen in two thousand and seven, and I was right up to the
point of converting. I decided not to because I was bothered by all the
issues you're talking about, and I felt like, you know, I'm just
I'm not ready to jump into this because I might just be in another,
you know, inexplicable, insoluble situation. And I also had a lot of
baggage, like protest evangelical bagge, or excuse me, a Tomistic baggage that
I wasn't ready to shed, Like my mind was so locked into thinking in
terms of Tomism that I couldn't I just couldn't fathom a lot of the orthdox
stuff. And also there was a lot there were a lot fewer Orthodox resources
in two thousand and seven, so it was harder to find like I wouldn't
have found a book like this. I mean, I don't know if any
if it was out then, but yeah, no, that's why I'm grateful
to you because you know, like I I've always kind of been you know,
that libertarian attitude, you know. But like I said, I'm I'm
worshiping right now with my family and an independent Baptist just because I see so
many of the hierarchies of so many of the churches being totally corrupted. You
know. Well, let's put it this way. Sure, yeah that does
exist, but look it's not all that way. So I mean, the
least the least locked down were realcorp and then uh Serbs, Romanians, all
those people were in that camp. To be fair, there were plenty of
good OCA and Antiochian churches that didn't lock down. Worst. I'm sure we're
probably the Greeks so so. And that's not even just a lot of them
around the board were still pushing the stabbies though, you know what I mean,
Like that that kind of cut right down. Well, look almost here's
what you're gonna have to do, which you may have to find a church
that one to two hours away. So yeah, that's what that's what I
had to do. That's the heartbreaking thing. Unfortunately, it's not gonna be
heartbreaking because if you do that, it's going to be better for you in
the long run. Okay, cool, Hey man, Hey, look again,
I just wanted to praise you. I really appreciate all the work you
do. Thank you for kind of transforming my heart and kind of edifying my
faith. So thank you again, brother, Absolutely, thank you. Yeah,
a lot of people are Look, you got to be patient with people.
So a lot of people. We have to be fair to people because
not all, not all ROCORPS was big into that. That's not true.
It really just depends on where you are and who who the person is.
I mean, there's no jurisdictions across the board that like, I'm not talking
to you, Sean, I'm putting people in the chat who are asking questions.
I'm just saying that there was a study they did afterwards and Rocorps was
the least locked down. Doesn't mean that there weren't people in ro Corps that
were There was nobody locking down or pushing this stuff. There was, Yeah,
And I guess we just have to have faith that, you know,
the gates of Hell will not prevail in the ends. So well, look,
the church can have really bad situations like the Aryan crisis where literally almost
all of the bishops were Aryan or semi Aryan. Okay they all and there
was only a handful with Athanaceous that were correct. Right, So so there
you go. So thankfully we're not even in that bad of a situation because
I think there's far more than just a handful that we're correct, right.
Yeah, well, I guess we'll find on a couple of months. Right.
So unfortunately, what do you mean just you know, everything coming out
new lockdowns all if they do. Yeah, well I think thank god,
a lot of people have seen through it and they won't be attempted with that.
Thank you, by the way, Sean. So look, long story
short, you're gonna have to put in a little effort, unfortunately and find
a good Orthodox church. Not all or our churches are equal. Sorry,
And you know, again, I've been here for years. I did podcasts
five six years ago talking about the EP, talking about the future post for
union with Rome, and here we are vindicating everything I said, so clearly,
I at least to some degree, you know what I'm talking about.
If I was correct about what I said five six years ago about all this
stuff. But look, we can't automatically expect people to understand all of these
topics and know that, like, because if you're if you're new to Orthodoxy
and you just start looking at this, you're not going to know the history
of the EP, You're not gonna know anything about So you're not gonna know
anything about you know, Martholom, you and this kind of stuff. And
we can't expect people to figure all this stuff out right away, and we
have to be we have to admit, yeah, like there's some serious issues
in the Orthodox world, and it's not everybody's fault that they don't know these
things or can't figure these things out. So we had to be patient with
people. It took me ten years to become Orthodox. So from two thousand
and seven looking at the problems with the EP and all that stuff other issues,
I was like, I'm not convinced to this. It took me all
the way up until twenty sixteen to find a good church and to make my
mind up to come back in. But look, here here's me. This
is actually five years ago covering this. Here's one and then I did another
one Spooky Subversion, And now there's another one, this one. And look
everything I said, everything else said was right. So you can go watch
those if you want more information on that, and that helps explain what happened
in the last three years, you see. So look I was saying what
would happen and what the problem was back in these videos from it says four
years is actually five years ago September, so it's one month away from being
five years ago. And I talked about all of this stuff and was what
was going down, and how it was a push for the reunion with Rome
in twenty twenty five. I don't know if I said the exact date,
but I said future reunion with Rome. Now, look, this was pretty
couth, right. Then in the coup, everybody got scared. All these
people defaulted to medical experts and shut down all the churches, scared of lawsuits,
blah blah blah. Some of them probably got government money to shut down.
And then when laity and clerics reacted against this, many of the OCA
bishops, many of the Greek bishops, many of these people fussed and we're
mad that people were leaving their churches for non stabby lockdown churches. And what
did they do do they blame themselves. They blamed me and other people,
so it's my fault. No, no, it's not my fault. It's
the other way around. So, but none of those people want to take
responsibility and they don't. Actually a lot of these people don't. They don't
actually govern the church. They just kind of sit back and act like administrators.
And they've taken money and allow their attack dogs to run wild, attacking
me and other people online like the recent attack on Father just Side, trent
On, etc. So they're not in the freight. They don't do anything.
They just sit back and take money. And so, yeah, there
are a lot of these people are corrupt. And guess what, that's just
part of any human institution. Now, the Church is not a purely human
institution. It also has a divine component. But the human component of this
institution can absolutely be corrupted. And that's one reason why I ended up being
Orthodox and not ever going back to Roman Catholicism, because Roman Catholicism hinges everything
on one bishop. Obviously, so if that bishop eventually becomes corrupt, which
is supposedly not able to happen in that system, right, I don't mean
morally corrupt, I mean theologically corrupt, right, then it's not supposed to
happen in the institution is protected by the divine heroism and all this stuff.
Well, I'm sorry, but Francis and the post Vatican two people do not
teach the same theology as the pre Vatican two people in terms of the dogma
and the encyclicals. So therefore that system is not true. So does that
make set of a concism true. No, we've done any podcasts deblinking that.
So really all you're left with is if you want to be an ancient
Christian orthodox, that's about it. And I don't consider coptics stuff even viable.
We've dealt with that a million times. You can go watch the videos
on that, and then we've done anyway, long story short, Yeah,
let's move on. What's up Ac? By the way, we gotta set
up a podcast. What's up? AC? Just I'm mute, dude,
you gotta I'm mute man right there? All right, come come out,
come back in. We'll try you JJ again. He came out, came
back. What's up? I'm mute, dog? Hey, J How are
you good? What's up? Hey? So I've been sort of inquiring into
both, like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I wouldn't say for probably about a year.
And forgive me, but I don't really have like the fullest knowledge on
most of the basic topics. But it seems like everything keeps coming back to
the philioquay. When I am watching a lot of people's videos and stuff,
I think I understand it kind of place I can I'm curious a little bit
more about can I say something consequences of Western philioquist like approaches? Yeah,
So it's not ultimately the philioquay. The philokway rests on a prior idea of
what divine simplicity is and must be. So phillyokway is a secondary result of
a doctrine of divine simplicity which is neo Platonic. So if you look at
at Augustine's definition of simplicity, it's identical to origins doctrine of simplicity from First
Principles Book one, and it's basically copied and pasted from Plotinus. So the
problem is that if we cash out divine simplicity and unity the way that Plotinus
and Origin do, then we have a problem with our triad, and that
problem in Trinitarian theology is what Augustine attempts to work out in the latter books
of On the Trinity, and in On the Trinity he denies the energy's doctrine.
So divine simplicity is the root of this. That's why some of the
sections of Augustine's On the Trinity are actually just copied and pasted versions and sections
from Plotinus is and Needs literally I forget which you needed. It is is
either four or six, but one of them is literally filioquism. And so
the problem is that if you're trying then to cash out a Trinitarian theology that's
not the Cappadocean doctrine, it's already off to it's on the wrong foot to
begin with, it's starting off on the wrong foot. And so it takes
centuries for this to really be fleshed out between East and West. And that's
why it's not until Lions, Palamos and Florence. So Lions twelve seventy four,
Palamite synods in the thirteen hundreds, Florence in fourteen whatever. Florence's data
is, Council Florence is, I forget fourteen whatever. So philioque is the
doctrinal dogmatic statement of an underlying view about simplicity. And that's why when Palamas
is debating with Barlem and Ikandinos, the debate isn't ultimately about Philioquay, it's
about the energies, because it shifts from hey, wait a minute, you're
saying this and this and this about philioqua, but what about these energies?
So the Energy's doctrine is based on a different doctrine of simplicity than what Augustine,
Origin and Platinus have later on in the Roman Catholic view. Their doctrine
simplicity, which I would argue is ultimately the like Thomas's and Augustine's and Lombard's
doctrine of simplicity is ultimately the Platonic doctrine, but it's defined in the Fourth
Ladder and Synod as Lombard's doctrine. And this is a great argument that doctor
Bradshaw makes. So it's not ultimately about what Thomas says, or what Aquinas
says, or what Augustine says. In the Roman Catholic system, we're supposed
to go by the dogmas, and Bradshaw has a great argument to just cut
through all these different schools of Scodism and this and that. None of that
ultimately really matters, because at the end of the day, the debate is
about the Roman Catholic dogmatic position. In the Romanic dogmatic position at the fourth
line, and Council explicitly identifies it as Lombard's identity thesis. They even site
Lombard in the dogma in the Council, so it's identifying their simplicity doctrine as
Lombardian. Then you later have post Tridentine statements defining that grace is a supernatural
creation, it's not uncreated. Some about the grace in the soul. I
know there's different categories of graces. I'm well aware of that, but all
you guys look at Ludwigatt. Luiggatt says that supernatural grace is a created accident
in the soul. So this is an affirmation of the argument that Palamas was
making all along, is that if you end up, if you have this
doctrine of simplicity, then you're going to have a really hard problem identifying what
we participate in in grace. And that's exactly what happened. By the time
of the post Tridentine statements. The grace is defined as a supernatural creature,
it's not uncreated energy. And the response around the Catholic says, well,
we can just have all these different schools and different opinions, and no,
no, no, you can't have different opinions when it's already been solidified that
the grace that Christ communicates to his human nature is uncreated immortality. That's already
stated in Cyril of Alexandria, in John Damascus, in the Sixth Council,
which defines the energies by the way, in Christology. So they just don't
even understand that the energies that are defined in Christology in the Sixth Council Allah
John Damascus, Book three, section fifteen, and from on, that's just
applied to the sacraments into grace. It's the same principle what Christ communicates as
a divine hypostasis to his human nature to deify it, the uncreated immortal energies.
It's the same uncreated immortal energies that we participate in in the sacraments,
because it's his deified flesh. It's the same flesh, as Cyril says.
Cyril is the ultimate refutation of the Roman callity doctrine because Roman Collis loved to
say that we participate in body, blood, soul, and divinity in the
eucharius. Okay, what's the divinity there? A supernatural creature, no uncreated
grace and glory. It's not a creature, it's uncreated. That's why the
debate with Palamas and Barlam andacan Dinos ultimately turns to what do we participate in?
Go ahead, Okay, thank you. I really appreciate that. I'm
trying to break it down a little bit more, just because it seems maybe
it's not everything that circles back to it, right, but I just keep
hearing it reference and I think I can understand, like you know, you
see like the layout of the differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox in terms
of the trinity and the procession and stuff. But I mean the ultimate,
the ultimate differ, the consequence is a little bit more. The ultimate difference,
just in regard to that is whether the son shares in the father's hypostatic
property at all and an Orthodox Cappadocian trinitarian theology, which is what's accepted at
the Second Ecumenical Council, right, which is all Cappadocian and Roman calogics are
like, where's the proof for this? This is like the fact that you're
asking me for the proof that the Cappadocians dominated and that their theology is the
theology of the Second Council just shows how much you guys don't know what you're
talking about. We'll be doing, by the way, lectures with doctor bou
Branson on this. This is what his PhD thesis is on, and go
watch all of doctor beau Branson's monarchical Trinitarian lectures because that's where it comes from.
And it's a great argument the he makes, which is just simply that
the Cappadocians are clear the Father is the soul cause soul cause means that he's
not a co cause you don't particip abate in his hypostatic property because it's what
picks out the father. So the Roman callex have said, oh, well,
maybe the sun is a co cause he the father's the principal cause.
But the sun is also a lesser cause there's no lesser there's no gradations in
the trinity. Goofuses, well, thank you, Jay, really, yes,
sir, thank you, good questions. I gotta go U Isaac.
What's update. I want to try to squeeze in as med as we can.
Hey, how's it going good? Yeah, So I'll just have some
questions regarding the apostle Paul. Okay, how is it that we know that
his letters were the infallible word of God? And why are they canonizing the
scripture by the Catholic Catholic a narthodox church, especially when it seems like there
might be some contradictions, especially this idea of justification by faith alone, and
the Catholic Orthodox Church subscribe to that. I did. There is no salvation
outside the te well. First of all, all of the scriptures, and
they're the reason we any of them, whether it's the Gospels, or whether
it's Paul's epistles, or whether it's you know, Book of Revelation. The
reason they're in the canon ultimately is by the authority of the Church, and
it's historical tradition and testimony. So there's no such thing as bypassing that like
a Protestant or a Muslim to get to the real Jesus or the real Paul.
There is no knowledge of the real Jesus, of the real Paul,
apart from the oral tradition of the Church. So you can't separate these things
because they inherently go together. They're distinct. Written texts are different from the
oral tradition, the absolute succession, the liturgy, but they all go together
and hang or fall together. So the presupposition that I heard in your question
was as if you can, like do higher critical scholarship and get to the
real Paul, or the Jesus quest, the real Jesus, or the real
Moses, the JEPD documentary hypothesis, all of those bypass the historical attestation of
the Church, which bequeathed them as a holistic thing. You see, you
can't pull them apart like all higher critics attempt to do. So. The
second part of your thing was about justification by faith alone. You're just assuming
that the Protestant idea of a nominalist justification is what Paul meant, and we
don't think that. We think that when Paul says justified, it's an actual
metaphysical change in the person. It's not a purely legal description. So when
Paul says, if you confess with them out that Jesus Lord and believe God
prism from the dead, and you will be saved. How do you reconcile
that with the idea that you're just assuming that that's a lowest common denominator's statement
that's scaled down and that's all that's necessary. Because Paul says in plenty of
other places that, for example, to Titus three, that the washing of
the labor regeneration is necessary. That's baptism. So you're just assuming that one
phrase can be located and isolated, as if Paul is saying that all all
you gotta do is say this sinner's prayer or some nonsense. No, that's
a faulty hermoneutic. What you have to do is take all of Paul's teachings,
all of the New Testament, all of the Bible as a holistic text.
Do you see? Oh yeah, I guess I sort of thing.
I grew up with those ideas, right, you know, yeah, exactly
all you need to do is believe. But I'm just trying to get to
it. So those are presuppositions that you have, and I'm saying that I
can already locate because I grew up evangelical too. I can tell the error
is the assumption that I can isolate one verse of Paul everything else has to
then squeeze into that verse. And what That's what every heretic does, just
like every I'm not saying your heretic in a mean way. I don't know
your views or where you're at, But what I'm saying is that if you
think about Jobe's witnesses, Jesus says the Father's greater, so therefore the trinity's
false, ignoring all the other verses where he says that he's equal to the
Father. You see how you see how that's a faulty hermonutic. Every heretic
does this hermonutic, right, So I guess my question would be, how
is it that you're able to identify the holistic meaning of the Bible without cherry
picking certain verses to kind of justify specific because holistic reading is not this The
opposite of cherry picking. Cherry picking is saying that this verse is the key
verse to all the other verses which have to be squeezed into this holistic means
that they're all true, they all have to be harmonized. That's the presupposition
of inspiration. That's why you're already saying, maybe Paul contradicts. No,
No, it's just your misreading, as well as the Protestant and Muslim misreading.
And then I just have one more question, kind of unrelated, but
it's a verse I read that kind of confused me Realatians where Paul says that
the law was a curse, but Christ replaced it my becoming the curse.
I kind of hear, fister, But well, curse another one that hangs
on a tree, and Jesus hung on the tree of the cross. And
so the law isn't itself a curse. The law is what produces sin,
knowledge of guilt, right, etc. So the law is just an external
standard, and that could be the moral law. It could be the totality
of the mosaic law and the moral law altogether, all of that law.
All it does is set a standard that we should live by. And even
if you just scale it down to the Ten Commandments, which can be scaled
down to the two greatest Commandments, that's all a standard. But hey,
wait a minute. I can't be saved and given divine life by an external
written standard. I need an actual ontological, metaphysical change in my being in
order to live according to that standard. So you see the difference there between
an external standard, a checklist of things that you've got to do to be
perfect or to be right made right, which nobody can do. That's all
dead. Law. Dead works because it doesn't give you the inner divine theosis
and power to live it. So our view is that when Paul talks about
the righteousness of God and justification by faith, that's the inner, actual power
of Theosis and uncreated energy in you. As Paul says, the inner gaia
of God is at work in me. He calls himself a co worker with
God. He says, the resurrected power dunamis energy of God is working in
me. That's real power. That's theosis. That's not a legal status change.
So I guess when Paul says that Jews replaced the law, it's like
Jews becomes the principle that actually creates the metaphysical change within us. What do
you mean they Jews replaced the law? What do you mean Jews or Jesus?
Jesus? Just because Paul says that the law was the curse, but
Jesus became the curse, He's not literally He's not saying that the law is
literally a curse because God gave Jesus gave the law. Jesus is out at
Mount sign I giving the law. That's why he says, is the law
therefore evil and romans? No, it is good, but it has a
limited purpose. Okay, the ten Commandments are good. Just forget all the
ceremonial stuff. Let's just talk about the ten commandments. The ten Commandments are
good, but two stones. If I come to your house and I say,
here you go, dude, here's two stone tablets, you better live
perfectly. The stone tablets don't empower you to do anything. All they do
is give you a knowledge of right and wrong. But you're falling, and
so you don't have the ability the power to live it. The theosis doctrine
is that you are then empowered to live it, to love God and to
obey his commandments. So Jesus doesn't replace the law in the sense of like
tossing everything out. He's the fulfillment of the mosaic ceremonial things. Right.
That's why David says in Psalm fifty or fifty one, depending upon whether your
Orthodox are Protestant, sacrifice and offering. You do not desire but a clean
heart, creating me a clean heart So it's the inner transformation via Theosis that
empowers you to keep the law. That's why James says that dead faith doesn't
do anything for you. That's why even Paul says faith working through love.
That's the faith that Paul saw. He says that to the Corinthians. So
that's the actual faith that Paul's talking about. It's not a nominalistic mental faith
of accepting notions. Okay. So basically what you're saying is like salvation comes
through theosis, which is basically becoming God through Christ in a sense. Yeah,
I mean, if I'm going to live like be like your heavenly Father,
well, how do I be like him? Well? You keep the
law? Well I can't keep the law because I'm falling. Okay, I'm
gonna give you the power inside of you, the Holy Spirit to keep the
law. Right. And then there's also a aspect of the forgiveness of sins
too, right, the idea that Jesus died for our sins as a way
to kind of forgive them, you know, literally, sure, I mean,
the death of Christ destroys the power of sin in our human falling human
nature, and then the resurrected power of Christ allows us to live according to
the Ten Commandments and not be in too our fallen passions. Does that make
sense. I'm gonna have to move We're gonna move on. I'll try to
be read. But you can call back in the next time. Uh Vin
Love, what's up? Dude? Those are good questions. By the way,
if you want to support the show via super chat, okay, you
know, can I tell you something as someone who has a very diverse religious
family, and that I have cousins who are like traditional East Asian pagans okay,
and like a majority Buddhists. Okay, The Buddhists are some of the
most materialistic, pandalistic people I've met, even though the whole Buddhist thing is
to remove yourself from material desire because desire is bad. Okay, but you
know, I'll tie into a friend the Woody and Twitter, very very smart
man, good artists. The whole Buddhist theology is not to take up the
cross and overcome it, but rather to just simply bypass it, to cheat
code it. So the natural conclusion of that which a lot of Japanese and
monks do is suicide, not a fast one, because that would create desire
suffering, and that's the bad. No, I mean the whole the whole
thing is the whole thing is demonic because it's all about negating the self,
which is ridiculous. Yeah, like they slowly pointing themself with woodlaced drinks,
slowly and slowly mollifying themselves inside. Yeahs like Hayachism, which is of removing
of the self, not a filling of the whole. Right, Yeah,
good questions gonna I'm gonna move on, just to get through some more people.
But yeah, I agree with that. A lot of the Far Eastern
religions, especially Budhist stuff, like it's just ain't coherent at the end of
the day because it has this air of mysticism and all this kind of like
transcending dualities and all that. But at the end of the day, it's
just about self negation and destruction of the individual, which is demonic. By
the way, there is the doctor bou Branson talk on monarchical trinitarianism for those
that are interested in the philio Quay all Constantinople one in three eighty one.
You can go watch that excellent talk there. Next up is Mad Subs.
What's up, Mad subs go ahead, Hello, can I hear me?
Yep? Oh? Okay, great. So I'm sort of a new Christian
and I was a Protestant for a while since I met some street preachers.
They told me the Gospel got baptized all that. But I'm interested in Orthodoxy
and I'm just wondering how do you evangelize people as an Orthodox Christian? Like,
how do you tell them to Gospel? It's pretty simple and Protestantism it
just tell them Jesus was accursed instead of you. But how do you simply
explain the Gospel to someone as an Orthodox Christian? How do you do that?
I also wanted to ask, do you believe that an Orthodox Christian has
to become fully holy just like Jesus to enter heaven, because it's still kind
of I don't believe we can become fully holy in this life. So I
don't really understand if we can achieve theosism this life. If you know what
I mean, Yes, we can achieve theosys in this life. It is
possible. That doesn't mean necessarily that you're going to be perfect. I think
we will all have some degree of human attachment in this life. And so
Orthodoxy does have prayers for the dead. So when we die in this life,
the church praise for those who die in the bosom of the church precisely
because we're not going to be perfect so correct. But how do I tell
the Gospel. One way to do it is, first of all, it's
not that you can't say pithy one liners or something like that necessarily, right,
Like I could quote proverbs on Twitter, right, and there's nothing inherently
wrong with citing proverbs, but it's just simply not true or accurate to act
as if I can boil the Gospel down quote unquote to a kind of Romans
Road message of street preachers. Now I'm not saying that you're not that you
don't believe, right, I know, not doubting your motives or saying that
you're a bad person, but it's just simply not the Gospel. The Gospel
is not Romans Road. And there's nothing about there's no there's nothing in scripture
that tells you that there's a lowest common denominator string of texts that is the
essence of Paul or the essence of the Gospel. It's a Protestant Baptist evangelical
assumption that there's only a few things that are the necessary things. And one
reason we know that is what I just said to the other guy when Paul
says, just believe and confess with your mouth that Jesus Lord, that's not
all Paul said. The fact that he said that I'm one verse. You
can't exclude that to all the other verses where he talks about all the other
necessary things. And think how crazy that hermonutic is. Every every heretic does
this hermonutic. Job's witness finds a verse that says Jesus says that the Father
is greater, greater, how greater in role, greater in being trinitarian cause,
or greater in ontological status, and that means the Son is a creature.
See, greater can be meant in different ways, in different senses.
The number one is greater in the sense that it's first before the number two.
But does the number one have more numberness than the number two? Of
course not? All right, this is the kind of silly Let just go
to the Bryson Great debate. All of Bryson's arguments are based on this dumb
hermoneutic that I can pick one verse Matthew five, not one jot or title
will pass from the law, and every other verse has to squeeze in that
verse. Anybody who becomes educated in Bible college seminary, one of the first
things you're gonna learn in Hermonunics and Exegesus class is that you don't do that.
Even Roman Catholic seminaries would teach you that, right. Even Protestant seminaries
are gonna do, as bad as they are, they're at least going to
teach you that. So we have to deal with a lot of goobers and
people who have zeal without knowledge, as Paul says, and they just run
to these verses. My Muslims do the same thing, right, it's all
the same mistakes, and they're really fundamental mistakes. But most heretics and most
Evangelicals and Protestants and people in these other communions, most of the time what
they're doing is a really basic herman You know what hermonutics is. That's in
science of interpretation. Exegesis is the science of how we interpret a text.
We exeget the passage, what does the Greek word mean here? And blah
blah blah. Hermoneutics is interpreting. Exegesis explains for example, the Son is
the exegesis of the Father, John says, and John one he explains the
Father to us, hermeneutics is a science of interpretation. How do I know
I have the right science of interpretation as a Protestant. Now, I used
to be a Protestant as being evangelical, so I can speak to this because
I made all these same mistakes, especially when I was eighteen nineteen twenty twenty
one. Then I went and learn things. You can't bypass learning things because
you think you're super spiritual, because you think you're whatever chosen, blessed,
blah blah blah. And most Protestant evangelicals kind of have that delusion that I'm
not knocking everybody who's Protestant evangelical. We have a lot of friends and so
forth. I'm not saying you're bye people. I'm just saying that there's common
mistakes that are made, and one of those is the idea that this verse,
this verse, this verse, and this verse are the clear verses.
All of the other verses have to be squeezed into that, and it's very
difficult to be consistent with that. That's why you heard that guy two people
back was like maybe Paul's contradicting. Maybe Paul's the problem. No, no,
no, it's you and your Protestant presupposition the idea that justification is a
purely nominal legal thing. Now, how would I present the gospel? In
short? Well, I did a video a couple of years ago. You
are in a cosmic battle, and this video was intended to express that,
because the Gospel isn't limited to the death of Christ and justification by faith along.
In fact, that's not the gospel. But every time a Protestant thinks
that he's defining the gospel, that's what he means. None of the Gospel
is the cosmic scope of Christ, restoring the cosmos, including us human beings
who are part of the cosmos, and destroying the Angel of death Satan.
You'll notice that most Romans road so called gospel stories and tracks or whatever.
They don't they leave out Satan. Wait a minute, isn't the villain of
the story pretty important to the whole story. What about baptism in the church,
Although those those are non necessities, that's not a big deal. Why
does Peter say you have to repent and be baptized. Why does Paul saying
tis three, that baptism is the labor of regeneration. Always know what talking
about water baptism, always not. But there's one baptism. Who there's two,
because there's a spiritual one and there's a water one. That's two,
Paul says one. So you'll notice the whole thing is hinging on the dividing
of the spiritual from the physical. The spirit is divided from the actual sacramental
celebration. That's called sacramental Nestorianism. And then Adestanism does the same thing with
the church. The true spiritual church is divided from the visible body church invisible
church, visible church. That's called ecclesiastical Nestorianism. And guess what, shocker,
most Protestants are Christallogical and mystorians as well. Pereira, what's up,
Pereira? I'm mute, dog, I'm mute, dude, Okay, come
on, mute, all right, you came in late, dude, come
back the mitch. What's up? Hey, I have a question about the
trendy. It's not my own question, okay, dialogues with Muslims and nature
craziness objections, So I just want to see your opinion on it, Okay,
So you know, what transit. I don't know. Obviously transitivity is
right, well, like the idea that things are transversable, or that that
can be said about either thing, like one thing can be said about different
things. Yeah, like like if a something like that, if A equals
B and A equals see, then be equals see. Right. So you're
demological problem to trinity, and it's all based on county by identity. Yeah,
so we don't countydentity I want to dialogue with like Muslims. So would
I just address it like thirty minutes ago, We don't count by identity,
okay, thank you. Ye. So the church Fathers and the ancient medieval
world count by division, not by identity, and the whole logical problem to
trinity hinges on counting by identity. So refer back to where I was talking
about abstract objects, objects of second order in position. Those are often counted
by identity because you can't have like a third of a a law of logic,
right, So abstract things you got to count by identity. But typically
speaking, most objects we do not count by identity but by division. And
this is why the Creed and the Capadocians and others, and Maximus, they
talk about Christ being indivisible undivided. That phrase from the Creed and so forth
is making this point that we don't count by identity, especially not in the
ancient medieval world, unless they were talking about objects of second order in position.
And it's very easy to show this because again I'm gonna save this actually
because we're going to be doing the debate review with Orthodox Shahada of the Daniel
Hikikichi debate. We've had to pause that just because we're waiting for Lewis and
Kai to be able to do it. And then we've also got upcoming streams
and I'm gonna be doing several streams with doctor Bill Branson coming up, and
we will be getting into some of this. Although I'm gonna get it,
I don't want to get into all of it because we may have, you
know, more Muslim debates coming up. So I want them to keep making
this argument because it's gonna be really funny when we deconstruct it. But I
did answer some of this a minute ago, maybe thirty minutes ago, in
this debate. Pereira up. You want to try again? Hi? Can
you hear me? Yes, sir? What's up? Dude? So Firstly,
I want to say that I'm a Peak fan and you actually made me
more Christian when I started listening to your content with a lot of debates,
and one of the debates I saw was Speth Rands and you did the very
old debates with Ryan Dawson. Yeah, And I was talking to Ryan Dawson
a few like yesterday and I told him that he completely lost the debates and
you and him should do a rematch again. And I had a MENI the
pate with Ryan Dawson. Any I think it's went well, but that's not
the point. Will you ever to a redebate with him? And we'll have
a have another talk. I mean, I don't feel like uh he grasped
the argument. So I don't know what the point of another if I feel
like it would just be the same debate over again. So I'll think about
it, though it's it's worth considering. Thank you for that, Pereira.
Let's move on to tapio. What's up Tapio? If you guys would hit
like and share, I'm mute, bro tapio tapioca pudding? Uh? Yeah,
So I'm Orthodox at heart, but I've been worshiping at a Buddhist temple.
Uh No, I'm just kidding that guy. I hope he finds a
real co ch church. I do have a question on a determinism, So
I was interested in your view on determinism and uh, because I sort of
I don't care too much about it, but I know a lot of people
do. And sort of the argument that I've heard from people is that,
uh, because God knows the future or because the prophets can know the future,
that that proves determinism, But I don't know. I answer is I
don't know a good argument for that. I just believe on Yeah, So
I'm not trying to cut you off. But again there's a delay so you
can't hear me, and I want to. I want to try to get
through more and more people here. So knowing something doesn't necessitate or imply being
the cause of it. If I overhear criminals planning plotting to rob the dairy
queen and they go and rob the dairy queen, my knowledge of it doesn't
make me the cause of it. Right. Likewise, God knowing everything does
not imply that he is the immediate or first direct cause of all events.
That's why if you read Orthodox Faith by John Damascus on their with our faith.
There's a whole section on secondary causes, so God permitting there to being
the reality of secondary causes, which is what Muslims reject, by the way,
and why Muslims and Calvinists are Muslims are always typically occasionalists. Calvinists are
sometimes occasionalists, and this is a really ridiculous metaphysic. Go watch Lewis's excellent
video on the bizarre metaphysics of Islam. The occasionalist metaphysics is a Lewis made
an amazing video. Everybody ignored it because muslim just don't understand philosophy. Unfortunately,
nine nine percent of them don't. Okay, Yeah, there's an alga
Zali every now and then who's okay at philosophy. But and you're like,
why I asked you a question about Calvinism, why determinism? Why are you
telling me to go watch Muslim apologetics videos Because it's the same argument and it
leads to the same conclusions, and many Calvinists have adopted this stupid view.
So I'm meant to put orthodox shahada and if you understand this, you will
understand this whole critique of the issues are directly related and connected. And people
like Johnathan Edwards even became occasionalist precisely because of this point. And if you
don't know, occasionalism is so dumbestant. God is literally at every nanosecond destroying
the world and recreating it. Thus, he is the direct cause of every
single event and the direct cause of evil, absolutely, And some Muslim was
like, he does not even know. Isaiah says I create evil. It
doesn't mean creating evil as a metaphysical substance. This is what happens when you
can't do philosophy. Isaiah is not saying that God creates evil substances. It's
saying that he permits evil events to occur or evil. There's different senses to
evil, right. Evil can be a deprivation. Evil can be a natural
quote unquote evil like a storm or an earthquake. Or evil can be a
moral transgression via the will moving against the good. Those are the three senses
of the word quote evil. Right. And why do I say there's three
senses because throughout scripture we will notice many instances where there's not just one sense
of evil. So once again we see that people who are unlearned and confused
and ignorant think that one word has one referent or meaning, the word concept
fallacy. So they think the word evil always refers to moral evil, and
they therefore think God is the direct, immediate cause and creator of evil.
Or they even go so stupid into like a Zoroastrian position where they think that
God actually creates a substance or a being called evil. Satan is inherently evil.
God created him, So God creates evil. That's the duellist logic,
you understand. So none of that is our view. That's why metaphysics is
necessary in order to explain and demarcate error from truth and to make distinctions so
that we don't fall into these dumb mistakes. And every almost every heresy and
mistake, as I just wrote in my sub stack, is a result of
low IQ and stupid misunderstandings of words. Not everything, but in a lot
of it. That's from Basil. Basil says, every heretic trips up on
words and word concept fallacies, and so they think that for example, the
word hypostasis, they always they think it has one meaning. Hypostasis is a
generic term that can pick out any individuated nature. That's what it means pre
nicia. Then it becomes specified post Cappadocians, post Cyril, and particularly Maximus
and Johnamascus to be specifically the agent. This is how it's utilized in the
Fifth Council, and the Fifth Council rejects the idea that hypostasis in terms of
the one hypostasis of Christ in car that it can refer to an individuated nature
alone, because that would be to make Christ a tertium quit a composit,
composit in the sense of a new third thing. Composite can also mean made
of two things, two natures, so composit can refer to a diophysite the
button. Hypostasis can also refer to many things, one of a class of
things, any individuated thing, an individuated existing nature of being. This is
why John Damascus says that you can talk about the hypostasis of a tree,
a hypostasis of a chair. That's not the only meaning a sense of the
word hypostasis, as he also in that very work Fount of Knowledge later clarifies,
in the sense of the Fifth Council uses hypostasis as a subject or agent,
it is only referring to the logos the only subject the divine hypostasis of
the Logos, who assumed a human nature, which does not have its own
hypostasis, but has for its hype of stasis the logos who assumed it,
quote unquote. And this is the only way, by the way, that
you're ever gonna be able to understand the descent of Christ in Hades. That's
why John Demaskus in book three goes on to describe the descent into Hades and
that Christ cannot be a tertition quid because the divine person of the Logos descends
into Hades as the person to the human soul and was never parted from his
human body. Brandon, Brandon, what's going on, Jay? How are
you doing? Good man? What's up? Really quick? I just wanted
to see if you had a response to how could you the jihadi pika choose
statements that the early Church was controlled by political entities and constantinople road, et
cetera, like a non argument. I don't know if you'll addressed what's the
what's what's the argument that that's an assertion? So what's the argument that that's
the case. Yeah, So I can't articulated fully. I've only watched the
debate one and a half times, but he our debate, councils were our
debate, Yes with mister Haw, could you okay? Again? That's an
assertion, So what's the argument that that's the case. I can't articulate that.
I'm not mister haw? Could you okay? But did can you repeat
what his argument was? Or did he even give one? He did in
his opening statements, and I'm sure you'll get to it in the review,
but he claims that the early councils were held by emperors of Rome, and
I guess Constantinople. Sure, okay, how does that mean that the church
is now a political tool because the emperor called a council? What's the proof?
I mean, maybe it's the case, but what's the proof just saying
that because an emperor? I mean, could I could argue that Islam is
a completely false religion? I created religion because caliphates were state rulers that change
and control the religion. So what would be the required proof for something like
this? I mean, why are you asking me? What would I mean?
I'm not I'm not, I'm not a Muslim. I don't know.
I mean, what's the required proof? Or any kind of assertion. I
mean, it depends on the assertion and depends on what you're trying to argue.
So if you're trying to argue that the state controlled the church, you
would need to demonstrate it in some way. This is the I mean,
I don't know. I don't make this argument. I mean I've heard many
Protestants, in many Seventh day Adventists. They all make this argument, but
there's no okay, and the proof is what an assertion? Well? Maybe
again, I don't know what's the Maybe there is an argument? What is
it? Do you do you know the difference between argument assertion? I do
know the difference between argument and assertion. I see what you're getting at.
But because I'm not making the arguments, I can't and I can't articulate what
his argument was because it sounded just like an assertion. Okay, Okay,
I don't know, Thanks Jake. Yeah, I mean I need to hear
something about I'm not calling you out bro arguing with his own stub. Yeah,
I will argue with people that subscribe to me, sure, but I
don't know that that dude even was subscribing. This is open for him.
So people, again, no, I gotta find a way to make die
or look bad. What's he doing? Is he? Is he calling out
his I mean, I'm not gonna make arguments for Daniel's dumb arguments. I
don't understand that the objection I go ahead? That would Oh hey, Jake.
Yeah. So I had a pretty basic question because I was watching one
of David's videos. It's kind of related to the transcendental argument. He was
basically talking about how like logic is a necessary conceptual entity that exists in all
minds. Who was making this argument? Sorry, who was making this argument?
Oh? David David, okay, yeah, And he said it had
to be grounded in a necessary conceptual personal being. Sure, I think,
I think I think you can argue that. Yeah, yeah, But my
question was like, how does that actually work? Like what do you mean
when you say, oh, it's grounded in the divine mind? Like,
is it a like all logi? Is that what it is? Yeah?
Ultimately that's where a metaphysic would go. So to the guy in the chat
there, Errol Flynn, you want to argue, here's your link. Yes,
Ultimately the logi are the divine thought wills correct, and they are the
logical structures in the divine mind that underlie all of the created logic and structures
of the creative world. Okay, yeah, there seems to be like some
kind of distinction between like the created aspect of logic and like logic in the
sense of I mean, right, so Maximus says. Maximus says universals are
creatures, They're not the divine mind. Platonists think that universals are the divine
mind, right, Okay, I mean, is there any sense in which
logic is like an eternal thing. The logi, which are the bases for
created logic, are eternal ideas in the divine mind. So the created number
seven is based on the uncreated number seven in the divine mind. Okay,
I got you. I think that makes sense, all right, thanks,
sure, yeah, no problem. By the way, I wasn't been trying
to be mean to that guy about the hiki kachu. It's like he wants
me to refute an assertion that Hikikichu, to my knowledge, doesn't have an
argument for so I'm just saying, ask Daniel what the argument is. It's
like you want me to refute everybody's assertions. We would never get anywhere Errol
Flynn, why are you talking? Just come on the chat. What are
you talking about? If you want to make an argument, come make an
argument, truth seeker, what's up? Man? So I was often here
at orthodox maker critique against Protestants by saying that they can know the correct interpretation
of the Bible, and that Protestants are in error by assuming that they can
though by simply looking at the text. So my question for you is having
can you, as an Orthodox know you have the correct interpretation of the Testament
in contrast with like Jews who would give a different interpretation. Yeah, you're
just confusing two different categories of existential certitude versus normative authority. So the argument
is not that because you read the text as a Protestant, you can't know
the meaning of the text. The point is that there's nobody to enforce or
authoritative authoritatively make decisions to excommunicate or bind anybody to any interpretations. Those are
two different arguments. So no, I don't make the argument that because you're
a Protestant you can't know the meaning of a text. Okay, so how
do you know which authorities correct, whether it's like Catholics or Orthodox or the
rabbis right, So the question of how I know would be a holistic question
of which world view is coherent, which one is not. Okay, and
then can I ask one more questions? Okay, So you said in the
debate with Daniel that you said we're not Protestant, so it doesn't matter if
there's variance in the text. Can you just explain what you meant by that.
Yeah, there's a James Snap interview that I did where there's variations are
called copyist errors. Those are different from theological or historical or inspiration errors.
So I did not I'm not affirming historic errors. I'm affirming the reality of
copyist mistakes because there's a lot of manuscripts that have minor variations. But that's
like minuscule. So go watch the James Snap interview snapp that I did.
Okay, cool, thank you? Yeah you good questions. Yeah, I
remember that. There's a difference between saying that normative authority is a problem in
the Protestant world where there's not anyone to bind anybody to any interpretation or to
excommunicate anybody for any interpretational error. Right, that's different. That's called normative
authority. Normative normativity and ethics versus the question of individual epistemic certitude or knowledge.
Two different things. Kind of Protestant read the Bible and have true propositional
knowledge as a result of it. Sure, sure, nobody ever deny that
or made that argument, but a lot people get confused. Protestants, romancalox
and even Orthodox. They get confused on this because it's called a category error.
It's confusing two different things. The question of individual certitude. Okay,
that's not answered by simply saying, oh, we have a pope, oh
we have counsels. Okay, that doesn't solve that question. That's why that
question ultimately is solved by the Holy Spirit speaking to the individual. And everybody
believes this, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, everybody believes that at the
end of the day, the ultimate interpreter and giver of certitude is the Holy
Spirit. However, that doesn't solve the question of the means by which we
come to that certitude. And that's where we differ with the Protestant and the
Roman Calitic. For the Protestant, the means is the Bible alone. Even
the Bible at the end of the day, you might like church fathers,
you might like some of the councils, but at the end of the day,
it's you and your prayer corner and the Bible. For the Roman Catholic,
it's the papal affirmations, dogmatic teachings. At the end of the day,
it's not even the councils. Counsels might be cool, they might have
some neat things, but counsels don't even really matter because ultimately it's the councils
that the Pope approves, you see. So for the Roman Catholic, at
the end of the day, it's you with the papal documents and the things
approved by the Pope. That's the means by which you come to know.
So the question then as well, between a Protestant, Romancy and Orthodox.
The only way we're gonna solve that question as to who is the real church,
it's going to be who's in continuity with the first thousand years, because
contrary to the Protestant, the Church of the first thousand years decided what books
going to the Bible. But contrary to the Roman Catholic, we would say,
allah the Alexandria document that they just put out. The modus operandi of
the church is the Orthodox Church, as the Alexandria Document admits except for like
two points. So basically all of these Orthodox arguments that you've been hearing me
make for so many years, the Alexandria Document of Francis and his Commission has
now admitted ninety five percent of the points we've been making. Do you understand
this? I can't believe. Well. I can understand why Roman calvics have
been quiet on this. Roman has been pretty quiet since this dropped. I
can understand why they've been quiet. But now how ridiculous than to want to
unite with Rome given the admissions in this document. And I've been by the
way, I've had some Roman Catholics. I've said, where y'all at?
Like, do y'all not see the issue with this? What the hell am
I babbling about? You don't know? So you don't know what the Alexandria
Document is? Are you talking about somebody else? Bad one? All these
people talking smack man, You guys need to come talk to me. Quit
hiding behind your lame profiles there and come come talk directly. But anyway,
the Alexandria Document is basically the follow up to the Chad Document Kiady Document,
which is the Roman Commission on Orthodox Issues, approved by Francis and Katy was
twenty sixteen, and it basically said the most relevant thing in that whole document.
These aren't even that long ten pages print amount. It basically said,
the Orthodox are correct on the point that the appeal to Rome in the first
thousand years was not a unilateral thing and the churches did exercise independence. Okay,
so it admits our jurisdiction point. Now, of course, the Chieti
document still wants to argue that the Bishop of Rome has unilateral authority, right.
I know that, however, amazingly, and this has to be in
preparation for the false Union of twenty twenty five. By the way, the
Alexandria document basically admits ninety to ninety five percent of the apologetic complaints that we've
had, which is baffling to me because if this is the case, then
Vatican One is not the case. I mean, it's not like rocket science.
It might get it might sound confusing here or abstract, and unfortunately it's
I can't the document is so freaking the link is sold long. I can't
link it. But it's called synodality and primacy. In the second Millennium Alexandro
June seven, twenty twenty three, the Joint Commission between Romancalities and Orthodox approved
by Pope Francis. Go read the document. It's not long. Everybody's too
lazy. They can't read this this document. If you're too lazy, go
listen to our two hour breakdown of it right there with Snack and David.
Again, this is like light years beyond the C eighty document admitting ninety nine
percent of our points. And then some Orthodox goofballs who I guess didn't watch
the podcast we did. They thought we were arguing that we should unite with
Rome. What of course not just totally missed the point or being or lying.
Well, we didn't say this document was up stepping stone to union with
Rome. We said the document admits our possessions. It means Rome, it
means Rose Faults. We're talking about. It's ridiculous, all right. Junker
George, that's h Martin luther name, Junker George name for Martin lu That
was Martin Luther's uh uh, that's his spy he went under. When he
went into hiding, he called himself Junker George. Yeah, that's me yep,
Okay, So do you confirm the Council of Florence where he says the
father together with the son eternally is from one principle, a single spiration,
of course, not because you three person because what because of what do you
believe in three persons doctrine? Yeah? I mean that's from Orthodoxy. Well
what is the Council of Florence is not Orthodoxy? Uh no, it's a
false Roman Catholic council. Oh so you Filo of Alexandra is the one?
Okay? So yeah, so you didn't even you didn't even know. Goodbye,
You didn't even know, right, So you gotta try. You gonna
try to stomp me. You don't even know what the Council Florence was.
Good job, we already did you Junker George nice trot archibald or I can't
read that name. What's up, dude? So we got a Lutheran trying
to own me. Didn't even know what the Council Florence was? Good good
try, dude? What's up? Dude? All right, he's not connecting,
So I jose, are you there? How do I remove him?
That's not working. Let's move on to the next dude here, brand Eric
g. What's up? Eric G's next top g aka Eric Gutti, Dougatti.
Hello, Okay, sorry, sorry, Yeah, I was just wondering,
like, as a Protestant, I've been really looking at Orthodoxy based off
of really a lot of what you said and people like David Patrick, Harry
and all that, and like I already got some books that you suggested,
like Metaphysics Constructing a Worldview from William Hasker, even though it's not like Orthodoxy,
just to get started with philosophy, I'm just saying, like, where
would if if you were like, how would you suggest I get started?
Like what should I be reading? Because I'm also in the middle of the
Midwest. Two and it's kind of hard to find like Orthodox Church as well?
Well, wait, are you wanting to study philosophy You're wanted to get
into Orthodoxy both well, but I mean, what are you asking for a
request? Like, what what are you asking for? You want like a
ready, I'll say that, Yeah. I would read uh, Mystical Theology
of the Orthodox Church by Vladimir Loovsky as an introduction. I would read Orthodox
Church by my Endorf. I would read Visiting Theology by my Endorf. Those
are good theological introductions. And then if you want to read philosophy, uh
that same series that you got the metaphysics book, I would say, read
the W. J. Wood Epistemology book in that in that series. Okay,
all right, well that's it. Oh and just one more thing.
I was curious. I heard you say I think it was almost a live
stream. You said, Heaven and Hell. Most people see it like how
it's like when they die. It's like a court system sort of thing where
you're, you know, God's like a judge and either go to heaven or
hell. But you said that was like, that's that's wrong. Well,
now, what I'm saying is that the Protestant view sees it as a solely
typically in a court sense. Now the New Testament does in the Bible as
a whole. I mean, it does use the court analogy, but that's
just one of many analogies of our relationship to God. There's the bride bridegroom
analogy, right, There's the tree branches analogy. There's the sheep sheepful,
sheep shepherd and sheepful. There's a ton. There's a ton of analogies.
And I'm just saying that there's a tendency in Protestanism because of the doctrine of
justification by faith alone to see the relationship as exclusively at times this legal status.
That's all I meant. Okay, yeah, great questions. Yeah,
that doesn't mean that there's not the legal element, right, But it's only
one of the many analogies in the New Testament. That's all I was trying
to say, Uh, Michael, what's up? Michael. By the way,
if you guys what hit like and share, I'll read the superjats soon.
Also, remember that the show sponsor is chalk dot com, the best
supplements out there. Where's my chok at? Where's my chok You get some
of the action two point oh by heading over to chalk dot com. The
ctoq dot com. My personal favorite is not the Sheilagit, but it's Jamie's
favorite. So mental focus, clarity, overcoming stress, get some of that
she Lagit. Where is my testosterone boost? That's my favorite? Where's it
at? So I guess I've already used it all up. You get out
here it is, there's only a little bit left in there. Look at
chalk dot com ton ketaly Boost test saucer on right there, proven to do
so periody of studies over at Chalk dot com c hoq dot com US promo
J fifty Jay five zero get you some of that seven wonders. That's the
seven best mushrooms for mineral supplementation, replacing our horrible Western diets in terms of
what's lacking with supplementation to make up for the nutrient deficient, mineral depleted soil
that produces the soy diet that makes us into soy men. We are anti
stormen over here. We want to increase that toxic masculinity. Heading over to
chalk dot com US promo J fifty Ji five zero to get fifty percent off
all those beautiful, wonderful Chalk products like the cacaw beans, like the chocolate
right there behind me. You got it, baby. Chalk dot com also
use the promo J five three Life that's J five three lafe to get fifty
three percent off recurring subscriptions. Chalk is an awesome based, better than organic
company when it comes to the quality of the capsules that they put out for
you. Make use of that right now and support my show as well.
What's up to I guess we lost our last guy, Brad badbre very big,
umbrage, very big. We got your in bed ombrage and jam,
what's going on? Man? What's up? I appreciate you opening up your
platform like this. I also want to apologize. I'm just now kind of
getting into all your material, and you're pretty prolific, so I'm sure there's
a lot of things that I've missed. I just recently watched your your discussion
was with Pastor Pe. Now, without lending credence to solar Scripture, which
I don't strictly adhere to, I do think I kind of want to take
up some of these arguments that I think he was making. Okay, I
think really it was the point he was trying to make, like really comes
down to maybe like first cause, first principles kind of conversation here at the
end of the day, you know, it's God's would that justifies, right,
even whether it's scripture or whether it's in church itself. H Well,
I don't think that. I don't think that God's word is exclusively written texts
God. I agree with you, Okay, God's word is hold on.
So God's word is first and foremost the second person that godhead, right,
Yes, Okay, So God's word is also partly recorded in scripture. We
agree there, right, yep, okay, But I also believe that God's
word is the oral teachings of the apostles as well. Do you agree with
that or not? I do? Okay. So you think that when Paul's
teaching for three years, day and night at Ephesus all acts, that's also
preaching God's quote word, right, I would, I would assume so yes
on things. Okay, So we agree there, go ahead, Yeah,
And all of the saying is that I don't think it's necessary too, because
we can't know all of the traditions and all of all of what was said,
right, because John and Soil says, you know, if I was
a write down everything at Christ, right, so we can't know the totality
of what hold on hold on. So but because we don't know all of
the things that Jesus taught and did, it doesn't follow from that that all
I do know is the written text that's a non sequitor, and that with
us not the argument that I'm making, okay. So what I'm saying is
is that you know, if at the end of the day, this all
comes down to salvation, right where you are in your stance with God.
You know, it doesn't matter what you know, what church, because I'm
of the belief that I think we hold on, hold on, it doesn't
matter what church. Well, that just assumes that there isn't one tro church.
The one tr churches is the entire body of Christ, as they are
connected to the Head. Now it doesn't hold on. So Paul says,
one body, one Lord, one faith. Do you think that Protestantism has
one faith? Well, my argument isn't you know I'm not arguing Protestant to
Well, you just said. You just said they're all connected to That's what
you said. You just said all of the groups are connecting. That is
what you said. You just said they're all connected to the head. You
just said they're all connected to the head. So you are arguing. I
said, no, no, no, no, no. I said the
church is that which is connected to the head. I didn't say proms because
I can't speak on that. Who is the So you don't know who the
church? So we don't know who the church is. I'm sorry, So
we don't know who the church is. What I'm saying is the church could
be contained within some could be within excuses. So you just said what I
said. You said, Well, I mean, first of all, you
didn't allow me to finish what I was saying. What I'm saying is is
that a believer who believes in Christ? So you're not this is again,
this is you did say what I said. You said, so I'm not
going to rehearse the Acumanist doctrine of the church that all of the different groups
have true believers. That's that's what I'm arguing against. So you're just restating
the branch theory that the church exists amongst a thousand different groups. I specifically
said, then how is there one faith? And then you just restarted the
position Brandon again. Yes, serge, you hurt my feelings. So I
just wanted to ask you good pay for my psychologist. Yes, in fact,
everybody should at times have their feelings hurt. Okay, I just want
to say you weren't worried to me at all. People need to stop getting
their feelings hurt on behalf of others and maybe start taking tonkat a lead to
boost the tests. That's what I'm talking about. Yes, get some of
that ton u cat and stop being a tone policing. Soy man. Thank
you, Jay, Yeah, thank you Dan. What's up Dan. I'm
gonna gonna try to squeeze in his men as I can. We got to
do some things. Go ahead, Dan, what's up? Hey Jay?
Yeah, So I just had a question about Yeah, Orthodoxy, the Orthodox
Church. There's a bit of a I guess that like a time period from
when you are you're an inquirer and then you're cat of human and then you're
baptized and you're and you're a member of the of the church. Has it
always been a long process? I've been going to a parish for not very
long. Yeah, it's one to three years. And and I I've made
my h one to three years typically one to three years. Yeah, go
ahead, one two three years typically really okay, wow, all right?
And I just that's interesting though. And so right from the beginning it was
one two three years. There wasn't there wasn't kind of like any mm hmmm,
not emergency, but there was no like hurry, there was no rush.
There was no we do that. We're the opposite that we repent and
we don't want to rush people. No, we do not want to rush
to convert people. Because it is a lot of mistakes. It's not wise
to do this in a in a rushed way. So okay, yeah,
good questions though, not trying to be rude. I just want to get
through some of the other people. But yeah, when I was evangelical,
I thought, oh, you just gotta convert people quick. No, no,
it's not it's not how it works. Danny, what's up, Gotta?
I'm mute? Brow are you? What's up? Dolls? Quick?
Things here? I'm really concern of all what whatever you you guys are expanding
there against all their brothers and sisters in the in the church. What I
think I think we are really you know, one church and you know who's
wait wait who wait about? Who are you doing about? Who? Can
you hear me? We? Who? Who are you talking about? I
mean I think you're you're are part of a team or or you're alone here?
What is your is your channel? You're allowing your channel? Sorry?
Man, I just not understand what you're saying. I'm gonna move on to
Dominique. What's that due? Dominique? You sir? What's up? Okay?
So I just had a question. I just really need advice about So
okay, that's going on in macas. Okay, I don't. I don't
do that. Don't give a current parish advice. Sorry, we're moving on.
Let's go to Michael. What's up, Michael? Do I believe in
the Trinity? Come on, man? Obviously? What are you guys talking
about? Michael? Are you there? Man? Hello? Yeah, what's
up? Man? What's up? Doll oh? Oh, dear me,
Yeah, I hear you, dude. It's your dollar. I Dennis five
dollars, so, thank you, thank you, Dannis Cedric Cedric Cedric Cedrick
five dollars. I'm a new member. I love your archives. Hey,
thank you. Yeah, I remember you. Guys can subscribe to the website
to support my work. Also get access to the last eight years or so
of archives of deep analysis, hundreds of lectures and talks on all kinds of
stuff. So avail yourselves of that educational resource by dipping into that right there.
And let's see what else we got here. John Vanderschweet five dollars.
I can use the legos to explain the Trinity. No, now, that
was the lego example was for the hypostatic union, not the Trinity. Davon
Martin twenty dollars. Thank you for pointing me to the true Church. We
were kind of humans at they were the dog Church and we love you videos.
Hey, thank you Davon space Monkey twelve seventy three. Thank you,
thank you space Monkey. Be John ninety eight, ten dollars. Can you
explain, Daniel twelve nine to ten? I mean, is that archangel Michael?
I'm not sure what I'll talk my head, Daniel twelve nine to tens.
Let's see. Let's get over here. Although I heard it, did
not understand. I said, my Lord, what shall be the end of
these things? Go your way? The words are closed up and sealed till
the end of time. Many will be purified and made white, redefined.
The wicked will do wickedly. Another wicked will understanding why it will understand.
From that time the daily sacrifice would be taken away. The abomination of desolation
said up, there'll be one two hundred ninety days less as he waits.
Yeah, So the immediate context of this is the abomination of desolation under Antiochus
epifanis then this is referred to as another desolation. When Jesus refers to the
abomination of desolation, which takes place in seventy eight in the destruction of the
Temple, which is what Luke twenty one, Matthew twenty four is about.
And all of the not so swift people under the Bryson Gray debate who didn't
understand what I was talking about when I said Heaven Earth passed away. They
thought I was all talking about the actual literal heavens and Earth passing away,
talking about this text, which is what about, which is what Matthew twenty
four and Luke twenty one is about, which is what happened in seventy eight
Heavens and Earth are symbolized by the Temple, which is which is an image
of heaven and Earth. When the Temple was destroyed, that is a symbol
of the heavens and the Earth being rolled up and destroyed like a scroll,
like a garment, like a etcetera, etcetera. It was what he was
once talking about that happened in seventy eight d. That is a type a
cycle pattern for the end of the world. This is why this text is
talking about the daily sacrifice being a being taken away the immediate context, the
typological mirrored context. That's what I've been arguing for years that people don't listen
they don't. They're not interested in actually understanding what's being said. They don't
want to take the time to learn this stuff. They just want to say
dumb crap all the time. I believe that the consistent way to interpret these
passages, whether it's the Abomination of Desolation or whether it's the Book of Revelation,
et cetera, is to understand these things as having an immediate context and
a future mirrored fulfillment. That's the only way that I think is consistent.
Now, maybe I'm wrong, I could be wrong. I don't mind.
But people don't even know what I'm talking about. Right when I mentioned this
stuff, They're completely lost. But to answer your question, I believe that
the immediate context that is being told to Daniel is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanies
what's in Maccabee's. Don't be dumb and think I'm saying that this book is
written by mat I'm not saying that. Listen to what I'm saying. Daniel's
prophecy immediate context here, as we see in Daniel eight and nine and ten
and eleven are also about Antiochus Epiphanes. That's what the book of Maccabe's about.
Go Rebaccabees. That's not the only fulfillment. The Bible constantly refers to
cycles of fulfillments, what I call a mirrored sense, where this is also
fulfilled in seventy eighty. That's why Jesus uses the terminology from Daniel. The
terminology is not only about the end end end of the world. And if
you knew the Fathers, you would know that, especially almost all the Eastern
Fathers, they also teach pretorism. Go learn what the words mean. Not
you to the super chat guy some about the low i Q. Bryson audience,
who had no idea what I was talking about. It's Maccabee's also seventy
eighty. And at the end of the world. How exactly this shakes out.
At the end of the world, I don't know. There could be
a new temple, maybe it's spiritually speaking, the church apostetizing. There's various
options there. But I do think that my understanding, my reading of this
harmonizes this mirrored view and all of the texts that cover this topic. So
anyway, but I've done many videos, and you can go watch those old
videos I've done that, Go watch my Antichrist video, and go watch my
Beast System video Temple hat Girl twenty dollars. Many a Cumanist clerics take place
in an agenda that is spiously malicious. Why not be an executive at Chase
Bank? Why do they want to hurt other people? Well, I think
a lot of people, you know, when they go into clerical life or
whatever, they may start out sincere and you know, they don't know how
the world's really run. So by the time they are raised to being ecomunical
patriarch and then they find out the hard way how the world really runs,
with intelligence operations and compromise and you know the kind of stuff that is in
my publishers famous books Whitney Webbs two books on blackmail and get those from Trying
Day. You know, people don't know that this is how the world works,
so they go into this. By the time they're I don't know,
fifty sixty seventy, they get compromise and they find out a hard way how
it works. So that's so maybe not everybody is maliciously trying to undermine the
church. They just you know, find out the hard way, and then
some people are malicious. Mozo's Balls fifteen dollars. Can you discuss the World
Council Churches, I Oral Orthodoxy and the genuine Orthodox. I've done many talks.
Go watch David's videos on the true Orthodox. Neil five dollars. Visit
a ro Corps church for the first time east of nash Vegas. I sent
questions and the priest said that you're a great guy. Well that's great to
hear. I appreciate that. Willie Wonka three dollars. What's your favorite candy?
I'm not really eat candy, so to addict three dollars, but if
I did eat candy, it would be the Willy Wonka candy where he throws
boots into the candy solo attic three dollars. What are the two books next
to the Blue Books next to the Vatican Two? These are the Tanner and
Alberigo Official like the most scholarly Roman Catholic production of all the decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils. So if you wanted to in an academic setting site the Ecumenical
Councils from a Roman Catholic perspective, you would want to site Tanner and Albertigo
and really nice books. I got these maybe ten years ago, and they
were pretty expensive, So that's what this is. Yeah, these would be
kind of normative in Roman Catholic academia circles. So that's what those two blue
books are. R. L. Stein goose Bumps, which goose Bumps scary
the most? All the ones by Stephan King or else Stein. Have you
heard of Stephen King? You might check out his stuff sometimes. Chase Haggard,
I've never heard of this guy. Three dollars. What about the latest
push by ben Cabe of Theoria against Father Trenim and to promote Lofton. Yeah,
I thought that was funny. So for those that don't know, avoid
Theoria, avoid ben Cabe. He put out a short pushing the idea of
a Pacatastasius in an origin as sense, as if that this is a possible
reading in the Orthodox view, when this has been condemned explicitly by Saint Sophronius
in his confession at the sixth Council. Read the Confession of Patriarch Sophronius accepted
by the sixth Council. There's a four page condemnation of the entire system of
origin, and so that is accepted at the sixth Council. And the mere
fact that Ben Cabe pushes Michael Lofton against Josiah Trenam should tell you everything,
guys, if you would hit like and share, thank you so much a
lot of fun today. Is there anybody else on here? We got a
couple more haters? Haters? Jorgan Jrgan Are you a hater? Before I
close it out? What's up? Jorgan? You're actually this is a sort
of sock com But I used to be a Muslim way back in the day,
and your videos we're actually instrumental in helping me reshortsodoxy. Oh wow,
that's cool. So it's it's not more so a debate. But I did
have some questions about Islam because you've mentioned it oftentimes and I've kind of seen
Will saying the Koran too that I've seen a lot of many key and influence
in the Koran that makes sense. So I was seeing if if there's any
other resources that I can look into, twelve more into this because there's a
lot of weird there. Relies on a lot of nastic texts, and you
were talking about the was it that Pikachu Pikachu today who were talking about the
gnostic texts to that? Well, hold on, I don't I don't hold
on off the top of my head. I don't know about specifically Gnostic texts.
So there are some pseudopographa and uh, you know, apocryphal texts like
Cave of Treasures, Adam and Eve text. The Life of Abraham, I
think is one of seven sleeper story proto Evangelium of James. But there are
probably others that I'm not aware of. So it could be that there's specific
stories from Nastic texts, but I don't know about that. And that's just
that's just because I don't know. I don't know everything about old you know,
Islamic studies. Yeah, because I've been doing It's like I've been doing
it well to to starry Orthodoxy. I spent about a year probably studying from
the Orthodox study Bible, and I've been trying to study the Koran from like
an Orthodox perspective too. They site the story from I think it's a constable
Thomasy and phisical gospel of Thomas of Christ breathing life into a clay bird.
Oh that okay, okay, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah, okay,
there you go. Hold on now, No, no, rid Von
showed that that's from the the Infancy Gospels and that might that might be a
Gnostic text. Yeah, exactly, Okay, good point, that's your story.
I actually seeing Ridvan's video too. But he Karan also talks about how
Solomon ordered the demons to build the Temple of Yes. That that's I brought
that up in the ki get you debate. I think, yeah, I
think you brushed it off too, and it was it was kind of hilarious
that he just brushes that off. It's like it's completely preserved. Right.
Well, so that is mentioned I think by uh uh Josepha's, but I'm
not sure where that story comes from because Josephas mentions the pretty sure I'm going
from her. I haven't looked at Joseph's a long time, but I'm pretty
sure that there's the story that Solomon has a magical ring. I can't remember.
I can't remember if Josepha's mentions angels or gen but I think he does.
So this is like an older, you know, Jewish tale. It
is it is, it is. It's uh because I was trying to read
It's like, where did the Koran get this? Because the Koran I read
is like the one of the official English translations that the Souadias used before they
use this one. It's uh, forget forget that. The author is I'll
treat it in a comment maybe later, but he's he's the Muslim commentator compiling
that Korans tights it from the Apocalypse of Abraham. Okay, that makes sense.
That might have been the source of just I don't know the day,
but I did find this in Josepha's and it surprised me that it was in
there. And by the way, this is the story that in the Renaissance,
a bunch of the Renaissance occultists they crib that. They crib that story
and that became the basis for Solomonic Keys of Solomon magic in the Renaissance.
There's a lot of where Chrome kind of relies on magic. Two, there's
a specific instance where they talk about it's like in Islamic angelology, is angels
do not have their own free will, they're completely bound by God. And
then the crime will tell stories how fault and angels introduced magic and sorcery to
ancient Arab kingdom kingdoms. And I noticed that they always reference to cities Harut
and Marut to an Arabic and they kind of seem like Haruvtaz and Emeritag,
which are two angels and zoroastrianison. Interesting. Yeah, I didn't I didn't
know that. Yeah, it's okay, it's still kind of see similarities between
Mani and Mohammad. Yeah, and interesting. Are there any texts which goes
deeper into this. I don't doubt that there are similarities there, but I
don't know enough to know if there's I mean, what the what the source
the academic source would be defined that kind of stuff. I'll tell you who
who you should ask? Ask either Rid Vaughan, Sam Shumun or Lewis and
kai Orthoxhahaa. They would know interesting. Yeah. Yeah. By the way,
it looks like Apocalypse of Abraham is just general scholar dated to be around
seventy eight D, so that would probably be that's very likely then that that
might be what just see fist is polling from. Yeah, because a lot
of a lot of youn Islamic sources were If you see how apostates, well
not apostate, heretical sex or fin chanities they migrated towards that era, you
would probably assume the Mama's a lot of Mama's biblical knowledge came from heretical sex
around that time. Well, even even John Damascus says that even John,
Yeah, even John Damascus says, who was one of the first Christian apologists
writing about Islam, the Hagarenes, even he even he says that it was
Aran and Nestorian theology that influenced Mohammad. Yeah. Yeah, I've seen a
lot of hits and so that it's a lot. I don't know if you
passed him one. That one on one point where the Koran literally gets a
trinity wrong. It says the trinity is the father's married. Yeah, I
know that Kai made a video on this, the Orthodox Jahada, that was
one of the first videos they put up. It's really good. But yeah,
he covered it. I think I'm watching that too. Yeah, it's
a lot, a lot of and I found it really interesting because I've talked
to a lot of him on this cholers too and trying to get trying to
get them pain down on this theology too. They always do this kind of
sleight of hand where they'll just appeal to academic scholars as will be of consensus,
like oh the academic sorrys did this, and the textual criticism, yeah,
you know why they do that, because you know why they do that,
because they do not have a theological basis of defending the Koran. Well
that, but they also don't know what fallacies are. So I mean,
if you know, if you watch the Hokiki debate, like I called out
three d of fallacies and he didn't even know what I was talking about.
But there is for those in the audience, there's the video that Kai made
like no, this is a new one. Well, this is a newer
one, but it's good. It's called the Chronic Trinity Muslims don't want you
to know about. There's another one. He made an old one here it
is the chronic Trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. And here's that stream
for those that are interested. If you want to see that, go ahead.
I gotta go pretty soon. Anything. I just want to leave us
with no no, that that's pretty interesting. But I would say it's if
any Muslims do still wants who just see it's like, oh you know,
maybe I'm talking on So I encourage anyone to literally just read like any efficient
translation of the Koran, and they will see how many inconsistencies comes up with
and they cannot answer basic questions. Yeah, exactly, And I think that's
what I was really trying to convey in the Kikachu debate, was the point
about, you know, the Kuran relying on prior revelation and then telling you
that you can't. You can go to that prior revelation, but when you
do, you only read it through what the Ron says its prior revelation.
But that's a circle. So exactly, And just one last before I log
off now and I'll let you be. It's the one point I think you
and raise it yourself. It's changing the Kebla from Jerusalem to Mecca. So
wait a second. In the Kuran's supposed to be the de facto final revelation
to humanity, but there's celebradations to it, so as I am I eternally
keeping the commandment to create a Jerusalem or to Mecca. So there's what's a
distinction with that. I thought all laws thoughts are eternal and supposed to before
all eternity. Yeah, I think the speech of a law, the thoughts
of a law, those are good arguments if you get into that. A
lot of them don't get that sophisticated, but if you can get into that
you can really pin them down. Those are great points. Thank you for
that. I gotta go though. We got one last super chat here from
Joseph the Slow, Jay, I did your stuff. I want to give
a shout out or point this out. Gavin Ortland at a recent video denying
I guess episode succession erin Ais and Ertolian live one hundred years after Jerome.
Wait, Gavin Ortland thinks that urinais and Ertollian or a hundred years after Jerome.
So why has anybody listened to Gavin Ortland. It's gets ridiculous now.
I don't know if he says that that's what Joseph the Slow in his super
chat is saying that Ortland says, which is laughable and shows that these I
mean that would be that should end that dude as an apologist. If he
said that, I'm gonna read his quote explicit. I don't follow Gavin Ortlands.
I don't know what he said, but I want this out there.
In his recent video critiquing Epistolic succession, Gavin Ortland says Iranais and Tertulian are
one hundred years after Jerome, and we're in a highly polemical context, and
this motivated them to you for absolute succession. And well, I mean this
is just like I hope that is true because that should end that dude.
AC five dollars, Jay, you won't debate the godbody five percent Muslim at
my corner store, kick in the knowledge, he's the hidden A mom,
Yeah, I won't. They always say whenever after you debate the Muslim,
ever say yeah, but you won't debate the real Muslim who's the hidden.
It's just a joke. He did his jail house scholarship. He straight shook.
Thank you for that, Ac. Thank you guys, Hopefully you enjoyed
today's show. People have said I was being mean or not. I wasn't
being mean. As I explained, the delay on Twitter spaces when people are
on cell phones is annoying because they can't hear me talking to them and they
just keep talking and like thirty seconds later they hear me talking. So I
wasn't being mean to anybody. But in regard to the evangelical dude and the
Lutheran dude, I wasn't being mean. They literally said what I said.
They were saying