Speaker 1: It's a louder. I'm out.
Speaker 2: I'm moving outside right now. So I just had one
one statement and then.
Speaker 1: One question for you.
Speaker 2: I see a lot of the times when you go
on these debates or wherever you're going, that people want
to make the claim that you're mean or whatever. And
that was when I first started coming into Orthodoxy. I
realized that was something that I had even kind of
had the thought about you. And I think that it
comes from this Protestant Jesus that they give us, that
Jesus is all about being nice and and so like,
as I started reading into the Church Fathers and reading
into some of these things and even listening to you,
excuse me on a regular basis and realizing that a
lot of the low IQ stuff that you deal with
and everything like that, I think that it's just a
perspective change, and a lot of the times that it's
these people's view on the Jesus that they're giving with
Protestantism that is going.
Speaker 1: To make them kind of reject you.
Speaker 2: Because even for me, I used to kind of be like,
oh well, like if Jade Eyer's what Orthodoxy represents, I
don't really want to be a part of it. But
that was just my whole thing is you know this
because I haven't moved into New Age stuff, so I
was kind of like God is love man, and like
all that other kind of bullshit that you fall into
with that and then realizing later on and even you know,
like seeing you curse and stuff like that. It was
something that for me at the time was a stumbling block,
but it was almost like a an IQ barrier that
I had to get over, and once I was able
to get past that and actually do some reading, which
I actually really lacked myself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm actually way more tane than the Church Fathers
if you actually read them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know that. That's something I kind of came across,
and you.
Speaker 3: Know, just all like like Saint cyr Ol Jerusalem the
catechetical Lecture says hate all the heretics. He says they're idiots,
they're demonic, they're possessed their dogs. You know. Jerome says
even ten times worse though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so you know, I kind of just wanted
to start by apologizing to you, just because I'm recently
being received into the church and coming from that and
kind of saying that to people when I came.
Speaker 3: Into Well, whatever, I appreciate you. You're the first person
I think that's ever apologized for saying that I was mean,
And then I've never heard anybody has ever done that,
So that's funny.
Speaker 2: Well, I said it a lot behind your back, and
like coming into Orthodoxy, I really feel bad about that
because I would say it to other people as I
was coming into the church of you. But I was also,
to be fair to I was introduced to you by
a bunch of like genuine Ortho bros. Not like the
term that gets thrown around for us. But these guys
are two guys who had actually never even entered into
an Orthodox church, but they were arguing with me about
Orthodoxy and they hadn't read any of the books that
you read. They were just using a bunch of your
talking points without being able to actually dive into it.
So some of what I was projecting on you was then.
Speaker 3: If that makes sense, Yeah, so I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no problem.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've always seen my vantage point as coming
out of philosophy. In the rama, philosophy we debate all
the time, you know, even even in the two thousands,
it was pretty normal in the college setting. It's probably
not that way anymore because of all the woke stuff,
but it was pretty normal to even have debates with professors.
They were supportive of that. It was a much more
kind of freer you know, speak your mind, have your
ideas challenged, ethos, and that was the two thousands. I
think a lot of the gen Z are more coddled
and they don't like having their positions challenged, and they
think that, you know, their feelings getting hurt is in
some way like signifying the you know, I don't know,
like like if you you don't represent Jesus because you
challenge my worldview and it makes my fief it's just
weird to me. I don't know, like all of that
is hard to me.
Speaker 2: That it was I'm sorry, father speaking, but it was
my worldview being challenged and not having epistemic justification or
any justification. Rather for my worldview is just knowing it
and feeling it. And even like the arguments with tag
not really making sense to certain people, and it's because
they've never had to justify anything before. From that kind
of point of view, They've just been able to state
their arguments and never actually have to justify why their
arguments are what they are.
Speaker 3: Also, and I'm not.
Speaker 4: Saying this is you, but you did hit on a
few points. People react differently when they're challenged and unable
to justify. So one thing I'm not saying this is you,
but there's other groups out there that because they don't
know the material, they're insecure about their level of knowledge
of what they believe. Their beliefs are being challenged. The
easy way for a lot of people is to do
the kind of fake moral piety. And well, I can't engage,
you know, on philosophic and debate terms, so but what
I can do is say that you're not a good Christian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we should be praying. So there's a lot
of that going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, you know, to be fair, like
that was me at one point in time. You know,
it's been I was catechized for two years because my
wife decided to come in halfway through when I was
already in the process of getting ready to enter baptism,
and my wife came with me, so we went I
went through the Kadakisus with her as well. So through
all of that I grew a lot, and you know,
I had a really good catechisas so he was somebody
who went to seminary himself and very similar to Jay
in the philosophical realm and everything, and so like, as
I learned through somebody like that, I just realized how
fake my piety was and how little grounding I had
to stand on on a lot of things.
Speaker 4: But I want to make a public confession. When I
first sound j J, I didn't like you either.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I exposed you were all faking gay,
and so I understand that.
Speaker 4: But you know what's interesting, it's because exactly he said,
Jay was saying stuff that I actually didn't agree with.
They turned out to be right about and my worldview
because I was a you know, when I first came in,
I had, you know, some weird tomistic ideas and believed
in theistic evolution.
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, who's this guy saying I'm wrong?
Speaker 4: And so that is why I didn't like him, because
he actually was right and he was calling me out
on uh, you.
Speaker 3: Know the well personally I didn't know you.
Speaker 1: He was calling out the views and I took it.
I'm like, well, who's this guy? And then do you
mind if I asked a question?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 5: So the Council of.
Speaker 2: Jerusalem, the sixteen seventy two one is that a that's
a binding council for Orthodoxy?
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say it's normative. I mean, even if
it's even if we you know, squabble over whether it's quote,
you know, infallible or something like that, Like, it's pretty
much been received in the in the Orthodox world, So
I would say it's at least normative.
Speaker 2: On decrease six or like sometimes when you see the
church father speaking of us being guilty of original sin?
Are they just meaning that we're taking on the effects
of it? Is that what they mean by saying guilty
of it?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Sometimes guilt is used even by Paul to speak
of the entirety of the effects of it. But that
doesn't translate into individual personal guilt, which has always been
rejected in the East on the part of you know,
not accepting the august Anian perspective.
Speaker 2: Sorry, so saying that humanity is guilty and therefore even
that's why we baptize infants and stuff like that, some
of that is using like decrease sixteen, not exactly that language,
but by saying that by the guilt that we take on,
it's not a personal guilt for the sin, but it's
yet the effects.
Speaker 3: Right. This is why nobody believes that position anymore, not
even the Roman Catholic Church. The only people that believe
that are Lutherans and Calvinists. There's literally nobody else that believes.
Speaker 4: And think about if they were damned through a personal guilt,
why would the worthodox church wait forty days to baptize?
Speaker 1: Yeah, now that's point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you should also look up the liturgical prayers. This
is another good argument against this kind of low not
saying you're low tier, but the people that make this
position this argument are pretty usually pretty low tier. Like
when you look up the prayers for certain liturgical days,
I can look in the we have this in the
discord kind of saved, but there's various prayers that are
pretty clearly pointing out that that infants are not guilty
for what Adam did even though they receive the effects
of the sin. There's at least two liturgical prayers that
reference this. But even aside from that, once you get
into the anthropology that Saint Maximus lays down in terms
of the mode of willing and our own guilt being
something that we accrue through our personal actions, not from
our nature. The mistake that these people are making is
actually to collapse nature in person in anthropology. So they're
making kind of an inverse mistake like Roman Catholics and
you absolute divine simplicity proponents to make when they collapse
person into nature in the Godhead. They're doing the same
thing with collapsing person into nature and anthropology and thinking
that it's our nature that becomes guilty and not our
personal willing in action. So when you get up into
the six Econmenical Council and the theology of Saint Maximus,
his anthropology is really helpful in laying this out and
making sense of why we would only be guilty for
the actions that we will and not for our nature.
And this is why when you understand that all if
human nature is resurrected in terms of recapitulation on the
basis of Christ's action, the only way to be resurrected
is what Christ did. That means all men are resurrected
via their nature being resurrected, because Christ assumes universal human nature.
And if they were consistent with that, if they thought
that you were guilty by nature in Adam, then you
would then be led to the conclusion of universal salvation
because our whole nature is restored. But then they would
have to you know, then basically they would be in
the David Bentley Hert position. That's the line of reasoning
that he uses to get to this sort of universal's position.
But that's why Saint Maximus's theology is so crucial at
the Sixth Council is that what you accrue in terms
of virtues and vice can only be via your own
personal mode of willing. Even though will is a property
of nature, the mode of willing is personal, and that's
why you can only recapitulate the virtues by your own
willing and participation in grace. So that's why even though
we might not say that an infant is damned if
they die outside of baptism, we also don't necessarily say
that they are participating in theiosis. And that's why many
of the Eastern fathers speculate that God may do something
with him that we just don't understand. And even though
they're not participating in theosis, we don't know what that
might mean. So there might be I think Nissa says
something like there might be a natural state that they're
restored to, even if they're not participating in theosis like
the members of the church. But regardless, there's no real
consistent way to actually make sense of the damning of
infants other than to collapse the willing into the nature
and the guilt into the nature. But the problems that
emerge from saying that you're guilty by nature are so
much more immense than the difficulties of not knowing what
happens with an unbaptized infant. Even though the liturgical prayers
of the Church themselves also don't speak as if they're
damn They just speak as if we commend them to
God and we don't know what their fate is, but
we trust in God's mercy. Like if you adopt the
position that we're guilty by nature. They don't even understand
how difficult that is in terms of eschatology, in terms
of human anthropology, that it basically just destroys the whole
Orthodox ethos, But they're too stupid to know that. Chase,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 3: Are you so?
Speaker 1: Am I interrupting?
Speaker 3: I mean so pretty much anytime you talk it's for
me an interruption, But go ahead, Well, I was.
Speaker 6: You were in the middle of talking about mode of
will and then I got added to it. But it's fine.
You're not gonna understand this anyway. Probably want to call, well,
I a prior caller apologize for things that like they
had said about you.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to call it and can.
Speaker 7: I just apologize real quick?
Speaker 6: I guess thank you sologize for calling you a snaggle
toothed woodland swamp creature. I'm sorry for bought reporting all
your videos and posts on Twitter. I apologize for posting
your address on four Chan for a meet up.
Speaker 7: But I'm not done.
Speaker 3: Okay, please please go on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'll purchase don't forget that pro the jay dire
profile you put on Grinder.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the j dire profile that mean father and an
I is made and put on Grinder.
Speaker 3: Interesting that you guys are both together. That's interesting. You
guys are both together on Grinder. That's an interesting admission.
Speaker 6: Well, look, I just I don't wanted to say. You
guys are like making this a joke and it's I
had this. It's my heart's convicted. So I apologize for
for doing all those things within the last three days.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess I need to apologize for doing the
sorceress kg B. Dougan rituals that I did to flood
your basement because I think it worked.
Speaker 8: Yeah I did.
Speaker 6: I'm fair carpet right now, and it's it weighs so
much because it's so soaked.
Speaker 5: But you shouldn't remember.
Speaker 1: Do you remember?
Speaker 6: We were we were getting lunch in like I think
it was Montana, and we were walking out and there's
some purple hail card.
Speaker 1: Wait you go, I'm going to debate you into marrying her.
Speaker 3: Apparently who you married? Is that who you married? I
don't even know, no, But I.
Speaker 6: Just wanted to apologize for all those things that me
and father.
Speaker 1: And I did.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's okay, man, I forget I mentioned, and I
apologize for sending the spirits to flood your basement and
together we met. I'm gonna go ahead and burn that
voodoo doll. I'm gonna email Dugan right now to tell
them to stop doing the ritual because it's actually flooding
the basement. But bodies, by, what's up? Bodies? Something booties,
what's up? Bodies? Buddy's offa what's up? Man? I'm mute.
I don't understand the people that wait in line and
then never unmute. That's it's a weird one to me, Like, what,
what's the Maybe there's bots or something and I don't
get it. Thunder punch, what's up, dude, We've got a
Pokemon in here. I'm having fun over here today. What's up?
Speaker 9: Hey, Jay?
Speaker 7: Thanks for having me on one little again.
Speaker 1: I have a.
Speaker 10: Question if Father and Anius wants to weigh on this,
that'd be cool too. I was a guy that called
in a little bit ago said that I had visited
my first liturgy yesterday and the church father said something
a little peculiar to me.
Speaker 7: Again, this was like a Greek Orthodox thing.
Speaker 10: I'm Protestant background, so I'm not super sure on this,
but he.
Speaker 11: Said something about how catechhumans were welcome to partake in
the Eucharist. It just sounded a little weird to me
the way he worded it that he he made it
sound like, well, this is something we used to do
and we don't do it anymore, and uh, just.
Speaker 3: Some part or to depart. Did you hear the part
of the ligia where the catcumans depart?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 7: He said that, yeah, is as far as I'm aware,
is that it.
Speaker 11: Used to be the Catecumans would depart from the liturgy
or maybe you know, not take the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: No, there was that impression I got they would leave
the liturgy so category entirely. Okay, Yeah, Catecumans never.
Speaker 4: Took the Eucharist that section where say all catechums apart,
catacumbs depart that no catecumun remain.
Speaker 1: Let us faithful again and again in peace, pray to
the Lord. That's the point of the.
Speaker 4: Liturgy, because the Euchrist is being introduced that section of
the liturgy.
Speaker 1: The catacumbs actually departed from the building and weren't allowed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it sounds a little that sounds a little far
gone that. I don't think. I think Greeks would go
that far. What's up man, Will Will Wild Will?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just had a question.
Speaker 12: Do you think like the Midi from which trials were
like satanic panic back then, like like we had in
the eighties. And also have you heard how Jeffrey Dahmer
like may have not they may not have told us
everything about him correctly, and like he had connections to.
Speaker 13: The president, the vice president took his class there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've done whole podcast I've done whole podcasts yes,
I've done whole podcasts on that. I forgot what the
first question was, technician, what's up?
Speaker 14: Hello?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up? Dog?
Speaker 1: Hey man?
Speaker 15: I wanted to see what the Orthodox thought about dinosaurs, dude.
Speaker 3: Like, can you have them? Can you own them? Can
you eat them? Answer is yes, all the above, Thomas,
what's up? Dog? Here are the here's the damer podcast
right here. There's a few more. I here's one on
Henry Lee Lucas on a Sam podcast. Here's what we
did with Richard. I know I did at least four
or five of these. I don't know it's it only
always only shows like one or two though it's really annoying.
But I've done several. I did like five, I think
on on Serial Coach. What's up, Thomas, I'm mute, hey j.
Speaker 16: I posted that super chat earlier about Romans. So just
to give you some background, I'm currently a Roman Catholic,
technically an ordinary Catholic, and I have a friend who's Orthodox.
I've been listening to a lot of your stuff. I
listened to you and Father Ananias about coherentism and kind
of attacking classical foundationalism, and I found a lot of
it very insightful and kind of convincing.
Speaker 7: So I know you said you're not.
Speaker 16: Gay, but I was wondering if you could hold my
hand and kind of walk me through parts of Romans here,
just to kind of explain, because I know you guys
have the principle of the noose and that's kind of
novel to me, and I'm trying to just get through
the whole epistemology.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I mean again, like you know, in Romans one,
Paul several times mentions that it's men's hearts that are darkened,
like in verse twenty one, So he doesn't primarily locate
the issue in the intellect. And if you understand Roman
Catholics tomistic anthropology, man's a dual of body and soul
slash intellect. So why is Paul using this word heart,
which is from the Hebrew idea like David talks about
in the Psalms about his heart. It's just an assumption
that that means the intellect. Why well, because after Augustine
in the West, the whole anthropology of the West adopted
wholesale pretty much the idea of a body soul duality approach.
But Paul, have you ever noticed in you know the
Tessalonian's pulse's body, soul and spirit. Why does Paul use
a trichotomy approach when all the West after Augustine adopts
a dichotomy approach.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 16: And so when he says here his eternal power Deity
has been clearly perceived in the things that happened? Made?
Is that perception through the heart? And like, what's the
that's the sort of mechanism by which the gentile's hearts
are clearly perceiving God?
Speaker 3: How would you explay that every man has within his heart,
within his news, within his innermost being and inner testimony
to the one true God existing, and that is why
he is without excuse. So notice his passage is not
about intellectual syllogisms and causal chains. It's about moral guilt.
So tumism flips this into some intellectual problem when Paul's
whole point is that idolatry is a universal moral problem,
not a universal intellectual problem. In other words, the Roman Calgary, Oh,
they're just not reasoning properly. Right. If they were, if
Pagans were more like Aristotle, than they would sit around
and they would reason better and come to the right
conclusion that there's a single first cause. Paul doesn't say
anything about that. He says that they did not retain
the True God in their minds and God gave them
over to wickedness. So it's issues of moral corruption and
it's nothing to do with intellect other than that the
moral corruption darkens the intellect as an effect. So Roman
Catholics flip the anthropology of this whole chapter and actually
make it an intellectual reasoning problem, not a moral problem
of the heart. So in the romancality perspective, the problem
here is just that they need to like fix their algorithmic,
you know, causal chain reasoning, and then they would come
to the One True God as the cause. When Paul
is saying, no, they need to repent. It's a repentance issue,
not an intellectual IQ issue.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 16: And So if I'm going down the kind of epistemology,
because I'm like super under red on philosophy and everything,
what readings would you recommend to help clear that up
for me because I find it very convincing.
Speaker 3: Well, I would say the first place to start if
you wanted a direct contrast between the Orthodox position on
Romans one, and what we're talking about in the Tomistic
position would be Orthodox dogmatic theology by father steinilloy v I.
That whole book is about what I just said, and
it also gets into like critiquing the Latin Tomistic doctrine
of the Trinity and all the problems in the Trinity
view there. But I think you know, you could look
at I have a whole philosophy course that I did
some with a deacon. You could look at that. You
could look at W. J. Woods book on epistemology, which
is more of a Christian approach to pistemology. But that's
actually good for Roman Catholics as well, because a big
part of the thesis of Woods book is that your
morals affect your reasoning, and so there's no such thing
as like divorcing how you reason from the virtues. And
that's kind of the point of Romans won right. It's
like the Thomas are missing that the darkening of the
reasoning isn't primarily an intellectual problem. It's a moral heart problem.
And I would go so far as to say that
probably the whole totality of the Roman Calolic worldview and
system is face and is full of so many idolatrous,
weird creeps, and as we saw this very weak grinder gaze,
precisely because they don't have the solutions, they don't have
the actual things that help and heal. They think that
the papacy is the thing that will solve and help
and heal all these problems. And you'll notice right here
this guy who's I opened up Grinder at the local
SSPX chapel and I saw three guys from the church
were there. One of them was an ultra server. We
are not returning to tradition dog. Now people say, oh,
he's lying, Well, he actually got that s guy says
in his profile at least he had it up yesterday,
that he suffers from same sexual attraction. So here's a
Roman Catholic tradcat guy at the SSPX chapel admitting that
he's a real person who is saying he suffers from
same sex attraction and he's finding the same people on
Grinder his SSPX chapel. I don't find this hard to
believe at all, because when I was a trad cat
back in the two thousands, late twenty's, early twenty tens, uh,
there were multiple people at the SSPX Chapel that eventually
came out as gay. So it doesn't surprise me at all.
I mean, trycats are just again super gay, So not
every single one of them, but it's very very well known,
it's very prominent amongst them. So again, what is Paul
saying romans want? Isn't the irony here that Romans one
talks about all this gayness in Roums one and then
the Traycats are full of gayness and they're missing the
point of RUMs one. But he's zapha.
Speaker 1: Great song, great song?
Speaker 3: What so.
Speaker 1: zapA that you don't know?
Speaker 4: No, I don't place Steely Dam.
Speaker 3: That's Boomer rug, dude, I don't only boomer rock on
the Michael McDonald.
Speaker 1: It's a great song. Oh and they make up. I
found they make a beer too.
Speaker 3: Steely Dan beer. I know I'm joking. What's up man?
That guy just can't get on here. Anyone disagree? You
got ahead of line? Please write your hand if you disagree.
John Adams, what's up man? I know you don't disagree,
or maybe you do, maybe you want to have a fighter.
Speaker 17: There we go, buddy, Buddy saw the is the Steely
Dan song.
Speaker 7: And Michael McDonald did not.
Speaker 1: Sting on that many Steely Dan songs. Interesting, How does
Jaye not know that?
Speaker 3: I know who Steely Dan is because my dad listened
to Steely Dan. I just never got into them.
Speaker 17: That's actually a funny song because it's like a rock
and roll throwback song, but about Buddhism. That I think
that was the point of it was to be kind
of a boogie woogie rock and roll song about Buddhism
earlier Judeo Christian. Uh, there's there's a good there's an
interesting book with a particular take on it. It's called Americanism,
the Fourth Great Western Religion, and so what it makes it's.
Speaker 1: A very small book, very thin book.
Speaker 17: It's probably like you know, two bucks online or something,
but it's written by a Jewish guy, and basically what
he says in there is that Americanism is a development
out of It's like a secular version of Zionism and
Christianity mixed into a Judeo Christian religion called Americanism.
Speaker 7: Because after you.
Speaker 3: Know, actually, actually if you read the GM Davis book
that Father Hears printed about Antichrist, he has the exact
same analysis.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with that one.
Speaker 3: Too.
Speaker 17: The Yeah, but basically after Woodrow Wilson introduces the idea
of Americanism.
Speaker 3: Uh huh.
Speaker 17: This is it's basically the combination of Judeo and Christian
secular morals that makes up Americanism as a secular religion
to be you know, distributed to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: Right, And so that's really so.
Speaker 17: After Wilson is kind of the personification of combining Judeo
Christian and it's got like Puritanical ties to the you know,
because it's it's all tied into the Puritans coming here
thinking they were the children of Israel.
Speaker 3: That's exactly what Davis says in that chapter as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just wanted.
Speaker 3: To add that. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you, John.
We had a couple of super jazz I want to
read here before I forget them. Jacob Kabe five dollars.
None of my friends think that Sam might is appealing
enough to drive to New Orleans for skank Fest. I
don't get people's sense of humor. It's during normy. Well,
you know, Sam is a is a unique acquired taste.
I know, the first time I saw M. D. Skits,
I didn't really get it, and It was the same
with Tim and Erica. The first time I saw Tim
and Erica, I was like, I don't understand what and
then I, oh, I see what they're doing right, And
it was the same with MD. But I will say
that like Sam's stand up is a lot more kind
of normy friendly. It's a lot more of a I mean,
it's it's unique, but it's a lot more it's a
lot less abstract than the rest of this sort of
MD stuff. So if you, if you are a fan
of stand up, I think you would definitely find his
stand up appealing. I don't know if he's doing stand
up at skank Fest or if it's just panels or what.
I'm not really familiar with how that works. But sneggelbast
I became member for six months. As recent as last year,
I saw people wearing a mask, even if they're alone
in their car with the windows up. I have to
shake my head. I still see mask. I still see
a lot of gen X and boomers and black No.
Speaker 4: I got to tell you about if you haven't figured
this out, this is crazy. So my brother was on
a he's on a discord sound engineer thing, and so anyways, Uh,
they're talking about AI and music, whether.
Speaker 1: That you're about and stuff like this.
Speaker 4: And this person comes in and says, well AI is racist,
who can't use it? And the guy who owns the
thing says, look, we're not getting into politics. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Person eventually had to get booted.
Speaker 4: So my brother looks them up on Instagram and then
they have all these mess on all their you know, pictures,
and then he starts doing a deep dive and finding
other people, and then he finds.
Speaker 1: Out there's a whole group.
Speaker 4: It's usually a tide with like uh, the protesters, but
particularly the gays.
Speaker 1: As person was part of an LGBTQ. It's actually a uniform.
They're not.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, it's like a signaling part of your gang.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a whole counterculture asthetic now that they actually
wear these masks, not for hell reason, but that's.
Speaker 3: That makes sense though, that makes sense. All right, guys,
hold on one second. I gotta go t T I'm
gonna let the ad. We do have a couple sponsors,
and we'll let the ad play. We'll go to the
ladies room, uh and try to wiggle out my snaggletooth
that you guys have hurt my feelings about I'll be
right back.
Speaker 9: I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick.
Speaker 3: And if you're listening on Twitter.
Speaker 9: Assuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily,
they don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great
about that. Do not listen any further unless you are
an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there
could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma male pre
workout powder for sigmas only. It is garant tea to
empower you to dominate your coworkers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble,
or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from
the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually
not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula.
Experience the pure goodness of chad mode. Colored with organic
blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace
the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which
will get your mind going and pump you up to
the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all
clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the
kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering
a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire
your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode
will make you more dominant in your daily life, So
proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one chad
Mode must drink into water.
Speaker 3: Where it comes to the chad Mode browser. Here je
much philosophy. Now he just got just a little bit
more time. As we let the ads play, I want
to say so we support our sponsors. One. I think
this is a miss, Miss Janet.
Speaker 18: I really think is for us because a philosophy course
they give you kind of some useless information that American
isn't the fourth Great Western lays out there over twelve weeks,
dozens and dozens of hours.
Speaker 19: Notatresentation of this, we got invaded with research that takes
to have a co India, and it was just the
origins of philosophys and interesting day the different ways to
look at it over time.
Speaker 3: I don't mind all that has been brought about to
what we have.
Speaker 18: And I'm so not racist that Indian After churchilosophy on
the objective problem, logic and reason side in and over,
I go get philosophy that is irrational as we eat
day by day, I think we should bring racism.
Speaker 3: Back and then whatever worthified and spread out, probably a
lot of under arm, but that's okay.
Speaker 18: It takes socialist ideas where you become the property in action.
Speaker 3: You need to be able to stand in your own ground.
Speaker 18: It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because it's
a method of fine truth when you get down to.
Speaker 3: It, all right, not deems sure we are back? We
are back? Why would I eat at Indian retaurant? Are
ten dollars? And says wait where to go? I'm done
with penal substitutionary atonement, but don't oh don oc ten dollars.
Good evening, Jay I've been watching for a while. Do
you have any recommendations on books and texts about modern
day Judaism and its later developments. I mean, well, there's
the Jesus and the Talmud book that came out from
one of the universities. I forget which one. I read
the couple chapters in that. I mean, there's a Boyarin's
book that's pretty good that we used in the Daniel.
Just look up the introduction to the Daniel Hoikikichu debate.
And I list some of the decent books. But if
you mean like the development of reform Judaism or Kabbala,
that kind of stuff, they don't really deal a lot
with that. But if you wanted to read like the
history of Kabbala, maybe from any book by Gersham Sholem
would be pretty good. But beyond that, I'm not sure
about later developed doctrines. But those are probably the ones
that I would be familiar with. I think the one
is the Talmant. One is by Schaeffer, and it's from Yeah,
Peter Schaeffer, which University, Princeton, So Princeton University Press. Jesus
and the Talmut is pretty good. I've read a few
chapters of that and Daniel Boyarn's book we use for
several debates Borderlines. Was this one that was relevant for
the Muslim debates Bodies, But that's not really about his
oracle Judaism. Oh show show them, Yeah, yeah, major trends
in Jewish mysticism. I have. Let's see origin. I think
I read all the origins of the Kabbala. I just
bought his book on Jacob Frank, but it's small. I
haven't read it yet. Oh, and then there's this one.
I read a bunch of this one, which is a
gigantic text on kabbala. That one's pretty good. So if
if that's but I don't really have a I don't know,
like the history of modern I read Jared Diamond's book
History of the Jews, and that would probably chart the
more historical developments. But that's all I can think of.
Carb five dollars. Did you watch Tucker's recent interview with
the Orthodox nun and palistin Now? I saw that he
did that, but I didn't realize. I didn't know if
she was. I assumed she was Orthodox because of the
Greek name, but I know she was Roman Catholic or what.
But I've not watched it. I just saw that it
went up today, so I don't know exactly. I mean,
I would assume I would agree with her and appreciate
Tucker giving a voice to these these kinds of positions
and views. David, what's up man? Do you have Judaism
Strange Gods by Hoffmann? Yes? I have the book. I've
read some chapters of it. It's it's it's very hard.
I mean, I'm not saying the information isn't accurate, but
it's very hard to read because it's like a thousand
pages and it's just like, I mean, after a while,
if you read a lot of Talmud texts, you just
kind of like, all right, I get the point, Like
this is just this it's crazy. What's the name of
the Jacob Frank book? Let me grab it over here
on the show. If I haven't read yet, I just
got it.
Speaker 5: Can you many express.
Speaker 3: Where is it at?
Speaker 14: Jamie?
Speaker 5: Can you make the expressible?
Speaker 14: No?
Speaker 3: I can't find it.
Speaker 1: Oh here it is? Where is it?
Speaker 3: Well? Easier said than done. I don't know where it is.
I might have taken it back to Tennessee. I don't
see it. But oh wait, no, there it is.
Speaker 20: Oh, I don't know where it is. Maybe Jamie took
it out of the w or something.
Speaker 3: We actually have another whole library in here now, so
it's kind of confusing. I'll show which book it is.
So it's a little short book. It's a little red book. Yeah,
this is it. From Francism to Jacobinism. So I didn't
I've never even heard of this. I was like, Oh,
that looks really interesting. I gotta get that. So let's
see what he said about the Sabbatians. What's up David
on you?
Speaker 5: Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 3: What's on your man?
Speaker 21: So I want to take an Islamic position, but I'm Christian.
I just want to kind of go over the Islamic
dilemma because I've heard of counter arguments that makes sense.
Speaker 3: Interesting, I've never heard of counter argument that makes sense.
But go ahead.
Speaker 21: So you argue that the Koran says that the Bible,
that the Bible is confirmed and is basically a revelation
that we should accept.
Speaker 3: Right. Yeah, in the early Muslims of the first second
generation said the same thing too, outside of.
Speaker 21: The kron But the Koran says in chapter two, verse
seventy nine, vote to those who write the scripture with
their own hands. Then they say this is from a
lot in order to purchase, in order to purchase.
Speaker 3: What we've already covered this, that's not what it says.
It's talking about two which number.
Speaker 7: Chapter two, verse seventy nine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we've covered We've covered this like fifty times. So
it's talking about the people who are literate. If you
go back to seventy eight, do you think the people
who are literate can change the texts?
Speaker 7: They can change the oral.
Speaker 3: Exactly, so they don't so they don't rewrite it exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 21: And how about Kurhn Chapter three, verse seventy one, old
people with the scripture?
Speaker 7: Why do you mix the truth with falsehood and conceal
the truth?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, okay, where does that say that they're
changing the text?
Speaker 7: You mix the truth with falsehood?
Speaker 3: That doesn't say they're changing the text. It's talking about
the people of the book, the people of the scripture,
which could be Jews and Christians mm hm.
Speaker 7: And they're mixing what truth with fulsehood?
Speaker 3: It doesn't say does that text say they're changing the
text or is that what you're saying.
Speaker 7: When you change the text, do you mix truth with falsehood?
Speaker 3: It doesn't say they change the text.
Speaker 7: It implies that, No, it doesn't.
Speaker 3: The other passages say that Allah's word can't be changed, right,
how does how does Allah's word not be changed?
Speaker 7: In what sense?
Speaker 3: Well, it doesn't matter because it says to go to
the Torah and the Gospel. How do you do that?
If it's been changed?
Speaker 7: It does matter?
Speaker 3: How do you do how do you go to the tour?
How do you go to the Torah and the Gospel?
If it's been changed?
Speaker 7: That means God's ultimate message can be changed?
Speaker 3: The protected how do you go? Exactly? Thank you? That's
the point. Yeah, it's not changed, is protected. So the
Tora and the Gospel are not changed. Oh, you just
said it means that it's protected and not changed. Then
you said two seconds later it's.
Speaker 7: Changed changing what sense protected? In what sense protected?
Speaker 3: What do you understand that? The argument is that the
Qoran itself contradicts itself, because the Quran is saying that
you need to go to these prior texts. Later Muslims
say that the prior texts are corrupted, even though the
Koran itself doesn't say that. The Koran actually says to
go back to the earlier texts.
Speaker 21: Yeah, so when you're talking about the so do you
know that the Muslims believing in the death.
Speaker 3: They have tradition of course, So you don't have been
in here. We've actually we've actually dealt with all of
these arguments, probably fifty times. So of course I don't
know what the heaths are, even though I have debated
all the top Muslims relevant the argument, How is any
of that relevant to this?
Speaker 21: Because when when someone argued Muslim argues against you and
the only sites of the Bible.
Speaker 3: What does that have to do with this? What does
that have to do That has nothing to do with
this point? It says to go to the Torah and
the Gospel.
Speaker 21: Right because the hadith complete the king.
Speaker 3: To do with what? It doesn't the hotdis themselves contradict.
Speaker 7: They can they can't be separated.
Speaker 3: What does that have to do with this argument? Why
are you bringing in the hadiths when the Qoran itself
says to go to the prior revelation. I know what
hadiths are, I'll debated all the top Muslims. That has
nothing to do with this.
Speaker 7: You know what the hadiths are. You know they're inseparable.
Speaker 3: So what all that means. All that shows me is
that the Quran and the hadiths all contradict the fact
that they believe in. Howdith has nothing to do with
proving this argument correct.
Speaker 7: So the Hadith says that the Bible.
Speaker 3: Is corrupted, right, All that tells me is that the
Koran and Hadiths contradict. Okay, so when how do I
go to the wisdom of the Torah and the Gospel
if it's corrupted?
Speaker 7: What do you mean, how do you go to wisdom
of the tour in the Bible of is corrupted?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Muslims would say that.
Speaker 21: You so it's going to be circular right eventually, thank.
Speaker 3: You exactly, And that's why it fails. So you admitted
it's circular. Hence why you guys are idiots? Ulix? What's up?
And by the way, he's not. He's a Muslim acting
like he's not. This is the thing that the Muslims
are doing now where they did this whole You'll notice
they'll do this a lot on God logic streams. They've
been doing this for the last year. They will call
in saying that they're Christians or they're catech humans and
they just want to ask questions and it's a trick
because they're actually Muslims. What's up, man, I'm you, Hey, Jerry,
how's it going good.
Speaker 22: I'm sorry you get that question literally up your color.
Have you heard of a book called View of the Hebrews?
Speaker 3: Nope?
Speaker 22: All right, So it's a book from the nineteenth century
from an author named Ethan Smith, and it's basically an
American revivalist postulation about the Native Americans being descended from
the lost tribes of Israel.
Speaker 3: So it's just Mormon nonsense.
Speaker 22: Yeah, so this is more evidence on the pile that
Mormonism is stealing, you know, American revivalist culture.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, Yeah, Actually, I didn't realize there was a
prior argument from evangelicals in America that that was the case.
And ers, what's up? By the way, for those that
are interested, we have a video where we went through
I think all of the passages in the Qur'an about
going back to prior revelation.
Speaker 1: Hi Krrie, hi Ja.
Speaker 7: I've been a viewer for a while.
Speaker 23: So I'm a new adult heading into college. I was
asking if i'd get a little bit of advice about
what so I haven't been into theology or philosophy, and over,
you know, four years, and it's pretty intimidating my world
to come into. I was asking if you could recommend
me like books that I could read or that you know,
a way I could get back into it, because it.
Speaker 7: Is really intimidating.
Speaker 3: What exactly about what.
Speaker 23: Maybe orthodox Orthodox philosophy, Orthodox ofistemology, i'll difference from Catholicism.
Speaker 3: Well, I would start with Laski's book Mystical Theology of
the Eastern Church, doctor Phillip Schard's book Greek East, Latin West,
and then go to my recommended reading on my website.
So let me find this. There's a video I made
where I went through all of the texts in the
Quran talking about prior revelation right here, all the Koran
texts that confirm it, the Bible, thirty minutes of it
right here. So here's the full reputation of what that
kid was arguing, what's up, Apples, what's up dude? What up?
Speaker 14: Bro?
Speaker 3: Flame mess? Yeah, we read that one car, but we
read that one dan vicious five dollars. I like to
trigger democrats and progressive by saying Dogma is one of
the greatest profile pro life films ever created. That's funny.
I have seen dogma. What's up, man, I'm mute apples.
Speaker 24: I think the tradcasts are bad than the Protestants or
what bagger than the.
Speaker 1: Rotistance gayer gayer.
Speaker 25: Uh probably, I'm just trying to be somewhere super gay.
Speaker 1: So I was just getting your opinion.
Speaker 3: Well, split the split the week, you know, go to
the Revival church Evangelical church on Wednesdays and then go
to the Latin Mouse on Sundays.
Speaker 7: That's awesome, Hey, man, advice for someone.
Speaker 1: What if I'm too stupid to crock orthodoxy?
Speaker 3: I don't think it's anything to do with intellect, So
what's the stupid part? What do you mean?
Speaker 7: What if I'm too slow to grasp the theology?
Speaker 14: Uh?
Speaker 3: Well, then I would just not make theology my focus.
I would just focus on other aspects of the faith,
like lives of saints or I don't know, history of
the church, or iconography and aesthetics. Those are other domains
that don't focus on high tier technical theology terms.
Speaker 24: I think it's like sometimes I think I resonate more
emotionally than intellectually. Okay, so sometimes it's hard to.
Speaker 25: Have a change of mind based off intellect Yeah, it's
like it feels like that there's not there's no amount
of knowledge that I can gain, so like unlock some
kind of revelation. It's like a it feels like it's
like an endless pursuit.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, again, maybe you know, maybe approaching God philosophically
and intellectually just isn't like your vibe, and go with
more of a promote approach of attending the liturgy. And
you know, not that you shouldn't if you're into the
intellectual side of it, but you know, just focus on
other spects. You don't have to read Lasky and Florofsky
and all these people. Not everybody has the same proclivities
or gifts.
Speaker 26: Owen, what's up man, Well yop, heyj I.
Speaker 27: Was just wondering about the First Council in Jerusalem that
Ax talks about.
Speaker 5: Is that, like, am I kind of stupid.
Speaker 27: For thinking that's a good reputation for people's supremacy.
Speaker 3: I think ultimately it does refute it. The problem is
just that it's used a lot in Roman Catholics have
a lot of kind of pat responses to what they're
gonna say if you bring it up. So even though Ultimately, yes,
I do think it isn't the vatican one view. They're
just gonna say something like, yeah, well, you know, Peter
still has a key role and uh, you know, it
develops over time like a seed growing into a tree.
And I mean they're just gonna have a lot of
power respon.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 28: I also kind of had a question about it about
whether or not it's possible to really have like a
Christian republic or if like republican forms of government and
democracies themselves are corrosive to Christianity.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't guess it's impossible, but usually when
it's tried, it just doesn't seem to work really well.
But I mean it's I guess it's always theoretically possible.
I haven't overlooked your super chat, dude, chill out, man.
There's a lot of superchats. Let me try to get
to them all. And there's two different ways that they
come in apple Seed. No, we read that one Troy
Orthodox five dollars. I'm asking for my friend Norm, do
you own a doghouse? I'm assuming that's a Norm McDonald joke.
I don't own a dog or a doghouse, for one,
because we travel a lot, so I don't have the
ability to have a dog. But I did tell Jamie
that eventually I could get her a dog, but we
had to figure out how to make that at work.
Dennis sends sixty looks like Hebrew currency. I don't know.
Sheckls God, bless you Jay, and bless your chat. Appreciate that, man,
appreciate that. I'm trying to find your super chat. Dude,
I don't know what you're Can you just relax good,
I'm scrolling back. I gonna find it. Burden ten dollars
unblocked me on Twitter. I said you were mean. I
apologize Weeper's icon. Okay, I'll try to remember to do that.
Vanilla seven seventeen ten dollars Unitarian mate pivoted to Christ
and says, no one sees God but the Son. So
Gideon saw an angel, But the text says that Yahweh
turned his face to Gideon, So it's that doesn't That
doesn't work If you can't say that Gideon was just
hanging out with Michael the arch angel. He says, Revelation
twenty two sixteen is a checkmate. How could that be
a checkmate? Let's see, let's steal man. The argument.
Speaker 5: Steal man.
Speaker 3: Revelation twenty two sixteen. I Jesus sent my Angel to
testify to these things in the churches. I am the
root of offspring of David. So the fact that Jesus
says he sent a messenger, the messenger is John. You
got again. People are so stupid. I don't know why
they can't understand this. They they think that the word
angel only refers to like Michael and Gabriel in Your
Guardian Angel. It's just the word that means messenger, dude.
So the content is going to determine what kind of
a messenger it is. The messenger of the Book of
Revelation is the apostle John, and the angels of the
seven Churches can also be the bishops of the seven churches.
They're also messengers. And there's also angels that are angel messengers.
So there's nothing about Revelation twenty two sixteen that somehow
proves that Jesus never appears in the Old Testament. It's
just a created angelic being. I mean, this is so dumb,
and I don't understand why people keep having a problem
with this. It's just like the Musli I guess there's
a lot. I mean again, I don't mean to make
it all iq I know it's not, but like I
think with a lot of these Adiq people man like
these Muslims, these Pakistanis and these these people and these
other like they they're just never going to understand these
kinds of distinctions. And I guess this was the whole
point of that. You know, how would you feel if
you hadn't had breakfast?
Speaker 14: Me?
Speaker 3: I mean, can we look at the word goat or kid?
I mean the word kid? Do you slow people understand
that a kid isn't always a goat. Sometimes it's a
human child. And so the contact and the intentionality of
the author is going to determine whether we're talking about
a small human child or a goat. But it's the
same word. Is that? Okay? Are we understanding this? Grade
school children? Brody Leerman five dollars? I'm doing my first
stet of open mic tonight. Wish me luck well? She
see we got these people in the audience. They're already
beating me. I don't have open mic night because it's
a damn black club and I'm gonna get beat up
if I go and do my stand up there comedy
zone got converted because they started serving fried onions and
blossoms and all of the black people sort of coming in.
Now it's a black comedy club. But good luck, Brody,
we do support you, all right. Let me I'm trying
to find your super check. You said I missed it.
Jony ten dollars, Jay, I love you man. Have you
made a video of the Jehovah's witness contection connection to
the CIA? I didn't make a video on it, but
we've done countless videos where we talked about intelligence agencies
utilizing religions and cults, including toes, witnesses, and scientology. Absolutely. Yeah,
we've mentioned that probably. I mean again, I don't have
a single video on that subject, but I bet we've
mentioned it forty times in ten years of podcast. Let's
see here. J mel twenty dollars. Thank you for defining
the Beatsivic vision. Does it come out of Augustine? Actually? Yes,
Augustine is one of the first to state the Beatzivi vision.
He says it in the City of God. We've covered
that when we lecture through the City of God. Did
the Catholics infer it from other Enlightenment writings? No, I
didn't everything do the Enlightenment. The beatific vision doctrine has
stated clearly in Augustine and City of God. I think
he played. I think he states it in other places too.
Maybe on the Trinity a quinness kind of builds on
it solidifies it, that the intellect is saciated by seeing
the divine essence. I mean, that's just kind of what
I mean. It's it's dogma in Rome, like it's in
Densinger as its own entry beatific Vision, but it's actually not.
It's not in Denzinger until the Middle Ages. I want
to say, like John the twenty second or something. It's
it's pretty late in Denzinger. Friar Ze, what's up, dude? O? Hey,
let's find the Denzinger. It'll come up pretty quick. What's up, man?
I'm friars A.
Speaker 1: Hello. Can you know what I mean? Hello? I remember
if you remember I called and all I tuned in
one time about asking if you did personal calls a
few weeks ago?
Speaker 7: Okay, Oh, I mean it is not.
Speaker 29: But I've like a thousand questions, but I guess the
one I want to ask is more personal.
Speaker 1: How does how do you? How does one? How does
it work? Being like who you are, like quote unquote
maybe famous or you know, whatever word you want to use.
Speaker 4: Within Orthodoxy, Like do you like have to like check
in with your parish priests?
Speaker 1: Do they like like, I'm not trying to get in
your business. I'm just genuinely wondering how like it works.
I know you've been doing stuff, you know, long before Orthodoxy,
so I'm curious just how it maybe works. You know
what I'm saying, because.
Speaker 13: I know I saw someone where you like said you
gave your discord to your parish folks.
Speaker 3: So I'm just think I didn't get my discord any
parish folks, so I'm not I gave it over to
Fathered again, and I should have time for it. Yeah,
I mean my handler, my priest is my handler, and
he's directly under Dugan, and Dugan's directly under Putin. So
Putin basically sends out the directives. It gets trickles down
to Uh to Dugan, and then that trickles down to
my priest and then my priest. Basically he lives over
in the basement underneath me, and whenever he's ready, he's
got a little a little horn that he talks into
and there's a pipe that comes up into my bedroom
and basically he tells me what to do on pretty much.
I mean it's not like minutes a minute, it's more
like every fifteen minutes. He basically gives me the directive.
So it's pretty much total control. But you know, it's
a life, it's a living. Let's see, it was John
the twenty second, but I got to fund I'm trying
to find the first entry. I want to say. I
don't know why this is coming up. It's benedictu's datus.
It says Danzinger nine oh four, but when you go here,
it's not there, which is weird. So let's try nine
oh four.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: This is two different numbering systems, that's why. So it's
let's say Benedict this days. I was right, though it
is John the twenty second. Now it's not excuse me,
Benedict the twelfth be a tyfic vision in the last days.
Here we go, there you go Denzinger five thirty, Dogma,
you see the divine essence in the escaton right there? Dusan,
what's up, dog I'm still looking for your question about
Sir Joe five or eight A's high IQ is not
halal bro exactly. I think it's kind of a requirement.
You gotta be low iq. I don't see any questions
about the patriarch, So I don't know what you're having
a meltdown about. I'm going back. Maybe I just missed it.
Let me scroll back steam aleven five dollars. In Hebrew,
the word allah is a curse and an oak. Muslims
and Arab Christians worship cursed oak trees. I don't know
what that means, the word allah. I think you're making
a joke. Surely, right, Bulgarian three dollars? This must be it.
What do you think of Patriarch Bartholomew talking about World
Council of Religions for Peace in twenty twenty five. I
mean it's as bad as anything bar the Pope for
INSTIs in Vatican Tuesday. I mean I've been critiquing and
calling out Bartholomew for a long time. Burden, I'm an
orthodoxed catecumen. We had an interaction that was silly, unblock me.
I want to call you, okay, weeper's icon dousan. What's
up man? I'm mute man, barely what's up?
Speaker 5: Id? Because I'm an Orthodox Christian. I had a question
about praying for these people.
Speaker 1: Can they be used for salvation?
Speaker 30: Uh?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean we can pray for the dead, but
if I mean, if they died self consciously in wickedness,
which we don't know right, it is probably not going
to save them. So if they are wicked and they
die wicked, they're not going to be saved because we
pray for them. But we don't know people's final state
and all that, so you know, we can pray for them.
Monitor what's up man? What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 3: J Hey, hey?
Speaker 24: I was watching Nick Flintes recently and someone asked.
Speaker 4: About you and he said he liked you and would
do a collab.
Speaker 14: So when are you gonna.
Speaker 1: Get that set up?
Speaker 3: Well, there was a kind of collab in that he
was just on the Sam Hide Show, which I wrote for.
But nobody has reached out to me yet.
Speaker 1: Okay, I hope it happens.
Speaker 3: Thank you anything else on your mind?
Speaker 1: No, thanks for what you do?
Speaker 3: Extreme what's up.
Speaker 1: Whom?
Speaker 13: I had a couple of quick questions. One, do you
believe in cryptids? Have you ever read the Hammer of
which is or heard of it? And what are your
thoughts on the medieval witch trials and where wolf trials
of Europe.
Speaker 3: I'm open minded about cryptids. I think that there's probably
you know, demonic spirits and entities or something. Probably I
can't prove that with any like hardcore evidence. I think
probably a lot of the medieval trials were probably bullshit.
I have read Hamberg Witches. There's a lot of silly
stuff in there, got a lot of superstitious stuff. But
that's about all I know about that. Lord. I love cryptids, though,
but I don't know what's going on. Lord Casper Swift,
what's up?
Speaker 14: Man?
Speaker 3: Speaking of I forgot we were gonna we were gonna
do a a stream on land between the lakes and
the dog man well whatever he is, I forgot about
doing that. That one. That's a fun one, Lord Casper.
I'm here, dude, What is the logic behind waiting in
line and then not unmuting? I don't understand what? What's
what do people get out of that?
Speaker 14: Like?
Speaker 31: What?
Speaker 3: Why? I'm mystified by this, Jason, what's up, dude? I
hope this is the black guy that says, white boy,
what's that?
Speaker 5: White boy?
Speaker 3: Remember him? The guy that makes like infinite profiles?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir, so, I'm what the dot Christian.
Speaker 5: I've been wanting to speak the team for a while.
Speaker 1: I forgot a lot of my questions.
Speaker 31: But my parish really pushes that the Calistos where the
Orthodox Way book is a it's that it's a good book,
and I've heard negative things about him personally, with him
being like an ecumenist. I just wanted to know what
your thoughts are were about his writings.
Speaker 3: The worst part of that book is that it kind
of hints at universalism in one section, and then there's
a Nestorian Protestant statement about Jesus being damned on the cross,
which is false, and then beyond that, towards the end
of his life he softened up and seemed to be
pro gay. So I do not ever recommend where books. Aaron,
what's up? Man? Yo?
Speaker 1: Hey? Can you hear me? Hey?
Speaker 14: Today your day has finally come.
Speaker 1: You were about to get debunked finally.
Speaker 3: No, see, now you got me all hyped up. I
was ready to get smashed.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 32: I just got a quick question for you. Have you
ever encountered any type of King James only ism?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: So, I kind of grew up in.
Speaker 14: This and.
Speaker 32: It's kind of recently looked into it a little bit
more and realized it is, you know, cultish sort of.
Speaker 7: Do you have any advice for.
Speaker 32: I guess I should give some backstory here, But my
dad is actually my pastor, and yeah.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 32: I don't really know how to approach him about this
and say like, hey, we're going to disagree that here
without you know, like.
Speaker 3: You have any well, I would just not I would.
You know, you're never going to convince your dad through
debate and argumentation because he's there's just a dynamic that's,
you know, authority versus those under authority. So the best
way to convince your dad is for him to see
that if you become Orthodox, that it impacts your life
in a positive, profound way. So he sees you mature,
he sees you become a man, he sees you, you know,
establish a family, you know, have your own business, be
faithful and stable, and a change in you. That's the
best way to convert and influence your family. It's not
going to be through debating and you know, arguing about
the Philly oquay over you know, Thanksgiving dinner, and none
of that's going to work. The only time I would
say is that if they do ask you questions, at
that point, it's good to say, hey, yeah, dad, here's
a really good book on orthodoxy. I recommend reading this.
So that's how I would approach that. Otherwise it's just
not it's just not worth trying to argue with with
your dad. And you know, the KJV only route crowd
is is a difficult one because they're usually suit like
I'm not talking about your dad in particular, but like
it's very dunning Krueger to where like they don't even
realize how dumb the stuff they believe is, and the
more you try to kind of refute it, the more
they double down, triple down. So I would actually just say,
maybe it's a tough one with us because it's like
a cult. I mean, I would say, you know, if
he if he's not willing to question it or consider
the possibility of being wrong, and it's even worse if
he's a pastor, you might just have to just leave
it alone and just try to love him to death.
It's really the only thing I could think of. Honestly,
try to be the best son that you can be.
That's probably your best route. But I feel, you, man,
I mean, tain't nothing ten dollars. Everybody should watch Chase's
debate with Vegan Gains on jimbob channel. It's pretty entertaining. Yeah,
I would like to check that out. That sounds super funny.
I didn't even know that was happening. I probably would
have postponed this stream. So they're not mad thinking I
was trying to steal the audience or whatever. I didn't
know they were doing that. But that sounds pretty funny.
But I mean, I don't think anybody's expecting Vegan Gains
to offer very much. Does he still do the same
name the tree? I mean, are people still vegan? That
seems like this has died out. Remember when Tristana was
doing live streams and you know, this is like twenty nineteen.
It's like the height of veganism on YouTube, and I
don't even see anything vegan. I don't even know there's
still vegan YouTubers. Is it even a thing? Somebody was
saying that it's so bad now that like Vegan Gains
just does his own like OnlyFans or whatever. I'm not joking,
Like he actually does his of and that because like
the whole vegan YouTube world died. That's what I thought
was going on. So whenever I hear like, oh that's
twice straight up twenty eighteen and here the day Vegan gains,
remember him, um making sure I didn't missing the super
chest because there was quite a few. I think I
got them all there. Yeah, I got that one, got
that one, got that one. Don't you dare miss the
super Chi bust down, Jubilee one dollar. Your shades can
hide all the tears in your eyes, but not your
underskin mole on your eyebrow, white boy? Oh got me?
Look at that a mole right there. That's a pretty
devastating cut down. Might have to call it a night.
And that's why I wear the glasses so you guys
can't see me crying. Because it's like, are people not
even good at cutdowns anymore? Remember in the back in
the day, dude, Like in the eighties and the nineties,
cutdowns were just savage, dude. They would just like cut
to the bone. But like, you have a mole on
your eyebrow, that's the best you got, Dude. That's weak.
It's weak as hell, all right, It's up and for him,
anybody wants to call in, I've still got some energy.
I'm still here. I'm still standing hit request to speak.
These guys have already been on. I feel like I'm
just gonna get more questions of stuff that we've already
kind of dealt with. No offense to those dudes. I
love you. I love you guys, you very much. Not
hating on you. I love you. It's called a you anymore. Exactly, Hello,
Cindy Crawford, exactly e diva atism five dollars. Should migrant
populations who convert return to their countries of origin? I
think they should return, regardless of the conversion or not.
Conversion has nothing to do with him. Like, they should
just go back. That's what I think. Carb five dollars.
Shout out to your godfather, Dean Arnold. He has great
friends from college with my father in law who is
now a priest, who brought him into the Orthodox Church.
Well that's crazy. It's an interesting round about it, Seim.
I want to call in. Who hasn't called in? Okay,
so these dudes, no offense to you, dudes, I love you,
but you've already called in. I want haters and debaters.
That got to issue. We only got fifty second. Remember
the other night, it was crazy. We had one hundred.
Now we had two hundred and fifty people in here,
and nobody would nobody would call in. That was pretty
that was pretty wide. And now we got sixty people.
And it's the same three dudes that have already called in. Owen,
We'll go to this dude. What's up? Still stand? Hey, Jay?
Speaker 5: Have you heard of Michael Jones?
Speaker 3: Of course?
Speaker 14: Okay, So then like.
Speaker 27: If I talked if I said, like, you've heard about
his stuff about like the horror movies and stuff about
vampires and syphilis and all that.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know about every one of his theories.
I don't what is his name about vampires and syphilists.
This isn't new. This is a new one to me.
Speaker 14: I said.
Speaker 27: That, I thought you would find it interesting because of
your like.
Speaker 3: Are they are they fighting the low boss? Vampires starts with.
Speaker 7: The low both Well, when he's not talking.
Speaker 27: About the Jews or the logos, he writes about horror
movies and the like they're a horror.
Speaker 1: Itself and analyzes it.
Speaker 3: I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So with vampires, he.
Speaker 27: Said he was reading about Graham Stoker and found out
that Bram Stoker had.
Speaker 5: Actually contracted Syphlis.
Speaker 27: This is before penicillin, and that the whole vampire thing
was basically a Catharsis story for Europe around syphilis, and
that that the whole thing with like the guy Harker
when he's there with those female vampires or whatever, he.
Speaker 1: Like, has sex with them.
Speaker 27: Then he goes back to England and then Mina, which
for the undercurrent is that Mina is like an innocent
victim of syphilis because she starts going crazy and stuff,
which is what happened to be there.
Speaker 3: That is an interesting thesis. I never thought about that.
I didn't know that. That's that's fascinating. Oh thanks, Yeah, Well,
beware of Tom Cruise, the you know him and Brad
Pitt trying to bite on your neck. You're probably going
to get the you know, get the gay. So watch out, spook.
The spooky talk about Anne Rice. I'll talk about interview
with the vampire. I'm talking about right on that neck
boy getting that gay syphilis. What's up, man, I'm you
I hey, Jake.
Speaker 33: I'm wondering about your take on Iran and Savak and
the British involvement in the Iotolis rule. I'm mostly curious about,
like what the key factor is that's keeping Iran under
the stranglehold of Britain. I'm also curious as to like
why it seems to like kind of contradict some of
the current narratives even like some of the deeper level
narratives about what's going on with like the geopolitical connections
in the world, like Russia and China and Iran. That
alliance doesn't really seem to make sense to me, especially
with you know what I know about Iran's connection with
the British.
Speaker 7: I'm just I don't know what's going on, and I was.
Speaker 3: Wondering if she had. I mean, I've done several talks
on the history of it that I mean, here's the
clips video that just went up today seven hours ago
on the covert ties between Iran and the CIA, and
I've done lectures on the history of British intelligence and
the relationship to it. But I don't, I mean, other
than what I've talked about in those videos, I don't
know what else to say. Jeremy, what's up. I'm still
stan who brought the Eye of Tolis to power. And
here's the video of me talking about I tell us
come to power with the aid of the British. I mean,
I don't think that Britain necessarily totally controls Iran. What's
on your mind?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 34: So I just was learning that Thomas believe in predestination,
and I guess I just actually went a good one
of my best friends. He has a Catholic friend and
he just introduced us to which I think that would
get along. And I was just curious, is that is
the predestination in the Thomas view the official Catholic UH doctrine?
Speaker 3: And if so, I guess we're no. I mean, as
a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics can believe in molinisms. While
Res's position, you can believe in the Thomas position. You
can have an Augustinian position. They allow a dispute and
debate on that topic. Okay, thank you, stay stand Hamilton.
What's up? Name? By the way? Uh? These two.
Speaker 1: J E. W.
Speaker 3: Baiting Jesuits, Sam Hid obviously a Jesuit nick Off, obviously
a Jesuit, are in the CIA. They're mission is to
filment the rise of the Jesuit controlled right wing, ultimately
a monarchy and pro inquisition tridentine Catholic fascism. So here's
what we got from this wacko Protestant to which I'm
assuming this is Pinesapp. I think pinesp says the Society
of Jesus sends us regards. Oh got smoked, to which
I said, welcome to Layer one. Of the Illuminati enormies,
the Nephelin Bafomet bloodlines, Data Rectolians who control the Tibetan
Atlantis Merchant Masonic Muselage Masters are the ones that actually
control the Jesuits, who controlled the jew who control the world,
and we send our regards welcome to Layer one. Normis Hamilton,
I'm mute. What's up man?
Speaker 35: Hey, J big fan. Thanks for me on. You're doing
a good job out there. We all love you. I'm
a big Sam hid fan as well. And my question
is have you had any discussion with Sam about religion,
because he seems like he's kind of making a turn
into kind of making some public statements that.
Speaker 1: He might be a believer.
Speaker 3: We had a lengthy discussion about his video game that
he's been creating, because he is putting Christian themes and
elements into his sort of sci fi multiverse video game
that he's been working on for a long time. We
touched on it a little bit when I was on PGL,
but we haven't had much more than that. So, I mean,
he did say in a podcast recently he does personally
believe in Jesus, but I don't know if that means
he's attending a church or what. So we haven't really
engaged in that conversation beyond those two instances in the past.
But yeah, I keep keep praying for Sam. I certainly
have been. John David, what's up? Atism? No, we did that.
I thought I missed one. Hold on, let's see Vanilla.
No we did that. Ain't on? Uh oh you missed
my super Roast chat a minute ago. No, I read it.
You said I have a mole. That was pretty hardcore. Dude.
I'm just still recovering because, man, you start talking about
my moles. Dude, that's hard. It's hard. I'm gonna be honest,
it's hard. John David, what's up?
Speaker 7: Many day?
Speaker 15: Appreciate what you do for the community and for the church.
Speaker 3: Go to question for you community organizer like Obama? Remember
that community organizers.
Speaker 15: I came out of a of a of a cult.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe like nine months ago.
Speaker 3: And what kind we love our cults? Yeah, So I'm
working on starting all I got, so I need, I
need all the info and the deets I can get.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So, I mean it's not a sell. What's the point, right? Like?
Speaker 15: Yeah, they weren't too much into sex in this one.
It's called the Local Churches or the the Lord's Recovery.
Speaker 1: Have you heard of that one?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 15: So it was started by Witness Lead. He was a
prodigy of Watchman in China. Have you heard of Watchman?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Yeah, No Christian lives and he.
Speaker 15: Was heavily influenced by someone called Emmy Barber and she
was a dispensationalist. He took a lot of inspiration from
John Nelson Darby. They're super big into all of that
and their view, probably one of the most fundamental views
is that the church is one city, one church.
Speaker 7: Have you heard of that?
Speaker 3: Have not? Yeah?
Speaker 15: So in the New Testament, you see Paul use the
descriptor for the for the people that he's speaking to
in his epistle, Uh, you know, the church in Philippi,
the Church in Ethesus, the Church and Colossy. And then
you see in Revelation when Jesus uh addresses John, you.
Speaker 1: Know, give these to the give these letters.
Speaker 15: I think give these letters to the seven churches, right,
I think he uses the term local church. And so
they're very dogmatic about how God's only right recognizes the
church as one city meeting under that city's name, and
of course they take full authority over that and then
just kick everyone else out of that picture.
Speaker 14: So if you were.
Speaker 15: To begin to combat someone giving you that that argument
that you know in scripture we only see the church
is being described this way, then why would we ascribe
the church another way other than the worldwide church, which.
Speaker 3: Churches describe both ways. So for example, you know in
Matthew sixteen when Jesus establishes the church and he talks
to Peter, and then in Matthew eighteen, when the same
thing has said to the whole college of the Apostles
when they meet in Acts fifteen at the Jerusalem Council,
that is the Apostolic College, which is the twelve foundation
stones in the Book of Revelation of that one city.
So the city, in terms of the imagery of the
Book of Revelation, is an entire building, an entire edifice.
And for example, in Peter's Epistles, Peter says you are
a holy priesthood, a Royal Chosen People, a holy Nation,
et cetera, ascribing the promises to the nation state of Israel,
to the universal Church. Those epistles are called the Catholic
epistles because they're not ascribed to any one church. Right,
So Peter and John's epistles are written to many churches
as far as we know, hence the term Catholic epistles.
So the College of the Apostles is the foundation stones
of the New Jerusalem. The Book of Relation again says
that each foundation stone has the name of an apostle
on it and it's one vast building. So the cult
here is basically saying that because some of the letters
are written to certain churches, there is therefore only local churches.
But that's not true, right, It's a false either or
fallacy because it's of both. And yeah, there are local churches,
but they're also called one universal Catholicos or total Church,
or the entire body of Christ throughout the world. And
again go back to the Old Testament, when we have
the promises to you know, the patriarchs. The promises to
Abraham are that all the nations will be blessed in
the seed of the Messiah and In Galatians three, Paul
says that that seed is all the people baptized into Christ.
So that seed is the priesthood and is the nation,
and is thus not only local, but it is local.
Speaker 15: Okay, great, thank you for answering that. You can ask
another YEP. One of their Bedrock teachings comes directly from
Watchman Knee.
Speaker 1: He basically made this.
Speaker 15: Three volume series called The Spiritual Man, and within that
series he basically takes.
Speaker 7: From Jesse Penn Lewis.
Speaker 32: Who was a dispensationalist mystic, and.
Speaker 15: Presents basically the on I don't know if I'm saying
this is greatly the ontology of man, describing man as
three parts, so tripart type view.
Speaker 1: And so you have the body.
Speaker 15: The biology and all its parts that are materially observable.
Speaker 7: Then you have the soul to.
Speaker 1: Comprise of the mind, emotion, and will.
Speaker 15: And then the spirit, which they believe is comprised of
the conscience, the intuition.
Speaker 7: And fellowship.
Speaker 15: And my question is what would the orthodox view of
man be?
Speaker 1: Was he two parts? Three parts?
Speaker 15: And then if there are multiple parts, what are within
those parts?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well this is a little more complex. So what
I would say is to go into this domain, it
helps to really understand Orthodox Christology. And Orthodox Christology is
something that is not easy because it's formulated over many
ecumenical councils, so you actually have to get up into
like the Sixth Council before you get a kind of
a crystallized total picture of Christology. But there are places
that you can kind of start and get the overview.
So we do believe in a kind of a trichotomy body, soul,
and spirit, and for us that's the news or the heart,
but that wouldn't translate into all these sort of arbitrary
categories that you're saying Watchman Knee has about the makeup
of the person. So what I would say is, if
you were wanting to start, I would begin with John
Damascus's book on the Orthodox Faith. I have a lecture
series where I work through that whole book and he
will give you more of a basic kind of outline
of Orthodox anthropology within that systematic theology, and then as
you get a little bit deeper, you can get into
what the Orthodox doctrine or the news is. But I
wouldn't worry too much about that if you're new to
this stuff. I would focus on kind of learning the
basics of you know, Orthodox systematic theology from a book
like Palma Zinsky's book Orthodox Dogmatics, and maybe read that
along with John Damascus, Saint John Mascus is on the
Orthodox faith, and then maybe then kind of branch into
Saint Maximus the Confessor, who will go deeper into what
you're talking about, with specificity about what's the actual quote
parts of the soul or something like that. So just
wouldn't get too heavy into that if you're if you're
starting out, understand you have questions about combating Watchman need
but yeah, just begin with these more basic things and
with you know, something like John Damascus's works, and then
that'll come eventually. It's just I wouldn't immediately get into
the news doctrine. This is interesting though, that Watchman apparently
had a close connection to campus crusade, which is closely
connected to the Pentagon that was detailed in.
Speaker 1: F.
Speaker 3: William Ingdall's book Lost hedgem On. For the first that
was kind of a surprise for me. Now again, people
lose their minds when I start talking about this. Oh,
you're saying everybody in this in this campuship state is
and steel you no I'm not saying that. I'm saying
that the Pentagon, the military, the deep State, the State Department,
they view these institutions in these organizations as tools for
soft power. So it does not mean that everybody in
these institutions is some agent or some operative. In fact,
most of people in these are too stupid to even
know that or ever figure that out. They'll never They're
never going to figure out that campus crusade is a
military Pentagon form of seft power. They're never going to
understand that. So we're talking to people who very few
of them will actually get this. And no, we're not schizophrenic, okay,
Like it's a form of soft power. Look up soft power,
Joseph Knight. We've covered this famous essay, this famous work
from him. It's twenty years old, thirty years old. But
it's not surprising though that Watchman NI had this relationship
because things are beginning to make sense. And by the way,
this actually ties into Peter Gilquist and the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which,
if you don't know, was the early phase of people
converting to Orthodoxy that came in under the Antiochians back
in the day in the early eighties. But Watchman Ni.
I don't. I haven't looked into this, but my first
inclination is this is probably a Western intelligence utilized influence
operation in China. Now that doesn't mean that the Chinese
government is good, because I'm saying that this is happening.
This is just the reality of geopolitics. And as we
pointed out for many years, which no one else points out,
we're literally one of the only channels out here that
talks about this and points this out. Shout out to
Rachel for writing a really excellent essay some years ago
about NGO's think tanks and foundations trying to influence and
change religion. But we've also highlighted the intelligence apparatus's use
of missionaries for many, many years, especially throughout the Cold War,
but even way earlier than the Cold War. My inclination,
as I see that's probably what's going on here because Waschman.
Nie was persecuted and opposed communism in China. And you
guys know, I'm not pro communist. I'm just telling you
the reality of the situation that from the vantage point
of the CIA in the State Department, they would see
this as a very useful tool of soft power, or
perhaps even covert espionage, right, missionaries that make great spies.
That's probably what's going on here. And here's the wor
worst part about this. The worst part is not even
what's watchman me working for the OSS or CIA. No,
that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that,
like this guy that called endpointed out, these things can
very easily transition into being cults. So I've never heard
of this organization. The local churches is very By the way,
have you noticed that lately? We've had a lot of guys.
But basically every time I do a stream, somebody calls
in who was in a cult? Which is good. That
means people are leaving these idiotic, crazy cults. But it's
just like every day there's like, what is this cult?
What did this is crazy? What is this one heard?
I never heard of this? So this one, though, is dispensationalists.
That's crazy, A dispensationalist local church's cult. And what let's
see what the connection is to Peter Gilquist and the
Orthodox Evangelical Orthodox Church, which was a made up thing.
It's kind of like this was like kind of like
Doug Wilson back in the day where they're like moving
gradually towards Patristic stuff, but they still have all this
evangelical stuff going on. And then eventually they were received
under the Antiochians, and they became the big church down
in Nashville, the one that I first visited back in
two thousand and seven eight sat Ignatius in Franklin, Tennessee,
outside Nashville. But let's see what this connection is. In
nineteen sixty nine, Campus Crusade lot launched what would become
Christian World Liberation Front at Berkeley. I guarantee you that's
a World Anti Communist League CIA State Department thing. In
an attempt to reach young people in the counterculture. Jack Sparks,
who was a former stats professor at Penn State and
a Campus Crusade staff member, became the dominant figure in
CWLF throughout the nineteen seventies. Sparks and Braun, who knew
each other through the CCC, gave talks at the CWLF
gatherings against witness lee in the local churches to stem
the loss of the members to that local church in Berkeley. Braun,
who had a bitter split with Gene Edwards, left this
group and joined with Sparks and the other former Crusade
leaders to establish New Covenant Apostolic Order where with themselves
as the new Apostles. Oh my gosh. In nineteen seventy nine,
six of these original seven New Covenant Appostolic Order apostles
appointed themselves bishops of the newly formed Evangelical Orthodox Church.
Isn't this funny too? Because it's kind of the exact
same progress and movement that we've seen people like Doug
Wilson and James Jordan do, where they move more and
more towards a kind of high Church Anglican Is type position,
and then they just could sort of create, oh, where
this where the actual new Apostolic Church, the new Apostolic
TALC Church. This is crazy, but I will give I
mean props to the Evangelic Orthodox Church for at least
recognizing that this was silly and eventually just saying, okay,
we got to become Orthodox. In nineteen seventy four, they
founded a subsidiary cult counter cult ministry called Spiritual Counterfeit Project.
This is confusing, blah blah blah. In nineteen seventy six,
Peter Gilquist, who's the famous convert to Orthodox, he presiding
in Sao became the head of Thomas Nelson Publishers, also
in Nashville, the Bible publisher. The first book was Mind
Benders by Jack Sparks. They blamed Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Okay,
is this who is Witness Lee? I'm confused? No, is
this the mystic the dispensational mystic? I think this is
the mystic guy? Yes, Plymouth Brethren. Wow, this is crazy. Okay,
so Witness Lee. These Chinese dudes are just like taking
the Watchmen and witness Is that how Chinese names work?
Like you just name yourself after like your function. My
name is YouTuber YouTuber dire. Just name yourself your function. Uh?
Where are we at? This is Jonestown responding to the
demand for counter cult publications. After Jones Town, the books
were published. Blah blah blah. Innervarsity Press published the book next.
All right, I'm confused. How are we getting to the
cult out of all this legal stuff? Where's the cult?
Long story short? Just avoid all this evangelical nonsense, Like
what even is all this stuff? Watch a nonsense? Now
we're getting to Christian Research Institute. What this is Hank
Cannigraf stuff?
Speaker 14: Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah? So now all the evangelical anti cult people are
fighting with the Watchman Knee spinoff cult deification. So witness
Lee began to use the term deification. That's interesting. He
got this from Ethanacious. By the way, you know this
has happened with Francis Chan too, right, Francis Chan has
like suddenly decided he's his own made up Orthodox thing.
This is a weird thing that like Protestant Evangelical people
end up doing where they like, they won't become Orthodox,
they just move more and more to kind of Orthodox
and then create their own thing. Right, Like Francis Chan
is saying, oh, I believe in the real presence now,
and like as if you just kind of do it
and it happens and it has nothing to do with
like Apostolic succession. It's like what. But also people overlook that,
I mean a lot of this stuff isn't even.
Speaker 9: Francis Chen see by Willis's and the Eucharist, Hello to
you friends, I'm Joseph de nich.
Speaker 3: To fellowship and the Lord's Supper.
Speaker 1: They devoted themselves.
Speaker 3: Again, a lot of people just don't even understand the
angle of the Pentagon and the State Department having direct
connections and relationships with a lot of these giant evangelical organizations, corporations,
and movements, and I would say that's definitely probably what's
going on here. Was this a monitored Do you want
to come back and mention any of this stuff? Because
this is a fascinating rabbit hole. I haven't really gone down.
I mute. I'm mute, man, what's up? Help us out here?
Monitor immune? You're the guy in this cult?
Speaker 14: Right?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yo? I guess you can't hear me? Parhesia.
Is this Benny Wills, slowboy, whitebird, two dollars raid from hotel?
Shout out to everybody from hotel Parhesia. What's up?
Speaker 23: Man?
Speaker 3: You want to talk?
Speaker 1: I'm you, hey, man, how are you?
Speaker 3: I've got a yeah.
Speaker 36: It's not really a debate, it's more of a question,
I guess, sort of from your perspective as a Christian.
So I'm someone who's sort of in opposition to the
Abrahamic religions and.
Speaker 1: In the sphees that I mixing.
Speaker 36: The largest pushback that we receive is not so much
about theology. It's about ethnicity of Jesus. And I find
that sort of pretty odd as someone who's semi familiar
with the texts that this is the angle that sort
of being approached from. And I just sort of wondered
if you had a little bit of insight as to
why you think that that might be like a bit
of a resurgence at the moment.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 3: Who's I don't understand what who's pushing back on this?
What are you talking about? Sorry?
Speaker 36: The Abrahamic religions I'm in opposition to. And when I
get into discussion about these sorts of topics, it's not
so much the actual scripture that is being argued about.
The Apologists generally come from an angle of this is
a ethnically European ideology and it's an ancestral faith, which
I sort of think is very clearly not not the case.
And I thought, there's someone who's in the Christian world
a bit more than I am.
Speaker 1: Have you got anything.
Speaker 3: I've never heard anybody. I've never heard anybody in the
Orthodox Church think that Christianity is a European ethnic religion.
I've never heard that.
Speaker 36: It's actually a surprisingly.
Speaker 7: Common thing.
Speaker 36: That the have you heard of the White Jesus theory?
Speaker 3: I mean, I know that there's Christian identity groups, and
there's British Israelite groups, but they're very tiny fraction movements.
I mean, maybe.
Speaker 1: It's fine if if you're not sort of familiar with it.
Speaker 36: I just thought, you know, you're more in that world
sort than I am, and I thought, maybe this is
something that you're maybe semi familiar with and might be
able to shed a little bit of light.
Speaker 1: On that for me.
Speaker 36: But it's perfectly fine.
Speaker 3: You know, you can't be.
Speaker 36: Over it every topic obviously, so I just thought, you know,
your knowledge, will you do this day in day out?
Speaker 3: Right? So, I mean, Jesus is a descendant of Abraham
and his senate of David to fulfill the promises, so
obviously he's a Hebrew person. He's not a white European person.
But I've never heard anybody who isn't like just crazy
or in a cult think that Jesus was a white European.
That's kind of retarded.
Speaker 36: Yeah, that's sort of my understanding of it too, because again,
it was a requirement of the prophecy fulfillment to be
from that direct line, and to me at least, it's
sort of quite explicit about that and not even really
leading room for interpretation or whatnot.
Speaker 7: So that's kind of how I.
Speaker 3: Well, I think there is a there is a rise
in the resurgence of like neopagan movements, and you know,
the European Right, the European you know, dissident right, the
New Right, Like a lot of these movements might be
tempted with trying to, you know, claim that Jesus was
some sort of a you know, white European or they
might be delving into British Israelite stuff. But I mean, again,
it's it's very minor numbers of people, don't I can't
imagine that really, I mean, I mean, the dominant forms
of Protestant Catholic Christianity in Europe definitely wouldn't hold to that.
So it would have to be kind of minority movements.
Monitor what's up. Maybe there's like a reaction against black
Hebrew Israelites or something like that. I don't know what's up.
Speaker 37: Monitor, Hey, I was just wondering if you'd ever run
across any evidence that the Peace Corps was like CIA
and filtrated because.
Speaker 3: They're well, they have a supposed statement that if you
go into the CIA, they will not hire you in
the Peace Corps and you're not supposed to go from
the Peace Corps to the CIA, but that Andrew Bustamante
guy says, well, after I spent several years in the
Peace Corps, immediately went into the CIA. So obviously that
can be bypassed, even if on the vantage point part
of the of the the Peace Corps they don't want
people from the CIA. I feel sure that at some
point there have been I'm sure people in the CIA
in the Peace Corps.
Speaker 37: Yeah, I guess I was just wondering if you're aware
of any like sort of relatively well.
Speaker 3: Known Well, and Andrew Bustamante is an example of a
person who was in the Peace Corps and then violated
the promise to not go into the CIA and it
directly went into the CIA after.
Speaker 37: Yeah, I guess, I don't mean like just personnel, but
like any known operations or so, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, but I mean
I think red red Cross is another class that you know,
CIA covered to Okay, the USA, I d was used
as well for many years.
Speaker 37: Because I read that too, that it was supposed to
be like you know, streamed to not have people in
the CIA, and I know, I think it was created
by JFK. It was like very anti CIA, obviously so,
but but it seemed like like, you know, they're sending
a bunch of Americans to foreign countries under the guys.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not sure actually by that JFK was actually
anti CA, because if you read quickly, he has a
whole section where he talks about that during that time,
what they started doing was trying to It was actually
under JFK that they started trying to do a lot
of these CIA things under the cover of NGO's think
tanks and foundations, So that actually began not under Reagan,
but under JFK. It really ramped up under Reagan though.
Speaker 37: Okay, and then there's another random, unrelated question. I've never
heard you talk about like the Shroud, but I'm wondering
what you're given.
Speaker 1: A on that.
Speaker 3: I've never found it very convincing. I don't care. If
you want to believe in the Shrowd, that's up to you.
I've been to the Shroud. You know, Orthodox people are
free to believe in it.
Speaker 5: Why don't you find it convincing to me?
Speaker 3: It's just an odd line of argument, like like that's like,
first of all, I don't understand what it would I mean,
I believe in relics, but I don't understand what this
would prove that a baron or duke in the eleven
hundreds found a cloth and there's a bearded dude, And
I mean, it's just to me, it's a very it's
a whole bunch of leaps of non sequiturs and it's
just a It's just to me, it's just a silly
line of like evidentials argumentation, like if I'm gonna believe Christianity,
it's not gonna be because of some French duke of
the eleven hundreds claiming that he found a cloth. To me,
it just seems like a really an odd line of
argumentation that we're like to get to. Well, that bearded
has got to be Jesus, And I mean, I just
to me, I don't get it. You know, what's what
does Jesus say? Uh? Unbelieving generations seeks these kinds of
signs and wonders like what's up, man, m what's up? Jay?
Speaker 30: I was watching your video on my journey to Orthodoxy.
I found it pretty fascinating. I'm only twenty and I'm
I'm kind of.
Speaker 7: On the same track right now.
Speaker 1: But I've been reading a lot.
Speaker 30: Of Cobbalistic works, and I know that you read those
as well before your journey to Orthodoxy, and I was
just wondering what caused you to you know, straight away
from that.
Speaker 3: I didn't find combolism to be very enlightening because, as
Sholam says, it's kind of repurposed in retooled gnosticism and neoplatonism.
So if you were going to go that route, you
might as well just adopt neoplatonism. But neoplatonism just ends
up being like perennialism, and you know, maybe like uh,
you know, Gannon or shoe On and all the traditionalists school.
So I did I mean, at the end of the day,
and I read a bunch of the traditionalists, like if
I'm reading Julia s Evla and he's basically just promoting like,
you know, butt stuff, It's like, what was the point
of all of this? Like, so it seems like everything
ends in butt stuff?
Speaker 30: So, uh, you don't think that like there's any decodification
of some things in the Bible through Cobbola. No, Okay,
all right, Well that's really all I wanted to ask
because I just didn't see why you left.
Speaker 3: In the video, but I mean the the type of
typology that some Cobbalists do, who just ends up being
kind of the typology that the Church fathers do, but
then it kind of goes crazy. It points to like origins,
you know, over over typicization of everything. So yeah, Cabala
is faking. Kay Spider, what's up? Yeah, what's on your mind?
Speaker 38: First of all, I just want to say thanks for
bringing me closer to worthodoxy, and I appreciate what you're
doing with your content.
Speaker 7: I wanted to ask.
Speaker 5: I've kind of been like looking into.
Speaker 38: Israel and what it's been doing more recently, and I've
been looking in the history of it too, and I
know that there were operations running parallel with like the
LA and contrast with the CIA and massade they were
doing or low operations. But I was wondering if you
think there's like some type of deeper link and that
maybe they use that to help fund their defense force
because it grew a lot during that same time, so
it seems like.
Speaker 1: There's a link.
Speaker 3: Did Israel receive cover funding from Iran contra is what
you're saying?
Speaker 38: Yeah, but also maybe from the CIA in order to
help them grow their defense force at the time.
Speaker 3: I would assume that probably, but I don't remember off
the top of my head. I mean Victor Ostrowski might
mention Iran contra. I can't remember, but I mean you
could argue that big. I mean, we give Israel all
kinds of money, so I would imagine probably, but I
don't off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Okay, Tyodora,
what's up, man? Yeah, people don't use I'm trying to remember.
Let's see, I was reading something recently that mentioned Iran contra.
It wasn't Max Blumandal. I don't think it was Victor Ostrowski,
it wasn't Whitney Webb. Looking at my books up there,
I don't remember what it was, but I'm sure it
is real benefited somehow. What's up, man, Teodor, I'm you.
Richard Grove probably would have a good source on that.
He knows a lot about that stuff. Theodore, what's up,
I'm you. I just don't understand the waiting in line
to not talks really weird.
Speaker 1: Do we have any more people waiting line that don't
want to talk.
Speaker 3: I'm only taking people that will not talk rest in
the shade. What's up man? By the way, you guys
like today's thumbnail, I always try to get crazy and
like fully skipped. So with the thumbnails, we got Mohammed
a Job, who, by the way, was found to be
lying in court. This cracked me up. He took Douglas
Murray to court and against the spectator and lost the
case because the judge found Muhammed a Job to be
a massive liar because for whatever reason, a Jab called
everyone Hindu, Net and Yahoo, Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray are
all Hindu.
Speaker 4: It's even better, the judge universally ruled that not only
was Hajab a liar, but all is well.
Speaker 3: The funniest part was that the judge. The judge said
he found it annoying that Muhammed a Job sat in
the back and just ate donuts. I'm not joking, this
is what the judge said, and uh licked the sugar
from his fingers. I'm not joking. One of the art that,
like one of the articles actually has that in there.
I'm trying to find if it was in here. Creepy,
So he just back basically sat in the courtroom eating donuts,
and the judge found this to be a very odd
line of defense. And somebody, I don't know if there
is true, but somebody said that now he's trying to
do an MMA event to raise money to pay the bill.
I'm not joking. No to pay he owes like six
hundred pounds, six hundred thousand pounds.
Speaker 8: It sounds like he has just uttered disregard for the
situation that he was in and he didn't even believe
anything was gonna happen.
Speaker 3: Or it's really weird. I don't, I don't, I don't
really understand. I mean, I don't know what's going on.
It's just weird, Like what was he thinking?
Speaker 8: Eating a donut sounds like chewing gum or whistling or
something like that.
Speaker 5: But to the end degree.
Speaker 8: But this bit about raising money to pay legal fees
with some phony MMA event, I think he needs friends
to help him do that.
Speaker 3: So, you know, and a lot of people were asking
how many donuts did he actually eat? We want to
know the number of donuts that Muhammad jab was chomping
on and did he actually lick his fingers? Okay, what's
on your line? Man?
Speaker 8: I wanted to ask you about the apostolic succession, and
I wanted to know, how do you know that it's
a reliable way of conveying the true teaching, so to speak?
How do we know that the Apostles that generation and
then the succeeding generations. How do we know that essentially
what they passed on to the following generations is what
Jesus or the Apostles or the next generation after them taught.
Speaker 3: Well, I think we would cross reference it with scripture
and divine revelation, which promised that the Holy Spirit would
be with the church to lead into guide it, and
that he would never leave us or forsake us, and
that he would quote guide us into all truths. And
also Paul's epistles that that's what Paul himself, when he
talks to Timothy, says should be the mode of transmission.
So he tells Timothy to lay hands on others after him,
just like Paul laid hands on Timothy. So I think
there is a faith commitment involved in trusting that what
we see in divine Scripture was passed down. But also
we can go read the first second third century Church
fathers and see that they did in fact teach what
Scripture teaches and they did teach a universally consistent doctrine.
Speaker 8: Okay, but it's there's probably like some deviation between what
was taught and what was captured.
Speaker 1: And so I'll think about.
Speaker 3: It, right, Well, how do you know that, Like, why
can't God providentially I mean, we trust God to evidentially
guide and keep and maintain the tradition.
Speaker 8: Well, it's certainly possible. I mean, I'm not saying one
way or the other happened. But if you have people
acting with free agency, with this sudden new, hugely different religion,
that just put religion on its.
Speaker 3: Head, why is it hugely different?
Speaker 1: It's not.
Speaker 3: First of all, it's not hugely different.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, love that enemies and pray for.
Speaker 3: Those who just that's in Leviticus. So that's not hugely different.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: Well, sure, when it comes to Judea compared to the
rest of the world, it wasn't hugely different.
Speaker 7: But the rest of the world's let's call the.
Speaker 8: World pagan or non religion. This is Christianity's foolishness. I mean,
even today, if you go to some areas of the
world which are even modernly developed, and you talk about
these kind of concepts that'll look you like you're foolish.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Paul says, the wisdom of the world is foolishness,
and they see they see Christianity as foolishness.
Speaker 8: Sure, so then you have this group of people mixing
with who are not foolish, mixing with this world. Let's
say the world is Christians mixing with the world and
trying to teach them and bring them and make them
teachers and reproducers and so on so forth.
Speaker 3: Well, you say mixing with the world, what do you
mean mixing with the world.
Speaker 8: I mean, if Jay Dyer we're going to go to
China or that's probably maybe it's a good example, I
don't know. But if you're going to go into the
Amazon rainforest and meet Christians out of.
Speaker 3: It, that I think you're not aware of the fact
that we can actually read many many people from the first, second,
and third century. Are you aware of this?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 8: Sure, but how do you know what they're getting is reliable?
Is the point they could still be wrong too?
Speaker 3: Is the idea you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm
saying that they teach a unified doctrine throughout the Roman Empire,
which corresponds with the teaching not just of the New
Testament and the Apostles in the written text from the
first century, but also with the previous Hebrew revelation that
consistency shows a uniform doctrine.
Speaker 5: So everyone in the first century a. D. Was teaching
the same thing.
Speaker 3: Again, do you not realize that we can actually read
those people?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're going to read them.
Speaker 3: Okay, do you know any of these people? Are you
aware of any of these things?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: How about when are you aware of any of these people?
How about when are you aware of any of these people?
Speaker 5: Paul?
Speaker 3: No, correct, after the Apostles the first second century Christians?
Are you aware of them? Have you read them?
Speaker 14: Oh?
Speaker 5: You mean the so called the church fathers and.
Speaker 1: So and so.
Speaker 3: They're so called. You don't think they existed?
Speaker 5: What do you mean, I don't think they existed?
Speaker 3: They were said so called.
Speaker 7: That's what they're called church fathers.
Speaker 30: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, usual when people say so called, it means that
they doubt that title or their existence.
Speaker 8: No, I'm not using it in a rhetorical sense or
an argumentative sense.
Speaker 7: I'm using it just in the literal districts.
Speaker 3: Okay, So if you can read those people and we
have old church fathers. Have you read those people?
Speaker 1: Very little?
Speaker 3: So how do you know whether they do or don't
teach uniform consistent doctrine?
Speaker 5: Well's UCBI is the church father.
Speaker 3: He's a historical writer.
Speaker 5: Is he a church father?
Speaker 3: Well, he's a later church father than what I'm talking about.
He's a patristic historian and writer.
Speaker 8: Okay, Well, if he is a church father, which I
think some people would say he is, I've read passages
in him.
Speaker 7: It's actually quite relevant to the shroud discussion.
Speaker 1: You're talking about.
Speaker 3: I'm not talking about this.
Speaker 8: This is on traditions, and he says these traditions are true.
Speaker 3: And can you name a church father that's three hundreds?
Can you name a church father in the first, first,
second century.
Speaker 5: That you're going to demonstrate to you why.
Speaker 3: You're demonstrating nothing but ignorance, because I Usebius is way late.
I'm talking about a first or can you that's way late?
He's not first or second century, he's three hundreds. I'm
talking about first and second century. Can you name one
that you've read that shows an inconsistency?
Speaker 5: I mean, is there inconsistency between uh.
Speaker 3: The Apostolic fathers, the post Apostolic fathers. That's what I'm
talking about.
Speaker 5: You know, pieces you pick up over the.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, name a bit of the name, a bit
or a piece that's inconsistent.
Speaker 5: Why do I need to do that?
Speaker 3: Because this is your argument? What do you mean? No,
it's not now you're.
Speaker 8: Being argument is even that the Apostles themselves got doctrine
wrong and had to be corrected.
Speaker 1: So how on earth that's not.
Speaker 3: What you argue. That's not what you argued. You argue exactly, no,
it isn't you qualified your argument.
Speaker 39: You qualified your argument. That's not what you are arguing
up until now. Now you're now your life that you're
qualifying your argument now to be about the Apostles and
not what the first and second century church.
Speaker 5: Fathers taught succession.
Speaker 8: You're trying to make it about what the church fathers
say so you can say that I'm ignorant.
Speaker 3: That's part of Apostolic succession. Shut up and let me explain.
Speaker 39: What I'm saying, because you're you're changing your argument.
Speaker 5: My argument is the saying that Apostolic session is.
Speaker 40: Unreliable, and I'm showing you that it's not unreliable because
the shut up the successors to the the successors to
the Apostles, shut up.
Speaker 3: Okay, you're done. That's not true. I'm showing you that
it's false because the successors to the Apostles, the successors
to the Apostles taught the successors to the Apostles called
the Apostolic fathers, taught shut.
Speaker 5: Up, you.
Speaker 7: Stop talking.
Speaker 3: They taught a uniform doctrine. All right, he's not gonna
he won't be He won't answer the questions because he
has to talk over otherwise and change his arguments. So
this is why it's a waste of time.
Speaker 1: Do you know what it reminds me of.
Speaker 5: It's like, okay, suppose this.
Speaker 4: I suppose the analogy is, do you want to learn something?
And we have a kind of normative means secular speaking,
and that's let's say the university, high school, college, et cetera.
What is so suppose that in some ways analogous to
apostolic session, And that really does even though let's say
there's imperfect things within the college system in high school,
it provides a means to no thinks And what's the
opposite position, Well, we shouldn't have any instructors at all.
Speaker 1: Everybody show should just be able.
Speaker 4: To have the Internet and do everything they want, and
we'll send out heart surgeons who basically educate themselves on
the Internet.
Speaker 1: I feel like this is somewhat applicable.
Speaker 4: First of all, apostalk secession is a historical is a
historic reality and biblical, as you pointed out, correct, and
it does preserve I mean.
Speaker 1: What's the antithesis of it?
Speaker 4: Every man for himself, right, So you're saying epistemically, that's
a better way.
Speaker 3: I actually think he was going in the direction of
like a higher critical point. He was going to try
to argue that he said he towards the end there
he was saying, no, the Apostles actually contradicted themselves. The
original question was, how do we know Apostolic succession is
a good way to pass down tradition. That's why we
go to the first and second century church fathers called
the post Apostolic fathers. That's not Eusebius. Eusebius is not
a post Apostolic father. Post Apostolic fathers is ignacious Clement
early Church fathers, and they're after the Apostles. And that's
why I'm saying that if we see them throughout the
Roman empire taching a consistent doctrine, that's a good indicator,
a good evidence that they did accurately transmit the Apostolic
deposit And then he said, no, no, I'm arguing that the
Apostles contradicted themselves. And so he added that on once
he saw that we were going to the second and
third century church fathers prior.
Speaker 1: To wouldn't you have to know what the true doctrine is.
Speaker 3: To say that it's false?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And that's why when I started asking him to
name a church father that was a post episode father
that he read, he couldn't name one. So again, Bro,
your lawyer tactics are not going to work on me.
That's not going to work here, Mars. What's up in Seah?
A lot of people do, a lot of people think
that being a lawyer somehow translates into like debating. It doesn't.
It may, but not necessarily.
Speaker 5: What's up, Jay?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 3: So a couple of the Orthobos got together.
Speaker 1: We had a meeting.
Speaker 2: You gotta stop telling people to come smash you hard online.
Speaker 1: Bro, It's just it's overall.
Speaker 2: It's listen, it's hot, but it's not a good look.
Speaker 1: Overall. I just gotta tell you that.
Speaker 3: I will repent of my gainness right now.
Speaker 1: There you have it, boys, Thanks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he just smashed me online right there. Anthony was up.
Speaker 29: I should have debated him in my Joja lawyer accent.
You see here, your honor, this man is not a
well of inn of the post Aple Stolics hoods falls.
I do concur but and I do declare that this
man is in guilt of pudsury hell in the ca
y'all allsta.
Speaker 3: What's up man, Anthony? What's up? Anthony? You're another one
of these people. I just don't understand the logic of
waiting to not talk Charles. What's up? Charles calling me
from his from his shower, fresh from the shower, what's up?
Speaker 14: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I gotta get out of the labor here.
Speaker 41: Hey, I was away a couple of minutes after the
local church guy called. So I don't know if someone
mentioned this, but I've been a Christian for forty five years,
and back in the day I knew of witness in
the local church through also reading.
Speaker 5: Back to my Calviy Chapel.
Speaker 41: Days, which, by the way, Chuck Smith did want anything
to do with Watchmanny. After a book came out called
Understanding Watchman Ny, which was a critique of a lot
of these kind.
Speaker 1: Of weird views.
Speaker 41: But anyway, a book came out exposing witness Lee in
the local church called The God Men. This is over
forty five years this about forty five years ago. And
what the author of that book found out quickly is
that the local church zealously sues anybody that critiques them publicly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think we just referenced that in the Wikipedia article
that there was a lawsuit about that.
Speaker 41: Okay, Yeah, like I said, I was away, So yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Didn't know if you knew that.
Speaker 5: That's kind of no.
Speaker 3: But I mean that sounds again really sus not surprised.
But yeah, a lot of these cultic groups like that
are pretty I think, you know, scientology is very litigious, Jim,
what's up man? Yeah? No, Ucbus is not a saint.
We consider him a patristic writer because he was not
fully Orthodox, and he was writing in the three hundreds,
not in the first and second century. What's up man?
Speaker 1: Hey? Hey, you doing Jay good?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 11: Yeah?
Speaker 14: Listen to your tag explanation videos and they're a very
good listen. Calling in because I believe that you might
have missed an important concept that I think ties in
all the logic together in it? Okay, And it's like
the concept of zero or nothing? Is that something that
you have thought about or considered in the tag argument?
Speaker 3: Enlighten me?
Speaker 14: So how I understand if I'm wrong for the tag argument? Uh,
there's three foundational concepts and they are what is the
most necessary presupposition to everything? Because they all presuppose each other?
Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Maybe? I don't know.
Speaker 14: Okay, So, like I guess how I see the three concepts?
Speaker 3: And Tag, what do you mean by the three concepts?
Speaker 14: Well, when you're talking about like the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, right, Tag, you're saying you have
these three things that are inevitable.
Speaker 3: Okay, I don't so this is not really the line
of argument.
Speaker 14: I go, now, okay, maybe could you explain then?
Speaker 3: Well, just get to what's your argument about the zero stuff? Oh?
Speaker 14: Yeah, so nothing. So, So, if you're trying to like
talk about logic and prove everything, you would necessarily have
to have a starting point, right, You would necessarily need
to have an ability to distinguish between that starting point
and something else, And then you need the ability to
relate the topics together. And so that's kind of how
I understood the tag argument from watching your videos. But
maybe I maybe I'm off.
Speaker 1: Why did you say zero is nothing? You know, zero
is actual something on a number line? Oh? Yes? Would
you explain some more just and mean? I got a
head out. Oh that's fine a pismology class. But so
are you Did you say there's a connection between zero
and nothing or well?
Speaker 14: I think it's more like concepts, right, and that the
it's not necessarily that they're that they're numbers, but they
could be thought of his numbers. Maybe like all these
things would presuppose numbers because they're supposed to be transcendentals.
Speaker 3: Right. I just don't say why tag necessitates nothing, that
the concept of nothing or or numbers.
Speaker 14: Even Okay, yeah, so I guess maybe it's it.
Speaker 1: Might take even if there were no numbers.
Speaker 14: Right right, Yeah, I understand, at least I believe I
understand the tag would presuppose it would come before math, right,
it come before numbers. What I got from watching your
videos was that you kind of get down to three concepts.
I think I might have had a screenshot or something
of what those we may I just never.
Speaker 3: I don't recall ever referring to the triad as three concepts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not three.
Speaker 14: Well, how would you refer to the then?
Speaker 3: I mean, the ultimate reality is three persons, father, son,
and Holy Spirit. And that's more of a like I'm
saying that that's metaphysical absolute reality. So it's much more
than just some sort of conceptual framework.
Speaker 14: Oh yeah, sorry, I don't mean it. Maybe concept's not
a great word. It's like a charged word or not
a great word, but it's it's like I guess how
Plato describes, like his realm of forms is more real
than reality, right, like the fathers and the Holy Spirit
mm hm, as a concept would be more real than
things that we would see because we're limited by our perceptions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they're not abstract ideas, nor are they identical
to Plato's ideas because they're actual, so, you know, interpersonal
beings or persons.
Speaker 14: Okay, No, I totally I'm on board with that.
Speaker 3: I agree with that.
Speaker 14: Maybe I just don't have a better word than a
concept to describe what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: So Peel, so are you maybe going in the direction
of arguing that maybe it's fundamentally essential to reasoning to have.
For example, when Aristotle lists the categories, you know, I
think he puts like differentiation, like like identification, differentiation, and like,
aren't these fundamental categories and relation or categories that are
necessary to have being or to have ontology and by extension,
to have knowledge. Is that with the line of argument
you're using.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I think so. Actually, maybe I'm not as familiar
with the Aristotle part.
Speaker 1: That'd be interesting for.
Speaker 14: Me to listen to, but yeah, I think that is
what I'm going down, the augmentation of I was trying
to do.
Speaker 1: I guess.
Speaker 3: So for example, quantity is one of the categories, and
I would say, yeah, like, in order to have knowledge,
you got to have some of these fundamental categories substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, affection.
Those are the categories listed by Aristotle. And what Kant
does is kind of tries to remove these from metaphysics
and make them more of a mental conceptual scheme that
they're necessary for predication. I'm not a quantient, but I
think CONT's right that, like, if you're going to have
meaningful conversation and discourse and linguistic exchange and thus knowledge,
you kind of have to have these basic categories, and
one of those is quantity and relation, which could quantity
obviously relates to mathematics.
Speaker 14: Yeah, quantity is necessary for mathematics for sure. I guess
I wasn't sure that I hadn't heard there were so
many different categories. I thought that based on listening to
Tag and based on kind of reasoning it out myself,
finally came down to three and kind of like a
hidden forth one almost, which is what I was kind
of getting at with the concept of nothing.
Speaker 3: Well, what kind does is take these categories and then
tries to kind of make them again like necessary for
any conceptual schema or that basically all of our minds
kind of have these categories, and then the mind organizes
the data into this list of category here. So I
don't there's not like one absolute list of this. It's
just kind of philosophers and people trying to work through
it and figure it out. So it's interesting.
Speaker 14: I guess I would say, maybe I'll just kind of
explain a little bit more about what I was thinking.
Like I was, I was thinking about like God, So
there's God, the Father, there's the Son, there's the Holy Spirit, right,
God the Father is it's basically like encompassing everything. The
Son is a distinct being from him, but it's also
connected back and the same as him, and the connection
is kind of like the Holy Spirit that we all
communicate back through and are connecting through.
Speaker 5: Does that make sense?
Speaker 14: M m hm.
Speaker 3: Maybe. I mean, it's just maybe it's a little difficult
to because because a lot of times people might read
into some of these terms things that aren't necessarily But
I mean, you do have like when Saint Maximus the
Confessor writes about the first principle and then the logos
being born from the first principle, that it's like the
first of differentiation and the first of relations. So you
might if you read Saint Maximus read it in that way.
It's interesting he speaks kind of this way in the
ambiguo like ambigual one, and then there's some questions in
the questions and answers that goes along this line. I
just the problem is not whether or not it's true.
It's just that, like when Maximus makes these arguments, he
kind of argues, like everyone agrees that, well, we all
know that these are the these are obvious metaphysical principles,
and the problem is that when you get to modern philosophy,
philosophers are not going to grant that these are obvious
metaphysical principles the way that the ancients and the Medievals
understood them to just be so so.
Speaker 14: Oh right, you had to prove them all for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 14: Anyway, Okay, I didn't want to take up too much time,
but I don't know. I thought this is interesting. Maybe
if there's some way to follow up with you on this,
because I think there's some things that would be interested
to read based on what you said, And maybe if
there's some way where I could chat with you more
about this kind of elaborate further.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, that's a tough question. Maybe
just come back next time we're doing an open open stream.
I appreciate it. Yeah, it's just it gets really harry
and abstract, Anthony. You want to try again. But I
appreciate the way you're thinking here. And I'm not saying
that Kant's version of the categories is identical too, it's
just very it's similar to Aristotles categories. What's up, man?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 14: Now? Sure?
Speaker 7: Awesome? Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: You brought this up a while ago.
Speaker 42: And I'm sorry if you covered already, but the did
Do you mind going quickly over the geopolitical angle of
these a too an apparition in your opinion.
Speaker 3: I don't know that there. I mean, there could be one.
I don't know what it.
Speaker 42: Is, gotcha, okay, yeah, I just you know, I was
looking into it more. I'm Coptic myself, and I noticed
that in the description they also outline.
Speaker 7: Doves or glowing doves.
Speaker 42: And I know we have you know, that idea in
the Bible, but I realized it's more prominent in the
Core and I you know, the the the chapters of
the Corona are supposed to intercede as doves on the
day of judgment. Oh really, And I noticed, yeah, yeah,
so that's kind of what drew me into your angle
of you know, it could be just.
Speaker 3: Some kind of well, I will say this that usually
it's it's appealed to in an ecumenist way. So for example,
we have Roman Catholics love this apparition. They don't care
that it's an Oriental Orthodox thing, and they'll just say, yeah,
so any apparition that's Mary and it's all good. Right.
So it's like, well, but if you're a Roman Catholic.
I'm not saying it's even approved by the Vatican. I'm
just saying that Roman Catholics tend to, in an acumenist way,
support and promote the Zytoone apparition. I hadn't really thought
about the doves. But regardless of the doves, like it's
it's already used by acuminous minded people all the time.
Speaker 1: Gotcha, all right, thanks for your time, man.
Speaker 3: And the reason for that's pretty obvious, because the Roman
Catholics were saying, hey, if Mary is appearing in Zyto
in Egypt to the Coptics, and if we base a
lot of our argumentation on apparitions, we got to admit
it's Mary, and therefore, hey, Coptics are They're good? Mary's
Mary wouldn't appear up there, right, So it becomes this
like automatic default, a humanist move, which could then suggest
ecumenist stuff. I'm not sure where I mean. I guess
it could go in different ways, but I mean it's
kind of like Fatima. Like Fatima definitely was was even
if it was, I don't think it was real, but
even if it was, like it was also roped into
geopolitical you know, cold War stuff. I would say, just
on the surface of it, without looking a lot into
this could definitely be I mean, the CIA would definitely
capitalize on this against the Soviets. Right, So this has
taking place in nineteen sixty eight, it's the Cold War.
I mean, this would be perfect like Cold War stuff. Right. Oh, look,
Mary's with the Coptics. Therefore the Soviets are bad and
you think I'm not joking, Like apparitions were loved by
the CIA and utilized and staged by admission, by the
CIA and the Cold War. That's admitted, and we've covered
that many times over. Many people, even tradcats, argue that
Magic Gory was one of these. So my guess would
be that if if this was in some way capitalized
on or staged or even just just created as a hoax,
because remember, like I mean, do we know the thousands
of people that were there? No, okay, well, how do
we know that thousands of people witness Well there's a
news printing that says thousands of people saw Well, I
mean you realize the newspapers have been staging things since
the eighteen nineties. Look up the bat people on the
Moon hoax, which everybody at that time believed was real
because it was in the papers. Now and here's Roman
Catholic sites promoting her right here. Now we've covered, for example,
in the book on the CN religion that we covered
from the academic texts. It's not a conspiracy. Book ed Lansdale,
for example, wanted to stage entire second comings of Christ
during the Cold War. Now, supposedly they didn't go with
any of that, but that tells you right there, there's
an admission openly right there that they're willing to engage
in staged apparitions. And there are examples of this. I
don't know if it'll come up when I search for it,
but let's see