Speaker 1: In that position if you stress and only believe in transcendence.
The Orthodox view following Hebrew Revelation does not believe that
God is only transcendent. He is also imminent, and there
is analogical predication. Analogy means that you can predicate on
the basis of similarity, not a one to one correspondence similarity,
but there's also dissimilarity. But we believe that God can
condescend to speak to us, to make things clear to us.
So we don't have a problem with anthropomorphic language, and
we don't have a problem with Theophanes. They think the
two go together. But for the text that you're asking for.
In Philippians Too, Paul says that Christ, who is and
has the form of God equal to God Philippians Too,
made himself of no reputation, taking on the form of
a bond servant, meaning the form of humanity, coming in
the likeness of men. He humbled himself and became obedient
to the point of death. Deathn't across, so he didn't
surrender his divinity. It's a both and and not in
either or, So there's no contradiction between the divine nature
and the human nature. God is not opposite the world.
God created the world, and he created the world and
mankind in his image, in his likeness. Even the Quran
says Adam was made in the image and likeness of Allah. Well,
wait a minute, I thought, there's no likeness at all
to Allah. You see. So both Judaism and Islam have
this principle in their systems, and then they grapple with
it in trying to make sense of this when Christianity
alone is consistent with the Hebrew revelation that the second
person has always been manifesting and stepping into time and space.
Why is it impossible for God? If God creates time
and space, why is it impossible for him to manifest
in time and space? Says who?
Speaker 2: So even unless it like the second person of the
God had manifest like, you know, as Jesus, Like, no, he.
Speaker 1: Is Jesus, not manifesting as Jesus. It is Jesus.
Speaker 2: That's Jesus, right. So, like when he's like walking around,
is he as to all knowledge? Is he's still a mission?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I mean the text here says that he is equal
with God in John one. When John says in John
one that he was walking around with us in the flesh.
John says he was also in the bosom of God
as he was walking around, because he never surrendered or
loses his divine nature.
Speaker 2: Okay, so, howcome in the Gospel of Mark, you know,
he's hungry.
Speaker 4: I think it's chapter eleven.
Speaker 2: He's hungry, and then he sees a fig tree, and
you know, he tries to go for fruit, but he
sees that there's it doesn't have anything but leaves, And
then he did how come he didn't know that there
was no it was not the season on?
Speaker 1: How come he didn't know the ap No, that whole
point of that passage is an object lesson because he
curses the fig tree because the fig tree is a
symbol of Israel. It's not a lack of knowledge. He's
making an object lesson for his disciples to say, you
see this fig tree, how it has no fruit on it?
The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. Israel no
longer has fruit because it is barren because they're about
to kill her Messiah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, I get that, But the text itself,
it says Jesus was hungry.
Speaker 4: So he's so if.
Speaker 1: Jesus has a fully human nature and he willed to
have that right. So, in other words, as a divine
person or subject, when he assumed human nature, he assumed
it with all of its weaknesses and imperfections on purpose
to raise it, to deify it, and to heal it.
Speaker 3: That's the whole purpose.
Speaker 1: So he absolutely got tired, he absolutely got hungry, he
absolutely got thirsty, he wept. All of those things are
proper to humanity because he's he's fully human.
Speaker 4: No, I get that.
Speaker 2: So, but the thing is that, you know, he has
the properties of human nature. But he's hungry, and he
sees the fig tree, so he goes to find if
it has any fruit, and that he sees it right,
But then it doesn't have any and then he ends
up cursing the fig tree because then he said that
it's like it kind of represents Israel.
Speaker 3: But he explains that it represents Israel.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, he explains that represents Israel.
Speaker 2: But my point was that if he's hungry, right, and
he knows that the fig tree doesn't have any fruit,
just why doesn't he just go there and curse the
fig tree?
Speaker 4: Wise he like going there.
Speaker 1: For fruit because in many places throughout the Gospels, the
message and the intention is to show us his full humanity.
Just like when he's in the garden and he prays
to the Father, right, he says, let this cut pass
for me, yet not my will, but thy will be done.
In our understanding of that, he is intentionally subjecting his
human will to the will of God the Father, because
he wants to show us and to be an example
to us, that he really is fully human. And so
he went through the whole range of human experience from
being born as a child to maturing into a full adult.
So our explanation, our exposition of a lot of these
passages that it is absolutely intentional to show us that
he's fully human.
Speaker 5: I see.
Speaker 2: So like I think it's also in the Gospel. Maybe
it's Matthew and Mark Reigi doesn't know the hour, and
I think it was John Krisostom who says that, I
think it's like a form of expression. So would you
quote it that same interpretation of that past.
Speaker 1: Yes, if you read if you read Saint Basil's letter,
I think it's two thirty five or two thirty six.
As I explained in the debate, Jesus oftentimes utilizes this
form of exaggeration or rhetoric where he expresses things in
an extreme way. There's no one good but God? Right
does that? Does he literally mean no one is good?
So he means He's not good? And other prophets are good.
Speaker 3: No, it isn't.
Speaker 1: He's saying in an exaggerated way, there's no one good
but God. So likewise, no one knows this but the Father, right,
And that's Basil has many other examples. If you read his.
Speaker 3: Letter, it's two Ory five or through thirty six. But
there's a there's.
Speaker 1: An article on this if you want it, let me
find it now. Some people, some of the church fathers,
expressed exposited it as a pertaining to the human nature.
It can be interpreted either way, but ultimately it doesn't.
We're not worried about it because their countless passages to
talk about the son also possessing omniscions.
Speaker 3: Right, Jesus knew all things.
Speaker 1: He knew what was in the Thaniel John two, So
we don't have a problem saying that. Yeah, you could
interpret this as a limitation that was proper to the humanity.
For example, in Luke, when it says Jesus went to
argue with the scribes and the Pharisees in the temple
when he was a young man. It says that he
grew in wisdom and stature amongst God and in favor
amongst God and men. So those are properties that could
only apply to humanity. Right, the sun does not grow
in stature, Jesus, I'm saying the subject, the divine subject
of the sun, does not increase or diminish his divine nature.
Divine nature doesn't come in partition. It's not half. It's
not the percentages Jesus in the fifty percent divine, fifty
percent human, he's a hundred percent divine, hundredcent hum And
so the passage in Luke where it says that he
grew in wisdom and stature in favor, is applicable to
his human nature. And many passages in the scriptures are
this way, where sometimes, for example, if he said, if
he's doing a miracle, we said, the miracles are evidences
of in demonstrations of his divinity as divine power, divine nature.
Only God could change water to wine, only God could
walk on water. But other passages demonstrated that he's fully human, crying, eating,
and they're intentional. It's not that his divinity lacked, but
as again, Philippians said, he willingly chose to be in
those states. It's just it's the same thing with the
question of God answering prayers and reciprocity. How does if God,
how does God answer prayers? If he's all knowing, what's
the point of praying? Well, as doctor Bradshaw argues very lucidly,
God willingly condescends to have reciprocity with his creek. So yes,
he's all knowing, he knows what you're gonna pray. Well,
then why is it because he wants us to have
a reciprocal prayer with That's why cryptos.
Speaker 6: Hello, Yeah, so I'm a Christian, but I'm in the
classical situation where I cannot you know, I just said
to conclude with what dogma would like to follow, you know,
so how do I process?
Speaker 1: What? What do you mean? What church?
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 4: Yeah, like denomination?
Speaker 1: What's your background?
Speaker 6: Well, I'm Greek, so it's only Orthodox churches in hands.
Speaker 1: Well, you got it easy. What do you mean?
Speaker 4: Well, look, you know you're Orthodox, but you're right, because.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know, it's because I don't have a family background.
So it's not really like many people have blind faith,
even if it's.
Speaker 4: True or not.
Speaker 6: But when I go to the chess, I like the
liturgy and stuff, but a lot of the times, you know,
with many traditions, it's very weird to me.
Speaker 4: You know, because of.
Speaker 6: The additions not being in the Bible lend you know
how like like the stuff Protestants say, you know, like
that's going on through my mind and I have to
look at every single thing like I cannot.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, like there's a there's a if you want to.
The simplest thing I could think of is there's a
three volume set by doctor Clark Carlton, The Way, the
Truth and the Life, and it's it's three volumes, two
of which are one again once against Protestantism, once against Catholicism,
and one is for Orthodoxy. So maybe check that out
would be a good place to start. That's the easiest
kind of like three volume thing I could think of
that would deal with that. So people asking I did
not say God is irrational or illogical? I said he's
supra logical. That's what I said. So there's a difference
between saying something is transcends logic and logical categories and
saying that it contradicts logic and logical categories two different things.
Boom again. I mean Muslims have the exact same issue
when it comes to the relationship of all his attributes
to the essence, and they've been debating it for centuries. Again,
we've covered this countless times. When they act like it's
not a debate, there lie, it absolutely is a debate.
I mean, you can go watch doctor Khalil and Jake
debating this issue. So what do you mean it doesn't exist?
And then they'll say she had, don't count? She had?
Don't count?
Speaker 3: It says, why don't she account?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? And by the way, it's not
just shea the other Creeds. Remember when this guy acted
like he didn't know what akdah meant? So you understand
we have totally different approaches to this kind of stuff, right,
I mean, for Christians, we aren't really supposed to be
deceptive right now. I'm not saying that there aren't deceptive Christians,
of course there are, but I think it's much more
acceptable from their perspective, at least in my experience, that yeah,
you can lie to Christians. Because I asked him explicitly
what his akita was and he wouldn't say, which is
being intentionally deceptive. Yeah, soon he's debated as well. Exactly
the relationship of Allah to his essence is. I've got
multiple books from various creeds of Islam debating it, and
they act like it's not a debate. Now. When I
brought this up on Twitter, I said, what do you miss?
Not a debate? I kid you not. The answer was
from many many Muslims, Well, we all think Allah is one. Okay,
So because you use the word one, right, well we
all say all as one. See we don't disagree. Yeah,
I know you use the word. The question is what's
the meaning? And you guys have gone to war over this,
So what are you talking about? Okay? QD. If he
destroyed me, I want you to come on and I
want you to give some examples of where he answered
my objections and destroyed me. For example, makes sense of
Muslim Lantern's argument about Allah's attributes and the dependence relationship
and his shirt analogy and how are their analogies when
Allah is nothing like creatures? I mean, how slow are
you guys to not understand this objection? And in the
comments in the last few days, I realized they don't
know what the word analogy means. They're literally saying he
was making on that logy. Yeah, exactly, do you know
what the word analogy means? Likeness or similarity? So QD,
where are you at, buddy, come on and debate. If
you're not going to come on in debate, then just
boot these people. It's not it's not a place for
people to just spam gibberish. And in the comments of
the Muslims who do think that Muslim lantern one. I've
asked every one of them that I see, maybe I haven't.
Speaker 3: There's tons of comments.
Speaker 1: I've got to all of them, but I asked them,
please give some examples of where and how he answered
the argument and refuted me. And they don't. They don't
have any way to explain it. They're just spamming stuff
because they know in they sense that maybe this is
a weak position. Boom, what's up?
Speaker 5: Elogi Drek? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 5: Okay, I just have a question regarding your Bible. Do
you hold to the position that your Bible is infallible?
Speaker 1: H yeah, but I don't know what you think that means.
Speaker 5: I mean that it cannot contain error.
Speaker 1: Well, again, I don't know what you think that means,
because that can mean different things. There, we have it.
We believe there are ascribal errors, sure.
Speaker 5: Okay, are there contradictions?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 5: No, okay, can you flip to Monthew sixteen four?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 1: What are what's your position on the Bible.
Speaker 5: I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim.
Speaker 1: Okay, And are you going to answer the Muslim dilemma first?
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm just here to ask a question.
Speaker 1: No, you're not. You're here to debate.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm here to debate you on the Bible right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, but first we're going to talk about the
Islamic dilemma. Can you do that first? Because you're going
to argue the Bible's corrupt and has contradictions? So why
does the Quran tell me many places to go to
a book that's corrupt?
Speaker 5: Okay? So is this how is this how like you deal.
Speaker 1: With the contra I'm to say, I'm going to let
me grant you that there's contradiction. Okay, there's contradictions in
the Bible. So why would Allah direct me to go
to a book that's full of contradictions?
Speaker 5: Yeah? So you're granted me that there's contradictions.
Speaker 3: Correct, for the sake of the argument. You don't know
what that means?
Speaker 5: Okay? So I mean if an atheist came to you,
how would you deal with the contradiction?
Speaker 1: Would you say, I'm going to argue tag I'm not
going to argue Bible texts with an atheist.
Speaker 5: Why can't you just defund the text without like simply,
you know, like running to my book. I don't don't
understand why Christians do that.
Speaker 1: Well, you want me to believe in the Koran, right,
not necessarily, you don't want me to believe Why are
you debating if you don't want to believe in.
Speaker 5: The Koran in the sense that I want you to
become a Muslim? Is that what you mean? Or enough argument?
Speaker 1: Of course, that's what I mean. Why would Allah direct
me to so I'm going to grant you for the
sake of argument that Okay, the Bible's full of contradictions.
Speaker 3: Why would Allah direct me to a book full of contradictions?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 5: But I mean you're shifting. You're granting him for the
sake of the argument. That's not not your position, right,
I want to alter your position academically.
Speaker 1: Okay, so alter it by explaining to me why I
should believe in a book that tells me to look
to a book full of contradictions.
Speaker 5: Okay, we're not.
Speaker 1: Just yeah, so you won't answer that, right, So no, no,
Muslim can't answer this. Okay, what's answer?
Speaker 4: Definitely?
Speaker 3: What's answer?
Speaker 1: What's answer?
Speaker 5: Okay, I'll okay, I'll go go ahead.
Speaker 1: Show me where, Show you where? What?
Speaker 5: Show me where? It tells me to go back to
a book with contradictions and to.
Speaker 1: Follow that book does allah in many places? You want
me to pull up the different lists.
Speaker 5: Of the texts, Go ahead, please, all right?
Speaker 1: M five forty six, two, two, eighty five, six, one,
fifteen and eighteen twenty seven for example, this is your shotgunning.
Speaker 5: Can we do one at a time.
Speaker 1: You don't know these passages? They're well known.
Speaker 3: They come up in every debate between Christians.
Speaker 5: And muslim I agree, but we got to do one
by one. This is called galloping. Can we do.
Speaker 1: It's not gish galloping. Just you know these answers, You
know these topics. You know this situation has come up
for years. So I don't want to walk through every
single passages. It will take twenty minutes to do it.
Just tell me what the answer is.
Speaker 5: Okay, which one do you want to go with first?
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter go with any of them because they
tell me to go to the prior revelation? Do they not?
Speaker 5: I mean, I disagree, but I'm gonna.
Speaker 1: Okay, what well? What okay? What do they tell me
to go to if they don't tell me to go
to that?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 5: Perfect, I'm gonna I'm gonna read you the verses you said,
Chapter five, verse forty six crow perfect, Okay, no? Can
can you hear me still?
Speaker 4: By the way, yep?
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm curious if you've read, like the verses that
came after. I mean, have you read two verses that
came after?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I haven't pulled up right here? Okay, none of
those None of those verses refuw the point that's being made.
Speaker 3: In fact, they back it up.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's see about that. So the verse you brought
to to prove that the hard confirms the Bible, it
goes as then in the footsteps of the prophets, we
sent Jesus son of Mary confirming the.
Speaker 1: Tora reveal What tora is that.
Speaker 5: The tora that was revealed to Moses, thank.
Speaker 3: You, And what tour is that in the seventh century, It's.
Speaker 4: Not going to be I don't how do you know that?
Speaker 5: Because we have supposed that says that the.
Speaker 1: I want to know how you know that? You're You're
had these assert that how do you know that?
Speaker 5: I mean, there's many contradictions in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: So wait a minute, So now we're being told to
go to a book with contradictions.
Speaker 3: Like I said to begin with, where is it?
Speaker 5: Where is it telling? Where is it telling me to
go to this book where I don't really see that
it's just confirming the book that was.
Speaker 1: Again other passages to two eighty five, six, one, fifteen, eighteen,
twenty seven will say that you can confirm will say
that you can confirm this revelation by what came before.
But are you telling me that before we do that?
Are you telling me that all those words can be corrupted?
Speaker 5: Yeah? When you say corrupt, oh means the Wait a minute,
God's words says that the God's words cannot be corupted.
Speaker 7: But exactly to understand you have to be you have
to understand what is meant by that? Okay, okay, So
the hold on makes it very clear that God's words
cannot be corrupted. And what that means is that you
cannot change God's decree. You can not change what's in
his low head fold, which is the tablet with him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, so you're gonna apply it to the uncreated.
Speaker 5: Right one second?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 5: No, no, can I finish? Please? I'm giving you my reasoning
and you're cutting me off.
Speaker 1: Because we've heard all these arguments a million times. They
don't address the topics.
Speaker 5: That's one ano there millions. You can hear it a
month and your.
Speaker 1: First time it's okay, I go for it.
Speaker 5: Okay, thank you. So, according to the verse for bringing right,
the Oran cannot be corrupted. Right, what this means is
that you cannot change God's to creep and you cannot
change what's in his preserved tablet.
Speaker 7: Rather, what is being corrupted, According to chapter two over
seventy nine, it is people writing something new with their
hands and saying that it's from God seeking a fleet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that text also presupposes that the Torah at
this time is not corrupted. Do you understand that we
have we have to listen, we have Torah and gospel.
You understand that predate that.
Speaker 3: Listen to me.
Speaker 1: Do you understand we have texts that pre date the
seventh century?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 5: I don't. I don't. I don't disagree with that yet.
Speaker 1: Okay, but again this is so what text would they'd
be understond In other words, we know what text they
could go to in the seventh century to check it?
Speaker 5: Sorry, repeat it.
Speaker 1: We know we nowadays know already what text the Jews
and Christians at this time in the seventh century had
to go and look at we have those texts. You
understand that.
Speaker 5: I don't know how this relates to what we're talking.
Speaker 1: About, because it because that's what they're going to look to.
You're the slow What do you mean look towards? Oh
you can? It says you can confirm the new revelation
on the basis of the old and how could we
do that if if Allah's words could be It does
say that. Then the other verses it says that.
Speaker 5: Can I please reply? Can I please reply? It's just
like a monologue. Okay, I appreciate that. So the Quran,
the revelation, I know that.
Speaker 1: One second, the Kuran tells you to confirm it by
the previous revelation. You just admitted that you just admitted
that you already admitted that Allas. You already admitted that
Allah's previous words can be corrupted. And you said that
is the tablet with him. You haven't explained it. I
let you talk. What was the explanation because you're not
explaining it. You're just talking around and telling your stuff. Okay,
what is the what is it? What is the what
is the unwritten tablet? That whatever? You said?
Speaker 3: The uncreated tablet with Allaw?
Speaker 7: It's it's it's it's the preserved And where is that?
That's where he's at.
Speaker 1: What do you mean so there's an uncreated eternal tablet
with Allaw?
Speaker 5: Did I say it was eternal?
Speaker 1: Is all as is all A's Quran? Eternal? His speech?
So he doesn't have so he doesn't have uncreated speech.
Speaker 5: It is uncreated.
Speaker 1: You just said, no.
Speaker 5: Did you know that things can be generated into existence
and be uncreated?
Speaker 1: This is retarded. Something can come into existence and be uncreated.
This is the stupidity of this stuff. And they have
a problem with the eternal generation. Right, what does five
forty seven say. Let the people of Gos of the
Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. Those
who do not, judged by what Ah has revealed, are rebellious.
We have revealed it to you, the Book of Truth,
confirmation of the previous scriptures, the very versus right here
that we've walked through a million times. We don't need
you to make up new Exejesus and to say stupid
stuff like something can be created that's eternal into existence,
generate into existence that's eternal. So it's an uncreated creation,
is what you're saying. Kings. It does not say that
you can check the previous with the new. It does
not say that. It says it right there in five
forty seven, King, What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey, what's going on?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 8: I've just been listening to you for a little bit.
Speaker 9: Is this this is a.
Speaker 4: Debate about religion or is it also about the sneak
and Tate situation.
Speaker 3: It's just religion, all.
Speaker 4: Right, gotcha?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: No, okay, no, yeah, I'm just I'm not hearing Israel
right now.
Speaker 1: That's fine. We're gonna move on the topic. Is Islam
in those things? And I put sneak O in the
title because I was on the sneak O channel debating
Muslim lantern two nights ago.
Speaker 3: Father Moses.
Speaker 10: You want to say something, I'm Jay Kuran. We talk
about today, but I noticed that you have not astrology
as a topic. I want to ask you questions about
the trology Koran that's not in the listing for you.
Speaker 1: Well, there's an eternal, uncreated Quran that is with Allah,
that's different from Allah, but it's also are. It's also
a creature that comes into existence.
Speaker 10: What about create eternal athrology as.
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: I guess since astrology is based on fatalism, yeah, we
could say that Islam is in many schools or excuse me,
Akida's creeds fatalistic.
Speaker 10: I just want to ask you a question about topics
you don't have listed on here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Joseph, what's up? Appreciate that, Joseph. I'm you
think about this too, just from the bantage point of
the seventh century hearer, right, So imagine I'm a seventh
century Jew, are Christian, and I got saying no, no,
the Koran is not telling you to go check this,
even though it says very clearly in these passages.
Speaker 3: That I can go check it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not telling you that. It's telling you
that there's a corrupt Bible. But there's a real true Bible,
even though we have the existing copies of the Torah
and the Gospels from the seventh century and earlier. No, no,
there's a secret one that's not corrupt. Well, the hearers
couldn't go to a secret one. You see how silly
this is? How could I go and check? By the way,
how many times do they argue that Muhammad is predicted
in the Bible? How am I going to go to
the Bible when you say it's corrupt? This is how
stupid this is. Then they turn around and say, yeah,
it proves the Koran in all the places where it
agrees with the Koran. This is how stupid this is.
So I can go to a corrupt book to prove
the one that's not corrupt.
Speaker 4: You see that, I ask you a question.
Speaker 11: One of the things that's come up a few times
recently on Twitter here has been the issue of the
ever virginity of the Theo Toko, which we obviously know
was the firm by the Church fathers, was even a
firm by Calvin and Luther. Are there other I know
that there's some references in the Old Testament right of
the gate that has been.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Ezekiel forty four we see as our reference to.
Speaker 12: The virgin okay, and there's are there other arguments or
do we mostly just rely on the historical record and
the fact like, look, this was literally accepted for fifteen
hundred plus.
Speaker 4: Years and is like was never really even questioned, well
a lot.
Speaker 1: So Jerome has an essay and I noticed in the
Pomazanski book actually I was reading this last night. Pomazanski
has a whole section on it as well, addressing the
Protestant objections to ever virginity. So if people have a
proto presbater of Michael Pomazanski's book Orthodox Dogmatics, it has
a really good section on this. This brief but the
classic refutation is still Saint Jerum's perpetual virginity of Mary,
and he deals with the Exegesus where they say, well,
you know, brothers of the Lord, and then that she
was the word till is a big deal, and he
says that you know, Jesus says I will be with
you until the end of the world. On the Protestant
ext of Jesus, then we would have to say, oh, well,
so Jesus won't be with us after the end of
the world. So the word till does not necessarily mean
that after that it changes.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's that's the argument that I continue to use,
which is like the children stack quietly.
Speaker 5: Until the teacher arrived, Yes, exactly, and it's like, well
then they didn't.
Speaker 11: Or somebody said, the man on the desert island ate
no food until he.
Speaker 9: Died, and it's like he didn't eat a big meal on.
Speaker 1: The last day of his life, right, Yeah, Yeah, Drum
does exact same thing, with a bunch of other examples there,
and that's in the in this essay.
Speaker 3: I've got the essay pulled up here where he goes through.
Speaker 4: Many of these and I can just google it all
find it.
Speaker 1: It's called Against Helvidius The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Jerome.
That's about a ten page essay that Saint Jerome wrote.
That's kind of like a perennial classic. But thank you
for that, Joseph. Did you want to say something, By
the way, I don't mean to boot you. If you
want to keep talking, you're welcome to come back.
Speaker 13: No, that's fine, Jay, Sorry, if I was not at
the mic when you initially.
Speaker 9: I've been.
Speaker 13: I'm Catholic, and I've been trying to like interact with
Catholic groups that perish again and one of the things
that I have run into again is how like people
seem to there seems to be no awareness of like that,
how easy it is to fall into spiritual delusion or
self delusion. It's like there's no and like Catholics are
getting into I don't know if this is because of
the Vatican Two or whatever, but like Bible studies and
subjecting yourself to the text of it. I've even heard
people describe the documents of Vatican two this way, like
you have to meditate on them and let them speak
to you and sort of like it's almost like you're
asking a text to take over your mind.
Speaker 3: Like yeah, I mean that might be just because of
the Protestantization of Vatican two. I mean that's uh.
Speaker 1: You know, we focus and talk a lot, you know,
about the texts and no stra tatan lemagentium relating to
Muslim and Hindus and all that, but we can't overlook
the Protestantized elements of Vatican Two. For example, the Novasorto
liturgy was quite literally concocted with a bunch of Protestants,
so you know what I mean. So it's like the
liturgy itself of Vatican two is written by a Lutheran
an Anglican Banini who was a Mason, and a bunch
of other you know whoever, So there's this protestantization that happened,
and you can also see it in the official acceptance
of Charismaticism from the Vatican post Vatican two, and those
two components together. It doesn't that's a recipe for prelust
for sure.
Speaker 13: Yeah, And I the only reason I know about prelist
is listening to your show. I had never even heard
the word before, and i'd heard of.
Speaker 4: I guess discernment of spirits before.
Speaker 13: Right, that's something that discussed a lot in the Catholic
you know, I guess the illusions or social theology. But
they don't they don't get into like the the real danger.
Like if you this this idea that you can open
up the Bible and hit there's a thing. You know,
you've probably heard of Alexio Didena, And I suppose there
might be a or no Alexio Didena where you sit
with a passage of scripture and.
Speaker 4: Let it.
Speaker 13: Impact you a certain way, and then I think it
was invented in monasteries or something, but after a Vatican too,
it became popular to do.
Speaker 4: That in like groups.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, I mean that that could be a recipe.
I mean, I wouldn't say that there's anything inherently wrong
with meditating on the passive Scripture, but I think it
could be a recipe for, you know, something nefarious creeping
in for sure. So I appreciate that we're to move on.
But so there's a guy who wants to come debate,
who's non denominational.
Speaker 3: He's going to destroy me. I look forward to it, so.
Speaker 1: I welcome him, and the link is in the chat,
so please tell him to come. He's more than more
than welcome. Here's the link again, and if you want
to support the stream by a superchat, you can do
so at the super chat link. I have to go
to the little Lady's room. I have to tinkle really bad,
so I'm gonna go sit down on the toilet because
that's the traditional masculine way according to the Hideth, to
go to the bathroom.
Speaker 3: Just joking, but I will still sit.
Speaker 1: Down in honor of Tristan. Tristan's here shout out to him.
He's probably gonna leave now because I'm giving him a
shout out, but I will sit down the toilet to
pee in honor of him, and I will be right
back with more of your challenges, questions and debates. And
I hope my non denominational destroyer manifests and meaning in
the sense of appearing manifesting demonic entities. You know what
I mean. But while I go t t while I
go tinkle, I have a little bit of a message,
and that is our show sponsor, which is chalk dot Com.
Speaker 3: Please listen to this.
Speaker 1: I will be right back.
Speaker 14: Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to
take your performance to the next level. Chad Mode is
for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting the gym,
invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the
midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's
as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our
fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious,
energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners.
Speaker 12: And dyes.
Speaker 14: Even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Only soyboys and Beta's guzzle blue dye and
sucralose further tanking they are already low testosterone levels. Chad
Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok peasants'
pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab made
caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave. Experience
the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic registered
trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power of
organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose of chad Mode
mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a half
of coffee, delivering a surge of energy. Alongside essential vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you
to fire your boss and mog on anyone who opposes
you Chad mode will give you a dominant and aggressive edge,
like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the gazelle is
TikTok Jim Zuomer macro gus.
Speaker 1: All right, we're back. So uh now, who is the
non denominational person that wants to debate? Do we know
who he is? Let me check discord because maybe maybe
there's something in here. Where's the non dnom guy, non denominator?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: Judah? Oh no, if his name is quote Judo, we
know we got a serious Hebrew Israelite, Hebrew roots man.
Here's the link. Where's he at? Yo?
Speaker 3: Okay, he says, yo here you are, come debate dude, yo?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah. All right, So we're waiting on Judah to
show up until he gets here. Let's see Midwest. No
wait here he is hold on Midwest. So we're going
to go to uh, we're going to get destroyed. Judah
says he's going to destroy me in a debate. Good,
I asked for someone to come destroy me. Please, you
got on? Mute man? Yeah, cub, what's up? I'm mute.
I'm mute man, Judah, you're on, I'm mute. Yeah, Huda,
what's up. We're waiting for you to unmute. Mini's Mani's Yahoo,
what's up?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yep, yep, Yes, where's my destruction? I'm ready for it,
Come destroy me? All right?
Speaker 3: So once yeah, you're eating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny, right, it's really funny.
Speaker 5: So the only reason I think you're wrong is because
you don't read the Bible.
Speaker 1: Oh is that right?
Speaker 3: We literally just lectured through the Bible for the last
two hours. All this doesn't.
Speaker 1: Troll? Where is that funny? No bro, no bro, bro,
boot him from discord when you're wasting my time with
this nonsense. Oh, why you guys, somebody needs to get
it back in the discord.
Speaker 4: And like.
Speaker 3: Dan, these idiots, see, this is.
Speaker 1: Why we have the hard hand did in the in
the old days, we had the iron fist rule in discord,
and it needs to come back because these people just
waste every time. And you notice that people they can't
even talk, right, Like the people who come on like
this with a bunch of damn food in their mouth, giggling,
they can't even talk. There is a vibe on get
the food out of your mouth, get the get the
hot pockets out of your mouth. First, okay, swallow your
hot pocket and then make your argument. Hello, they done
for the meter.
Speaker 9: You Are you drunk?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm drunk, even though I don't drink and I
hate alcohol. Totally drunk.
Speaker 4: You kind of sew in the intoxicated.
Speaker 1: That's because I was impersonating the previous idiot.
Speaker 15: Oh so I heard you. You just finished debating a
sneaker and the Muslim Lantern. What's your after thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: I felt like the clip that I put up of
the seven minute section on the attributes was the worst
part for him.
Speaker 4: Do you feel like you got the better off the
debate or on Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I think the seventy plus percent audience reaction agrees
as well.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, interesting because the other site thinks you lost
what you talked about that well.
Speaker 1: As I said, I gave about twenty different options for
Muslims to come explain where he actually made a good
response or a good arguing, a good critique, and none
of the people who I've asked that to have actually replied.
So tell me where Muslim Lantern gave a good response
or in what way his answer on the attributes was coher.
Speaker 15: I'll be honest, I've just seen clips, you know, but
I've seen that is why I'm just asking you your thoughts.
Speaker 1: You know again, I mean I felt like it was
a blowout. So have you seen the poll? Have you
seen the poll?
Speaker 15: Yeah, I've seen multiple poles. Some pools say you on,
the other pools say you lost.
Speaker 1: Well, this was the poll they created, right, The poll
they created which they only wanted sneak Go's largely Muslim
audience to vote in, ended up being Jay seventy three percent,
Muslim Lantern twenty six percent.
Speaker 15: Interesting. Yeah, the thing is what I've seen so far,
I feel like Christian's sided with you, and then the
Muslim sides with him.
Speaker 1: So that's what I've Okay, Well, so that's why you
have to actually watch the debate and see who made
the better arguments and go and figure out. Now, go
figure out whether.
Speaker 3: He answered on the attributes or not, because that part
was pretty comedic. Landon, Hey Jay, can.
Speaker 1: You hear me?
Speaker 4: Hey brother, how you doing?
Speaker 16: I got a couple of things to say. I'll try
to be uh those groups as possible, But uh, I
play uh, I play music for a living. I started
out in the church and all that stuff. Now I'm
kind of doing find some fairly large like pop acts,
but like that's fun fact for everybody, wasn't musicians. Most
of the musicians behind.
Speaker 17: Like pop stars and stuff like that that came from church,
predominantly Black church really but man, like a lot of
my co workers and stuff, I've just realized, especially since
becoming like an inquirer into Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: And whatnot, these do It's.
Speaker 17: Most of them, most of my like buddies who I
play with.
Speaker 4: I do not believe that Jesus is God.
Speaker 1: And uh and you're saying they're like evangelical praise and
worship people's everything.
Speaker 17: Oh hell yeah, Well I live in Georgia, so it's
like good, okay, it's outside of Atlanta.
Speaker 4: I was like, six flags over.
Speaker 1: Jesus is what they call, right, But they're all like
they're like evangelicals who don't even know that Jesus's divining.
Speaker 17: Is that you're saying, yeah, yeah, no, it's it's kind
of terrifying, But I just I don't know that all
kind of goes into Like I talked to a couple
of the pastors that I had thought were cool to
seek counsel from, especially since st firing into Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: Over the past year, and Uh. A common thing that's
been said to.
Speaker 17: Me is, uh, whenever I bring these questions up to
these dudes, most of them will look.
Speaker 4: At me like I have three ads. But the other
ones will be like, I think there's a common uh
desire for all of us to just want more, you know, and.
Speaker 17: Which I just think is a stupid response because it's like, well, yeah,
I don't feel like I'm getting I don't feel like
it's not about getting things, but I don't feel like
I'm experiencing what this whole thing is. So of course, ione,
but have you ever heard people like say that that
argument or that response that was a really my question.
I guess like if there's a response to yeah.
Speaker 1: I think it's very common for evangelicals, non denominational people
to get sort of burnt out and to feel like
they're not really getting anything out of that, and it
has no essential connection with history, it's not rooted in anything.
It's an authentic Yeah, I think that's a I would
I would say that's actually the experienced probably a most
megachurch non nominational people, because I mean this was some
years ago. If you look at the studies, it was
like Pew research studies from some years ago, like megachurches
have a really low retention rate. So they'll make these
quote conversions, They'll have huge numbers of converts and church
joiners or whatever, and then within two to three weeks
the majority of them leave. So I think that's very common.
But I'm not surprised to hear that Protestant Evangelical, non
nominational megachurches are essentially abandoning basic Trinitarian theology and the
deed of Christ. Robert Hunter, I feel I frobatherly dike it.
Feel free to chime in anytime you want.
Speaker 4: Thanks. Yeah, that's we just brought that up the other day.
I was talk with some prishioners because I forget how
the megachurch was was coming up, and I just think
about this, Like you said, Jay, its primary focus is
common consumerism and entertainment. Yeah, and that's only going to last,
like anything in life, for for a little bit, for
a little bit, and then they find that they're not fulfilled,
they're not changing, and they leave, which is probably why
you're seeing a high retention rate. To Another critique of
it is it's usually associated, as.
Speaker 3: You mean, a low retention rate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, excuse me. It's also associated with like kind
of a cult personality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the superstar pastor. Right, yeah, yeah, exactly. Somebody had
a good.
Speaker 3: Comment here something about megachurches.
Speaker 1: Oh, many of the non denominational and megachurch stuff, as
the commenter here has noted, are are openly like warming
up to the skittle stuff.
Speaker 4: Who was the first one that kind of one of
the major guys.
Speaker 3: Rick Warren?
Speaker 1: Did I think Rick Warren?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was when the Orange County he was like
one of the first guys, and you know, by Protestant standards,
he started off kind of run of the mill, kind
of right lower Orthodox, and then he started bringing in
some wacky stuff too.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, around the time that he joins the Council
on Foreign Relations and then it becomes pro Obama. He
does that stuff. Do you remember that wasn't I'm pretty
sure Rick Warren? Right, So he when he writes Purpose
Driven Life becomes this huge book selling hit. Then he
joins Council Form Relations or right after or whatever right before,
and then I think I think he was like pro Obama,
which surprised everybody, and then.
Speaker 9: It was really weird.
Speaker 4: He brought in Muslim speakers.
Speaker 3: Yes, and then he's like, oh, by the way, now
I'm pro Skittle's marriage.
Speaker 1: So that's when he flipped on that, which.
Speaker 4: Is wild because if you if you know anything about
you know, I don't know exactly what it is today
because things have changed. But Orange County, California was always
kind of a Republican, strongold right in a very blue
state you have from Richard Nixon, and so I was
kind of odd that he and bold that he took
that move. But if his handlers said that's the way
he's gotta.
Speaker 1: Go, yeah, that's what I was thinking, Like, Yeah, they
basically said you're gonna do this now, Rick. And you
know that could have been because there's compremont, compromont or
money could be either one.
Speaker 3: Uh remember that one path who was that?
Speaker 1: Remember that guy that got busted with He was w's
George Bush's mentor pastor, megachurch guy and then he gets
busted with meth and and three oh.
Speaker 3: Four's remember that guy?
Speaker 4: Now what was his name?
Speaker 1: Uh, somebody in that chat will remember him Bush spiritual advisor,
mega church, meth metha church, megachurch, meth prostitute. Yeah exactly,
Ted Haggard, that's him.
Speaker 3: Ted Haggard. So remember Ted Haggard.
Speaker 1: This guy with this he's got that weird uh creepy
evangelical smile. Let me pull him up here. Yeah, this guy.
And by the way, it wasn't just meth. It was
meth and male young young males.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, accidentally shut down my stream here, hold on a second,
let me pull it back up. So pulling up Ted
Haggard was too much cancer for the stream. The whole
stream collapsed here.
Speaker 4: And then the other big one too is Greg Glory
and the Harvest Crusade.
Speaker 3: Remind me of what's this?
Speaker 1: What's going on with that one?
Speaker 4: So if any of you seen The Jesus Revolution with yes, yeah, yeah,
and interesting enough about that film, it's I mean, it's
supposed to be about pastor Chuck Smith.
Speaker 1: And that's Kylary Chapel, right, that's COVID Chapel.
Speaker 4: And so I guess you could argue maybe they really
were the seeds, the kind of proto.
Speaker 1: Uh mega, oh yeah, yeah, good point.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So, uh, Greg Glory was the kind of protege
of Chuck Smith. I went to you know, school with
his son, and he started this Harvest Crusade is kind
of a base name a Crusade. It's like totally on PC.
But they would have it like the Angels Stadium, these
huge like revival they bring in like Crystal Lewis, and
I remember Mel Gibson came to one and it's just
a big show. And then, of course is that.
Speaker 3: When he was promoting the Passion.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you're probably right, yeah, yeah, I remember the
mega churches were inviting Mel Gibson to come talk about
the movie when it came out.
Speaker 4: Remember that, And then there's this big ultar call and
people go up. So I think that's probably the beginnings
of the megachurch because that was Harvest Crusade was prior
to Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and someffing like that.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see who's next now, guys, Remember it's
not Orthodox fa Q Day. You can always reach out
to your people doings for those kinds of questions. We're
looking for people who disagree. Topics are Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam,
and then I listed some others Bible church history, Patristics, councils,
Quran revelation, Evangelicalism, arianism called Hebrew roots, black hebeers are lights,
all of those are on the table. So we're not
doing atheism today. We're not doing Orthodox catechists today. Theophilis,
what's up?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: I'm mute?
Speaker 4: Did you hear me, sir?
Speaker 18: I think I guess of the short quis I'm Orthodox,
but I retally have been struggling in my faith because
of the you know, it is like the Latinizer Ortholatinisers
like you know, Jonathan Hill and Alan Brown and those guys.
I wonder if you can comment on the conferensal to
theseus and what it seems to play about infant damnation.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't think it teaches infant damnation. I think
it teaches the deprivation of grace, and the deprivation of
grace does not entail damnation. This is why most of
the Eastern Church fathers are pretty consistent in saying that
the infant is not guilty of any actual sin. Well,
if actual sin is what places you under judgment, what
actual sin have infants committed? There is a deprivation of grace,
but a deprivation of grace does not entail damnation. So
when the texts say uh, and I would say, read
Paulazansky's book because father of Paulinzansky and is Orthodox Dogmatics,
has a whole section on why we don't believe in
the Augustinian doctri original sin. And again remember the Augustinian
doctri original sin is premised on the idea, as we
covered about an hour ago in here, the notion that
all men are in atoms in an archetype. Right, So
the doctrine is massive dam nata, and the count the
Carthage Canon does not say mouse damnata. It says that
for the remission of original sin, that doesn't mean they
have guilt. You can speak of the effects of sin
as if it's the sin, okay, So an infant having
the effects of adam sin can be called original quote sin.
But that does not entail inherited guilt, and nobody teaches
inherited guilt except for Calvinists. Even Roman Catholics have discarded
the doctrine of inherited guilt. So the only way that
we would ever come to this position is if we
keep in mind the Confession of Toscythius and those documents
around that time, the other confessions. If you read the
Norman Russell book on the Translation of the Palomite Synods.
In the first chapter I think'st the introduction, it says
that Docitheus reprinted and republished the Palamite Synods to show
that they're reaffirming the Palamite doctrine. Palamas does not believe
that infants are guilty of actual sin. Okay, So in
other words, it's not teaching Latin doctrines of inherited guilt.
The promulgation of the Palamite doctrines by Docithius himself proves
that he.
Speaker 3: Had no intention of latinizing.
Speaker 1: These people are all really making an argument on the
basis of terminology and words. Even in the Pomazansky book
he says it's not a problem to use the word transubstantiation,
and what is it Doctheus also uses that term. It
just matters what you mean. So all of these people
hinge their arguments on word concept fallacies that this or
that Latin term necessarily entails and implies all of the
Roman Catholic baggage or the Augustinian baggage. But again, you're
not going to be able to find solace in Rome
because Rome doesn't teach this doctrine. So this is silly
ignorance from these people. If they want to try to
go to Rome, well guess what. Rome has even said
that limbo of infants, which was introduced to soften the
Augustinian doctrine, that's not even something you have to believe
in anymore in the Roman Gelic world. So this will
tell you what I'm talking about here.
Speaker 4: And I want to point out to you this is
a part of a problem typically in the West. We
talked about this abstractionism, and you have to understand that
Orthodox season is a life, it's an etho, it's arch
Theology is not an abstract, propositional thing that can be
divorced from the life, all the way down to the
parish level. And I find it really interesting that when
you're in the parish, when you're going through catechises, none
of the your priests and there might be an outlier
or some weird guy out there, but doesn't that say
something that none does the priests are teaching this Just
the opposite.
Speaker 1: No, it's people who have no blessing to teach this stuff,
and they're just running around the internet stirring out people
and confusing them. And by the way, in uh, there's
at least in the discord. We have at least two
references to the liturgical documents which demonstrate that infants are
not de facto downed. So even the liturgy tells us this.
I can see if it's I know, it's pot in,
it's pin in the mod chat. But let me see
real quick, I can scroll back to it here.
Speaker 4: I think. But you have to. You have to keep
in mind that there's all kinds of demonic temptations, and
the one temptation is you're smart enough to figure this
out by the text alone, apart from a life in
the church, apart from the catos and the parish life
and all these various things, and you'll be the one
that figures out the true theology. And everybody include and
all your priests are all heretics. I mean, it doesn't
that sound demonic? And that's what these people, these Latinis
are doing. They're out on their own, going thing through
terry picking text contrast to the life and the consensus
of the priests and the parish and the entire life
is the orthodoxy, and they're going to correct everybody. So
everybody should see that that that's clearly demonic. It's clearly
a demonic temptation and these people phoning for it, and again,
as Jade pointed out, no episcal blessing to teach whatsoever.
So I don't I'm it's crazy that people will even
listen to these people who are not even credentialed. I mean,
it'd be one thing if like, hey, look the credential
they have, you know, a theology or philosophy degree, but
they don't have a blessing. Tho would still be wrong.
But these people don't even have any formal training or credentials,
and they're out there and everybody online seems not everybody,
a large portion or substantial seem to be get stepped
away and deceived by these people.
Speaker 1: So the Lenton Triotian and the Saturday Before meet Fair
Sunday reads we should know that when baptized infants die,
they enjoy the Paradise of Delight, whereas those that were
not illumined by baptism, those born to pagans neither go
to paradise nor Gehenna. And that is the Lenton Triyodian readings.
Speaker 3: And then there is the Lord's.
Speaker 1: Judgment on on baptized infants and their parents from the
life of Saint Basil the Younger, and it reads the
Lord looked upon them, the unbaptized infants, and was enraged
on account of blindness, not against them, but against the parents.
Then it goes on to say the Lord commanded a
place of rest be created for them, and a very
small enjoyment of eternal life, but not theosis.
Speaker 4: Is the key.
Speaker 1: So the speculation in the liturgy and in some of
the church fathers on this issue is that they are
not partaking of Theosis in the Escaton, but they are
also not condemned, and so there is a potentially a
place of natural felicity or beatitude. And I know that
somebody's gonna say, well, that violates the statement in the
canon that there's a third place. There's no third places.
It's not a third place. It's a place of resurrection
that is not theosis. So it's the same place quote unquote,
but it is not a partaking of theosis, which is
only applied to those who are baptized in Christ and
who live the life and so forth. So it's not
an either or thing. And the other thing that these
people do is they read these canons in a mechanical,
wooden way, and try to force.
Speaker 3: It into a Latin Augustinian framework.
Speaker 1: And all you need to know is that when you
go to Bishop Irena, when you go to Orthodoxy Elogians,
whether it's Pomazanski, whether it's Mayandorf, whether it's any of
the priests that are out there of Father Michael Little,
whether it's anybody else, the clergy, the they're all telling
you that it's not the Augustinian view. So why are
you going to listen to random goobers on Twitter about
what they are?
Speaker 3: It's just silly, like it's not a.
Speaker 1: Protestant thing where you go to random dudes, right, what
would you say to that farther deacon, like who should
we be listening here?
Speaker 3: Anonymous Twitter profiles.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly why the prescription is live a life
in the parish. Now that doesn't mean that the priest
is infallible, but that's the prescribed way you learn from
the priest. And again you don't learn. You're warned against
learning from people who don't have a blessing to teach.
And like you said, there's this consensus. So if you remember,
and I won't name the name, but there there was
somebody who was struggling with the same think Augustinian original Sin.
And I said, what did you They came to visit
the parish, and I said, did you talk to your
to priests? You know you're you're a priest. If he says, well, no,
because he's wrong, I said, well, did he talk to
Father Russell, our priest? No, because he's wrong, I'm like, okay,
so all the priests are wrong, and you're you're right
because you were listening to this guy online.
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. And these are people, by the way,
who are usually like new right, not everybody, but in
the case of the guy you're talking about, and in
many other cases, it's like, oh, I was a Roman
Catholic last year.
Speaker 3: I just converted this year. Oh now I have this issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or I was a Protestant Calvinist and now I'm
looking at the Orthodox.
Speaker 4: You.
Speaker 3: Oh, here's an issue.
Speaker 1: It takes time to understand and study through these issues.
They're not solved in a You're not going to solve
a lot of these issues in a year, two years,
five years, okay. It takes a long time to know
and understand the complexities and the nuances of these issues.
Speaker 3: And let me give you another.
Speaker 1: Example of this if you go to the Roman Catholic
website right Christian Vatican Bea and you look up the
infant Limbo Dogma document that I'm talking about right here,
approved by Ratzinger, Hope for the salvation of infants and
those who die without being baptized. You will notice that
the document itself from the Catholics. Which is the stupidity
of all this is that these people are actually saying
that we ought to look to the Roman Catholic position,
not realizing that the Roman Catholic position has evolved past
the Augustinian position. This whole document is about how they
don't accept the Augustinian position anymore, and that you can
hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants. Now, the document
goes through the history of the question and makes all
the points that I made that the Greek fathers typically
did not think that unbaptized infants were necessarily damned or
had any inherited guilt. It then goes on to talk
about how Augustine is the first to really stress inherited guilt,
the very thing that we always argue. So the irony
is that all of the locus of these people's focus.
We ought to be listening to the Roman Catholics and
the Latin Church fathers, the very Vatican people that they're
looking to about this stuff. Make our point in this document.
Speaker 5: And what's interesting, Like you said, it's not even a.
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic mindset, That's what I'm saying, it's a Protestant mindset.
Like well, I'm brand new, but you know what theology is.
It's just an intellectual pursuit. And so I can just
read through these texts and I'll show everybody else they're wrong.
And but Orthodoxy doesn't work that way. Theology is not
divorced from the ethos and the life and the virtues
and a hierarchy, right, I mean this is it's ultimately Satanic.
It's anti hierarchy.
Speaker 19: Stephen, what's up? Yeah, I'm mute man, I'm mute, man, Stephen,
I'm mute.
Speaker 1: Ev thirty six dollars seventy four cents Orthodox to build
the Old tradition as well support.
Speaker 3: The truthfulness of the Christian claims.
Speaker 1: Expound on this because I've seen some people ask how
you know what the old tradition is or that it
was kept. Well, we know that it's kept at least
as possible, because the scriptures were not written down from
the time of as far as we know, right Adam
to Moses. So how was that revelation transmitted? Well, as
far as we it was transmitted orally, and then it's
written down at the time of Moses. We believe by
faith according to divine revelation. So God can preserve something
in a written or an oral form. There's nothing that
prevents God from preserving it. And then of course we
would say that there's many places even within scripture that
identify things that are oral or extra canonical or.
Speaker 3: Extra biblical as tradition. So something that's an.
Speaker 1: Oral tradition, by the way, also can be written down. So,
for example, the liturgies are the best example of this.
The Apostles didn't write in the New Testament what the
liturgical worship is supposed to be. They complain about abuses,
they warn about this or that, but there's no liturgical
service in the New Testament. Well, God seems to care
in Leviticus how people worship him, so how do we
know how to worship him? Well, I think providentially that
the liturgies were not in scripture, so that we would
have to go to the church, and that's in fact
what happens is that the apostle in the various sees
the Roman Empire create and draw up liturgies based on
Jewish temple and synagogue liturgies for the churches. So by
default you have to look to tradition for something like
the liturgy, and that's one of the easiest best examples
of an oral quote unquote tradition that eventually becomes written
down or or an extra biblical tradition. Other ideas, too,
would be how we know what books are in the canon?
For example, how do we know that Matthew the Disciple
wrote the Gospel Matthew, Well, it's part of the church's
tradition that he did. So tradition plays a role in
apostolic authorship, which plays a role in canonicity. Daniel Jay
ten dollars, you should do the review on a debate
with pints with a quinas. There was a Mormon named
Jacob Hanson who debated Trent Horne on the Book of Mormon.
I'd love to see you debate him on Trinity versus Tritheism. Yeah,
I'm open to that. We haven't had any Mormons really
in the debate space that I'm aware of. I mean,
I'm sure there is somewhere a Mormon apologist or something,
but yeah, that would be interesting. I'm not opposed to
to that directly. Ten dollars. What's the difference between the
Greeks and the Russians, language, liturgical expression, different cultures. Noah
m five dollars. If performing a correct baptism is enough
for a valid baptism, I never said that. Again, there's
no rigid formula for this in a case by case basis,
And everybody who's a sperg or everyone who's a.
Speaker 3: You know, nerd, I'm not calling you a nerd.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that everybody who has this Roman Catholic mindset,
they think there has to be a one size fits
all answer for this across the board. And one of
the positives of Orthodox views of canon law is that
we always strive to not have the legalistic spirit of
the Roman Catholic Western mindset, where we think there has
to be a one size fits all answer for every
reception into the church. So I don't have any problems
saying that people can be received back into the church
through purely through confession, or that the church can determine
that if the Roman Catholic uh did it this way,
they can be received through chrismation, they can be received
through uh you know, vesting or whatever.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 1: It doesn't bother me because I'm not trapped in some
sort of legalism or I think that the Church has
to abide by uh, you know, canons, as if there
the laws are made for men, not men for the laws,
you know, since the exact same spirit as the Pharisees.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Bishop Maxham and I was with dinner with him
his grace a couple of weeks ago, and we're bring
this up exact, this exact scenario. And I was talking
in class about it that think about in terms of
secular law, there's like the rules and laws, the canons
on the books, right, like this penalty or every judge
has the ability to look at all the details. That's
like the framework right from which they then moved to
consider all the details and they can adjust that they
can suspend the penalty. They could, it's not breaking the
canons to do that. And so Bishop Max and I
were talking about this, and we were talking about what
Saint Basil did when he decided that yes, we have
this canon rule. But in this scenario it would be
bad to apply that and lose these heretics, the utah Cans,
and you remember the other ones too, and so in
that specific scenario, Basil, in order to you know, win
them over, we've decided to receive them through chrismation, not baptists.
That's a perfect example. That doesn't mean you throw out
the rule. It just means that's the rule in kind
of guideline which you operate by, and you can adjust
that given different circumstances, because we're not parasitical.
Speaker 1: Legalists, right yeah, I mean again, just look, the absertinity
of the Romeancalitic position is evident in the fact that atheists,
Muslims and Satanists can baptize you. So they divorce the
notion of being catechized and given the faith from the baptism.
Obviously we're speaking of adult tier. That's the Romecalolic position.
So all these people who want all this Latin stuff,
this latinizing temptation, and understand that you're saying where that
position actually leads to and what the actual rome Mecolic
position is. And most of these people can never even
tell you what the three necessary elements are to Romancalic sacrament, matter,
form and intention.
Speaker 3: They can't tell you what that means.
Speaker 1: They don't, They're just they're just being duped by other
ignorant people on the Internet on the basis of so
called translation. But said people can people can be malicious
in their translations. Miloslaw five dollars. What about a pockets
stasis in Saint Isaac the Syrians view after Origin? So,
as I just checked, he died before six eighty one,
the Third Documenical Council in six eighty one is what
gives the definitive condemnation of the Originist view of the
Origin's worldview. Okay, so there's an there's an Orthodox version
of a pockets distosis, which is just means restoration. I've
not read enough of Isaac of Syria to know if
he teaches specifically universal salvation like Origin does, and that
is condemned the Fifth Council, and that's condemned explicit. But
the entire Originist system is condemned in the sixth Council,
which is after one year after Saint Isaac the Syrian's death.
So if he held to the Originist position, we would
just simply say he's wrong. And by the way, I noticed,
Father Michael Palmazonski also mentions a couple other errors beyond
just a pocket ostasis that Gregor of Nissa held. Oh,
Gregor of Nissa held to the erroneous view of the
ransom theory being offered to the devil, and that view
is later rejected by many church fathers. So yeah, we
don't have a problem saying that Church fathers can make errors.
Many of them make errors.
Speaker 3: It's a silly thing when Orthodox people try to have
this position that the Church fathers.
Speaker 1: Never made theological errors. But I mean, they mean well
when they make this argument, but it's just simply not true.
In Palmazonski lists many other mistakes. So we have a
super chet here. Let me see where is it? Where
to go? In Alan Siegel's book Two Powers in Heaven,
there's a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ismael. Yes,
I read this part about the way that heretics interpret
the multiple powers in Heaven, et cetera and Earth. This
distinction is used for the Sofia doctrine in regard to gnostics.
Rabbis asserted the distinction. Do you think there's an intermediary
of sines and the essencerity distinction in the Second Temple period.
If you read David Bradshaw's book Ariosol East and West,
he works through the usage of the essencerity distinction by
Philo and then by people in the first and second century.
I don't know if I don't think he mentions any
rabbinical sources. He may, I don't remember. I can go look,
but that's a good question. I'm not well studied enough
on first and second century Rabbinic Judaism to actually know.
Elias Mikias one dollar was the thirty second reputation of
neo Platonic model of God, in which the one degrades
into emanations. I have critiques of Neoplatonism on my channel.
You can find those old videos. Matthew twenty five dollars,
thank you for being mean to strangers on the internet.
Speaker 3: Well, I seem to excel.
Speaker 1: I guess at the five dollars what It's a good
thing that you recorded the debate with m L because
Snico's team muted you, and then I um muted you. Well,
to be fair, though on my side of it, you
can hear that Sneko gets a phone call, So I
don't think that he was actually trying to mute me
in the open statement. It muted because he got a
phone call, and I did hear the phone rings, So
I don't think he's not lying about that. S L
I D eight B. Where's the Holy Spirit in the
Old Testament. I just did a whole talk on all
of the theophany references in the Torah. Took about three hours,
and many of those referenced the Holy Spirit. So I
mean you could just go to a just use a search,
do a Bible search of references to Spirit in the
Old Testament, and you'll see all those references.
Speaker 3: There's many.
Speaker 1: I mean Moses lays hands on the elders and the
Holy spirits. There numbers eleven Holy Spirit above the waters
in Genesis, right, I mean, the Holy Spirit's all throughout
the Old test does it? Probably maybe a dozen ish places,
maybe more. I mean, we could look that up. Let's see,
let's see there's a just just go watch my talk
on this because we cover these now, we don't cover
everything because I haven't gotten to the I've only done
the Torah references. But the Torah, the spirits mentioned in
the Torah in many places roll six five dollars. What
is worse Muslim's calling in and saying the dumbest things
like the young created can be generated into time.
Speaker 3: Into existence, or the brothers that say that Jews are
not Jews.
Speaker 1: I think that Jewish is not a Jew, because I
think that's stupider than than what is being argued otherwise.
Lerotheos Sliliakos eleven dollars eleven cents s Greetings, Jay, God,
bless you for your work. For the Greek person that
called an earlier, I would be willing to discuss this
matter from Greek to Greek.
Speaker 3: Send a message to me on Facebook.
Speaker 1: His name is I I E R O T h
e O s Erotheos Soliacos. It's a super Greek name.
Five ninety nine. What do you think about Putin and
kissing the Kuran? Well, I mean, have you heard me
making a huge deal about oh, Putin's super orthodox? I
haven't made that, So it's unfortunate. I'm not surprised. I
think that's sort of the spirit of our age, is
thinking that all the religions are kind of the same. H.
But no, I'm not surprised by that. It's unfortunate. Robbie
heck Music five dollars. Why don't you consider Catholics Protestants? Actually?
Speaker 3: Saint Justin Popovitch.
Speaker 1: Argues that they are the first Protestants, so that if
you read his book Life in Christ, that's the whole
this whole argument of that European paganism and papism.
Speaker 3: Chapters in that book make that very point.
Speaker 1: Logan five dollars, keep kicking butt, Thank you so much.
Rootner twelve ten dollars. What do you think about the
Shroud of Turn? Is there anything that you take away
from it? I never really have looked at this as
a proof per se. I don't have any hard opinions
on it. I'm fine with it being legit or if
it's not. It really doesn't affect my theology or my
faith at all. But it's interesting. But you know what
I mean, I've seen people, so going back to when
I was a Protestant, I saw Protestants trying to prove
with this, and then I would see the even other
Protestants debunking it. And so I've seen this back and
forth for twenty five years. So I just I don't
really find it that interesting, honestly, But I don't have
a problem with it. We went to it on our pilgrimage,
although you don't actually get to see it when you go.
When you go there, uh, it's behind all these glass
cases and you see a picture of what it looks like.
Speaker 4: So I don't know.
Speaker 3: I thought that was kind of lame.
Speaker 4: But it's like a national treasure, yeah, they say.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: Father Vladimir said they display it like once a year,
and that's because supposedly it degrades when it's exposed to
oxygen or something.
Speaker 4: So it was.
Speaker 1: I found the experience to be underwhelming, honestly, but I
was also sick with like one hundred and five degree
fever that that probably played into it. Patty Dog, what's up? No,
maybe an one hundred five. I probably had one hundred
and two fever would be one hundred and five, I'd
be in the bed, but I did. I had a fever.
But what's up, man, J it's up?
Speaker 4: Carry me?
Speaker 1: Yes, what's up? You got a bad connection, bro? So
again today it's for objections. I know people want to
call in with FAQs, but we try to keep it
to people who disagree and objective. What's up, mel, I'm
gonna have to go pretty soon, so let's get let's
get these last few in. Yeah, I would. I think
the highest I've ever had is one oh four when
I had pneumonia, and I did have to go to
the hospital when I had a one o four, So
now it is probably more like one hundred hundred and one.
I mean, I was, I was pretty bad. But what's up, man, mel,
I'm you.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just wanted to point something out about the
Muslim dilemma. I think that they don't realize that when
they say, oh, we believe parts of the Bible that.
Speaker 2: Confirm the Koran, I could just easily turn that around
and say the same and say, well, yeah.
Speaker 9: I confirm the parts of the Quran that are in
line with the Bible.
Speaker 5: I know we're just had an impasse and that doesn't
mean anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good point. You could you could argue
it that way. I mean, and again, these passages are
not ambiguous. We revealed the Torah. We revealed the guidance.
Go to the Torah. We are ordained all this in
the Torah again, five forty four, forty five, forty six,
forty seven. Let these people judge, we have revealed it.
Look at the previous revelation. It's all in these passages,
and so so either way they go on the dilemma
like you're saying, it's a problem. But we could just
flip it around on them and say, okay, so why
can't I pick and choose out of your book what
confirms what came before? And then they'll say, because the
Koran is true, yeah, but that's what's in question. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
great points, Thank you, Mely. This is actually a good
point because people miss under that Muslims don't know how
to debate, like ninety nine point nine percent. They don't
know what to do in debate. Like do you notice
when Muslim lantern did his opening statement and he asked
me a question in his opening statement? That's what you
don't do that in debate, asking me questions like what
you're okay now? But then when I start talking and responding,
let's look at him talking, he will talk. He'll look
at him talking interrupt. Uh okay, So but I mean,
have you ever done a debate before? You know, you
don't start asking Q and A questions and interrogation in
your opening statement, right, So it's totally out of out
out of a cord. Why do they come to you
for judgment when they already had the Torah? We revealed
the Torah, and then they have to come up with
this ad hoc nonsense of, oh, there's a secret Tora.
It's not the Tora that already existed amongst the Jews
and the Christians. You see how stupid that is. Obviously,
the hearers who are Jewish and Christian can't go to
a secret Torah. It has to be the one that
was revealed to them in their hands. Duh, this is
so silly. It's it's like they it's this is so fundamental,
and it's such a devastating point that they lose their
mind and come up with all this nonsense. Oh well,
actually it's all corrupted, so I'm supposed to go to
a corrupted book. Oh and then then we see the
problem with that. They say, no, there's a secret Torah.
How are the Christians going to go to a secret Torah?
And by the way, what is the evidence of a
secret Torah? It's just you're just asserting all these things.
And by the way, we have Torah and gospels from
the seventh century and earlier, and they're the ones that
we have. It's not that difficult. It's a very simple point. Seth.
Speaker 9: Can you hear me? Hi, Jay, Hi, father, and an As.
I really appreciate both of you guys on you do.
I guess my question is.
Speaker 20: I'm coming from a Lutheran perspective, but I generally from
what I've from what I've seen in the Orthodoxy. I
was raised Baptist and I've just been kind of trying
to read the Church fathers more.
Speaker 4: My.
Speaker 20: I guess my question is, I don't know how to
reconcile certain things like I'm willing to conceive ninety nine
point like percent of the theological points like the ES
and senergystinctions.
Speaker 9: I think it makes the Philly oquay make no sense.
Speaker 1: And I think that is.
Speaker 9: I genuinely do. I agree with that more so. But
my contention is with something like.
Speaker 20: The Seventh Ecumenical Council binding the consciences.
Speaker 9: Of people to act to doing something that that could
be idolatry. And I'm not saying that.
Speaker 1: Is that is what it is, because I understand, but
anything could be idolatry, right, so reading the Bible could
be idolatry. So the fact that something could be abused
has nothing to do with whether it's a legitimate principle
that is binding. So if you read John Damascus's little
book Defense of the Holy Images and the book by St.
Theodore the Student Own the Holy icons both of those
are very short, small books. John Damascus's book focuses on
the philosophical side of iconography, and the Saint theoord of
the Studites book focuses on the crystological dimension of it.
Those two books I think solidify philosophically and dogmatically why
we would do it. And then the book I would.
Speaker 3: Recommend, actually don't have to read the book.
Speaker 1: Our friend Lewis made a documentary called Old Testament Worship
and Orthodox Christian Orthodox Worship in the Old Testament Orthodox
you Hata channel. It's a two hour hour and a
half documentary. That documentary is a summation of the Williams
and Anstall book, Hugh Wybery's book on the Byzantine Liturgy, and.
Speaker 3: Basically it's just demist I'm gonna pull it up, man, Okay.
Speaker 1: It's just demonstrating that the the liturgical worship in the
Orthodox Church is literally derived from the temple and synagogue service,
and because it's derived from that, it is a natural
outflowing of having uh, having images of natural outflow of that, and.
Speaker 9: That includes kissing and prostrating.
Speaker 1: Before absolutely the Israelies prostrate before the temple and before
the arc.
Speaker 20: Yeah yeah, yeah, I mean I'm definitely aware of that.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying is that it's a holistic thing.
So the the idolatry is something that's primarily and first
and foremost internal. It can manifest externally, but what constitutes
idolatry is not literally just the bowing, because we have
in scripture people bowing before Pharaoh, bowing before Joseph, bows
before Pharaoh, people prostrate before, bow before Enik andcuuse me
before Elijah. So it's the interior disposition to believe or
think that created things are divine or uncreated. That's what
Paul says idolatry is to ascribe to created things for
divine nature.
Speaker 20: In Act seventeen right, I visited an antiochid Orthodox church
with a friend recently, and I was I enjoyed all
of it, but there was the part where we got
in line to kiss the icons. And I got in
line and I was ready to do it, but then
there was like this one tiny part of me that said,
I need to be one hundred percent certain before I
participate in this, just in case I'm in the wrong,
Because I'm not opposed to other people doing it.
Speaker 9: My question is the binding of the conscience.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Luther had no Luther didn't have any
problem with this stuff, So I'm aware.
Speaker 9: And I'm not like a luther fanatic either.
Speaker 20: I joined the Lutheran Church in lieu of my Baptist
around because I said, okay.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I got it wrong. Well, you know I
have I have two talks on iconography and the principles
behind it. I have Lewis's documentary here pulled up. You
can watch that, and that would be what I recommend.
But those are great questions, and I understand you're not
in a position that any of us haven't already also
been in. I was Calvinist for many years, so I
totally understand. I had the same sort of hesitancies when
I was going from Calvinism to Catholicism. Remember the first
time I saw a relic, I.
Speaker 3: Was creeped out.
Speaker 1: But you know, after a while, it's not gonna be
a big deal to at all. But yeah, those are
the books I would check out. I got a few
more minutes here Inspire. What's up?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 21: Hey, j big fan.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to ask for some clarification.
Speaker 13: I got kind of a little fight YouTube comments section earlier,
and I was concused of strong your position and I
really didn't.
Speaker 4: Mean to I'm just ignorant.
Speaker 1: I guess what.
Speaker 4: Could you explain to me the.
Speaker 17: On the concept of logic in God like logic or
God being above logic?
Speaker 4: Can you re explain that?
Speaker 1: Right? So if you read Maximus, for example, he'll talk
about the principles of the created order, like mathematics, geometry, logic.
These are features and principles that are created now. They
reflect the divine mind, and they reflect the Divine mind
in terms of the uncreated low gie for those things.
But we do not equate the laws of logic with
God or with the divine mind. That's a Platonic position.
So for example, Plato taught that universals are essentially identical
to the ideal realm. We don't do that. Maximus says,
universals are created and they can perish. This is a
specific distinction to Platonism from our position. So when we
say that God is supra logical. It means that the Triad,
the Trinity, and the mode of existence that God has
is beyond anything in the created order. There are things
that God can do and show us in the created
order that are analogous or that reflect Him, but they're
always pale and limited.
Speaker 3: And that's part of our apathatic theology, is part of.
Speaker 1: The notion of divine transcendence, that there's nothing in the
created order that perfectly matches up to the unique mode
of being of the Trinity. And that's why a lot
of times you can see this very clearly when you
enter into debates with say Muslims, who will utilize the
logical problem of the Trinity. They utilize the LPT to
try to say that, well, logic and analytical philosophy dictates
that you can only count in one way or name
in one way.
Speaker 3: And we don't say that about the Trinity.
Speaker 1: We say that in terms of the Trinity, we're counting
both by division and by identity. You see, so you
cannot subject God to being defined by the categories of
the created order, because then what ends up happening is
you get people who say stuff like Muslims do or
like a Roman Catholic like or a Neoplatonist that if
God is absolutely simple outside of time and space, et cetera,
he can't be in time and space. It's a contradiction.
It's a logical contradiction. Or by the notion of Ariscitilian
identity or whatever. Oh, God can't be a triad. It's
a logical contradiction.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you. That cleared it up for me. Right.
Speaker 1: So what we're arguing is that no God is above logic,
and only in God could you ground the principles of logic.
That's a different position than a rationalist position, which says
something like God must submit to logic.
Speaker 4: Okay, I think that's where I was getting confused. I
like your analogy that used Jane, like if you were
to write an autobiography or if he wrote any or
created a piece of art, it comes from you and
it reflects who you are. But certainly you wouldn't say
it exhausts you. Yes, that there's a one to one correspondence,
that that's identical what you create and what reflects you
is identical to everything that you are. I always I
appreciate that you do that analogy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's I forgot about that.
Speaker 1: That's a helpful thing, right Like if I if I
write an autobiography, it expresses things about me, but it
does not exhaust me. I am more than the autobiography
about me. And you can say the same thing about
anything in the created order that reflects God or reflects
that divine mind. It's always going to be limited in
its scope. And even even logic itself will note that
there are certain things that are paradoxes and a lot
of that can't necessarily be solved, that don't necessarily contradict. Right,
So like the tortoise, What's the thing? From Lewis Carroll.
The tortoise and Achilles is an example of a logical
paradox that shows that sets are limited, Logic is limited,
propositions are limited. But even if they're limited and ultim
ultimately end up being self referential, they don't become contradicted. Yeah,
they don't become a contradiction just because they have these
limitations or become self referencing.
Speaker 3: And this plays into the Gurdell point.
Speaker 1: But if you go back to the just look up
the tortoise and Achilles and the logic paradox that Lewis
Carroll sets up. You can see that it is a paradox,
but it's not a contradiction. And I'm just using that
as an example from even within the created realm, even
within the domain of logic, there are paradoxes that occur
that are not contradictions. Is that correct? I mean, you
know logic better than me, father Deacon. Is that is
that correct to what I'm saying?
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, there's I mean, if you just break down
the etymology of paradox, there's like a tension, but it's
not a contract. I mean, contradictions are defined very specifically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a contradiction would be like, you know, denying a
fundamental thing, like, uh, the dog is not a dog, right,
so I'm denying the law of identity, right, that would
be a contradiction. And to say that God, byas very,
which is what we're told transcends logical categories, does not
mean that he is a contradiction or that he's irrational.
He is supra rational Thomas. So again, I mean for
the people who are fussing about iconography, like are you
ignorant of how the Jews worship?
Speaker 3: Do you not know they had images? Do you not
know they had images.
Speaker 1: All over the place, They had an altar, they had
an arc with angels, they had imagery all in the temple,
and do you know they prostrated before the arc and
the temple. You didn't know this? I mean you would
call this idolatry because of your Protestant presuppositions. So your
gnostic is your position. You think that idolatry is characterized
by merely bowing and prostrating when multiple people in the
Bible prostrate before other human beings, saints, patriarchs. You don't
know this, Jay Carino. If you're not going to come debate,
then then you can leave like it's this is not
the place for you know, what did the arc represent? Yeah? So,
I mean it defeats your purpose if they're reverencing things
that image Christ, just like an icon images Christ.
Speaker 4: So shouldn't you stop kissing your family members if you're
going to be consistent, because that's going to be idolatrous, right, Yeah, Well.
Speaker 1: When they dedicate, when they dedicate the temple, go read
I think it's a Chronicles first Cornlics twenty eight. I
think when they dedicate the temple, all of Israel prostrates
read both accounts, because there are two accounts of it.
Speaker 3: In the Books of Kings.
Speaker 1: All of Israel prostrates before Solomon and before the Ark
and before the Temple. So I guess they're all idolatrous.
Even though the cloud with glory cloud the Holy Spirit
comes down, they're all prostrated.
Speaker 3: I guess they're all idolaters. But you guys are just ignorant.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 1: Look, go watch the documentary that we have here. Christian
worship and the Old Testament. Everything that the Orthodox Church
does literally comes out of the Apostolic tradition from the
Jewish temple and synagogue service, except it's a Christianized versionwise Otherwise, again, guys, mods,
if these people don't come to debate, if they're just
here to spam, just boot these people. It's not a
vehicle for you to spam your Protestant stuff for three hours.
It's an open forum. Offer to come debate. Let's see
next Andrata.
Speaker 3: This will probably be the last one.
Speaker 1: I wan to remind you guys who had to show
sponsor who is chalk dot com the best in supplementation.
Head on over to chalk dot com and use a
promo code J forty four life to get forty four
of those off those great products that will help you
to become toxically masculine. We support toxic masculinity and Chalk
helps you to become toxically masculine. The Performance Stack is
great for guys. It's a great pre workout synergy product
product that they have. This includes a ton cut a
lee which boost test sauscerone. This includes the Action two
point zero which gives you more energy, and of course
the pre workout chad Mode, which is very strong. I
recommend taking small doses of chad Mode if you're going
to work out, or you will overheat and you'll lose it.
So head on over there to Chalk dot com. Thelink
is in the chat right there. C hoq dot com
promo code j A y four four l a f
E j A y four four l a f E.
That is a subscription thing. You don't have to do that.
If you want just the discount, do it j A
y forty JAY forty to get forty percent off that
Performance Stack. I know you're gonna like it. I utilize
Chalk on a daily basis, big fan, and they've been
the show sponsor now for two and a half three years.
So shout out to chalk dot com. We loove chalk
dot com andrat what's.
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 22: So I am a Catholic and I'm calling in to
kind of just ask the question about, uh, the Orthodox position.
Speaker 23: So I've heard one of the biggest Orthodox arguments that
I've heard for Orthodoxy is that they maintain tradition and
they do not change in the.
Speaker 22: Midst of societal change. But my question is, I don't
I think that some sort of change is necessary to
kind of encourage people to worship, like, for example, like
the church teach like, for example, the Catholic Church teaching
on the death penalty.
Speaker 5: Earlier in the.
Speaker 22: Church church's history they allow the death penalty, but now
they condemn it because now we have other ways of
treating criminals and punishing.
Speaker 1: Well, that just that just demonstra well, that just demonstrates
the fallacy a round Catholicism because it was previously argued
to be a principle of natural justice. If you read
the Catechism of Trent, that's how they argue the death penalty.
So what this actually shows is that the pope is
above even the natural law right.
Speaker 3: So I think that's a preposterous argument.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be mean to you, but if
the pope is above natural law and he can say
that the death penalty is quote against the Gospel, you
understand that that's not the argument that Francis makes. Francis
doesn't say that it's merely a brutal thing that needs
to be replaced with more humane means of imprisonment or whatever.
He says, it's actually against the Gospel.
Speaker 3: That's Francis's argumentation.
Speaker 1: That's way out of field from the Council of Trent
and the Catechism of Trent arguing that the death penalty
is a principle of natural justice. So I would argue that, no,
we do not need to change our morals and update
our morals, and the Romancalllic Church just demonstrates its contradictions.
By then you notice the double standard here, right, because
you guys will say that the Roman Catholic Church is
the guardian of faith and morals of the Apostolic deposit
But then it turns out, well, that can change when
it needs to. So it's sort of like you guys
allow yourselves the arbitrary ability to change whenever you want
it to. Sell it. But then you'll argue against changing
and trying to argue that your position is a maintainer
of tradition when it suits you.
Speaker 4: Well, the thing is is that you know the pope. Well, okay,
I will kind of see that for the sake of
argument that the.
Speaker 22: Pope perhaps made the wrong decision and calling it a
violation of the Gospel.
Speaker 5: But the kind of what I'm trying to get at
is not.
Speaker 4: Necessarily the changing of the moral law.
Speaker 22: But for example, the novus oidl and the changing of
the Latin Mass and how the church changes, like how
it leads the mass and things like that. I don't
necessarily see how that's like a bad thing to kind
of change how we conduct the mass in subtle ways.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I would say, you know what, if
you want that, go for it. I mean, if you
want clown mouses, you want the all the things that
attend the novasorto, the puppet masses, the guitar masses, hip
hop masses, go for it. My new approach to Roman
Catholicism is no longer to try to warn them or
talk them out of it, is just to encourage them,
because I feel like at this point I mean, if
you're really dead set on that, I say go for it.
Speaker 3: You're you're choosing your own curse, so have.
Speaker 1: Fun with that. Lex last one, if people don't have
the discernment at this point, then I just say go
for it. So yep, hey ja.
Speaker 4: So I am Baptist.
Speaker 8: But over the last few months you have basically all
my pre suppositions are just faded into mid air, followed
up on you know, your books, your suggestive books, and
your reading list.
Speaker 3: And that helped out a lot.
Speaker 8: But my question today is about order of theology. It's
something that you bring up in your videos and you
talk about how a lot of Protestants have an improper
order of theology, saying that they start from their soteriology.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, actually many of them, if they're Calvinists, will start
from the Divine Decree and then work to materialogy. Yeah.
Speaker 8: So I've noticed that's exactly right, and I think that's trying.
What I'm trying to get at here is you mentioned that,
like the Trinity is probably the first place to start,
and then Christology and then everything should come out from
the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, and it's not it's not accidental that the
history of the Church providentially did that very thing.
Speaker 4: Oh okay, all right.
Speaker 1: I mean the acumenical councils begin with nicea and constantin
uple one being Trinity, and you do Christ right, and
then the all the successive ecumenical councils, even the seventh
are all about Christology.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, That's what I was trying to get at,
is what principle do we use to properly find like
the right order of theology.
Speaker 4: So would you say it's like a historical Well, I.
Speaker 1: Think, providentially it's that. But I think just even in
terms of divine revelation, obviously God and His and the
incarnation are first. I just I think divine revelation presupposes
and reveals.
Speaker 8: That, okay, because it makes sense intuitive intuitively to me.
Speaker 1: Also, yeah, of.
Speaker 9: Course, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean when Jesus comes the majority, especially in the
Gospel of John, of his of his discussions are about
the relationship of him to the Father and the Spirit.
I mean, that's we've already seen that. When I lecture
through the totality of the Gospel of John, every chapter
of the Gospel of John is a has references to
the deedy of Christ and or the Trinity in every chapter.
So that's the locus of John the Theologian's emphasis.
Speaker 3: And uh, you know it's the most.
Speaker 1: Quote trinitarian of the books, the Gospels. So yeah, I
mean that the scriptures are our guide. Uh, that's where
we're gonna start our theology. Now, how does Thomas Aquinas
begin his theology? Oh, we've got five volumes of Zoomicundridge
and telays based around philosophical speculations about simplicity and blah
blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Where does John Damascus begin on the Orthodox faith?
Speaker 1: Trinity?
Speaker 3: First thing that he talks about on the Orthodox faith Trinity?
Speaker 4: Cool?
Speaker 1: All right, thank you very yeah man, thank you. Yeah,
I'm gonna have to run. Thank you guys. Great discussions today,
a lot of fun. Had some feisty, feisty Muslim talks.
The beginning use of one dollar you help me convert
from Islam. Muslims passed through Hell for certain amounts of time.
I've heard this. I've heard some of them say that
for like Christians and Jews, Hell is eternal, but for
some people it's temporal. I have heard this is a
verse in sur nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 3: Let's see you're asking, I'm not sure off top of
my head.
Speaker 1: Let's look it up nineteen seventy one. So for those
that are interested, I think Jamie, my wife is she's
going to be doing a livestream on something. I forget
what she says. I'm a conspiratoral I forget what Allah.
Let's see, we alla truly know best. We truly know
best who deserves the burning. There is none of you
who will not pass it.
Speaker 3: This is a decree.
Speaker 1: We will deliver those who were devout, leaving wrongdoers on
their knees. Yeah, I was. I was starting the Koran
again the other day from the beginning, and it's it's
interesting that it begins with eschatological things. So the Quran
kind of begins talking about the end of the world
and judgment and destruction. Sam Schmun has a great video,
by the way, pointing out how which one is it.
It's two, two and ten and eighty nine, twenty one
to twenty three, and then the attending Hadiith eighteen.
Speaker 3: Forty of Sahi Muslim.
Speaker 1: I think all of that when you read those three,
those two passages from the Kuran and then Hadith, they're
literally cribbed, especially the Hadith word for word from Matthew
twenty five thirty one to forty six. Now, if we
follow the logic of the Muslims who called in to
begin with Platonism, all the neoplatonisms they believe is not
from Plato and the Neoplatonists. So in the same way,
even though Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six
is centuries before the Quran and the Hagheith, h, no,
these are not cribbed. I mean, it's it's that silly, right,
I mean, obviously, if it's word for word cribbed from
Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six, and if
this identifies Jesus as God and Jesus as a law,
if Muslims are going to be consistent, then they have
to recognize Jesus as God. Let me pull up the
that was just something that popped in up that that's
not related to this verse, but to this section. That's
a separate argument. Let me find that because this is
actually a really good argument. Now, not every Muslim would't
necessarily go down this route, because they might take a
different route. Because let's see, how can I find that?
Let me find this This was a really strong argument
that Sam Chumun had. Let me find it. Won't take
a second. It's in my it's in my history. Here,
let's see. I got it pulled up on my phone.
I think. Let's see. Yeah, here it is.
Speaker 21: It's off of about luck, because that's what Jesus said
he's going to do when he comes to judge everyone,
including Mohammad.
Speaker 4: Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six.
Speaker 9: Matthew twenty five thirty one to thirty six. This is
Jesus speaking.
Speaker 21: If you want to read versus puils or he has
no doubt that Matthew is recording with Jesus.
Speaker 4: This is not big gasps, right yep.
Speaker 9: Now going to John John would be the cremation.
Speaker 21: This is no funeral service. Johnazen Fratthey twenty five thirty
one forty six.
Speaker 17: All right, Matthew, Chapter twenty five versus forty one forty six.
Speaker 5: I'll try this.
Speaker 1: Again, bro this one second. I'm trying to sho.
Speaker 4: I don't know what is about you and Hussey.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get this video. It's a really good
argument related to this topic.
Speaker 4: Here it is. It's thirty six.
Speaker 21: That's Jesus speaking if you want to read Versus us
or he has no doubt that nephew is recording with Jesus.
Speaker 4: It's not good Mass was read.
Speaker 3: Okay, there's the video.
Speaker 1: It's Sam Schumann with God logic heated Muslim panics after
Christian per Jesus is God? Uh from the ones I
listed there. All right, everybody, have a good night.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: You can also come watch Jamie do her live stream
on twentieth Century six six six ed it awesome. See
got