Attain holiness via literally re enacting the crucifixion of Christ, and so for us
this is an extreme form of prelest. Prelst is spiritual delusion, and it's
always centered on any kind of means that replaces the way to become holy.
That's the appropriate way. So the process of theosis, becoming like God through
participating in the uncreated grace of God, through the life of the Church,
the sacraments, et cetera, is always replaced with a pseudo means of attaining
that, usually through something like self aggrandizement, some form of believing that you
have a vision, or some special calling. Charismaticism as a classic example of
this. God has anointed me and called me to be a pastor of the
local church. This is a very obvious, clear form of prelust. But
it's not just the charismatics. When we critique the charismatic oddities, we begin
to notice a lot of parallels with the medieval Latin manifestations. So even though
Francis Assisi and Jean Gerson and Nicholas Acusta might not have been flopping around on
the ground and giggling and having holy laughter at a Benny hen concert, they
really are kind of the Charismatics, way before the charismatics. And the idea
is that to prove one's devotion or one's possession of quote sanctity, it must
it must then require or it must be attended by these manifestations. And I
was thinking more about this as I read this really good chapter in the book,
as well as the other chapter on women's mysticism, which is also very
telling and enlightening in this book, because as you as we follow the trek
of piety in mysticism in the Latin West after the phase of Scholasticism, even
traditional Roman Catholics have begun to notice and admit in their writings. Emj has
said this that Roman Catholic piety takes on more and more of an effeminate posture,
and we more and more begin to see the focus of the piety of
the people around apparitions. And if you heard the Roman Catholic guy that came
they called it the other night, debating and saying that the apparitions prove his
faith and the Catholicism is true. You notice he melted down when we got
to the issue of the so called apparitions of the Coptic Church in Egypt,
and he admitted, well, I don't know why it doesn't prove Coptic theology,
but it's just different. And of course he had no real consistent answer.
But aside from that, the effeminate attitude of many Roman Catholics, and
I'm including under that skittles proclivities, which many Roman Catholics have actually written books
on. I think there's a connection here. I think there's a connection between
the bad theology, the skittles proclivities which are rampant in that communion, the
recent ambiguous statements from Francis and his Fiduccia supplicons text that got everyone wondering what
it means to be blessing a union that is skittles, and it does say
to bless the two people. And they all lied and said, well,
it's just a blessing of people as individuals as a couple. A couple is
two in a pair, not individuals. Yeah, but elsewhere he says you
shouldn't do that. Yeah, that just means it contradicts. But whether it's
the skittle stuff that's so rampant, or whether it's the marry and piety that
has gone into the stratosphere of excess or whether it is the pre last of
the medieval women's saints. There's a there's a general pattern here that emotionalism and
sensationalism are really the essence of true piety and devotion. When we went to
Rome on our pilgrimage a few months ago, the first thing that really stands
out, and many of us commented when we were on the pilgrimage, we
did an Orthodox pilgrimage, not a Roman Cacolic pilgrimage. We went to all
of the Orthodox sites in the first thing that stood out to us, and
we all commented on this was the very exaggerated emotionalism of the Roman Catholic statuary,
paintings, frescoes, et cetera. And every place that we went that
was Preschism that still had a lot of the Preschism art or architecture or whatever
iconography that was still there was noticeably Orthodox, noticeably different. It was dispassionate.
It focused on the halo, not Rihanna's halo, the halo which is
intended to signify in the Orthodox Church deification and true participation in uncreated grace.
In the Roman Catholic Church after the Schism, especially the halo is separated from
the head. Have you ever noticed that, ironically their own iconography expresses their
heterodoxy, then in this life you don't actually touch the uncreated golden light and
grace of God. Every Orthodox icon places the halo behind the head of the
Orthodox saint to signify that theosis and deification is a present reality in the sacramental
life of the Church, here and now, and not to be excluded and
delayed to the escoton. And if you believe that the art of a people
expresses the soul of a people, it's no more evident than in the artwork
of these churches. And even in some churches where you have a preschism older
cathedral or church or building that then has kind of built onto it or around
it or renovated the post schism stuff, you can see that contrast in the
building itself. In some of those old cathedrals, one of which had some
of the old some of the frescoes I think from the time of Justinian,
and then elsewhere all of this just hideous novus orto Vatican to abstract garbage.
Actually the Vatican Museum itself was that way. But when you walk through the
Vatican museum, you're seeing all the classical Roman era stuff, and then you
get it kind of as you move through it, you get more and more
progressively chronologically in the modern period or wise, and then you get up into
like total abstract post Vatican to demonic Pauli Sis looking trash okay. So I
mean even the Vacuan Museum expresses this for you. So when we look at
the tendencies of the medieval Roman catholn myistics, one ironic point that stood out
to me reading these essays was the tendency towards pantheism, towards dialectical opposition,
particularly in Meister Eckhart, the tendency towards since sensuous ecstasy, the idea that
piety and salvation and theology is truly expressed through a kind of pseudo sexuality,
and especially as the chapter on medieval mysticism notes, with the women, pretty
much all of them were clearly expressing that they're not getting it, and so
they become histrionic and Jesus becomes the replacement boyfriend. And it even gets to
the point of Roman Catholic women saints literally saying that they have spiritual r g
A. S. M. That's the famous Bernini statue of Theresa in ecstasy.
Even I was surprised at this, because, for example, there's poetry
by Hildegard of being in and by Gertrude the Great, these medieval women mystics
that become very influential for the Latin Church, and they're basically it's basically like
poems that are nothing but innuendos. Is bizarre. So why would it be
surprising that Taylor Marshall talks about having visions of Mary and her milkers. I'm
not joking, I'm not being blasphemous. That's his claim. The whole religion
is built around effeminate mystical visions and has been for hundreds of years. Gertrude
the Great wrote in her Mystical Treatises in the fourteenth or thirteen hundreds thirteenth century
about the row of Christ and how it pierced her, and when it entered
her it made her bone of bone and flesh of flesh. Christ became her
intimate partner, and they became one substance with one another. Well, first
of all, you don't become one substance with God. That's not the orthodox
view, and any Orthodox person would know that the basis of the essence in
interstinction. That's a form of pantheism, and that's heterodox. But it's actually
the very thing that meister Eckhart said in his mysticism. It's the same idea.
Although maybe Francis of As didn't say that he became one essence with God.
The idea that he needs to be experiencing the literal piercings in his hands
of Christ to be a little Christ is also the same idea that God and
man become essentially blended. For many of the other mystics of that time period,
like Bernard of Clairvaux, the antibody posture is so extreme that salvation is
essentially the flight of the soul away from the body towards a union with God.
But the Gospel is the resurrection of the body, not the flight of
the soul away from physicality and materiality. That's neo platonism. Other mystics like
Nicholas of Cusa, Julian Norwich, et cetera, discuss bizarre ideas like the
the universe being infinite. He was a cardinal, his idea of the vision
of God. This is Nicholas if Cuso ultimately identifies God with the created universe
while trying to distinguish God from it. So we see then this tendency towards
pantheism, and they're struggling with the lack of the Essen synergy distinction that Orthodox
theology has maintained as fundamental going back to the Christological Councils. I mean,
it's in the Cappadocians, but it really becomes solidified in an absolutely clear way
in the Sixth Council in the dispute between Paris and Maximus, and then later
on when John Damascus restates and recapitulates the theology of the six Council in on
the Orthodox Faith, where there's an entire chapter on the Essen center distinction in
Christology. That's on the Orthodox Orthodox Book three, section fifteen. So again,
and I did a whole lecture on the bizarre manifestations of the famous medieval
heretical sects, the Boga, Mills, the Cathariye, all of whom play
a key role in this story as well, because they set the stage for
what we're talking about in the progress towards modernity, towards the Protestant Reformation.
For example, the Waldensians, who were themselves influenced by Franciscan mendicant beggar preachers,
many of whom ended up being heterodox, the Spiritual Franciscans, and as
Malcolm Lambert and his magisterial book on Medieval Heresy notes, all of these really
become predecessors to the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and so forth. Many of
these groups also set the stage for communism, socialism, Marxism. So this
book here, it's a six hundred page book, very academic text. Some
years back I read it and I took about sixty pages of notes on it.
So here is my talk on Medieval Heresy by Malcolm Lambert, Cathar's Cults
and Papal Power. It's an excellent scholarly text, and it really again just
shows the ideological lineage into groups like the Spiritual francistems yokam a feor they influence
groups like the Munser Rebellion and those become proto communist socialists. All right,
so we're going to open it up. Somebody said to the Protestants, stop
barking. Yeah, dude, if you want to call in, please do.
Here is the link, mister Protestant, and you can call in and
request to speak, and we open it up to debate. The topics are
listed. Don't play victim, because it's an open form debate. If you've
come into this discussion, you're willingly debating. So it's not going to work
to play a victim and whine and cry that I'm being mean to you.
If you would like to stay a position or an argument, just make that
clear and I'll give you the microphone to talk as long as you want.
We are supposed to have a kind of quasi official debate tonight. If that
guy ends up coming, he's supposed to come around maybe an hour from now
with a smack talking Thomas Roman Catholic. As you guys know, I typically
give people the opportunity, if they seem sane, if they seem cogent,
to come and make their argument and make their case against me. The default
setting is going to be back and forth. If you would like a specific
five minutes to make your opening statement or your case, just let me know
that. So don't whine. If I say, well, wait a minute,
hold on, that's a fallacy. Wait a minute, hold on,
that doesn't make any sense. Don't complain that I'm interrupting you because our default
setting is conversational debate. But you have the option if you would like for
me to hush, and you can make any argument or presentation that you want.
So you got a bunch of people in the quay here, We'll go
ahead and go to Charlie. He was an early requester. What's up,
Charlie? He can hear me, Yes, sir, I was actually hoping
to present a debate of having with family members. I myself was actually catechized
Sunday, and they're all Protestant. If that's okay, sure, Yeah,
you're saying you want to you want to bring up what their arguments are.
Yeah, I'm kind of struggling with So that's fun, if that's fine.
I have two that have been really struggling with. The first is the perpetual
virginity of Mary. The particular family member keeps quoting Joseph New Mary after a
certain point, and I just I don't know what to present to them to
the contrary. Yeah. So the best thing actually on this, uh,
which is what the heck is that? Yeah? It is still Jerome's treatise.
So it's called against Helvidius and it's not very long. And the irony
is that all the arguments that the Protestants are presenting are identical to the arguments
that Jerome is responding to back in the year three eighty three. So this
is a double whammy. I like to do this because, on the one
hand, not only do we get actually good extragetical arguments from a person who
knew the languages Jerome, but we also get a good reply to almost all
of the standard things that Protestants say. You can also point out that the
classical reformers themselves, Calvin and Luther, didn't deny the perpetual virginity. They
even understood that the low tier arguments like that don't actually mean that he necessarily
did it. Right, So the till I will be with you until the
end of the world is the same Greek word there, does that mean that
Jesus is no longer with us after the end of the world. No,
So till does not necessarily imply that afterwards it ceases to be the case,
where the opposite is the case. Okay, so it's not a long treat
use, but you do need to read it. It's called against tell videos.
I have it pulled up right here. Some other things too that relate
to the perpetual virginity, which Protestants don't usually think about. I would say,
go watch my video that I did. That's about a forty minute video
on Marian theology. It's called what did I call it? Mary? Not
perpetual for the theology of Mary, I don't even remember what I call it.
Let me see. I basically just go through all of the typology and
all of the imagery that relates to Mary that a lot of times Protestants wouldn't
know about, like Psalm forty five where the king, the king, the
queen stands next to the king in gold of oph heir, and that's Mary.
But Protestants don't typically think, hey, wait a minute, maybe Mary
is predicted in the Old Testament too. It's not just Jesus that's predicting the
Old Testament. In fact, all of the women of the Old Testament who
have miraculous birds, like Sarah become types of Mary or Hannah becomes a type
of Mary. You can see this for example, and the fact that Hannah's
prayer in First Samuel is parallel to Mary's magnificat. So when Mary gives her
magnificat. It's literally referring back to and referencing Hannah. Mary understood that she
was linked to Hannah in that way. And there's other texts too that are
going to be really relevant to this, like Ezekiel forty four because Ezeko forty
four talks about the new Temple when it's made and when it's ready, that
the king will pass through the door, the Prince will pass through the door,
and yet the door never opens and it always remains shut. What door
would Messiah the prince pass through and yet retain its shut status. That's the
Virgin Mary. All right, a lot of homework and then if I have
time, one more question. The canon is city of Scripture, but the
argument is in such a weird way, I don't know how how to argue
against it. It's all the books written by the end of Revelation and at
the vague spirit preserved a canon, but there's never any citations to anything.
It's always just the vague spirit preserved canon. I'm like, I don't know
how to answer that because it's just so vague. Well, but the spirit
preserving the canon is not answering the question of how do we know which books
go into it, because that's a decision that everybody admits is after the Apostles,
Right, So if you're a Roman Catholic, you're going to say,
well, for the West, it's about the fifth century, it's the you
know, decree of Pope Deemesis, it's the Council of Rome. If you're
Orthodox, you're not really going to just based it on what the pope decided,
even though we pretty much have the same canon as the Roman Catholics.
If your Orthodox, you're gonna think that it's the Council of Trollo slash sixth
seventh Council. So in other words, that's hundreds of years after the Apostles.
So, so how do we get the right list of books when the
Bible itself doesn't tell us what books go into it? Because Protestants tend to
think of the Bible as just this one book, but actually the Bible is
a book of a bunch of books, And so how do we know what
books go into that book? And this was a disputed thing from many centuries
in the Church, and really there's no way to get an answer to that
question without the idea of some historical church having the authority, the normative authority
to make that decision, and also tradition and liturgy are intimately bound up with
that decision, right. And I try to make the point that all the
people who made the put together the Bible believed pretty much everything that worth it
ox believed, right, but we're going to ignore everything else besides that.
So but it just seems to go in one ear out with the other soul.
Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, I'll try those things.
And then my the video that I did on Mary, which would help to
kind of see the bigger picture because uh, you know, Protestants will kind
of kind of focus on just one thing, like well this first says that,
uh, you know until until uh but no, it's like a bigger
picture, like you need to know the whole context of of what of how
Mary is the new Eve, of how Mary is the parallel to Hannah,
how Mary is the parallel to you know, Sarah, how Mary is predicted?
And Psalm forty five, right, I mean, all of that goes
into it. And so I would say, watch my video, what is
the basis for the veneration of Saint Mary? Right? Like Samshuing said,
is a very Muslim style of arguing, where they focus on one little thing
extract an entire theology off of it. So thank you so much. Absolutely.
Yeah, there's a lot of parallels between Islam and Protestants, no doubt.
I just follow the Bible, I just follow my Kauraan. How long
until we've got like redneck billy Bob Baptist converting to Islam and just saying I
just follow my quarian I don't believe nothing but the krain Oh but wait a
minute, it turns out Islam believes and hawdiats I am. I am truth
of something. What's up? Hello? Yeah? Yeah, So I had
a question about if you knew who maged. Your reason was no, no
anyway. Yeah. So I was watching a video about the Philioquay and they
were talking about relative opposition. What would be your kind of like rebuttal to
that point. I just replied to that a couple of minutes ago. Did
you not see it? Not into that? Yeah. So the first thing
is that relations of opposition or relative opposition is at least philosophically related to a
diad. Anything opposition is a diad. So it makes absolutely no sense to
think that we can do opposition in a triad, because God is not a
diad, he's a triad. However, if you believe in the Philioquay,
as Saint Photios argued, you actually are believing in a diad. You're believing
in a father son as a unifying principle that spir rates the existence of the
Holy Spirit. So there's this father son unity that exists, and then there's
this Holy Spirit who lacks that unifying power and principle of spy rating or generating
a person that father and son share, and so there's a subordination. And
Photius argues that that's a form of a diad. Also, if you watch
the interview that we did with doctor bo Branson, who wrote his dissertation on
the Cappadocians, he adequately responds to all of these just over and over repeated
low tier arguments. All right, thank you, Yeah, I'm getting that
video. Yeah, it's called Trinity, Monarchia, Energies, Philioque and Unitarian
arguments from eight months ago. And we responded to all of these sort of
standard fair Roman Catholic claims. I mean, the guys that keep pushing this
are basically basically think that you just if you just repeat what Aquinas said,
like as if nobody in the last seven hundred years has dealt with or responded
to any of these claims. No, just just just sight Aquinas and that's
good enough. Matt, what's up? Got it? I mute? Dude?
Hello, Yeah, what's up? Can you hear me? Yes?
What's up? I just had a comment on just had a comment on what
you just shared on actually in Protestantism at the moment, but movement towards Orthodoxy.
But what you shared about the emotionalism and that I'm seeing it's so like
prevalent in kind of Pentecostal circles where there's this kind of like real push for
like this kind of intimacy with Jesus, but it's kind of like in this
it sometimes feels a bit twisted. Yeah, it's an emotional well, it's
a feeling based, emotion based, sensational, sensuous kind of unity. Yeah.
So yeah, that was that was fun app But my question was in
relation to tag I heard you sharing I think it was yesterday with someone who
was saying, well, what about the telogical arguments, and you said that
that basically it gets you to the point of proving that there's a God,
but it doesn't lead you to the God of Christianity. Well, I don't
think it even gets to that far. But okay, Well I was just
wondering with TAG, does that not just do the same thing. But I've
heard you say before that you do like a two parter where you do like
TAG, but then you kind of do a holistic No. No. My
argument is that TAG is both parts and that it's an argument for the trinity.
So it's not there is no generic God. I don't think there's literally
no such thing as a generic God that everybody believes in that you can prove
for through philosophy or reasoning, and then later on down the road we tack
on trinity. So transit argument for God is the opposite of that. It's
actually arguing that without the existence of the trying God, you couldn't have a
grounding or a basis or knowledge at all, because the Christian worldview, metaphysic
epistemology is unique and it thus provides the base. It's not true just because
unique, but it's a unique type of worldview that works. I believe to
solve or to give the best possible answer to the classic philosophical issues of the
problem of the one and the many, the problem of universals, the problem
of an identity over time, the self. All of those things aren't problems
in the Christian paradigm. And so the Christian paradigm gives a basis for the
preconditions of knowledge. That's the transcendental argument. So it's not an argument for
just some generic god, it's a specific argument for the entire Christian worldview.
Now, the teleological argument as well as the cosmological argument, any of the
classical arguments just simply assume the things that they're wanting to prove. So it's
not that I disagree with causation or that a that I disagree with telos or
something like that. It's just simply that the arguments assume the things that they're
trying to prove. And because you're wanting to prove the Christian God, it
doesn't get you to a Christian God. It assumes neutrality, it assumes self
evident principles, and any modern philosopher at past the last five hundred years is
just immediately going to start to question those things. And the people who promote
those arguments, I kid you not, they just simply don't care about answering
the modern philosophical questions. They just say, I handwave it, I don't
care. That's why you don't see the debates progressing anywhere. When Dawkins debate's
a theist, it's the same debates that we've been having for like the last
five hundred years. People just regurgitate aquitas as if those are good arguments.
But they're not good arguments when the world has moved past the assumption of metaphysics
and people don't understand that I believe in the same metaphysics that you do if
you're a toemister or whatever in terms of again essences and form, and you
know accidents and energy and you know t los and causation. It's rather that
if you're not going to address the skeptics, then stop doing apologetics, because
skeptics will immediately say, you're putting your metaphysical cart before your epistemic course.
How do you know that all of these first principles in these self evid axioms
are the case, and all of the classic arguments rely on that. They
just they rely on they assumed those things all right. Well, for a
slow ball like me, I might have to go over a bit more.
But my other question was in regards to your debate with Matt Dela Monkey,
and it was in regards to when you stumped him about presuppositions. And I've
played it a couple of times and I said him a bit slow. But
was it that he couldn't understand that you could justify presuppositions or was it that
he thought that presuppositions were just things that you just thought regardless, you didn't
have to give a jomb but bost of the above because he thought that by
definitely, like first of all, he thought he made the mistake that Bonson
points out in the Bonns of Stein debate, which is that all things are
proven in the same way as if you just proved something by empirically demonstrating it,
When he later admitted that not everything is proven by empirical demonstration. For
example, how do we prove that everything is proven by empirical demonstration? How
do we prove abstract mathematical problems? They're not empirical, So obviously not everything
is proven in the same way. So he is assuming that, and many
of these low tier kind of people make the same mistake. They just assume
that, Well, to prove something means that you demonstrated through you know,
empirical scientific research or through a syllogism. That's literally the only ways to quote
prove anything. But if we're talking about a transcendental category, I mean proving
that because it's not something physical and material, it's proven in a different way.
So just because it's not material doesn't mean it can't be proven, or
just because it's an assumption, it doesn't mean it can't be proven. So
that's the point of transcendental arguments is that they're a different way to prove different
types of things. It's a different way to prove a non material thing.
Gotcha, thanks, Shda really appreciate that terification. Yeah. For example,
an Aristol metaph as a book four, when he's asked about what happens if
somebody says I don't believe in the law of non contradiction, he offers a
kind of retortion argument, a reductio argument, by saying that, well,
if you rejected the law of non contradiction, you would be using it to
argue against it, and that would be self refuting. Okay, this is
Aristotle. I'll you idiot Tomas out there, he's making the type of argument
that I make. We're actually in the Tonistic tradition, I mean, excuse
me, the Aristotelian tradition, so to speak. Now, Aristotle doesn't apply
these types of arguments to God, but he's applying this argument of recorsion here
to the law of non contradiction, and we do the same type of move.
We're just simply saying that actually, God is more fundamental than even the
law of non contradiction. And so I'm taking that type of argument, and
I'm saying that let's apply that to God. If we can use the uh
a transcendental type of argument for a law of logic, why wouldn't be able
to use it for good anyway. That's so that's the move that we're making
here. Aiden, Hey, go ahead, go ahead, Hey, j
Hey, is my mic working. I just have a couple of questions regarding
Roman Catholicism. Okay, but I'm yeah, it's a big clug, So
forgive me if I can barely hear you speak out? What my is?
My Okay? Is it loud enough? Now? Yes, sir, Okay,
don't go ahead. I have a question on a few things about purgatory
cause apparently when you if you were to ask a Catholic or not a Catholic,
I mean, if you were to ask someone what purgatory is it?
It might vary from person to person. But I once saw this Catholic YouTuber
called Voice of Reason. Have you heard of him? Yeah, he's uh
he says that the Council of Ephicis was wrong. Yeah he's a Giober.
Oh he did, he really did? Yeah, I have the clip on
my clip channel or or Google corporate quote the role we actually cultural roll go
ahead, Yeah, because he said that purgatory wasn't a place, it was
a process. And he said that it like he basically said, it was
the same thing as the sanctification process. Well, I mean Roman Catholics might
think that, but so what what about it? We don't believe in purgatory,
so what about it? Yeah? I mean, well I don't have
any questions because I've seen other Catholics who say, but it is a part
of Hell. I mean, Catholics believe that Hell is divided into four parts.
Yeah yeah, I mean that they got all kinds of different views and
positions, but yeah, I appreciate it. So I guess they can't really
call themselves Catholic. H Well, I mean for them, Catholic just means
literally the wrong. And see, so they kind of they're kind of like
Protestants in that they particularize Catholicity and universality to literally just be one of the
seas. So I'll play for you really quick here uh, voice of reason
literally saying that ephesis was wrong and he and the papacy all know better are
spurious. So the church isn't protected in matters of fact. The church is
only protected only infallible. In the same way that when the Council of Emphasis
condemned historians as heretic, we don't know looking fact that the Council was actually
in correct. You hear that the Council of Emphasis was incorrect when it condemned
Astorius as a heretic. That's all you need to know that these people are
the heretics. There you go. Now, I'm trying to find this section
in Aristotle. But the way that this one is divided up over here is
different than my book. I mean, it's the same numbers, but it
doesn't list paragraph four under one thousand, okay, one thousand and six A
that's what we need or here. So this is where Aristotol, I think,
is arguing, what if somebody says, I don't believe in proofs.
So he's talking about it's possible, for example, for somebody to be and
not be at the same time. Many even know the physicists adopt this theory.
But we have just assumed it is impossible at once to be and to
not be, and by this means we have proven that this is the most
certain of all principles. Some indeed demand to have a law proven, but
this is because they lack education. Where it shows that lack of education to
not know of what we should require proof and what we should not. So
Aerosol's kind of arguing that there's not going to be demonstrable proof of the law
of non contradiction or these basic principles, For it is quite impossible that everything
should have a proof. If we required a proof of everything, then the
process would go on into infinity. Even so there would be no proof if,
on the other hand, there were some things of which no proof was
needed, they cannot say what principle they think would be more self evident even
in the case of this law, what law of identity of the things we
don't about we cannot demonstrate the impossibility or law of non contradiction worth they two.
We cannot demonstrate the impossibility by reputation only if our opponent makes some statement.
If he makes no statement, it is absurd to seek for an argument
against a person who has no arguments of his own, insofar as he has
none, For such a person is really no better than a vegetable. And
I say by proof of reputation. That differs that by reputation differs from simple
proof, in that he who attempts to prove might seem to beg the fund
the meddle question, whereas if discussion is provoked thus by someone else, reputation
and not proof, will be the result. The starting point for all such
discussions is not the claim that he should state something is or is not so,
because this might be supposed to begging the question, but that he should
say something significant, both to himself and to another. This is essential if
any argument is to follow, for otherwise such a person cannot either cannot reason,
either with himself or with another. And if this is granted, demonstration
will be possible, for there will be something already defined, but the person
responsible is not Hugh demonstrates, but he who acquiesces I must get down.
Thus, in the first place, it is obvious that at any rate,
it is true that the term to be or not to be has a definite
meaning, so that not everything can be so and not so. Again,
if a man has a meaning, let this be two footed animal. Okay,
so, and then it's the next section twenty one five one thousand and
six. B Okay, yeah, this is a thing one of one thousand
and six. If, for instance, it might be said that man has
not one meaning but several of one of which is that the formula by two
footed animal, there might be another formula as well, if we limited him
a number for a particular name, not be assigned to each if each for
the formula. If, on the other hand, it'd be said that man
has an infinite number of meanings, then obviously there could be no discourse.
Not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, So he's doing reductios
here. Now it's impossible that being man should have the same meaning as not
being man. That is, if man is merely predical of one subject but
has one meaning, for you not identify having one meaning with being predical of
one subject in this case, cultured, white, and man would also have
one meaning, and so all things would be one. And thus he's saying
that you couldn't have predication. It would be impossible for the same thing to
be and to not be accept by equivocation. So he's arguing here that if
you were to say that words and predicates could cancel each other out, then
meaning would no longer be possible. And so this is a kind of negative
argument, a kind of reductio argument for the law of identity, the law
of non contradiction. So it's an internal critique you could say by doing this
kind of a move. It's not the transcendental argument for God, but is
the same type of a move, the same type of argument where we're saying
that if you took this line, it would lead to absurdity. If you
denied something like a first principle or a foundational law of logic, it would
lead to absurdity. It would make logic impossible. Therefore, the guy who
argues against the laws of logic is actually assuming them to do so. Icono,
Matt, Hey, what's up? Man? Hey? So I was
listening to one of your videos the other day and I lost the video and
you say something that really picked my interest, but I couldn't find the video,
and you were saying that there was something that was necessary in order for
the wicked to be resurrected justifiably, I guess, And you were using this
argument I think against Oh. I think you're talking about the fact that can
you mute it's equally Oh yeah, right, So I think you were talking
about the question that arises as to why all men are resurrected. If Christ
ultimately, say in Calvinism or in Augustinianism, if he only dies ultimately to
save the elect then why would all of the wicked also be resurrected in the
City of God. Augustine struggles with this, and he kind of speculates and
throws out a bunch of different theories. But the real issue is just simply
that there's no doctrine of recapitulation in Protestantism or almost all of Roman Catholicism.
Maybe some Uniates or Byzantine Catholics could somehow argue that they believe in it.
I don't know, maybe there's some, but it's a distinctive feature that's common
and well known in Orthodox theology and it's part and parcel of the doctrine of
the heroine of Hades. And so the heroin of Hades means that Christ destroys
the power of Say over our nature. Thus all of human nature, universe
human nature is assumed and redeemed in Christ. This is why Irenaeus against Heresies
has a whole section where he talks about the recapitulation. Christ recapitulated, recapitulated
everything that Adam lost. And so if allah one griety is fifteen death spreads
to all human beings, then Christ must then spread resurrection to all human beings
just as expansive as Adams fall. So it doesn't make any sense to then
believe in limited atonement or these Calvinist positions on that basis. Gotcha, And
do you have any commentaries on a Gusts and the City of God? Yes,
I actually have a lecture through the entire City of God or the two
part lecture. It's about four hours maybe, Okay, awesome, I appreciate
you, Jay, Thank you. Also, any of the critiques of Calvinism,
I typically bring that issue up. Now I did find this, this
is a great point here about retortion. How far does retortion reach and what
does it prove? Retortion is a philosophical procedure whereby one attempts to establish a
thesis by uncovering and performative inconsistency in anyone who denies it. It is as
old as Aristotle, and it has been followed and used by philosophers as dessert
diverse as transcendental tomasts. Now you might think that, wait a minute,
if you're a transcendental argument proponent, does that mean you're in line with transcendental
tomass. This just simply means that in the modern era there have been Thomas
who have actually, yes, adopted, believe it or not, transcendental arguments.
And that's because, as you heard me point out all the time,
transcendental argumentation is not new to Calvin, It's not new to Van Till or
Bonson. It's a principle that goes back to Aristotle. I just read you
the section of Metaphysics, Book four Aristotle where it's referenced. I think it
comes up in other places too. The idea, I think is also present
in some of the dialogue that some presuppositional ideas are also present in the dialogues
of Plato and so as this philosophical blog here is noting it's not new,
all right. John Damascus, in book one of the fount of Knowledge,
utilizes the same idea, this same type of argument. In fact, I've
actually I forgot to actually have Fount of Knowledge pulled up and if I remember,
it's the first chapter. Yeah, it's actually I think the here early
on in chapter three and he's saying, he's talking about what is philosophy?
I don't know. For those that don't know, John Damascus wrote a famous
introductory text that's very Aristotelian on introducing people to the philosophical concepts that are used
in theological literature. It's called the Fount of Knowledge, and he says,
there are some people, whoever, who have endeavored to do it away entirely
with philosophy, asserting that it does not exist, or that there's no such
thing as knowledge or perception. We would answer them by asking, how is
it you say that there's no philosophy, knowledge or perception. Do you know
or perceive that there is no knowledge philosopher or perception? Or is it by
not knowing or perceiving it. If you perceive it, then you have knowledge
and perception. But if it is by your not knowing it, then no
one will believe you because you're basically saying you have no knowledge. This is
a transcendental type of argument, a reductio retorsion argument. Thus, as you
can see, retortion, as is pointed out here, is used in the
Aristotelian tradition, and thus why there would be transcendental tomist. But to be
very clear here, there are not, to my knowledge, any thomists who
use the transcendental argument for God. You see, so that's the difference here.
But transcendental arguments contrary to these idiotomists who don't know anything, don't even
know that their own tradition as people using transcendental arguments, and that it goes
back to Aristotle and John Damascus. It's a form that you see here in
real well John de mask is doing right. Here is retortion. It's outlined
here in this well known Catholic philosophy blog. Proofs by retortion have this form.
Proposition P is such that anyone who denies it falls into the performative inconsistency.
Therefore, ergo P is true. Suppose that a person says that there
are no assertions. This would be a performative inconsistency. The propositional content of
the speech act is inconsistent with the performance. There are no assertions. Is
the propositional content of asserting your asserting, that is the proposition. Thus the
speech act in this case is the performance. The inconsistency is not strictly logical,
but strictly logical inconsistency obtains between propositions, and thus the performance as such
is not a proposition, such as asserting performances belong to the category of events
and not a proposition. And yet it is clear that there is some sort
of analog inconsistency going on here, some sort of analog of contradiction. The
content asserted is falsified by the action of asserting it. This is everything that
we do all the time when we do the transcendental argument against people who or
atheists or materialists or whatever. So again, for the slow boys out there,
I am not saying that this is the transcendental argument for God. It
is a form of argument that shows that is inconsistent and contradictory to deny things
that you're using. So everybody see that. Do you see that what this
guy right here, who I assume is a Catholic. I don't know what
he is, blogger, philosophy, blogger here, it's no different than what's
being said right here in John Damascus. And that's basically the same thing that
was being done and said in the Aristotle passage that we read from Metaphysics book
four. Mmo something moist, mojave or no? I'm sorry, Steve,
what's up? Oh? What's up? Jay? I'm just wondering when you
are arguing the transcendental argument and you get like an atheist to realize that they
can't justify or trust their logic. Therefore the world he built upon that is
also like, you can't trust it. When you get them to realize that
and they're still just like, well, they still believe it anyway, because
the logic to them feels real. What do you do at that point?
Do you just well, that's just called being arbitrary. I mean, the
fact that it feels real. I mean, I think we all have an
inner sense that logic is the case, right, that two plus two does
equal four. Right. We have an inner sense of immediacy that that's correct.
But even though in that limited sense we could talk about something being self
evident, that doesn't mean that I can just say and appeal to self evidence
to have justification for that. So the sense that we have that things are
immediately true something like, doesn't it kind of seem in an immediate sense that
a equals a right the law of identity, Yeah, it seems to be
pretty obviously true. But I can't appeal to the seeming self evidence of something
as an epistemic justification. So that's why it's two different things. Cool,
So they just you sort of just have to let them go if they want
to believe that it's well, if they want to go that reale, then
you've done your job as an apologist because they don't have any way to argue
against Christianity. Beautiful, And just one more, how do you refute like
the idea of determinism. I get that, like it's pointless if we do
live in a deterministic world to happen. Well, if you watch the debate
some years back with JF the whole focus of that debate was the deterministic fallacy
or the naturalist fallacy, which is, if you say that all reality is
determined, then you are also part of the determined reality and all of the
beliefs that you have that you've come to know the true versus the false are
wiped away because you didn't really discover the true or the false, because all
things are just a determined chemical process. So it actually removes the possibility of
knowing true propositions if you're consistent. It removes responsibility. Right. If you
remember in the debate, if you ever saw that JF was talking about that
he had written this for that book, and I said, well, if
determinism is true, you didn't actually write your book. So it's inconsistent for
you to want to have praise and accolades for writing a book when on the
other hand, you're saying that you don't believe in free will and responsibility volition.
You didn't actually write your book, right, I think I understand what
you're saying. But that's also just like attacking him being able to argue,
as opposed to attacking like the possibility of determination. No, No, it's
saying that you couldn't know that determinism is true, right, because you're pre
programmed to say whatever you want. No, yeah, there is no true
versus false. There's only what is determined, Okay, So there's no way
for you to know either way if it is correct, because if there's no
if reality is ultimately disteleological, it has no intentionality and purpose, then there's
only what is. There's no true versus false, good versus bad, there's
literally just chemical reactions. Yeah, okay, perfect. And so when you
try to say, well, this is true versus this is false, that's
violating the metaphysical principle of determinism. Beautiful. There is no true in false
or just what it is? Great questions auto, and then we'll go to
anatoly. So like, if I'm using the auto, are you either If
I say the universe is ultimately dysteleological and that that makes knowledge impossible, that's
a transcendental form of a teleological argument. It's not the classical teleological argument.
So you see, you can use arguments from causation or arguments from teleology,
but I think a better way to argue it is to argue that there must
be causation and teleology to have knowledge at all. There are they are preconditions
of the possibility of knowledge. That's a better way of arguing the teleological argument
than saying, I see design in the world, there must be a designer.
I mean, it's just it's just such a bad argument. All right,
that got dropped off. Do you want to come back? Auto?
What's up? Thank you guys for tuning in tonight. Welcome everybody would like
and share. We're doing a nighttime stream having fun on a day before fourth
of July. What's up? Auto, We got an unmute man. You
can support the stream via superjets. Hiji. I'm an Orthodox Christian from Georgia
the country, and there's been an avid listener of yours for many years.
And yeah, and I just want to say that I completely agree with everything
that you said. And there are a lot of Orthodox Christian apologetics that speak
basically the same about this intensely physical manifestations which kind of can be associated also
with the top heresy of Roman Catholicism, which is the nonsinning nature of the
pope and him having qualities of Christ, and then this kind of pouring down
to their medieval and modern states, especially with the texts of women claiming that
they had this kind of physical contact with Christ. And I don't want to
sound plastomers as well, but it kind of gets quite quite erotic at times
exactly, And I just wanted to ask you if you've read the modern Russian
Saint Ignatious branching Ino, he has a lot of good work specifically on these
topics and analyzing. Yes, act, I was looking at some quotes the
other day from him critiquing Francis of ASSISI, but I don't remember which book
do you do? You know, off the top of your head, which
book Saint Ignatius does those critiques in. I'll look, I'll look up.
There's quite a lot of like Orthodox saints who have quite quite texts on on
on this specific issue of this kind of passionate passionate understanding and kind of uh
harris regarding this spic. To look them up and I'll try to find the
English version and I'll send you the the text. Yeah, that'd be great.
Yeah. So basically, if you guys couldn't hear him, he's saying
that Saint Ignatius Bernkaninov has some really good critiques of the Tennessee in the Latin
so called saints of the second millennium to fall into this eroticism and this sensuality
and all that. But yeah, we definitely need to check those out.
Say, I'd like to invite you to come to pilgrimage to Georgia to see
some of the oldest monasteries. That would be cool. Yeah, I mean
my priest after we did the Italy pilgrimage, he was thinking of other places
like like I think he mentioned maybe even Georgia. But maybe one day appreciate
that, Auto, I'll follow you and then you can message me that stuff.
Ana totally. What's up to appreciate that? Now before we go to
him. I did want to mention that. So we have this story of
the circumcision. Obviously, the circumcision of Christ is very important in the liturgical
cycle of the Church. But I'm looking for that woman. That who's the
Roman Catholic saint woman that claimed to get the circumcision ring. Yes, here
it is. Oh, is it Catherine of Sienna. Oh, I didn't
know. I thought it was somebody else. Catherine of Sienna is a complex
figure, many mystical visions. Of course, By the way, isn't she
the one who supposedly said I'll follow the hope of it even if he's Satan.
But she supposedly what receives the mystical circumcision ring from the foreskin of Jesus.
Moreover, the idea of Christ mystically wedding Catherine with a ring of his
foreskin. All right, so you understand that in the Roman Catholic tradition,
like a lot of people think, well I can just throw this out,
you don't actually get to throw out these stories of these women saints and their
oddities. Who's the woman that carved Jesus carved into her chest? I mean
what Margaret Mary alc coquay is that her French Catholic mystic people in the chat?
Is that, right, Catherine seeing a Yeah, I know about her
pope even if this, even if the pope were Satan incarnate, we ought
to not raise our heads against him. Okay, whatever. But what I'm
getting at is like you don't get the liberty in the Roman Catholic world to
be like, no, I don't. I don't accept that. That's no,
you have to accept that, like you, the canonization of saints is
part of the ordinary magisterium in the Roman Caolic Church. But who is this
the woman who has the Jesus carved his name into her chest? Like she's
like a high school desk or something. By the way, why is it
that so many of these women start to have these manifestations and visions in the
Latin West, particularly in the fifteen hundreds and after. Isn't that interesting?
I mean, you do have the medieval mystics that we talked about in the
thirteen hundreds, fourteen hundreds, et cetera. But it seems to really ramp
up around this time and perhaps a counter Reformation period. Oh is this it?
Yeah? Here it is. Mother Mary assented, there's some of the
mother sent Sister Mary. Margaret implored Mother Grafie to allow her to sign with
blood, but the mother assented, and Sister Margaret Mary went to her cell.
She buried her breast, and, imitating her illustrious and saintly foundress,
she cut with a knife the name of Jesus above her heart. The blood
that flowed from the wound then was used to sign this pact. I'm sorry,
this has nothing to do. This is like self harm. This is
like ultimate prelust. Imagine believing that this is like sanctity and piety. You
have to believe this is Roman calauary. You understand there's not options. Oh,
I don't believe that I'm Roman CALLI, but I don't believe that we're
literally doing like the prophets of bail stuff here does nobody remember the story of
Elijah and the prophets of bail right, Elijah's making fun of them, call
your God? Is he using the bathroom? And they're literally over there cut
themselves. She's over here cutting the name of Jesus into her chest and then
signing a pact in blood, Margaret Mary Ala coquoit. And you don't get
to reject this. If you're a cat, you understand that, like you
have to accept this. Is it any wonder that this is how that Roman
Catholics act so effeminate and insane and emotional. Well, they're just mirroring and
exemplifying their so called saints and their histrionics. Didn't Saint Jemma throw herself down
a well? I'm not talking about you go get in cold water to quell
my passions, Okay, like throwing yourself down a well. I'm pretty sure
that's Saint Jemma that did that, right, Yeah, Saint Gemma Galgani.
So does nobody see that? That's clearly people have like they're having problems.
Oh, by the way, Augustine, when he is critiquing and making fun
of the Donatists, He says that one of the things that the Donatists used
to do was throw themselves down wells because they felt like that would actually achieve
martyrdom because they had this some of the Donatis had their weird idea that you
could only be saved if you were a martyr, and so they felt like
if they threw themselves down a well to fight their passions, that was a
form of martyrdom. I mean, it's insane, hypocrite, sincere hypocrite.
Hello, can you hear me? M hi? I just wanted to ask
like a few questions. So one of the questions I wanted to ask I
used to be an atheist for a while and now inquiring into Orthodoxy. Something
I've noticed is it seems like atheism is a result of some Christian heresies,
like, for example, transgenderism seems to be a manifestation of gnosticism, and
it seems like a lot of humanist ideas come from Catholicism. Yeah, I've
argued that for a long time. I have a podcast I did eight years
ago called Catholicism and Thomism caused Western atheism, and Gregory Palamas says in his
debates with the Barleamites that if you continue in the tradition of this barleymite Roman
Catholic position, you will eventually become atheist. He was right. And then
one other thing I've noticed is a lot of atheists will say the Old Testament
God is cruel, but the New Testament God is good, and it's just
strange to realize. Wait, this sounds exactly like Marcianism. Wait, yeah,
that is Martianism. But absolutely, I mean a lot of the I
did a video called the Nine nine Ancient Heresies that are back like five or
six years ago, and yeah, I was arguing that a lot of the
problems could be traced to that, including even atheism. And yet the idea
that you can become a woman, etc. That transhumanist stuff is gnostic.
Absolutely. Okay, do I have time for one more question? Yeah,
I just want to add to that for those that are curious. Another example
of this is Faustina Kowalska. She has these accounts another Roman galic saying that
you have to accept that the host like floated around the room, and Jesus
would talk her out of the floating host and said, you're the most holy
of all the nuns in the monastery, and I'm your boyfriend. Literally,
I'm your boyfriend. You're my girlfriend, and you're the best and most holiest.
Literally, the opposite of anything in Orthodoxy about if there was any kind
of real vision of Christ or whatever. It's the opposite. It's not oh,
I'm the holiest of all the nuns the monastery. It's I'm the worst
of sinners. It's Isaiah saying, you know, Lord, I'm not worthy.
My tongue is filthy. Right. When Isaiah sees the Lord in Isaiah
six, he's humbled. Orthodox Saints when they talk about seeing the divinelight,
they're humbled Roman Catholic Saints. I'm the holiest and Jesus my boyfriend. Go
ahead. Ah. So the other question I wanted to ask is I agree
that the Church is visible and not invisible. But I think something I'm struggling
to understand is how is the Church the literal body of Christ? Because when
I it, Buddy, I just think of like a human body. Yeah,
we're mystically and we're mystically united to Christ's physical flesh. And that's why
in the Eucharist, as Cyril says at Ephesis, we partake of his deified
flesh to become part of his human flesh. I okay, I see,
uh that was all the questions. Thank you very much, Yes, sir,
Yeah, that's a great question. I appreciate that. What's up,
man, anatotally? Are you there? I'm trying to find the really good
accounts of Jesus floating around in the host in the in her convent and telling
her that their boyfriend girlfriend. It's so ridiculous, like you have to believe
this as a Roman calicy, you don't get to doubt this. Are you
there, man? What's up? Yeah? Okay, all right, So
I just have a couple of questions about signs and wonders. So the other
day I think you talked to somebody about how basically wonders and signs are not
necessarily proofs of the faith. Right, So my question essentially is to what
extent do wonders work as proving the faith? And also, if Christ was
in a non faith this generation, would he like philosophically prove his gliness.
I don't think it was anything to do with philosophy. I think that over
and over when he's arguing with the Pharisees, what he says is do you
not know the scriptures? Did you not read the scriptures? Did you not
know the times? And the times? Mean being aware of what the scriptures
said? Like this is not Protestant, Like this is literally the way Jesus
constantly argues with the Pharisees. He's like, how do you not know what
the scriptures were telling you about the seasons and the times when the Messiah is
coming? You should expect this, this, this right, So he's kind
of holding them liable for misunderstanding the texts and the scriptures that they had,
and then saying that there's signs and wonders, but signs and wonders are for
weak faith, not for strong faith. That's why he said. That's why
Paul says, it's the miracles and tongues and all that are signs to unbelievers.
They're indicators. They're like they're like stamps or seals, but they can't
be proofs because again, John Ays and John Brace did the first two miracles
quote unquote of Moses, right, So whether Jonayson John Brace did miracles or
whether they were just mimicking or faking the first two signs of Moses, the
first two curses and signs, it doesn't like the point is that it wouldn't
prove it, because how does a Roman Catholic tell them? On what basis?
Can a Roman Catholic tell me that the Coptic Church is wrong if Mary
appears over the Coptic Church two thousands of people just like at Vatima. Oh
yeah, I mean I agree with that one. What I have difficulty with
is basically I never really had this understanding of miracles. I've always heard that
it's just that like miracles basically prove Christianity. That maybe just because like listening
to certain Protestant preachers and whatnot. But my question is essentially to probably argue
with an atheist, would you want to if they're paradigm before getting into the
miracles. And that's when, well, I look, yeah, because most
atheists are just going to say I don't believe in miracles, so you could
you can claim miracles all day long. They're not going to care. So
I just don't think that there's not much mileage. I mean unless an atheist
experiences directly a miracle, which is possible, I'm sure that's happened. Like
literally, no atheist is going to care that you claim that the Roman Callolic
Church has miracles. I mean, maybe one of them one one day,
might care I don't. I mean, I suppose the miracle evidential as claims,
sometimes convert people. But you know, Jesus says to Thomas, you
know you have seen and believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and
believed. So a wicked and faithless generation seeks to sign Okay, So just
a final question, just found clarification. So so first part, miracles essentially
are not on their own proving of anything, right, I know, I
not without the context as a whole. So like, for example, somebody
resurrecting, like if I'm if Elijah rises from the dead, assume your Elisha's
bones or whatever, right, Or if Elijah raises the widow's son back to
life, does that prove Christianity Because a Jew might believe that, but he
doesn't believe Christianity. So the resurrection story really only makes sense with the context
of the rest of the story or the rest of the Christian redemptive message.
So just resurrection itself doesn't even necessarily prove anything, because it might be a
situation like Elijah raising the widow's son, or it might be a situation like
the bones of Elisha raising the guy from the that in the Old Testament,
and a Jew can affirm those things, and he doesn't believe Christianity. Okay,
okay, I mean I agree. I mean that makes a lot of
sense. So I don't think in like perfect circumstances, you know, when
people are perfect faith. I guess you could say, I guess it's not
possible. But the idea is, I guess miracles don't happen in that cases.
Editor or miracles, Well, here's what I think. So let's get
the example of the guy who goes to Abraham's buzzom, or me who goes
to Hades, and then he sees the righteous Lazarus, who was poor and
had a rough time in this life, but love God. And so he
ends up in Abraham's bosom, and the rich man who never helped him and
you know, scoffed at him. Is in is in Hades, is in
the realm of the dead, the bad part of the realm of the dead.
And he says, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Send Lazarus
that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue.
I am tormented here. But Abraham said, son, remember that in
your lifetime you receive good things. Likewise Lazarus received evil things. But now
he is comforted, and you were tormented. And besides all of this,
there's a gulf between you and us that those who want to pass from here
to you cannot, nor can those from you to us. Therefore, he
said, I beg you father, send me back, to send him to
my father's house, where I have five brothers, and if he can revised
from the dead, he can testify to them not to come to this place
of torment. Abraham said, they have Moses and the prophets. So in
Jesus's mind or in Abraham's mind, here the scriptures and their inspiration is supposed
to be the miracle testimony, the miracle attestation right, the Messianic prophecies,
the stories and predictions are supposed to be the things that would prove this story
to be true. I see, hold on, let me finish. They
have Moses in the prophets, let them hear them. But he says,
no, Father Abraham, if one rise from the dead, then they will
surely repent. But Abraham said, if they don't hear Moses, and the
prophets. They're not going to be persuaded though one rise from the dead.
Okay, So okay, that makes a lot of sense. I mean,
so it's like the prophecy being fulfilling in of itself is like a miraculous section
as well. Absolutely, yeah, I mean the inspiration, I mean the
mess and prophecies. There are some of the most powerful miracles out there,
and I think that that, you know, the whole point here is just
simply that not that there are no miracles, but that the true faith will
be attended by miracles. But miracle claims themselves don't necessarily tell us the true
faith. That's the key pointer. Ferg So I have two things. First
of all, I want to walk you through like aclesiological argument I was getting.
And then I have a small disagreement to go over in terms of not
the confluence of toll houses. But I'll start with theirclesiology. So I was
speaking to a vicar of an Anglican church. He was he laid forth the
argument that all of christ Church flows from Christ, and it's like a river,
and even though the river splits off, it's all points to Christ.
Right, That's what he was saying, And in my view, I think
some of the streams would be polluted, right, But would you say it's
fair to say that even if you go to the polluted stream, you should
follow upstream to find the actual church. Do you agree with that? I
don't. I mean, is this like an Anglican branch theory argument. I
don't understand the argument. I think it is branch story argument, yes,
But I was just like wanting to know what the best way to argue against
it would be, because obviously could say the Body of Christ can't be divided,
because I think it always means on the story and I need it does.
And I mean does anybody in the first thousand years and the ecumenical councils
do they argue that the church is a branch? No, they don't.
But these people they don't look into history. They go from their perspective and
try and make things fit what they want. But like I kind of well,
I mean then I would immediately say that that if you're not interested in
being united with the Church of History, then like then you're not the Church
of history. Like but they just a delusional they don't know what the Church
of History is. That just think like everyone like their view of what a
Christian is as anyone who believes in Christ as a Christian, that makest I
mean individual. I mean I don't know what to say to that. Like,
obviously that's not true either, because Mormons claim to be Christians, are
just claiming to be a Christian. Obviously can't be the thing that makes you
really Christian, right, Yeah, but you don't think that, like in
someone's high if they love Christ like which is like marcuss that actually love God,
like that's insane, how to do it? Like, you don't think
that they would also qualify them as a Christian. I mean, are you
saying that a Mormon can do that? Well, no, you don't know
if the Mormon loves God. But if the moments, like a kid who's
raised in it and he like just like loves God, I mean that's still
not that's not saying that you can be like a Mormon and be saved.
That would be God saving and revealing to those people in some extra normantive way
who he really is. That's possible. God can do that, But no,
that makes sense, that's not it's not Mormonism as the vehicle for that.
Yeah. But yeah, even if it's like polluted though it's kind of
still as in a sense. But anyway, I'll move on to the toll
houses, Like, what's your view on that, because I think it's like
a this like the like Seraph and Rose and stuff. He says, it's
like a dog kind of like tradition of the church that's been handed down and
it's like we should believe in it. But I would say that it's a
like most it's a theologuminon and a wors It's it's just oh I view,
so I think it's a it's a liturgical tradition, uh, and it's in
the mystical writings of the church and in some of the spiritual writings of the
church. I think that it is. It does verge on being dangerous if
we read everything about it very literally. A lot of those stories of saints
and things like that are not necessarily canonical dogma. So I do think there
is a journey of the soul. I do think there are there is a
toll house thing going on, but I don't think we know like the details
of the intermediate state. So there. I just don't think everything about it
is like a literal thing that you know, you can chart out like some
sort of role playing game or something like that. Yeah, sure, it's
really good analysis. I saw by Orthodox Phraise, I think, and it
was there was a much longer chronicle by some like great Orthodox monks. I
think it was like not in your pages. I'm pretty sure you have that.
I do. I have. I have the surprom Rose book and I
have the Monastery book on Yeah, well this if you can, I could
try to get you ask this, but it's like it's like fifteen pages or
something. That's really good analysis of it. And he was like, and
there, for example, you're talking about a Greek Orthodox or is it a
Greek Orthodox? Response and critique of it, I'm not sure who, Like,
I just know it was an Orthodox father. It was criticular. I
think I've read it. I'm familiar with it. Yeah, I mean I
did. I went through all of this. This is I'm not faulting you,
but like it's kind of a thing that a lot of people go through
when you first come into Orthodoxy and then they kind of struggle with this.
But it's it's something that I don't have moved past a long time ago.
But I'm not faulting you. I understand. I just don't think it's it's
strict dogmatic issue that we have to worry about. I mean, I do
think that there are toolhouses, but I'm saying that it can be a little
much. You there, what's up, dude? Hey, Jay, I
just had a quick question or actually just a quick comment too earlier when you
were talking about, like when those guys were talking about some of the things
like Faustina. Yeah, I definitely think that too. A side note with
that, especially that makes that one more specifically even harder to deal with is
the fact that it's very promulgated in Catholicism. Oh that's a great point.
Yeah, it's not like this is an obscure thing. The divine is a
divine mercy, right, yeah, the divine mercy. I actually live like
forty minutes from the shrine, the National Shrine. Oh and it's uh yeah,
it's it's right in Massachusetts. The Uh yeah, it's. But either
way, it's very promulgated the divine mercy. I mean, could possibly even
I mean, I don't know, I'm probably exaggerating this, but maybe even
like takeover things like the rosary eventually. Really, it's that it's that big.
Yeah, even liturgically too, if you if you've ever attended any masses,
which obviously you have, but I'm not sure if you came across it
in your time. No, I remember, Like I mean, a lot
of parishes just in general will have the painting of Jesus with the rays coming
out. Yeah, I mean that's everywhere, But I don't remember if I
ever did. I might have actually done the Divine Mercy chaplet at one point
probably. Yeah, like I said, it's definitely very promulgated. The uh
another cook side note cook for that. I't want to take up too much
your time, but the uh, it's really fine because guys like the you
know, the Diamond Brothers even like are against that, and even too if
you go back to like the early twentieth century, obviously it wasn't even like
it hasn't been promulgated for forever. Obviously there was a lot of blacklash against
it, right, I think I changed too, And yeah, I was
just I was looking up like the hosts that you were talking about, because
I recall hearing it, and yeah, it's just it's it's bizarre, it's
bizarre. But yeah, here's that painting. Of the rays coming out of
Jesus heart. Is this I don't even remember, but is this connected to
sacred heart? The divine mercy, sacred Heart of Jesus? Okay, well,
remember sacred Heart is also a Nestorian. That's it's totally heterodox. Yeah,
they say it in the chaplain as well, I think, I mean
there's so many I think there's like numerous yes to even say the chaplain now,
so who knows, But yeah, I've definitely seen it. I've seen
it liturgically used. But yeah, just bizarre, definitely with like the uh
I'm Christ's girlfriend and weird ship with that. But yeah, So I have
a quick question about I've been as I'm delving into some different things with original
sin on the Catholic side and ancestral sin on the Orthodox side. Uh,
you know, it seems like there is a genuine difference just to different sources
I've looked through. I sometimes have a hard time coming to know the actual
difference because I've heard it explained maybe not well from either side, but the
Orthodox side that it can it could be semantics. No, I did a
whole three hour talk on this topic. So it's called a risk Augustine Calvin
and original sin and ancestral sin. Okay, I'll have to, I'll have
to take a look at on the channel it is. Yeah, okay,
yeah, just because I'm struggling with that a little bit. Okay, Yeah,
I mean I've been there, and I understand. I used to be
of Augustinian. I took Augustine when I was a Roman Catholic as my saint.
So I mean the main issue is just that. The main issue is
that at the in the Augustinian idea, everyone is in atom as in an
archetype, and everyone is guilty because they are in atom as an archetype.
So the classic Augustinian position is inherited guilt. Eventually, the Roman Catholic Church
softens its position not just with infant limba, but also with the rejection of
the idea of original guilt. So this is about after gree Gregory the Great.
After that time period, the Augustinian idea of inherited guilts tends to die
away. Adventure of the Romancalloy Church rejects it. The Orthodox Church never believed
in original guilt. Guilt is only something that's had by the individual hypostasis uh
using his will so that there's literally no sense in which you could be guilty
by nature. And so the only people in the world who believe in inherited
guilt still are some can Calvinists and Lutherans. That's it. Okay. So
then with that said, like I don't take up too much morey time,
But in the modern Catholic view, would like you said, obviously there's been
a little bit of a change or at least how they've you know, propagated
the modern view of it. It's not just the modern view. It's in
the Middle Ages that the Latin Church rejects the idea of inherited guilt. Okay,
So Augustine believes in the mass damnata, the damned mass, that everybody
is a giant ball of damnation. In Adam, it's called the mass Damnata.
The Roman Catholic Church eventually even softens that position in the Middle Ages to
say that we don't even believe in every position of Augustine. Like the idea
of original guilt, guilt is only something that the individual can accrue by their
own personal will and decision and choice. It is not something that can be
collectively handed down. The effects of Adam Sin both Orthodox and Catholics agree come
upon everyone, but the original guilt does not come upon individuals until they themselves
commit actual sins. So you might think, well, does that mean everybody
save No, there is still the deprivation of grace, which is one of
those effects of Adam sin, and we Orthodox and Roman Catholicus agree on that.
Awesome, all right, thank you. I'll take a quick gander at
the video. If you could give like a quick obviously taking everything like what
you just said, but like a very simple then if you take both modern
views from both sides, what is the biggest difference now, then that still
separates them. I think that the Roman cality view is still bound up with
an Augustinian tendency towards thinking that sin is somehow a taint or something that has
passed on in some substantial metaphysical way, even though they officially don't believe it.
This is partly why throughout the Middle Ages, because again of the especially
the early Middle Ages, the dominance of the Augustinian perspective. You have this
very negative view of the body, this very negativeview of sexuality. Augustine says,
for example, in the City of God that he doesn't understand how at
all you could be without sin in the marital beds. Every marital relationship necessarily
requires and will have sin. And that's because of his dialectical view of willing.
He thinks that the will is either focused on God, it's either enraptured
in the one, or it's focused on the multiplicity of creatures. So he
has a dialectical neoplatonic idea of willing. And so if your desire is enraptured
with your wife, you are necessarily sinning. I think that it is still
a holdover of his Manichean days and his tainted philosophy of neoplatonism. That view
is very dominant throughout the Middle Ages, and it's probably why, as we
were probating out the beginning of this discussion, many of the Roman Catholic medieval
women saints had this negative view of the body and sexuality. Gotcha, Then
I guess quickly that that would tie into with like things like the immaculate conception.
Though absolutely yeah, the immaculate conception really only makes sense if you have
an august Sinian anthropology correct creates an actual obstacle then for fort modern Catholic theology,
because if they're trying to or have tried to move away from the idea
of inherited gil while still promulgating more very recently, promulgating the imaginlate conception.
That's just like a ball of absolutely, yeah, you're nailing you. That's
exactly and in fact, in fact, I think I make that point in
the three hour talk on this. Yeah, all right, cool, I'm
gonna go watch that video. Thanks for your time. Yeah, I got
it pulled up right here. It's called Augustin Calvin original Sin in Orthodox theology.
I appreciate that. Great questions. I love it when when people are
starting it's starting to click, and you could you could tell it's starting to
click there other bruh. Now it's about time for the Thomas guy. And
so if this smack talking Thomas guy actually is going to show up, it's
going to be a separate room. So everybody who's listening in this chat over
here on Twitter space, uh, go over to the wall. I'll get
a check and see if he's replied yet. And my Twitter wall, and
you'll see the other room that I've created, the other space called Tomism debate.
What did I call it? Tumism epistemology and Catholicism debate. So he's
supposed to be coming right around now. He says he wasn't sure when he
would get to his destination, but let me check the DMS and see if
he's here yet. So I just reshared it. It's at the top.
I'm gonna wait until he messages me before I hop over to that other Twitter
space. He hasn't replied yet, so let's see. I'm gonna ask him,
are you around yet? Bro? And let's see what he says.
We'll check back in a couple of minutes to see if he's there. What's
up? Other Brah? Hey, it's me back again. Who are you?
I don't remember you were laughing at yesterday? I'm the Miracles guy,
okay? Or no, you were mimicking my voice, which my voice is
funny when I go. But anyways, well, I appreciate that you're a
good natured about it and we can joke and laugh about Yeah. No,
I thought it was hilarious genuinely. But anyways, I wanted to come back
and could. I wasn't going to, but that other guy brought it up,
and I think that we might agree more than I initially thought I just
kind of had an instinct reaction from when you asside Deuteronomy. It confused me,
but I just wanted to get well, can I restate what I said
to the guy a few minutes ago. I believe that miracles will necessarily attend
to the true faith, but I don't think miracles in themselves can necessarily prove
the true faith, because a miracle is an isolated, single event, and
for example, a resurrection like the resurrection of Christ, has the meaning that
it has in the context of Christianity as a whole. So like if I
went to let's say, I'm talking to a Jewish guy and I say,
hey, look, here's a bunch of evidences of people around Jesus that believed
he was resurrected, and they said he was resurrected, and he was resurrected.
And the Jewish guy says, ah, yes, well, you know
I believe that also there were people in the Old Testament resurrected. Therefore,
I believe in Judaism. You see him the point here, like he was
gonna he's gonna say, yeah, the the you know, Elijah raised the
widow's son exactly. So Judaism is true. In other words, it only
has the meaning it's supposed to have in the context of the Christian story of
the meaning of christ resurrection. You see, right, I just uh so,
so I guess for me, what I keep. What I see when
I read the Gospels is that Jesus and often the Jews are in you know,
you were talking about someone's he's a sign and they don't really believe in
And that is a problem in the Gospel of John, like they follow him
because of the miracles, but they don't they don't actually believe in it.
All right, So I understand that, but I do see this response where
you know, like an it kind of in John ten. It really comes
out in verse nineteen. You have these people, these Jews, that are
divided, and let me go, let's let me pull it up. Yeah.
Now remember before I don't know if you were here, but we we
just read the passage that I mentioned to you right about Uh this is hold
on, this is the wrong here it is. Abraham said to him,
they have Moses in the prophets, let them hear them. Then the man
in torment said, no, Father Abraham, if one goes to them from
the dead, they will surely repent. Abraham said to him, if they
do not hear Moses in the prophets, notice that's the pattern of the the
tech jewel miracles. And I could argue, I would say, yeah,
I think the Messianic prophecies if you want to say they're kind of miracle,
okay, I'll grant you that. That what I see Jesus arguing here in
this, in this Luke sixteen passage, is if you want to talk about
miracles, the inspiration of the scriptures and the Messianic prophecies are the miracles that
people should look to if they're if they're interested in believing, because the signs
and wonders and themselves they're not necessarily going to work. Do you see what
I'm saying? I think that they it gives it. I mean, I
guess Peter calls it a more sure word of prophecy because he says we were
eyewitnesses to Well, what does Jesus say to doubting Thomas? Right, do
you believe? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe after you've
seen? In other words, you've seen all these miracles and you believe.
But blessed are those who have not seen all these miracles and yet believe.
Yeah, certainly, I think that. So in those areas, yeah,
I do. I see the point you're making. But going to John ten,
I guess it's not my concerns. Isn't so much that something counts in
it self as sufficient proof. But it's like these different points culminate and it
seems like the miracles end up becoming the big sign where the viewer becomes especially
culpable for still rejecting it because of something they did see. Right now,
Oh, I agree with that. I think that the more, yeah,
the more that you see, the more that that's the principle that he's saying
to doubting Thomas. Right, he's saying, Okay, yeah, I mean
you believed, but you also have been with me and seen all these miracles.
So like, so that's the same principle as what you're saying or now,
which which verses the ten what ten? Starting in nineteen? Okay,
go ahead, I'm listening. So there's a vision with the Jews because of
what Jesus is teaching, and some are saying he is a demon why listening
to him? And others are saying because of signs he previously did in the
preceding chapter, can a demon open the eyes of the blind? And then
the Jews come and ask him in the following verses if he's the Christ,
and he says in twenty five, I told you, and you do not
believe the works that I do in my father's name. They bear witness of
me, but you do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep.
And he goes on to talk about my sheep or my voice. Then
he goes on to say I and my Father are one in verse thirty and
the Jews get ready to stone him, and again he says, I've shown
you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone
me? And they say it's for blasphemy, not for good works. And
then going down to verse thirty seven, I'm just kind of jumping around.
I encourage people to go back and read the whole thing. Jesus says,
if I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe
me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me,
believe the works that you may know and understand that the Father is in
me and I am in the Father. Now there's a I can sort of
understand being a Jew viewing this, especially in light of Deuteronomy, like they
see these signs, but then he's saying, I am the Father, are
one, and to them it does sound like blasphemy, and it seems like
Jesus is saying that these signs should override that instinct. No, I think
you're saying that the opposite in thirty eight. If you don't believe me and
the testimony and the things that I've said, then then by extension, you
should also look at the works. Do the works not also prove that my
message is true? Again, the same principle that he said to Thomas,
well you believe, but you've been with me this whole time. But it's
even more faithful if you believe without the signs and wonders. And so he's
saying to the Pharisees the same principle that well, I'm right here in front
of you, showing you and arguing with you that I fulfilled these passages and
fulfill these texts. Because if you remember, this is John ten, he
had just made the argument in John eight and nine that he's the one that's
the fulfillment of them, of everything. Moses wrote about he's the one that
was talking to Abraham, right, so he's he's this is not out of
nowhere. It's not like he's beginning with just signs and wonders. He's doing
signs and wonders and saying, but look, did I not try to argue
with you that I was the guy in the Old Testament in all these passages
and all these texts, so that again, I think the miracles are secondary
or tertiary. They're signs and wonders that show yes. But let me bring
it back home to I think what you're missing and what you missed in the
discussion the other night, which is that even if I granted you your position
in this passage, what's being missed is me, as an individual or you
as an individual, you can't go and investigate firsthand all of these claims.
So you're not actually in any better position as an individual, even if I
granted to you this passage or whatever. And you're reading like, don't you
understand that it's a more fundamental epistemic issue of but look, how could miracle
claims be a thing that necessarily proves it? When there are a myriad of
miracle claims from all over the place, and I understand your response is just
then say, well, but not all of those count, and here's this,
this, this, this, and this that makes it the true miracle.
The point is that that becomes that's a begging the question, arbitrary move
to where when there's a problem to the position about miracles being the thing that
shows the true of the false faith, then you qualify it and say,
well, those miracles over there don't count, and it's my miracles that are
the ones that prove it. That's begging the question. You understand how that's
the problem. I understand that. Yeah, it seems circular, right,
because it seems like I kind of am finding what works for Catholicism, yes,
and reasoning backwards, saying but you're basically saying, well, it's only
the Catholic miracles that count, and that's what proves Catholicism. But Catholicism is
the thing of the same question, and miracles a supposed to prove it,
right. I guess the reason that that's that may be clear to other people
that I'm doing that. The reason it doesn't feel that way to me is
because I experienced it, Like I came to this conclusion reasoning as a Protestant,
and I get and my reasoning was and I guess the reason that the
Catholic miracles particularly impressed me is because of the fact that I had a fixation
as a child on you know, warning passages in scripture. So the blasphemy
of the Holy Spirit was very interesting to me when I was young, and
I studied it a lot, and it seems very clear again, like it
seems that there's something special to Jesus about Hey, Jamie, would you bring
me a double shoff the type of work he's doing for one, Like here
he keeps saying good works. Yeah, I agree with all that, But
how does that prove Catholicism? I mean, why why could I not,
as an Orthodox person say the exact same thing that you just said and say,
yes, the works that Jesus did is doing are stupendous and far exceed
the works of any of the prophets in the Old Testament like Elijah whoever.
And therefore Orthodoxy, well, I suppose that, I mean, we would
have to start I guess I'm just laying out a principle, and we would
have to go into each you know claim, and obviously we don't, I
guess, okay, But see that's the point though. So if now when
we actually drill into it, the proof of Catholics as miracles require empirical investigation
of every single Roman Catholic miracle claim, like, it doesn't get us anywhere,
Like how as an individual can I even do that? But remember this
was supposed to be like a practical way at least that's the end. When
you initially made this argument a few weeks ago, it it was sort of
like, well, when I was Protestant, I found this to be very
convincing as a kind of a practical ish argument to tell me that Catholicism is
true. But as we drill into it now it turns into a situation where
I've got to actually go be a ghostbuster and figure out which of the individual
miracle claims is true or not. Now we're at a point where it's like
totally like, so, so how are you going to are you gonna do
that? Like, I mean, first of all, how are you going
to be present for the miracles to begin with? And since you're not,
you're going to be relying upon other people's stories and claims, which how do
you know that those stories and claims are true. It's kind of like it's
just kicking the can down the road, is the point? Yeah, I
think that there's some things that I'm sure that you know talking about. I'm
not sure how you feel about this with your apologetic approach, but you know,
you go to First Corinthians fifteen, and it seems like Paul, I
mean, I know, he's dealing with people that deny the resurrection altogether,
not just the resurrection of Christ, but he's still point to things that you
would point to if you were trying to prove an event, a historical event
like witness attestation. So I think that that it's valid for people to point
to that, and I guess just just something for the people to consider,
is you know, just the Okay, maybe our difference of is understanding the
place of evidences versus evidentialism, because what I hear is that you approach these
questions as an evidentialist, and I don't understand or I just don't understand why
we would be evidentialist? Is are you an evidentialist? Is that the point?
Well, it seems like the what would it make me if if we
both witnessed a miracle and I said that miracle proved something that we both witnessed.
Would I be an evidentialist for that? Or is am I becoming an
evidentialism Well, evidentialism is a specific view of epistemology and how we prove and
know things right, So it's it's based on a kind of a an appear
miracle approach of probabilities and sort of like you know, warrant based on stacking
up the evidences and making a case, which there is a place for that
depending upon what the what the question is or what things are in question.
But if the question is about the religion as a whole, a single evidence
or a miracle claim or this piece of data doesn't work to prove the system
because it's a question of what the system as a whole is, whether it's
true or not, and any miracle claim is already situated within that worldview.
So again, think of the resurrection claim. If a Jew, here's you
arguing for the historical evidences for the resurrection. It's not that it's wrong to
argue that there's historical evidences that back up the apostles, you know, claiming
to see Jesus resurrect and all that there's a place for that. But just
pretend that I'm an unbelieving to you, Woody Allen over here, and I
say that, Okay, why wouldn't a resurrection of a man be like what
we see in Judaism when Elijah raises the widow's son. Yeah, so,
my I mean, even in the case of the exorcisms, for example,
that we still have that, like Jesus says, if I do so,
by demons them, by whom do your sons cast them out? So it's
acknowledging that there's Jewish exorcists. I agree. But by the way I admitted
earlier in our previous conversation, yes that I agree with you that. I
mean, it's not a problem to my position to say that a miracle could
can be done outside of the church. I don't have a problem saying that.
But I mean, that's another reason why I don't believe that miracles or
miracle claims necessarily prove which one is the true one. I see that.
But in this passage, like I said, I guess the thing that I'm
hung up on is the fact that again his Jesus in particular, which past
you talking about first grade is fifteen or Oh, I'm sorry, I'm still
in John that John ten in nineteen and following is that over and over again,
Jesus says things that would make that are very bold about himself, that
would make him a blasphemer otherwise, And so it seems like the only options
are this is a deception of some kind or he's from God. It would
be confusing if God were Okay, are you making the lord liar lunatic argument?
You under saying that's like one of the dumbest arguments. Well, I
don't, I kind. When I first brought this up, I did compare
this argument to that, and I don't see why it doesn't work here because
he is, again, he saying stuff that you would agree if he's not
God. What he's saying is blasphemous. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that
I would accept the lord liar lunatic like low tier evangelical argument. I think
that's a terrible argument. So, I mean, first of all, the
argument is actually positing the possibility that he is a liar or a lunatic,
which I don't think. The New Testament posits that. It doesn't hold that
out as a possibility. And it's kind of like even C. S.
Lewis, who has many apologetic flaws, like even he recognized that there's something
kind of problematic about this idea that apologetics should put God in the dock and
the unbeliever in the position of being the judge. Even C. S.
Lewis, who I wouldn't say he's totally an evidentialist, but because he at
times kind of makes almost transcendental types of arguments. But he recognized that,
well, there's something odd about this, like there's something weird about saying that
the unbelieving person is in the position to judge God. It from the outset,
I think does a disservice to the whole message of Christianity that does allow
or say that the unbelieving person is in any position to make a judgment on
God's existence or whatever you know, or the person of Christ. It's the
unbelieving person that is in the dock, not God. And so it's a
much better apologetic argument because remember Peter says that no of a surity that Christ
has risen for the dead. He doesn't say, look, guys, it's
like ninety percent that maybe Jesus rose from the dead, So let's get out
of our evidences. No, he says, no of a surety that God
raised him from the dead. There's no probabilism, there's no ninety percent evidential
stack. Let's see where the scales tip over eighty percent. Maybe Christianity is
true. They just preach as if it's absolutely certain, and that's not what
evidentialism. Post evidentialism is premised on Christianity being probabilistic. That you stack things
up kind of like in a piecemeal way. And again, to bring it
back to the epistemic point point, like evidentialism is false as an epistemology,
like I can easily we can easily refute that because it assumes all the things
that it wants to prove. I'm interested to learn from you on like philosophical
questions like that, But I don't know if what I'm doing is would fit
into that at least. Well, you may not be aware of it,
but you're doing it. So the fact that you're hold on so the fact
that you're not aware of having a specific epistemic view of evidentialism doesn't mean that
you don't have it. It just means you I'm not trying to be a
do I'm not being a dick. I'm just saying it just means that you're
not aware of it. I understand. But to me, the charge that
I'm doing it seems it feels like I'm following scripture to me, because Jesus
said, if I am not doing the works of my father and then do
not believe me, Well, the irony here is that you're actually appealing to
the scriptures to try to prove evidentialism, which I mean we would need to
believe. First of all, we would need to believe that the scriptures are
true to leave in your first argument for evidentialists, in which I'm not arguing
with atheists, I'm arguing with other people that accept the strip. But yeah,
but interpreting the miracles in light of the scriptures, isn't that what I'm
supposed to be doing. Well, that's not consistent with the epistemic assumptions of
evidentialism, right, So, well, no, you're just no, No,
you're just not consistent. That's the point. That's the point. But
Jesus, what do you think of Jesus saying, if I am not doing
the works of my father, then do not believe me in verse thirty seven,
Well, did you not hear my point that this is already after multiple
chapters where he argued that he's the fulfillment of the texts. Right, So,
like John five through nine, he consistently argues with the Pharisees, the
guy in the Garden of Eden, the guy at Mount Sinai, the guy
in Genesis sixteen with Abraham, that's me. So then he's saying, well,
look, if you don't believe that stuff, what about all these works?
Right? So it's sort of like again, a secondary thing to appeal
to. I agree, like, okay, I like that. I like
what you said. I think that it's kind of like we can argue about
scripture all day, and obviously it's revelation from God. But you know,
if it's if people are blinded, they can't be persuaded by that, then
maybe they won't be persuaded by the miracles. However, it seems like the
miracles kind of like, uh, it kind of shows whose interpretation is correct,
you know, like, well let me, let me, let me
put it this way. So, again, a miracle is an isolated event,
and it's as human beings, we are creative beings with creative faculties interpreting
other creative things happening and a miracle involves some kind of element of the uncreated,
a supernatural presumably divine power. Here if we're talking about christ miracles,
so we are reading an event and interpreting it much the same way. And
this is an argument of John Damascus by the way, Saint JOHNA. Mascus,
that it's much the same as we would interpret a text. So think
of interpreting the scriptures in the same way as you would read or interpret an
event. Where Christ is doing a miracle. It's fundamentally the same it's and
the difference is just the medium. So whether it's Christ changing water to wine
or walking on water or whatever, it's it's an event that's occurring that requires
an interpretive context. In other words, the event doesn't stand out as a
brute fact. And that's another point of evidentialism, is the idea that they
assume that there are brute facts that just are what they are and they have
an evident meaning to them, and that they don't have like a context that
gives the meaning. But you see in the miracle of Christ doing water to
wine with those are all miracles that have a holistic context of the rest of
the scriptures. That's why Jesus keep saying, saying, have you not read
the scriptures? Did you not know the signs of the times? A wicked
and adulterous generation seeks a sign and a wonder and yet now we'll be given
to it. But the biblical texts of Jonah. See, So the point
I'm making is just simply that that it's really no deffin if you just think
about events as texts, as a kind of text. It's literally no different
than interpreting or reading the biblical texts. And it's a question then of well,
how do we see the divinity in this, the divine in this?
What is the cause or the means by which we understand and see it as
something divine that can only happen by grace, enlightening and opening the eyes of
the individual and their heart their news. That's the only way that we can't
understand the scriptures without I mean on the road to and exactly that's my that's
my point right there. Yeah, and so I just so so let me
rephrase, let me grant you this. Yes, God could bring you to
faith in a miracle event. So let's say the woman at the well,
here's a great example. The woman at the well, sees this man who
then knows her whole life history, and in that event, she sees this
must be the son of God. After she talks to him and he knows
her whole history, right, she then runs to the other Samaritans and says,
I've met this prophet. He's the son of God. Come listen to
him. Okay, So in this event that's a miracle. Her eyes are
opened via the miracle. But what it's not is an isolated evidentialist event that
that doesn't require like the grace of God, you see. So, yeah,
the grace of God could use a specific event like this to but it's
still couched within the context of Jesus as the son of God, you see.
So it's not an evidentialist thing where she's like stacking up evidences and it's
it's the grace of God using this event, just like the grace of God
could use the scriptures to enlighten somebody. Right. So if I decided to
apply like some of the biblical principles that I've discerned from Christ's miracles, that
they're good, that they free people from demonic oppression, like I do,
think that it allows me to evaluate the proof the value of certain miracles,
like if someone just made a water bottle levitate, that seems to have less
value than Yeah, I agree with that. Sure an exorcism, right,
it seems like one of those is intransic. Cannot let me ask you a
question. I agree with you there. Let's look at Faustina Kowalska or Margaret
Mary Alcoque. Is it a valid miracle in the same vein as these miracles
that we're talking about with Christ, that the host floats around and calls her
Jesus' boyfriend, or that there's a magical foreskin ring jesus foreskin is given to
Catherine of Sienna. Does that sound like the same type of miracles inconsistency and
consonancy with the biblical quote miracles or Jesus' works? Because you understand, the
reason I'm bringing that up is not to be rude to you or mean to
you, but that your argument initially was that the miracles of Catholicism would be
one of these key indicators to prove Catholicism. But the miracles of Catholicism,
especially in tonight's survey, seem to be bizarre, histrionic things, very akin
to the profits of bail when they cut themselves. Well, there's definitely some
like for example, you have I mean, Moses turns his staff into a
serpent. Like you're equating cutting yourself to turning a staff to a serpent.
Well, I'm just saying that clearly Moses's miracle there was not It's not as
since it was able to be done by the others. It's not as impressive
as so there, so hold on. So now the standard is quote impressiveness.
Well, I'm just using I'm just summarizing it. It's not as valuable
les posed as the miracles of Christ, because how are we supposed to Is
it self okay? Is it self evident that some of those signs and wonders
are more valuable? Is there a scale somewhere that tells me the sign and
wonder value? Well, because like I said, there doesn't seem to be
anything good about turning a staff into a serpent necessarily that I can discern immediately,
or a water bottle for you understand, that's totally arbitrary. So first
of all, it's a sign that God did. God can only do good,
So it was good that God did it. I'm not saying it's not
good. I'm just saying that it's not as immediate UNI, because you don't
see erson how subjective that is. So you just literally, you just literally
invented a new criteria that it has to appear to you to be good.
So now subscribe good. And he said, and he said, can Satan
cast ol Satan? I'm doing that like he's clearly evaluating the It's not just
so it's not self evident. It's so now I don't think you understand the
moves that you're making. So it's not that it's not that Jesus miracles work
good. It's that what you initially had as the thing that would prove it
is now having all of these other criteria and nuances tacked onto it to make
it work. That's what's arbitrary. Not is a miracle good, but what
was your proof of Catholicism was initially miracles, and then when I drill into
it, it just gets more and more and more qualified to be specifically your
criteria of the list of the miracles that are now the good ones that are
maximally good, that are self evidently good, and so none of this was
self evident. That's the point, don't There's certain things that I think,
you know, God might have done and Satan could also do. Right,
like a person might know other languages that you might speak in tounguent from the
Holy Spirit, or you might speak or a possessed person a demon. My,
yeah, exactly, so this is the point. But yes, however,
a demon when it comes to a healing or an extorcism, it seems
that, uh, it's like healing a blind man or something like that,
and Jesus again describes it. You're missing the point, So you don't under
you don't know if these things actually occurred in the claims of the Roman Catholic
Church. That's the point. How do I know the difference between let's let's
say I want to investigate Catholicism. How do I know the difference between a
real miracle of Margaret alco Alacque carving Jesus name into her chest and then signing
a pact in blood and Catherine of Sienna receiving a foreskin ring from Jesus.
Is that a real miracle or is that a sign or wonder that could be
mimicked? How do I know? Well, yeah, with those miracles,
I would say, you're probably not culpable for not being persuaded by those even
But wait a minute. So there's this vast tier in your system of the
miracles of Catholicism, the ones that really prove it, the ones that kind
of prove it. Do you understand that's what's arbitrary. Do you not see
why that's arbitrary? I think that well. I think for example, with
the Jews, for example, I think Jesus is condemning them partially because they
have the interpretive lens to understand the miracles. They have the scriptures right,
so they they should understand that. Now, So for me, if I
were to reject a miracle that's been accepted by the Church, I would be
culpable for that. But I don't think you have the framework for that.
But the culpability has nothing to do with the original point, which was that
the miracles are supposed to tell me the Catholicism true. This was your whole
point the whole time. Well, I think that if something is proven to
be true, then someone is culpable for rejecting it. Okay, culpability relates
to the topic, But what does that have to do with proving Catholicism because
the miracles of Jesus, the works he did, the good works he did,
demonstrate that he was from the Father. Despite the Pharisees disagree with his
interpretation of scripture, he validated his interpretation. It demonstrated they were demonstrated to
be true by the good But again you're missing the epistemic point again that the
claims, how do I know of which miracles are true or false? And
you can't just say, well, you're not really culpable for not knowing that
Roman Catholic miracles. You said initially when you came on the other night that
the vast number of the wild I forget the exact terminology, but you said
that the many, many, many claims of Catholic miracles is one of the
reasons why you found Catholicism convincing. And so do you not see that every
time we drill into this you just tack on arbitrarily all of these nuances that
ultimately end up saying the Catholic miracles are the ones that prove the Catholic Church.
And we know that because they're the Catholic miracles that the Catholic Church are
proofs. That's really what you end up doing here. Well, I don't
think I'm doing it. Earlier you agreed with me that earlier. You agree
that, like a healing is more valuable than a levit hitting water bottle.
Right, yeah, but it's more valuable based on the paradigm that I have.
And the paradigm is the thing in question. You keep begging the question.
I'm saying, based on our shared paradigm, there is no share paradigm.
There's only one paradigm. And then people that misappropriate and you, so
again you misunder you misunderstand what a paradigm is and how this works. So
again, just go back to the analogy of the Jew, right, like,
the Jew has a different paradigm and he interprets a resurrection of some guy
to confirm Judaism. So, and you're missing the point that when you respond
to a Jew when he believes that a resurrected guy proves Judaism, what you
then do is make my point by tacking on all the rest of the system
to prove that Christianity is the one that makes sense of this Jesus guy resurrecting
and not Judaism. So, in other words, guess what that means that
the miracles are not brute facts that prove it. So I like the example
with the Jew because notice that the Jews did not respond to jesus As exorcism
with well, we have exorcisms too. Jesus pointed out they also had them.
It wasn't enough for them to also have them. They had to explain
why this seemingly blasphemous man was capable of doing it, and they, through
their their hardness of heart, chose to explain it away. Okay, by
demons. None of that has anything to do with the epistemic point. So
you just keep going to telling me the big stories. You're missing the point.
How Look, it's not you keep saying I'm arbitrary, But do you
not understand that I have a principle by which I say that I think an
exorcism has more value than an apparition. Do you can you articulate to me
one the reason why you believe that is because you believe the story of the
scriptures and Christianity, Right, That's why you believe that. That's so what
you're tacking on is not self evident in the miracles. That's why miracles aren't
self evident to prove the paradigm, and you're proving that by every time I
drill into it, you tack on all of these other points from the rest
of the scriptures that you presuppose as a Christian. That's the point. Well,
if I said it was self evident from the miracle in itself at any
point, I apologize for that. That's not what Well, but you're misunderstood.
That's why you came to this debate was to say that miracles proved Catholicism.
That was your whole point. I'm saying that I believed the scriptures were
infallible, and that I think that if you take the worldview you get from
reading the Gospels and the way you evaluate evidence, the way that Jesus disciples
did versus the Pharisees, that it gets it challenges you when you then see
this lofty church that makes lofty claims of herself doing these miraculous things, and
when people have a demon position, they know where to go, you know,
And I feel like that has some value as evidence for Catholicism. Well,
okay, so it's evidence for Catholicism based on a Roman Catholic reading of
the texts and of church history. So That's why when I ask you that
thousands of people in Zietun and Egypt seeing Mary appear above a Coptic church,
you're totally inconsistent in arbitrary when you tell me that, well, that one
doesn't count because that's different. Why does that not prove Coptic Christianity Because of
the fact, there's a few reasons that it come to my mind immediately,
but because one of the premises that I also have. Keep in mind,
I'm coming from a guy who all I did was read the Bible. So
we're both assuming that the scriptures are true, okay, just like the Jews
and Jesus assume they were true. Okay, So we're all assuming that.
And I am then knowing that God is not the author of confusion. And
so I think that a church that is expressed in every part of the world
by a large number of people being known from you. You don't understand that
all of these things that you're tacking on are just interpretations from your Catholic presuppositions.
And that's the thing in question. So Catholic, I think you would
agree with me. Literally, what you just argued is the classic Roman Catholic
argument that we have the miracle claims throughout the world. Therefore you do the
numbers game. That's exactly what you said. What do you mean? But
I mean, do you not see where I'm getting this from scriptures? No?
I do not see that because it's based on your Roman Catholic interpretation of
all of those texts, because you come from a Roman Catholic paradigm. I
was Protestant when I came to this conclusion. That doesn't that All that tells
me is that you just made more mistakes. So what so tell me why
I'm supposed to believe that the Marian apparition doesn't prove Coptic theology. And now
you're saying, ah, it's not just the miracle apparition event, it's the
number and the quantity of it. You just tacked on a new thing that
you got from the Bible, by the way, which is assuming the position
in question, your Catholic interpretation of the Bible. But so you don't understand
that, you just keep appealing to more things that are in question, and
the very thing that's in question is not proven yet. Well. In John
fourteen, Jesus said that his disciples those that followed him would do the work
he did. And then in Matthew twenty eight, do you not understand that
as add his apostles to go all over the world, that doesn't prove the
position. A Coptic person can say the same thing. Yeah, exactly,
and that proves Coptic theology because we have the married apparitions. If you go
on YouTube, there's a Coptic exorcist. So the very things that you've listed
as things that Satan can't do exorcisms, these apparitions to thousands of people literally
is done by schismatics. And from your okay, I I think I appreciate
you giving me a very large time to talk about this, and you know
we're at an impasse, but I do. Okay, so we're at an
empass. But why would I not be a Coptic? Why would you not
be a Well? I think it's the lack of Catholicity is one good proof.
Do you understand that Catholicity is not numbers? You didn't know that every
tribe, tongue, nation and people. Oh my gosh, So you've never
heard the response of this. Really, so you say the Catholicity so so
in the fourth century, in the fourth century was the Aryan Church the true
Church because it had the numbers. No, why not? Where was Catholicity?
Well, I don't think it's numbers. I believe that you just argued
it was numbers. Come on, No, every tribe, tongue, nation,
that's a version of numbers arguments. Dude, Come on, but scriptures
say that there will be men out of every tribe tie. So obviously Catholicity
can't be determined by the numbers and the expanse. No, but if it's
if they if a church is pretty much geographically limited to a particular region of
the world. So here we go. This is this arbitrary. Okay,
so where we're Where were how many bishops were Orthodox in the Arean Crisis?
I'm not sure about You don't even know. It's famously it's like five bishops
in Athenasis, So it's famous, right, I knew it was very if
you I've heard James why I talk about like his you know? Okay?
So yeah, So so guess what. Catholicity can't be a numbers game.
No, I don't think like I said, I don't think it's a numbers
game. You literally just argued it's a numbers game, by the way that
you interpreted the expanse and the limit and the and the the every that you
can still have every tribetelling nation and believe that the Church can be reduced to
a small number. I mean, okay, don't you believe For example,
if I started, do you think, do you see what there is?
The point of all this is that all of these passages and all of your
arguments are based on Catholic Roman Catholic presuppositions of reading all of these texts and
these arguments. And that's the thing in question. That's why I kept calling
you arbitrary. I don't, well, what do you think that every tribe,
tong nation of people is not part of Catholicity? Was it still true
in the fourth century when there was a handful of bishops. The Church can
be small in number at some point. But we have now, we have
two thousand years of church history and we see which which church, which branches
are I think that so it's not numbers. And that's why I say.
Maximus says when he was being persecuted and was tortured, that I would be
amongst the band of true Catholics even if they were reduced to a small number?
Did he reduce? Did he equate Catholicity with one guy in Rome?
By the way, your church actually equates Catholicity, not just with numbers which
they roll out when I want to use it, but actually with one guy
in Rome. How is one guy in Roman Catholicity? The I mean I
I don't see that. The I don't understand the connection you're making. Really,
you don't think you don't think that Vatican One locates the essence of Catholicity
in the Roman Sea and in submitting to and no in the Roman Sea?
Oh, the essence of Okay, am I a Catholic if I'm outside of
community with the Roman Se In the traditional view, no, so Catholicity is
primarily first and foremost communion with the Roman Sea. When I'm saying, though,
you can't be said unless you're in communion with Romani, I don't think
that. I don't think that any Catholic would say Therefore, Catholic doesn't mean
the word catholic, you know, like therefore just because that's a condition doesn't
mean it's the only there's the word doesn't mean things outside of that. There's
not other evidence we can point to that, like, don't you think that
the Roman Again, the point is that in the Orthodox Church, Catholicity is
the fullness of truth. And that's consistent with the idea that you can have
periods where the church is reduced to a small number. It is not consistent
with the Roman Catholic pop apologetic argument that we're the true church because the big
numbers bro and also because of that guy over in Rome, he's the essence
of Catholicity. Well, I'm not saying that it's so you reject out right.
You don't think that some tainy little church, you know, in a
small place has they have just as much of a claim on this basis alone.
They have just as much of a claim to Catholicity as like the Orthodox
Church. I didn't say that the church will will always have four marks of
being one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. But I'm saying that I
can from the outset discount the Roman Catholic assumption that Catholicity is numbers. That's
all that's intended to show. And I never said that. I just you
made an argument on the basis of Catholic are argument Catholic miracles because there's so
many of them, and it's so universal. That's what trumps the claims of
the Coptics to be the true Church. And I'm just simply showing why that's
not a good reply to the Coptic argument. So you don't believe that.
So if we if both churches have miracles, but one of them, I
don't accept. I'm just alsoting the point that I'm not going to make my
decision on the basis of apparition claims. And you keep saying that and assuming
that it is a miracle, and my position is that I don't know if
it's miracles or not. Why would I assume that that's the right way to
choose the church. It makes no sense. It's a dumb way to do
it. So I'm sorry that you chose a dumb way to make your decision,
But that's just the way it is. It seems like the Gospels want
me to think that way. That's just your Catholic interpretation and misinterpretation of the
Gospels. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it. My bad, I mean you're bad.
I mean I mean it kept bringing it keeps you and you see why.
I think that though it's not just that I'm Catholic. It's that,
Yeah, you bought into a bad argument as to why you should be a
Catholic, and many Catholics by into that. Yeah, and we're we're seeing
it illustrated in this discussion. Wise, bad Catholics never offered this argument to
me. I just I just okay, Well you invented your own bad Catholic
argument even worse. No, I don't think it. I really don't think
that, uh that it's that bad. I think you kind of misunderstood.
No, it's just again like you can't tell me why I shouldn't be coptic,
and when I bring it up, you sort of invent and play with
new ways to get around that objection by saying, well, they're not,
uh, they don't Catholicity in terms of numbers. Well it's not really the
numbers. It's like, uh, you know, it's just they're just coptic
or whatever. But I mean, what's the why should I not be comptic?
Well, moving away from because you haven't responded to it. You you
you skirt it every time, because it's a really clear way to show that
this is a I'm not coming up with this ad hoc to argue with you,
but you are because your response was Roman Catholic approaches to numbers. Well,
just to let you know, I had to deal with this already,
you because I came from a charismatic background, okay, when I was growing
up, and so I dealt with miracle claims all the time. Well,
no, wonder you made these choices. That's why. So I dealt with
these all the time. And some of the thing is, for one thing,
the most of the miracles I heard about were, like the examples,
you get very goofy okay, or they seemed very goofy. I don't want
to be sacrilegious, but like some of them seem very goofy. You talking
about the charismatic claims, many of the ones I was exposed to, Yes,
uh huh okay. And I'm not saying that they all are, that
none of them are legitimate, But I'm just saying that I had to deal
with that. And then also the fact that the history behind these which is
now. I guess the Coptics kind of are are better off because they're apostolic,
but or maybe they are, I don't know, you can tell me,
but so I suppose they're better off in that way. But I already
had to deal with the fact that it just impressed upon me immediately that because
God is not the author of confusion, the miracles would not serve as evidence
for a small, irrelevant, comparatively irrelevant branch of Christians. Okay, but
so from my Vanther's point, the confusion is readily apparent in the insane women
miracles that we've listed tonight. To me, that's complete confusion. If I
read the story of Elige and the Prophets of Bail, that the prophets of
bail are the ones carving themselves with knives, and then I see Margaret maryel
and coke Way carving herself with a knife and signing a pact in blood.
How is that not a profit of bail. That's an interesting question I don't
immediately have I'll just immediately say, I don't immediately have a Well, there
was a bunch of other women too, like the other the offensive that you
know that might be offensive to you, I would be surprised, not offensive
to me. I don't like. I don't are weird. It's weird sounding,
right, but I would be surprised if there were no odd miracles,
miracle claims among the Orthodox. You know, I'm not aware of like carving
into your chest. I mean, well, I wasn't aware of that and
in my faith until you've introduced it to me. I mean, these are
famous Roman Catholic women sayings. You never heard of Margaret Mary ala Coque,
You never heard of Catherine of Siana. I mean I heard about all these
people when I became I know what, Catherine of Sienna, but I'm not.
I don't I've not been Catholic very long. I mainly read the Bible.
And so you're a Protestant Catholic. No, you believe in the Saints.
I believe in them and I pray to them. And in fact,
it was, well, I'm saying you may what you're saying, you may
read the Bible, And I'm like, is that Protestant of me? To
I would say that's a pretty Protestant move. Yeah. The truth Well,
I grew up Protestants, so it's a habit. But I the church encourages
a three scripture right. In fact, don't you kind of mock Catholic sometimes
for being kind of biblically illiterate. I was just making a joke, dude,
I'm just saying, like, it's funny to me, but but I
mean, Roman Catholicism, isn't you know, you reading your Bible, it's
you know, it's all these other things too, you know, it's it's
Margaret Mary Ala cocoy. That's very that's just as much part of the deposit
of the faith, so to speak, in terms of ordinary, because I
believe saints in the Roman Gallic Church are at least ordinary magisterium, if not,
if not extraordinary, I don't I'm not sure you could say that miracle
claims are as much the deposit of the face as like revelation being given by
like and and it's not as if this was introduced by like. I'm not
sure how that works with the magisterium. And I was saying, I reject
these miracles claims at all, But I wouldn't say it's part of the deposit
of faith, like these modern miracle plans. I don't think any Catholic would
say that. So the Thomas guy is saying he's not ready. He says,
I'm getting settled. I have friends around, Okay, whatever, what
was your last comment. I was saying, I mean this might be my
you know, because I'm a neophyte, you might say, I, but
it doesn't that would surprise me if we would describe like more recent miracle flames
as part of the depositive faith. I'm not saying that they're not true or
that you shouldn't believe. Well, so you're right that technically depositive faith would
be relating to like the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic depositive
faith, but that that's not all. It's like saying that you know what
am I bound to As a Muslim? Am I just bound to the Koran?
We're also bound to the Hadiths? Well, guess what? As a
Roman Catholic, you're also bound to the magisterium. And the confirmation of the
lives of the saints is part of the magistarium. Right, Yeah, And
I would say those miracles are not They would not have persuaded me to go
from Protestants Catholic, but as a Catholic, I embrace them. I think
that there's I mean, I think this is common. There are certain doctrines
for which there is less evidence than others. There are certain miracles that are
less impressive or persuasive than others. I don't think that that's a problem.
Well, but I'm just making the point that like you got to accept,
like you can. You can sit there and read your Bible all day as
a Catholic, but you believe all of this goofy history on it, women's
saint stuff too. This is part of your faith. The Jews thought it
was goofy when Jesus said you eat my flesh and dream my blood. Right,
Okay, So if you want to equate, if you want to equate
the real presence of Christ to Margaret Mary Ala coquit carving or Jesus name in
her chest, you can do that. But I'm not going to do that.
Oh. I mean, look, go for it, bro have fun
with the women's saints carving into their chest. Go all out, man,
you go carve. I guess that's if you really believe it. I think
there's a Filipino tradition where they actually do like crucifixions. So go for it.
Have fun with that faith. Coda. We've got a super chat from
Rolf Stakes five dollars. Will you do a stream responding to the goofy Thomas
that say that Orthodoxy is made up? I mean as such a low tier
argument. I'm kind of surprised they're delving to that level. But I have
a extensive response to the whole trinity monarchy fully oquay stuff with doctor Branson right
here. He of course is you know, PhD in Cappadocian thought and theology.
So I would just say check that out. A lot of these people
are just they actually think that just regurgitating what Aquinas says constitutes an argument,
because they actually have the medieval idea that just simply citing authorities is an argument.
I kid you not. I'm realizing more and more that they don't really
exist in a I don't know, post medieval mscept things because Aquinas or Aristotle
said it anymore. They're still living in their medieval LARP world where if Aquinas
said it, it's true. And why would I accept that because Aquinas said,
I mean, this is just silly anyway, Lathe five dollars, Kuran
three, five, five, and sixty one four show that the correct followers.
Oh we already read that one. Excuse me. I scrolled back,
Chris MT five dollars. I saw that old debate you did with liquid Zulu,
and I want to know why people were saying that you lost. Well,
the only people who thought that were his idiot followers who don't even know
what justification is. So, as you can imagine, if I'm debating a
super low tier libertarian who's literally sitting there drinking like four loco and getting drunk
and burping in the middle of the debate, and I just said, are
you gonna give an account for why I should believe or why you're telling me
the nap is true? And you just sit there burps, half drunk.
I leave. So that's the quality and level of idiocy that you're dealing with.
A hutch eighty nine three dollars. Are there any sex in the anti
Nicing Fathers to talk about the personhood of the Holy Spirit? Yeah? Absolutely.
In fact, we did a three hour, no two hour discussion with
inspiring philosophy, just on trinitarian text in the pre Nicene Fathers. So let's
see, let me pull that up off the top of my head. I
don't remember exactly which text has specifically the Holy Spirit there are they are there,
but we went through a whole bunch of them. Did the early Church
teach the Trinity right here? So this is specifically and we did this because
Jake made this really low tier argument that hour and twenty minutes, and we
focused on pretty nice seeing stuff. So Jake and Daniel Pikachu went on Patrick
Bette David. They said that the Trinity was invented at Nicey or whatever,
stupid nonsense, like literally like the dumbest Muslim are. So we went through
this is just the ones that I found translated. So you understand a lot
of this texts. A lot of this stuff isn't even necessarily translated. So
I think we started with maybe this is talking about Turtullian just because Tartullium was
something that Jake brought up. We didn't start with we didn't. We also
went back and went earlier to some of the post Apostolic post Abasolic fathers that
mentioned this. I'm just trying to find some of my references to see if
I could find one that specifically mentions the spirit late two hundreds, and you'll
notice that he talks about the unbelief of Jews and gentle els, and then
he says that exodustry, I am God, there is none beside me.
You shall worship no other God. And then he says, if you are
getting the two Hungers was saying, Alexander of Alexandria, now Alexander in the
two hundreds. That then, this is believed to have been written anywhere from
between seventy two hundred and the bishopric the Apostolic succession. What do we say
in the foss Hilaro. Here's one. There's a reference to the Holy Spirit
right here. They think of themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit. Is this
the Miratorian fragment? Maybe? Yeah? Oh, by the way, I
mean Chertollian. Tertollian argues for like against Proxius right when he's arking to get
modalism. That would be another reference. Here's one right, here's the Holy
Spirit, Here's the Trinity. Let's see who this is, cry Nation.
So although his terminology is a perception of the Holy Spirit. So here you
have again trinitarian confession from Pope Dionysius of Rome. So here's an early one
from Pope Dionysius. Next one. This one is a little weird, but
I'm including it because it could pretend you could possibly read it in a correct
way. It is is also possible that it might be read in a heterodox
way because the lank is a little ambiguous, but I'm including it just because
it is an early reference in the Shepherd of Hermas. Okay, Shepherd of
Hermas has a reference of God in time and space, particularly the second person
of God is So we don't think that it's you know, the person to
be here, we go Holy Spirit, baptism and Holy the Son of the
Holy Spirit. Who is this pomonly on on not Theophany is really making the
least early divinity to the sun becoming a carna. But also be triadic and
fashion that the Holy Spirit is necessary when we bout and apologists also was a
contrast. Oh, hypologists are rom Okay, here's another go. So there's
a bunch of these here you go. Now, by the way, keep
in mind that the New Testament many times over talks about the deity of the
Holy Spirit. So it's not like we only know this from post You know,
Apostolic Church fathers that that the person of the Spirit is the Holy Spirit
is a fully divine and a divine person. I mean it's literally John fourteen
to seventeen, right a code. I'm sorry, go ahead, are either,
Yeah, what's on your mind? I was gonna ask a questions.
It was it was then like the topic you're you're talking to, I think
it was like or the dogs Protestants basically in the Exodus and the burning bush,
just like to just make sure, like I don't have like a heterodog's
view, like is the burning bush? Is it kind of like one?
Is it a what was the word? Like a type of the word like
type of fart like kind of representing an example of something of the tale tocos?
Yeah, it is, it is. It is spoken of and used
as a type of the te tokos because she has within her the divine person
of the Sun, and yet she's not consumed by his divinity. So yes,
but it's also a theophany because it's Jesus there, you know, speaking
saying exactly And then that that for me when I was just looking into it,
like that kind of has something to do with like relics too, like
how like God sanctifies around him, correct, And that's kind of how like
with the relics, they're wholly under sanctified and the case. Yeah, uh,
the idea that the divine energies permeate created matter is precisely the basis for
relics. Absolutely, I don't it doesn't really make sense to believe in relics
if you don't believe in the doctrine of the energies either. By the way,
great points ian Ian, No serros, you gotta unmute Ian. You
want to umute Ian? Are you there? George? Okay, hey,
j Hey, So, something I had been thinking about since you were connecting
the dots from the medieval saints quote unquote to now and then like emotionalism that's
been uh, you know, led to you in Protestantism, like they kind
of went full circle because now they're they're full on embracing this like charismatic revival
thing where they have nuns like being slain in the spirit and having like yeah,
no, the papacy has fully approved of and accepted the charismatic movement.
Yeah, and so