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