Speaker 1: Any Protestants who would like to call in any dispensationalists,
Christian Zionists. You know the drill. It's all on the
table tonight, geopolitics as well, any of it. You bring
it up. It's all good. Let's hash it out. I
don't think we're gonna get me a Roman klicks, though.
A couple of things that stood out today that I
think are really again just more kill shots. If we
look at the texts from the Old Testament to the
New Testament, and a kind of a sample run here
of texts that relates to what divine Revelation says about
those outside the faith or those with another religion, another God,
another faith. And the reason this is important is that
what's being missed in a lot of this discussion is
the nature of worship. We can only worship God the
way that God lays it down if we don't worship
God the way that He lays down. For example, God
always requires some notion of sacrificial offering as part of
his worship, an altar. Abraham Moses, all the religion during
this time period has an altar. According to Hebrews thirteen,
Christianity also has this altar. When we look at the
way that the early Church worshiped. It was liturgical and
always with an altar. When Roman Catholics argue against Protestants,
they argue that Protestant worship isn't even really worship. It's
fake and gray, precisely because they don't even have an offering.
It's a memorial, a memorates, a remembrance service. And since
it's not an actual, real eucharistic sacrifice with an all,
it is no longer the worship of God proper to God.
And that's the only worship that God accepts, the worship
that He lays down. And that's why it's very powerful,
for example, to talk about Leviticus, when we go to
Leviticus ten and Native and Abai who offer up in
their censor strange fire that was not commanded, and as
a result of this profane worship, worship being done in
the way that God never said to do it, it
ends up being something that kills. In the Book of Corinthians,
Paul says a very similar thing that if you eat
and drink unworthily, you can also die. That's how serious
worship is. Thus, when we come to the text that
say like Nostratate three in Limigentium sixteen, that Muslims worship
and adore God. It is missing the entire purpose of
what Christian theology has always said, Biblical theology Patristic theology.
I will argue that Rome departs precisely by thinking that
Islam in some way offers worship to God. Now they
tried to qualify this in the debate. Most of the
Roman Catholics aren't even qualifying, but they try to say, well,
we don't know necessarily if God accepts it. But it's
still them worshiping in terms of some referent the One
True God. But the whole reason that this is an
issue again is because Vatican two gives the indifferentist position,
the ecumenist position that now there is a salviafic role
according to Lemgentium sixteen present in Islam. That's an ambiguous phrase.
We're not exactly sure what it means when it says Muslims,
the plan of salvation includes Muslims. Well, I mean, the
plan of salvation includes everyone. Everybody's open to being saved,
So why would you even say the plan of salvation
includes Muslims. Is there somebody who thought that Muslims can't
be converted or saved, and it is kind of crazy,
never heard of that. So when lumin Gentm sixteen says
the Plan of Salvation includes Muslims, it begins by saying
something even sillier. The Plan of Salvation includes those that
acknowledge a creator. Okay, I mean, like, yeah, pretty much
everybody's saved acknowledges a creator, So we can't read it
in that sense. So the Plan of Salvation is in
the context of clearly people who do not believe in
the Messiah or the Trinity. Well that's pretty odd because,
as we saw in last Night's dream, Roman calic theology
and Denzinger states that trinity and incarnation are necessary as
professions of faith on the part of Muslims before being baptized,
and that's the minimum to have the faith. So in
order to worship properly, you also must have the faith.
You do not worship God properly in any accepted way
by God or in any real legitimate sense without doing
it God's way and without confessing the faith. There aren't
many faiths. There's not an Abrahamic faith, that is, all
of the so called monotheistic religions because as we saw
there aren't three monotheistic religions. There are probably at least
ten that we listed, the Perennialus, the Seksts, sum Zoroastrians,
Theistic Satanists, perhaps Marcianites, perhaps Hinotheism, the Jrus, the Shakti Hindus,
the Cawdai Buddhists, the Bahai faith are all monotheistic. So
the Old Testament revelation being of the Trinity and of
the Sun is absolutely crucial to this debate because it
shows not just that the Old Testament God is not
some bare generic Unitarian deity, but also that whatever revelation
comes after the Old Testament has to be consistent with
that and thus has to be trinitarian. The God referenced
is the Trinity. And that's enough to refute the premise
that Trent Doherty had that all I have to do
is say that Muhammad is getting his idea of God
from Jewish Old Testament revelation. Well, that's assuming that quote
God is just the Unitarian reference of a single simple deity.
But that's not the reference of God in the Old Testament.
And hence why I went into great details talking about Theophanes.
But let's look at a few passages that tell us
very clearly how we should view this. The gods of
the nations are devils, and I included the due Riems
Bible because that's the traditional Calvic interpretation Psalm ninety five.
The gods of the nations are devils. Do not go
after other gods Dunami thirteen and Deuteronomy eighteen. Well but
now wait a minute. What if it's a different faith
and a Unitarian deity, Well, that would be another god.
The Islamic God is premised on you reject to worship him.
You must explicitly reject the Trinity, or else you are
not worshiping Allah. So it is required that you reject
the Trinity. And we read that in the Qur'an last
night it specifically says stop saying Trinity, do not call
the Son divine. And so thus in Deuteronomi thirteen to
Dorougharmy eighteen, the prohibitions presuppose that if you go to
another deity by another name, and again, Allah is not Father,
so it's not even. It's not even. Jews have a
better argument that it's the same quote God or same
reference than Muslims, because at least Jews reference Yahweh as Father.
Muslims do not. They explicitly take the notion of God
as Father and say that is not our God. Thus,
why the analogy to Clark, Kent and Superman fails is
because the analogy presupposes not having the knowledge of who
the real identity is. In the case of Islam, the
Muslims do explicitly have the knowledge of the Christian deity
and of Christ, and they explicitly reject that. Paul says,
the things that Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and
not to God. Muslims and Protestants do not believe in sacrifice.
So if God has always required sacrifice, on that grounds,
I could argue that worship that has sacrificed aka Paganism,
is closer to Christianity than Islam or Protestanism, both of
which reject sacrifice, and in fact, Islam more explicitly rejects
sacrifice than even Protestants do, because at least Protestants admit
that Jesus is a sacrifice on the cross. There's just
nothing else that's a sacrifice other than some moral sense
in which you give up your own life to Christ.
But the worship of God himself which is always at
an altar that is sacrificial, is rejected by Islam. And
so if that's the means by which God is worshiped,
if you reject an altar and a sacrifice, you do
not worship that God. The God of the Bible always
has an altar and always has a sacrifice. Abraham built
an altar and called upon the name of Yahweh, and
Muslims say, our God does not do that. We do
not worship that God. There you go, That's all you need. Now.
Notice in Paul's case, in one Grinans ten twenty, notice
how this is the opposite of what even Roman Catholics
are saying, some of them that even if you sacrifice
to a demon, you can still be worshiping the Trinity.
Many of them have said that. But Paul says, the
things that you sacrifice to a demon are therefore not
to the God of the Bible. Therefore you are not
worshiping the God of the Bible. We saw the medieval
papists and the popes said many times over that Mohammedans
worship devils and worship all kinds of nonsense. They revere
and practice evil superstitions. They tried to say that I
made up the quote. I didn't make up the quote.
It's literally sourced right here, and my slides in the debate.
Let's take a look the slides right there. What does
the first slide say, medieval source book for the them?
What's medieval source book for them? Oh, it's the entire speech,
according to full care of Chartrey. Now they're saying, ah,
but this might not be authentic. Okay. I gave you
nine examples from medieval papal councils. So even if this
one is perhaps inauthentic, all I have to do is
go down to the fifteenth acimentical Council, which none of
them has said is inauthentic. This is Decree twenty five.
It is an insult to the Holy Name and the
disgrace of the Christian faith that the world subject to
Christian princes, where Saracens live, sometimes apart and sometimes intermingled,
that Saracen priests, which are commonly called Zabazala in their
temples and moss in which the Saracens meet to adore
the infidel Mohammed. In these idiots' minds, if you are
adoring the Infidel Mohammed, and by the way, Islam gives
Muhammed a greater place pretty much than Christ. Then you're
not worshiping, adoring the one true God. It is not
possible to worship and love God and Mohammad, the God
of the Bible. Why it's a little thing called idolatry.
I don't know if you've heard of this, but idolatry
is not just a physical object that you bow down to,
like a statue of Khalima or the thug Ee cult.
Idolatry is anything that you create that is not the
uncreated God. And to not just focus your time and
energy on that false conception that's a physical statue or object.
That's not the only type of idolatry you can have.
As the Fathers say, heretical ideolotry, that is, your ideas
can also become an idol And this is what we
call heresy. Heresy is when a person chooses the doctrine
that they want, picks and choose and not the totality
divine revelation of what the Church teaches. They pick and
choose and create a delusion, a false mental conception that
is not actually God and the idea then becomes for
every heretic an idol, and thus prevents them from honoring
and worshiping and connecting to in a real grace filled pipeline,
the true God. It is cut off. It is not
hitting the mark. So to correct their false analogy, a
better analogy would be, rather than the Clark Kent nonsense superman,
imagine Bill Cosby as a comedian, and Bill Cosby is
thoughts to be perhaps let me put this on a
different page, perhaps one of the funniest men. So we're
gonna say, for the sake of our amill. Okay, Bill
Cosby is one of the funniest men. Let's say it's
nineteen I don't know, nineteen seventy eight or something. Oh
I'm not saying I think he is. This is just
a dumb analogy. Bill Cosby is the funniest man around.
We honor Bill Cosby as the great comedian. However, a
group of cunning marketing and sales pitchmen have come up
with an idea that it's not actually Bill Cosby that's
the real funny man. There's Charlie Cosby, who is Bill
Cosby's unknown cousin who happens to look almost just like
Bill Cosby. And so these clever marketing con men set
up and devised a completely staged and fake comedy show
using pictures of Bill Cosby, and they sell out a
giant theater at Auditorium for Charlie Cosby, the real comedy master,
and it sold a ticket hundred dollars a ticket, a
giant stadium, sold out. And then it turns out it
was a scam. It turns out Charlie Cosby doesn't exist.
He's not actually a real thing. Well it looked real.
There was all the similar ideas and attributes to Bill Cosby.
Look there's a picture, and it's got Bill Cosby's nose,
it's got his cigar, it's got his feeble fobbles, evil
zobble going on, it's got it all. But they just
took Bill Cosby's picture, called it Charlie Cosby me. And
maybe they even played a few clips from Bill Cosby.
And so this is really stuff that Charlie Cosby wrote
and Bill took it. Bill is not who you want.
You want the tickets to Charlie because he's the real
funny man. But then when you show up you find
out there's no Charlie Cosby. The only authentic one was
actually Bill the whole time, And so you got duped
by Conman who gave you a false conception, an ideologry,
an idea conception that was actually a delusion. So that's
the real analogy that's appropriate to how the false conception
cancels out worship. And that's what they're not understanding because
in much of the Roman Catholic world, because they're not Orthodox,
they don't understand that worship and the faith is not
an assent to a bunch of propositions. In Roman Catholic theology,
you can lose charity or the love of God and
maintain the faith. So when you're in a state of
mortal sin, you have lost the charity of God, the
love of God. You're in a state of damnation, and
the only way out of that is to go to confession,
receive and receive absolution to be restored to a state
of grace. But if you commit mortal sin, you still
perhaps have the faith, but you've lost charity. This is
Aquinas talks about this in the Simi very Clear, And thus,
in that notion, you could be Catholic, be believe the faith,
worship God, but you don't have the charity that gets
you to the state of grace. And how is that well?
Because for them, when they talk about the faith, most
of the time, many times they mean the individual's assent
to the propositions of the magisterium, and an intellectual assent.
That's what they mean. For the Orthodox, we do not
divide these things as if it really matters or means
anything that you worship God in a loveless state. For us,
that doesn't even make sense. If you're doing that, the
worship is really in vain. And so we have the
notion of the heart and they do not. This is
a key point. So when we go to Romans one,
for example, and we read what Paul says about the
pagan world and the hearts of the pagan world, a
Roman Catholk believes this is talking about the intellect. They
think that natural theology is what's here, because the Pagans
didn't do their syllogisms correctly. Had they done the syllogisms correctly,
they would have come to the absolutely simple Unitarian monad
and then perhaps down the road we can tack on
trinity and person of Christ. But Paul says that the
wrath of God has revealed against all ungodliness and righteousness
of men who seek it out with the rational faculties. No,
no suppress the truth. So the whole passage actually talking
about the pagan world not reasoning properly at all, and
in doing even worse, suppressing the truth. Because what may
be known of God is within them. For God has
revealed and shown it to them. Did he show himself
in an intellectual way to all the Pagans? Are you
sure about that? Does that really make sense? Or is
Paul saying that innately? In the inner man it is
evident that there is a true God. But did they
know or understand this true God? Well, Paul says, man
knew God, but did not glorify him as God. They
were not thankful to God. They became futile in vain
in their thoughts and their hearts, not their intellect. Remember,
Roman Catholics just think that there's body and soul, and
soul is primarily or almost essentially intellect for them. So
if you worship God, Roman Catholics might admit there's a
bodily sense in terms of, like, you know, doing prostrations
or a kneeling at the altar, on the kneelers or whatever,
and then eating the Eucharist. That's worshiping, okay. But the
only other way that you could worship with your heart
is your inner intellectual intellectus. Because you're a binary, you'r
a duality. In the Calvil view, there is no noose
or heart doctrine. But we are saying with Paul, their
hearts were darkened, their no etic faculty was darkened. Remember,
Romancalolics don't have this doctrine at all. This is a
key element to why they don't understand why we would
never say that these people worship and love and adore
the One True God. It's not possible for them to
do so in this darkness. And that's exactly what Pelmus
argues in book one of the Triads. The entire first
triad is about the futility of Pagan Greek Hellenic knowledge,
and he says, Plato and Aristotle, guess what if they
got a couple of things right about God? It didn't
profit them. It was worthless demonic knowledge because every heresy
which in any way perverts the truth about God ends
up giving you a false another God for the things
that gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to the Trinity secretly. No,
he doesn't say that. He says to demons, and he says,
and not to the Trinity. See that one coty is
ten twenty. Pagans and gentiles sacrifice to demons, and if
you do it to a demon, it's not to God.
The exact opposite of what Trent argued in the debate,
that you can worship a demon and the trying God
at the same time. And then he lied about saying that,
and people called him out on that, by the way,
because two minutes later he said I never said that.
He did say that. Now, notice, and this is I
think one of the strongest points here. Paul says that
professing to be wise, this is pagan wisdom. They became fools, Aristotle,
Plato became fools. Pelma says, why because they exchanged the
God of glory, the glory of the True God, for
worshiping and serving the creature. Now watch this, So God
gave them up to their evil lusts and hence the
wickedness of the pagan world to dishonor their bodies. Who
exchanged the truth of God and worshiped and served the
One True God, accidentally still no worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator. Now, what did the popes
in the Middle Ages call Islam pagan, infidel, faithless, demonic idolatrists.
Their public worship must be forbidden right there in the
Council the fifteenth Documentical Council antichrist according to Ennocon the
third and quea mayor. Now would that being the case,
that's consistent with Paul even though they're even though they're popes,
because Islam's God is literally a pagan deity, but it's
got a few attributes in common with ours. So what
there is no such thing as orthodox percent were ship
of God. I believe in the Trinity and all those things.
I don't believe God is omnipotent. When I say that,
do I have the same deity? No, even if you've
got all the other attributes, once you deny omnipotence, it's
no longer the same God. If I deny that God
is omnipresent, then he becomes spatially limited. That's not an
uncreated God, it's a different one. This is why every heresy,
according to the Church Fathers, separates you from the Church.
You cannot be a heretic and in the mystical Body
of Christ at the same time. And guess what. Let
me show you what the Roman Kelly Church taught about
that which again refutes the Islamic nonsense that they're viewing
past the twelfths in cyclical mystical Body Mystici corporus the
Body of Christ in what nineteen forget when he wrote this,
maybe it's at the bottom, it's not that old of
an encyclical nineteen forty three. Let's look at the Catholic
ecclesiology at this time. Actually, only those are to be
included in the members of Christ who have been baptized
and professed the true faith and have not been so
unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the
Body or have been excluded by legitimate authority for grave
faults committed. So, in other words, if you do not
accept the full true faith of the papal profession, then
you are separated, and you are not a member of
the body, the mystical body. That is the purpose of
this encyclical. And then we're going to look at Satist
call neut I'm saying a very similar idea. The church
founded on these principles, mindful of her office, has done
nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed
in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded
as rebels and expelled from the ranks all that held
any belief on any point of doctrine contrary to her
own expel and thus not worshiping God. The Aryans, the Muslims,
or Arians, Montanous Novations, Cordadessinians, Utichians, they all reject Catholic doctrine,
but they abandon only a portion of it, a Tertian
portion of it. Who does not know that they were
declared banished, heretics and banished from the bosom of the church.
So to hold one doctrine for the next paragraph. The
practice of the Catholic Church has always been, as has
shown in the Animis teaching its fathers, that whoever would
hold that they were wont to hold us outside the
Catholic communion alien to the Church. So are you worshiping
if you're outside the Catholic community and the Catholic God.
Whoever would recede in the least degree from any of
her magisterial doctrines. That's Leo the thirteenth. So if you
reject one Catholic dogma, you are no longer Catholic. Do
Muslims reject any Catholic doctrine? Oh, they reject the essentials,
and so they cannot be part of the mystical Body,
which is the only means of salvation and the only
place in which God accepts his worship, the only acceptable
venue of worship according to this traditional Catholic mindset. And
guess what. In the Orthodox Church we would agree and
we still uphold the actual I mean, it's not the
papal church, but the basic idea of a closed communion
church is right there. Now we don't agree that it's
the papal sect, but we would say, yes, this proposition
is actually true outside the Orthodox Catholic Church. If you
reject any of the dogmas of the church. I don't
believe in baptismal regeneration, you're not an Orthodox person anymore.
You've rejected a teaching of the creed. I don't believe
in the real presence in the Eucharist. I believe everything else.
Though you're no longer Orthodox. It only takes one heresy,
one obstinate rejection, to exclude you from the faith and
the communion, and the communion is the members with God.
Outside of the communion, there is not communion with God.
God's grace can be out there and pulls people to
the church, but the worship of God is not happening
apart from an altar. And even the Roman Catholics shoot
themselves in the foot and own themselves on this point
every time they debate a Protestant, because they don't even
know that Islam is even more anti sacrificial than Protestants.
Protestants believe in one sacrifice, the person of Christ at
the Cross. Muslims believe in no sacrifices, no alters, thus
no worship of God. All the way back to Cain
and Able, God required sacrificial worship as his worship. If
you don't have that, you don't have worship of God.
So the very idea that hasn't even been discussed yet
about why this is so wrong is the mistaken Roman
Catholic intellectualism that worshiping God is assenting to propositions of
the magisterium. That's not the worship of God. That's how
they can say Muslims agree with us on proposition one
that God is omnipotent number two, that God is so
that God has won. That's not worship, that's assenting mentally
to propositions. Worship and adoration is different. That only happens
at an altar. So they don't even know how you
worship God. That's why they don't even know that it's
the Angel of the Lord, that is Jesus. Look at
what this Roman Catholic said yesterday as a test case example,
one of the larger Catholic profiles says, did God reveal
himself as a Trinity to Abraham Catholic?
Speaker 2: Guy?
Speaker 1: No, every Orthodox person knows with Saint Maximus the Confessor
what the answer to this is, and every person who's
heard any debates what. The Muslims knows the answer to this,
and the heretic sam Shamun himself knows this because he
argued it for so long, and now he wants to
join ranks with this nonsense and defend this idiocy, which
is just sad. Max Maximus the Confessor said, Abraham was
taught and worshiped the Trinity. By the way, this is
a doctor in the Romanchellic Church. Okay, God appeared to Abraham,
who was perfect in knowledge, and already possessed an intellect
completely beyond matter and figurations. He God taught Abraham that
the immaterial principle of the trinity, and here's in the
principle of its unity. And for this reason God appeared
to him as three and spoke to him as one.
Why is that because in Genesis eighteen, as we saw
even in the masoretic text, we saw this yesterday. Yahweh
Jehovah appeared to Abraham the planes of Mamarra, and Abraham
sat up and noticed the Texas intentionally telling you about
what he does in terms of his eyes, and Abraham
lifted up. It could have just said Abraham stood up
and talked to the Lord. It says Abraham lifted up
what his eyes his eyes. In other words, Abraham is
visually seeing the logos. This is a scandal to the
Roman Catholics and to the tomuss They literally sit here
and tell you, just like Muslims and just like Arians,
that it's not possible for God to be seen. But
even Jews ad meant that it's hard for them to
make sense of this. Even the Jews admit it might
actually be a second principle, or even God himself somehow.
We saw that in the Jewish Encyclopedia yesterday on the Chicaina,
the Jews admit, I don't know, we don't know what
to do with this glory cloud that is called glory.
Perhaps it is God somehow, others other rabbis, No, that's
not possible. God can't do that exactly, just like the Muslims,
and just like the Jews. So the monad of the Muslims, Christians,
and Jews, the Muslims, Catholics and Jews actually probably is
the same God. He's called Satan, the one that steals,
kills and destroys. Allah is the greatest of deceivers in
the Qur'an. And this is who the Roman Catholics think.
They're worsing, the same god as that. This is how
dumb these people are. One thing that would really help
them was to actually actually know Islam. Now Trent claimed
he's an expert on Islam. Well, he would know then
that Islam's unitarianism doesn't match up to the Old Testament.
Oh but wait a minute, we didn't even know that Jesus,
the first century rabbi, is the same subject as the
Angel of the Lord and the God of the Old Testament.
He wasn't even aware of that. And I'm getting a
lot of messages, many comments, hundreds and hundreds of comments.
People are saying this issue of the Roman Catholics not
believing that it's the Theophanes that are Christ and that
the real Theophanies in the Old Testament, and then it's
the Trinity in the Old Testament is the very thing
that's making them question and leave. We had a traditional
Catholic show up today at our liturgy over now he's
already coming into the church, but he was saying that
this just just too much to say that the Muslims
and Catholics worship the same God. He said, that's it,
He's done. This is a turning point for a lot
of these people. Now I'm not saying all the track
cats they're got, they're not, but they're all melting.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: We're getting to see it in lifetime, the meltdowns. They're
losing it in lifetime because all of this is coming
to the fore.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: There's some corrupt people in the Orthodox world, for sure,
but I just want to remind you of the lusty
eyes of supposedly tried Pope Benedict when the openly gay
acrobats performed for him, because what if Paul saying, Romans won.
If you go in this direction, you get given up
to vile, disgusting things. And a lot of these Roman
Catholics are actually gay, They're actually in this domain. Why
do you think they're Roman Catholic? This is one of
the key points that Father Moses said when he first
made his first videos. Well, they're just partaking of the
spirit of their big daddy, cheering on actual gay and
this is an actual this is a gay truth. I'll
show you that the proof. Look at watch out. Benedict
looks at the gay dudes and then they beckon to him.
The gay dudes all beckon to the Holy Father, who, yeah,
they're gay dudes. Dawyer hasn't proven that they're actually gay. There,
you can look up the you go look it up
on your own. I'm not gonna go to a bunch
of damn gay links for all you gay skeptics. You
can go look that up on your own. You probably
already got it saved in your bookmarks. Anyway. A lot
of your Roman Catholics. So now you say, why you
talk about gay stuff that no one has everything to
do with it, because what we read in Romans won
about the gay stuff is a sign of an idolatrous
reprobate mind. If you're an idolator, do you worship love
and adore the True God? No, it's not possible. They're
mutually exclusive because idolatry is specifically actual worship of something
other than God. And one of the signs of this
is this kind of wickedness. It's like Father Moses said, like, yes,
we all have vices, we all struggle with things, but
certain vices become evidence of another faith, another deity. And
these are the examples of that. And I'm talking about
just talking about people with a vice that struggle and
are trying to go the liturgy and trying to do better.
I'm talking about the corrupt pdf, blackmail, satanic element throughout
the Vatican and the widespread gay priesthood in the Roman
Callolic Church. That's what I'm talking about. That is a
sign for everyone that yes there could be corruption, Yes
there's bad Orthodox bishops and priests, but when you have
this widespread contamination, it doesn't speak to persecution. It speaks
to curse persecution. So I don't think Roman Catholics are grasping,
and they don't because they don't see it as they
see it as an intellectual problem. Everyone's failing to do
their syllogisms properly. And if only Aristotle had reasoned properly,
if only we No, No, it's a spiritual problem. And
that's what they don't understand. It's a delusion of idolatry.
Are we going to open up in a second? I
think maybe one or two more points. Again, I'm more
and more seeing as I laid in the bed last
night thinking about this and thinking about scripture, the Theophanes
and the Old Testament are the key to all of this.
In fact, I was thinking it might even be beneficial
for all apologetics, except for maybe atheists, to have an
entire apologetic focused on demonstrating that the Torah and the
prophets and the writings teach the Trinity in Christ. Because
if that's true Roman Catholicism, is it false too, because
it means natural theology and the Unitarian presuppositions of the
Old Testament God and Abraham worshiping a unity God, a
unitarian generic deity. If that's false, guess what the Abrahamic
faith myth is false? There is no Abrahamic faith shared
between Muslims, Christians and Jews. This is premised on that.
And if that's not true, all this false. And this
is what we're beginning to see. But for most people
in the audience that don't know a lot of the theology,
people are beginning to realize, well, I can understand versus,
like the gods of the nations are devils, or when
Moses says in the Song Moses, they sacrifice to demons,
to gods that were not known, and not to the
God they did know, that's the Song of Moses. Trent
didn't even know that David worshiped and loved the Son
that he wrote about. How do I know that he
wrote about him? I mean, one, Peter One makes it
very clear. The spirit that was speaking through David was
not David himself. It was the Spirit of Christ speaking
through David about the crucifixion and sufferings of the Messiah.
So the people that were talking about, these Roman Catholics,
you have to understand this. They confess a conceptual external
idea of Jesus. But Jesus isn't an idea. They don't
have the true Trinitarian faith. They don't have the true
understanding of Christ, because they would know if they did.
As Jesus tells the Apostles on the road to Amaus,
all of the things in the Old Testament are about me.
I just scrolled past it. Where is it at twenty
twenty four? Then he said to them, foolish ones, you
are slow of heart to believe in what the prophets
have spoken. Jesus is talking about the Old Testament. What
Jesus says to the apostles could be applied to all
these Roman Catholic goobers. You foolish, slow of heart people.
You don't believe the prophets ought not the Messiah have
suffered these things and entered his glory. And beginning at
Moses and all of the prophets, he expounded to them
all of the scriptures, all of the scriptures, in all
the scriptures, the things concerning himself, which is all the scriptures,
all of the Old Testament is about him. Did you
know that? That's because when Abraham stands when Moses, excuse me,
when the Yahweh appears to Abraham and Abraham looks up
with his eyes, three men stand there. So Yahweh Jehovah,
the sun is standing there somehow, Wow, and they have
a meal. Roman Catholics have a problem of unbelief, as
they showed in the discussion with they're deacon. As the
discussion progressed, you don't empirically experience God in the Eucharist,
they said again, actually unfortunately denying the reality of the
presence in the Eucharist, which is the actual power of
the worship of the Eucharist and its sacrifice. So they
don't have it. They tell you out of their own mouths, accidentally,
what they really believe, what their real positions are, because
it's foolishness, it's darkness and its blindness. Let's look at
another overlooked Theophany, Miriam and Moses, assuming Miriam and Aaron
spoke against Moses because of Moses's Ethiopian wife, and they said, well,
did God really speak through Moses, So they start to
challenge him. They want to create a schism. Now, Moses
was very humble, humble above all the men on the earth.
And the Lord spoke to Moses and said, come out
here to the tabernacle of the congregation. And they all
three came out look at this and Yahweh Jehovah came
down in the pillar of the cloud and stood at
the door of the tabernacle or in the door of
the tabernacle. That's a powerful theophany, because are they going
to say that the glory cloud is created there? Are
they going to say that Yahweh Jehovah is created when
he stands there? Guess what actually they will? They will
either say this, this isn't God, even though it says
it's Yahweh Jehoah explicitly clearly in the text all throughout
the chapter of number twelve, it's identified as Yahweh standing there,
the same standing there in Genesis eighteen with Abraham, Yahweh
appears in the cloud and stands there. Yahweh appears to
Abraham with two men, two angels, and stands there. I
wish we had some commentary, perhaps somewhere else in the
Bible that could perhaps tell us who this was. I
wish we knew remember Roland Cathoch's turn around and deny
that it was Jesus doing that. I do not receive
honor from men, but I know you, Pharisees. You don't
have the love of God. You don't have the love
of God in you. Therefore they don't worship and endore God.
We have Abraham and one God as our father. What
does Jesus say, if God were your father, you would
love me. But he isn't. Your father is Satan, whom
you really worship. That's what he's saying in the whole passage.
This is so obvious. They're idolators. The Pharisees are idolators.
The mental conception God that they have. They claim to
have the God of Abraham, and the whole passage is
Jesus saying you don't actually have him. You worship a
false conception which is ultimate Satanic, and your worship is worthless,
and you do not love God. If you do not
believe Moses's writings, how will you believe when Moses wrote
about me? If you believe Moses, you would believe me,
for Moses wrote about me. Because Paul says it's Sacharinius
three that when Moses went up on the mountain he
talked face to face with Christ. So these people are
biblically illiterate. They don't know the first thing about the Theophanes,
which prove multiple times over in the New Testament that
it's Jesus that's doing this. It's so good. Another one
it's good, Exodus twenty four. And this one is good
because when they go up on the mountain a Mount
Sinai with the seventy elders, they see the God of Israel.
Look at this same idea. They saw the God of Israel.
And under his feet you notice we keep getting this
standing in foot imagery, which is body imagery, which is form,
and underneath him was a sapphire pavement, and the nobles
of Israel ate and drank with God, a meal with God.
It's not possible for God to eat oh? Really? Like
in John when Jesus eats with the apostles after the resurrection,
he eats fish. Why is it not possible? It's not
impossible because you don't have a body. Well, then, who's
wrestling with Jacob? All right, we're going to open it up.
If you disagree, if you have questions, if he wants
to offer an argument, you're free to do so. In fact,
I will even if you disagree and you want to
make an argument. We have a new policy that Jim
Jatris suggested, and that is that I will be silent
for sixty seconds and not say anything. If you disagree,
you would like to make an argument. What's up, Felix?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Hi, Jerry, I mentioned not disagreeing.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to bring up the fuck that Tomashevsky
is literally.
Speaker 2: Like a clown because we and the other I suppose
Orthodox people.
Speaker 3: Had discussions in his comments and he was asked as
a question that you actually asked Trent Horn, like what
determines which monetism is ultimately correct and which one is not?
And he said like, well, Mormon monetism is definitely wrong.
Speaker 2: And the question was.
Speaker 3: Asked to him like why is Mormon monetism wrong? And
the answer is just buffer and he said, well, their
theology is just too weird.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess. So there's the great Thomas philosophy.
Speaker 2: Determines which monetism is correct? Is just himself?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Great Thomas Philosopher's standard is it feels kind
of weird, bro.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And he actually said a couple of abominational statement statements
as well.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: He says that Muslims.
Speaker 3: Are not saved, but what he can too says that
Muslims are a part of.
Speaker 2: The cavern and part of salvation.
Speaker 3: So he doesn't know or doesn't agree with his own
magisterial statesments, which is weird.
Speaker 2: And he also said that, well, God has to be a.
Speaker 3: Transcendent, transcendent spirit, but we also to know that Muslim
God is not a transcendent spirit.
Speaker 1: Islam is not all Liah is not a spirit. So
what he's shown is that he has no knowledge of
Islam whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just remember that statement that like, well, transitional period
of Islam was in fourteen hundred.
Speaker 2: It's just like so so weird.
Speaker 3: I just love how they shifted the attention to that
speech of the pope calling the crusade that they called
like well, Jada are basically imagined it and it's forgery,
blah blah blah. Well he except himself much more birder
state statements, and they were ignored. So Roman Catholics see
like a pile of dirt and they just rushed to
it and ignore their own mistakes.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well, let's address the idea that Muslims are
quote in the there is no covenant that exists where
you have access to God outside of Christ and baptism.
And that's the whole purpose of Galatians three sixteen. To
Abraham and to seed the promises were made. He doesn't
say seeds. It's not plural. It's not many different branches
of Abraham. It's one your seed capital who is Jesus.
The only seed that's being predicted is Christ and those
in him through baptism. That's it. So there's no such
thing as an Abrahamic faith. And the Vatican building an
Abrahmic faith center with Islam, Judaism and Christianity there tells
you that they don't believe Galatians three because it says
there is neither June nor Greek. You are Abraham's seed
in Christ and heirs of the Covenant. Outside of it,
there is no covenant. So Thomas Chef's is actually a heretic.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And just last point, like if Queteles and Muslims worships
the same God can be considered like Koran Holy Book now, like.
Speaker 1: And well that's why jump all the second kiss the Koran.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and probably ghostbusters in Rome and need to reunite
and the West and considered might Bee is in the
West the Holy Book too. I mean, it's just this
system is full of holes and it's not working, and
it's actually ridiculous how they melt down and contradict themselves
in like one one sentence is trying to defend it
is just.
Speaker 2: Buffering to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and didn't one of them like I thought at first,
Trent believed that the Mormon God is the same referent
and it is the same God. But toma Zevski is saying, no,
Mormons don't make the cut. But it's arbitrary, so they
can't even agree. They don't even agree amongst them to
they don't even know. Are you there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm there. I just finished my point. Okay, you're
going to go to the next person.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your great, great points exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I haven't even thought about interacting with tomo Jevsky. But
I mean the fact that in a debate somebody says
I refuse to answer those questions. In a properly moderated
classical debate, that means the moderator comes in and says,
you can be surrendering the debate if you're not going
to answer the questions. That's what a moderator is supposed
to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah. By the way, i'm the new Federal Drug Administration here,
i am.
Speaker 1: But you know, yeah, I mean, I think, uh, you
could actually probably reason in that in that direction that
if the Qur'an is a revelation from God, then why
not If Vatican too is right, why not kiss the Qur'an.
Speaker 2: Hey, I want to bring.
Speaker 4: Up something too. It's interesting. So part of my argument,
if you remember, on the kind of epistemic and semantic area,
he was saying that doctor Trump Doughtry was saying that
the fact that Mohammad had interactions.
Speaker 2: With Jews or Muslims was enough to fix the reference.
Speaker 4: So it's almost as if you admit without that, of
course it would just be some other weird religion, and
it wouldn't.
Speaker 2: But that was enough.
Speaker 4: Don't you find it odd that it's like but we
have no idea what those interactions were. So I'd like
to press him on the fact that so anybody that
has any interaction whatsoever with a Christian like that automatically
fixes the reference. Was talking about a grocery store and
you ru into a Christian. Hey, stop me if you've
heard this one.
Speaker 2: So atheist is.
Speaker 4: Running to the grocery store and says, where's the grocery store?
Speaker 2: Runs into a Christian. He starts telling them about God
and thinks that thick the grocery store has got.
Speaker 4: Like do you see how like yeah, not robust and
just kind of general and handwight. Well, that's enough as
long as you that can't nobody serious and they're a
serious person would take that seriously that it's like, well, literally,
just that we heard there was a general conversation or
some interaction.
Speaker 2: That's enough to talk about.
Speaker 1: Right Brian five dollars. I saw a comment saying that
people are leaving Catholicism over their disbelief in the Angel
of the Lord in the Theophanes issue. But Trent says,
why does it matter exactly? Uh, Well, it matters because
now you're surrendering the very thing that the New Testament
is arguing to prove the deity of Christ and that
he's the Messiah, that he is the God of the
Old Testament. Hebrews one, John one, on and on on.
Speaker 4: Hey, can we talk real quick about the the Theophanies
because you brought that up and I wanted to ask
a question, especially because your priest father flat did one
of the best lectures on Saint Andre Rubelov's.
Speaker 2: Holy Trinity.
Speaker 4: There's a guy on ax a reader, an Orthodox reader,
saying that the Father and the Holy.
Speaker 2: Spirit aren't in there, And I'm like, you've got to
be kidding me, so.
Speaker 1: That I don't think they are.
Speaker 2: What's that they're not? So?
Speaker 4: I thought they were represented much like the baptism of
Christ as energetic processions through Christ. So obviously the Angel
of the Lord Christ is present pre incarnate, but just
like we see in the Theophany when Christ is being baptized,
the Holy Trinity is made manifest.
Speaker 1: No, I understand what you're saying. But the reason that
we that I don't think that that is the case
is because we are told in the very next chapter
who the identity of the other two is, and they're
they're the two angels. So, in other words, the text
says that Abraham saw three men and then we're told
that it's one of them is the Lord Yahweh. And
then the next chapter tells us that the two angels
left to go destroy Sodom and goomor So the.
Speaker 4: Two angels can't be energetic manifestations in the fathering Holy Spirit,
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Speaker 1: I don't think so, because they're distinguished from the Lord.
If they were also Lord, they would be given that title.
But they're called the Lord and two men, so there's
a distinction between them, got it. And also also, of
course I think also according to the my Icon Council
Monstero Icon Council, the only valid representations of the Holy
Spirit are as an energetic maifestation are tongues of fire
and dove, so you can't you can't picture him as
an angel.
Speaker 4: I was interpreting the icon through the Feast Pentecost, where
I'm like, well, obviously the Holy Spirit's not a dove,
and the voice of the Father becomes present through an
energetic manifestation of the dove. It says the Holy Spirit
in the form of a dove, so we know, well,
he's not actually a dove, but he's made manifest as
we see in the Tripartian.
Speaker 2: I thought that's what was going on.
Speaker 1: Well, it is triaddic because there's three and the three
there is symbolic of the triad. But I just don't
see any reason.
Speaker 4: I just don't know how in my mind to separate
that from energetic manifestations.
Speaker 1: Because they're not because they're angels. They're not. They're not
energetic manifestations of the Father of the Spirit. Okay, And
that's because if we look at Genesis eighteen, it says
Abraham sees three men, and one of them is the
Lord Yahweh, right, And then in the next chapter it says,
and the two angels left to go destroy Sodom and Gomora.
So one of them is Yahweh, the Lord, and the
other two are his attending angels with him.
Speaker 4: And I just thought angels could represent the energetic manifestations.
Speaker 2: Of the Father and Spirit. But if they're actually different.
Speaker 1: Anger, I only think one of them is referred to
as Yahweh, though.
Speaker 4: They all have to look at the council on fifteen
fifty one, I don't know it that well.
Speaker 2: So forgive me.
Speaker 1: Let me see Genesis. Let's see boarding again here. So
the three men appear and Abraham identifies and says one
of them is Lord, and they have this discussion about
you know, Sarah laughing. But we are told in verse
twenty two. In verse twenty the Lord said, because the
cry of God a Sodom is great, their sin is grievous,
I'm going to go destroy it. And the men turned, okay.
So see verse twenty two. Two of the men are
turning to lee Eve. And then Abraham stood yet before yeahweh,
so one of them is the Lord and the other
two are presumably destroying angels, because after this discussion, in
the next chapter two of them go to destroy some anymore.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a complicated one. I'm gonna have to ask
people higher up than me than buy you what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I think verse twenty two makes Yeah, that makes the
key point.
Speaker 2: And I was just worried because of.
Speaker 4: Maybe I misjudged this reader, because obviously we're all paranoid
of you know, Western kind of influence coming in. Just
I thought he was saying, like these are just holograms,
He's aren't really God and stuff like, so I probably
misjudge me to forgive me everybody.
Speaker 1: No, it's okay, I mean I think it is. There
is a tendency to think that it's Father, Son and
Holy Spirit manifesting. But I think it's just symbolic of
the triad. But one of them is the Sun, and
that's normal too, because like in other Theophanes, you have
like in when we read at number twelve, like it's
just the sun coming down, right, unless you want to
argue that the glory cloud might be a reference to
the Spirit, which you could make that argument.
Speaker 2: But the important point though with all of this is
that and you see this too.
Speaker 4: I'm seeing this on Twitter right now, Christal Thomas Swatsky.
Speaker 2: Having beef with the essence energies distinctions.
Speaker 4: So what I wanted to defend is obviously these are
not created effects, are not holygrams, these Theophanes and stuff
like that. It's really God in the burning bush. It's
really gone on Abraham's uh visitation, which is exactly why
Christopher went to say that God's not empirically in.
Speaker 1: Well, Jesus, Jesus says he's the one in the burning bush.
I mean, yeah, exactly before Abraham was. I am, can you.
Speaker 2: Tell a Roman Catholic thisis? They have like they're like
they can't believe it.
Speaker 1: Well that's what I'm That's why I'm saying. The key
to all this is Theophanes. Like Theophanes are the lynch pin,
and I every Tomus I've tested this out on, they
falter and they end up saying that they can't it
can't be God because God can't be in time and space.
Oh okay, well then the incarnation can't happen either.
Speaker 2: So and forgive me everybody you know, well, what like.
Speaker 4: With uh the toma Schwaski and I going back and
forth on like do you think that you can taste God?
My affirmation but also reluctance and wanting to qualify that.
Speaker 2: There's just as you noticed in the debate, there's just
not enough time to get to all the points.
Speaker 4: But one thing I wanted to bring up before I
got distracted was Psalm thirty four to eight, which we.
Speaker 2: Sing in the communion him.
Speaker 4: Oh taste and see that the Lord is good?
Speaker 2: Right right, Mike? What it's literally the song like he
so he asked me as if it was.
Speaker 4: A ridiculous like I got to you, so you think
you can taste God?
Speaker 2: I'm like, hey, take it up with take it up
with David the song.
Speaker 1: Miss, I mean that's a that's I mean, Thomas are
not going to be able to tell you how the
real presence is even possible, because they're going to end
up saying it's some created form of grace. But there
is no such thing as created God.
Speaker 4: So and so here's the thing too, And I knew
I didn't want to get too far into because this
sort of went on forever, but like it does, Hinge
on the essence energies, right, I do want.
Speaker 2: To affirm like, of course you don't taste the essence
of something.
Speaker 1: No, it's it's it's partaking of the energies, as Cyril says,
and the energies.
Speaker 4: So then he's going to say, well, empirical to empirically
sense something means you you partake of accidental properties.
Speaker 2: Did you notice that he went there? So it's a
substance and accents.
Speaker 4: I'm like, I'm not going there because the problem is
all of this ignores the energy.
Speaker 1: Well, it's ignoring the what the what the grace is?
We're not asking if you believe the you know, accidents
of bread and wine are there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: You believe as a Roman Catholic that it's body, blood, soul,
and divinity. And so the question is what's the divinity?
Speaker 4: And the thing is the energies what a saint Paul
says in him we move, live and have our beam right,
the Holy spirit that feels.
Speaker 2: All things right.
Speaker 4: So and that's why I brought up the analogy with iconography.
I can say that I'm experientially indirectly, I'm not doing
any discursive reason and deductions to be like, well, I'm
just concluding from creative effects to a guy, it's like
he's actually in the leaves, in the various properties right
in obviously different modes, without being those accidental properties themselves,
exactly what Saint johnath Damascus argues.
Speaker 2: But like they couldn't understand that.
Speaker 4: I'm like, of course, I directly empirically experienced him, because
he's in it without being the properties or the or
the substance of the thing. But that opens up a
whole debate about which Christopher and I have had before
about essence energies, which I think doctor David Bradshaw put
him in his place on all that.
Speaker 1: Sure, what's up, man, Andre, what's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Hey? What's up?
Speaker 3: Jake?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Yep? Hey?
Speaker 6: So to real quick to answer the question about the
three men and Genesis, we had my Orthodox study Bible,
and it says one of them was the Lord and
the others who were the angels.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, and so and I just looked up Genesis
eighteen twenty two in the Hebrew and the text there
says two of them went away and Abraham stood before yahweh.
Speaker 6: So yeah, and then it says that law also he
he worshiped, he respected them as lords, but he didn't
worship them.
Speaker 1: Oh, good point. So when the other two come to
to a lot, he doesn't worship.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he called them, he said he does respect to them,
but he says that they were creating beings.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a great point. I don't even know. I
didn't even notice that that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And also I had another question too, So what is
the Protestant sacrifice that they don't have that the Orthodox has?
Speaker 1: What's that?
Speaker 2: Now? Oh?
Speaker 1: I was just saying that Protestants at least acknowledge one sacrifice,
which was Christ on the Cross, but they don't believe
that there's an ongoing eucharistic altar where you worship God. Right,
So Protestants and Roman Catholics actually share this idea that
the faith and worship is primarily mental as and that
is not the Orthodox position. I know that Roman Catholics
agree that God wants sacrificial worship at an altar. I
know they believe that. But when you say the faith
and when you say worship, the only way that you
could that they could even conceive of or or get
to that argument of Muslims worshiping the same God is
if you no longer conceive of the worship of God
being what he lays down.
Speaker 4: I also would say that this in most processes would
know this, Jay, you would agree with me on this.
This is because the reformers were normalists, correct, So there
is no obviously when it comes to essences and you
know the ontology and what that means in terms of salvation,
that's off the table.
Speaker 2: So as.
Speaker 4: Nominalism suggests names like it's a legal so how how
do you do legal contracts or anything in law? It's
a mental it's intent, it's mental assent. It all becomes
not on like what's the word I would he use,
a rejection of ontology, and it's all cashed out in
terms propositions and.
Speaker 2: Mental And you can see this going even.
Speaker 4: In the past the original reformers to through Calvinism and
Lutheranism and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: It's it's all proposition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean this is why. This is
how Luther was able to even get to the point
of arguing that justification and imputation are purely legal statuses.
Is by nominalism divorcing the reality from the name. Okay,
but great questions andres Tallahassee patriot. H I'm yet.
Speaker 2: Hello, Yeah, I'm just messing with you. Hello? Is this
day tire? Yo?
Speaker 1: Solo? Go ahead?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 7: I had a question you mentioned with your talk with
Tim Gordon I think his name was. You said that
you don't believe in generic monotheism. I think is the
term you used?
Speaker 2: Uh? Kind of a dumb question. But if.
Speaker 7: Muslims worship, Like if you ask a Muslim what does
God and they say, well, God is the eternal creator
of the material and immaterial universe, and a Christian says
the same thing. Isn't that like quote unquote generic monotheism?
Speaker 2: I guess no.
Speaker 1: The argument is that generic monotheism doesn't get you anywhere,
and it's not the same reference because for us, an
essential quality to identifying who that is is that Jesus
is the creator. So there's an immediate disqualified right there.
Speaker 7: So do you think like when you used to when
you use the term generic monotheism.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing. It's a it's a fiction. It's
an arbitrary Is.
Speaker 4: There anything like that generic human beings that just has
arms and legs?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, between can we talk.
Speaker 2: About like uh, Sally's brothers.
Speaker 4: I don't know why that came in my mind and
be referring one person's just like, well, I refer to
her because I'm thinking about.
Speaker 2: A person that has arms and legs. Right, yeah, right,
I understand the analogy. So I guess what you're saying
is it's either either you're.
Speaker 7: Worshiping Jesus Christ, the One True God, or you're worshiping nothing.
Speaker 1: What I said at the beginning was no, you're worship
being an idol. And all idols and all heresies cancel out.
They don't get you anywhere. And that's the whole point
is that let's say I have all of the in
other words, Trinity and Christ being the second person of
the Godhead, they're not accident attributes. They're essential to to
identifying who they're referent in the deity is there's no
such thing as a core attribute like one simple creator,
and then Trinity and Jesus are not core. That's the problem. Yes, okay,
because because the Aryans, when the Aryans said, we worship
God too, but the sun is not fully divine, the
Patristan consensus says, good job, you've lost God. Your idolators know.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and what they're doing is. And this is the
distinction I was trying to bring up with Trent and Christopher,
is that you're now just talking at a linguistic level
of like it is somewhat it's a kind of second
order what Tarsk you would call metalanguage.
Speaker 2: You're talking about your concepts, but.
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean that that con actually refers to any
real entity in the world.
Speaker 2: So generically it kind of like, we know what.
Speaker 4: You're talking about, but it doesn't attach to anything specifically.
Speaker 2: And so why Jay said it's idolatry is because, and
I believe.
Speaker 4: Father Demetri Stanlee talks about this too.
Speaker 2: I put it in one of.
Speaker 4: My papers as a quote that they become phantasms, and
I think you specifically speaking about the Roman Catholics, that
they become mental constructs in one's mind, and phantasms that
don't have a reference, and you end up worshiping your
idea of God in this generic sense rather than the
true God himself. And that's exactly the definition of idolatry,
anything that you worship and put.
Speaker 2: Above the actual true God.
Speaker 4: So if you put your concept of God above the
true God, you're a n idolatre.
Speaker 7: That's Jay's point so by worship and sorry to just
wrap it up, so by worshiping what they call God
but is actually not you know, Jesus Christ and not
the Trinitarian God. I guess we were saying with like
creating a phantasm, is they've just invented almost like a fiction,
like just a fictional.
Speaker 1: Yes, hence my, did you hear my Bill Cosby example? Earlier?
Speaker 2: I missed.
Speaker 1: So basically I just said that, let's say that there's
a yeah, there's a there's a generic consensus that Americans
believe Bill Cosby. We're going to disaver the sake of
Argument's nineteen seventy eight. Americans believe that Bill Cosby is
the funniest comedian out there. He's America's best comic. And
a team of crafty marketers and scammers come up with
this idea of a backstory, and they take pictures of
Bill Cosby and they create a character that's very similar,
almost identical to Bill Cosby, but he has got a
few different attributes or a few different qualities. They put
a hat on him and they say he's Charlie Cosby,
Bill Cosby's funnier genius cousin. Who's the real brains by
the operation and the real comedian, and they sell out stadiums,
everybody waiting to be knocked on their butts laughing by
Charlie Cosby. Well, it turns out exactly, It turns out
that everybody was duped and that it was a kind
of a con because when they show up, there is
no Charlie Cosby. And even though there was all these
pictures and it looked like sure as hell, looked like
Bill Cosby's cousin, they had almost the same. Turns out,
e were just pictures of Bill Cosby and the demons,
as you can see, are the marketers. That's the better
analogy than the clerk can't superman analogy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, okay.
Speaker 1: And that's why the church fathers teach that when you
deny the son, you lose the father.
Speaker 2: M h. All right, you very much. So.
Speaker 1: In other words, it only takes see they've got it backwards.
It's not a bottom up project of stacking up common attributes,
because as one John two says, if you deny the sun,
you lose it all. And that's why we read earlier,
we read two papal quotes from pre Tridentine Catholicism, even
admitting that point. Even the pre Vatican two papal teaching
admitted that if you depart in one magisterial dogmatic teaching,
you've lost the whole.
Speaker 2: You know what's interesting.
Speaker 4: I was talking to my priest Father Russell about the debate,
and he had a really good point.
Speaker 2: That we all know.
Speaker 4: She says, you've ever moved from the abstrack to a particular.
Speaker 2: I establish a reference.
Speaker 4: Abstracts are established from the particular, which is what a
lot of these people were assuming. Oh, this natural theology
can start from the abstractor carmen core or something like that, and.
Speaker 2: Then establish a particular reference.
Speaker 4: And we might be wrong about these things, but that's
not actually how logic and epistemology work. You only get
to abstract a generic idea of like human nature, like
arms and legs, from actually encountering particular people.
Speaker 1: Well again, and you you know, that's why I kept
using the Unitarian Pharisee example, and that's why he didn't
want to go there. It's the same principle as the
Muslim denying the trinity and denying the deedy of Christ
and Jesus just flat out says you don't have the
love of God and you've lost you don't believe in me,
so you don't get the Father. Right. I'm the Way,
the Truth and alive. No one comes to the Father
except for me. So you can tout all day long,
who your unitarian God is that you worship, it's not
getting you anywhere, and it's not hitting upon or getting
you a channel to the One True God.
Speaker 4: One thing that I'd like to apologize to everybody in
the audience. Again, there's so much stuff going on. There's
so many points that you want to put in. If
I could redo it, I would have added this point.
There's a way that somebody knows and doesn't know God.
So when they're referring to floteening the woman at the well,
you worship the unknown God, right, or whether it's uh,
Saint Paul on the yeah, the Mars Hill, you have
to understand go back to Saint Paul and he says that,
you know, God is clearly.
Speaker 2: Manifest to all.
Speaker 4: He's not saying to the philosopher's He's saying, yeah, such
that everyone's without excuse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not just played on Aristotle, right.
Speaker 4: He's not saying, oh, only those who read that we're
able to do a cosmological argument, you know from you know,
sense experience and deduced to a first cause or with
the excuse he seemed everybody is.
Speaker 2: So what that shows us is that, well, there's two
different senses of knowing.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't mean to be rude, but I said
this in the debate. Did you not hear me say that?
Speaker 2: Well, there was so much stuff. I did hear it.
Whether I remember it right now, it's a different question.
Speaker 1: I said that I know my wife. That's different than
knowing about my wife. Jake the Muslim metaphysician knows the
Orthodox Trinity, but Jake the muscle does. Jake the Muslim
metaphysician has an abstract conceptual knowledge of the Trinity, but
he explicitly does not love a door or worship at Trinity.
Speaker 4: But what I want to say specifically is the noetic
knowledge that's in the heart of every even in a
child right right, and.
Speaker 2: Think Paul says, through their unrighteousness they suppress.
Speaker 4: Now, unrighteousness doesn't just include, you know, licenseous behavior.
Speaker 2: You can have a unrighteous thought.
Speaker 4: And so what we see, what Saint Paul is saying
is that we all know God in our hearts. Then
what do we do. We build system and idols and
we start to suppress that knowledge. So what we were
critiquing in the debate, because I can't see somebody's heart
and what they actually know in their heart of God.
Speaker 2: The only thing that publicly.
Speaker 4: Accessible is the philosophical and religious language that they provide
to me. And then I can say, well, that language
right there doesn't refer.
Speaker 2: To the true God.
Speaker 4: I can say that while still saying at the same time, well,
how do the Pagans worship? You know, like worship or
like know God? It's like, because everybody knows it in
their heart. But if the conversation was about so, notice
the fallacy of equivocation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is equivocating on no?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like yeah, but we're talking about the system
and the paradigm and the public third personal languge.
Speaker 1: That's why I kept saying that the problem is Vatican
two saying worship and adore. If Vatican two had restricted
the language to Muslims have a conception of a single God, right,
that's not. But it goes beyond that and says together
with us Catholics, Muslims adore the One True God.
Speaker 4: And keep in mind too, I find it really interesting
that Eric Voglin says that the neo gnostic and these
kind of modern systems.
Speaker 2: Always use word play like Cagle.
Speaker 4: Bounces between equivocation on different words to basically conceal the
crime that.
Speaker 2: They're actually doing. And this is a perfect example what
Catholics do.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, it's the same with logos.
Speaker 2: Well, look at it. Look what they're doing. We obviously see.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if this word means is this you see
and all of it is smoking mirrors.
Speaker 1: This is the same debate that I had with all
of these Roman Catholics in twenty eighteen when emj was
going around talking about logos and logos theology, and he
was trying to argue with a lot of Pagans and
people interested in philosophy and saying, look, John, one in
the beginning was the logos, The logos was with God,
et cetera. That's the same as when Marcus Aurelius and
the Pagans use the word logos. It's not. The difference
is that he's saying, you got it wrong. You mentioned
this word logos in your philosophical system, and you guys
have it all wrong. It's not an immaterial and personal force.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what St. Paul and even the woman
in the wells.
Speaker 1: Well two Corinthians one. We tear down these foolish world views, right,
he says, where is the worldly man? Let's read this past?
It's really good? Or is it? First Corinthians.
Speaker 2: Us or Corinthians one?
Speaker 1: Frank Pole? Where is the wise man of this age?
Where's the scribe? Where's the disputer? God has made foolish
the wisdom of this world, since through this world's wisdom,
here's the natural theology, this world did not know God.
I'll wait a minute, I thought they did. We'll stop
equivocating on the word no, and this won't be a problem.
Jews seek signs, Greeks want wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, Amen.
So we don't need the hellenic wisdom to figure out
who God is. And right here we prefer Vatican Vatican too.
Excuse me, said is right here along with us. They
adore the One Merciful God with us Catholics. So in
other words, this is the passage. And I sent this
to Tim again tonight, I said, Tim, this is the
passage that you've ignored the entire time. You've deflected onto
linguistic theories of Fraga and all this. None of that
matters when Battican two says that Muslims worship along with
us Catholics, the One True God, and again, worship and
adoration is not mental essense to propetition propositions like you
guys think. It means having a connection too and a worship.
It assumes that that God worships, that accepts that worship,
because it says along with us. How is this not clear?
If I ask a Catholic, does God accept your worship?
Every Catholic will say yes. Well, this passage says that
the Muslims worship and adore God along with you, So
does God accept Muslim worship? Yes, they've been saying Muslims
worship and adore God, but they don't explicitly. That's the
point Again, Islam is predicated on verbally explicitly confessing and
rejecting Trinity and deeded Christ in the Qur'an.
Speaker 2: And that's not like I.
Speaker 4: Mean, it's amazing they're using Saint Fultini who didn't reject.
Speaker 1: Now this isn't even stronger argument in our favor.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a vague kind of knowledge versus somebody that's like, yeah,
but I specifically reject the trinity and all these attributes
that you say about God.
Speaker 1: She just says, she just says, our father Jacob gave
us a tradition and that's what we know to worship.
And Jesus says, you don't know who you're worshiping. You
don't know him. That's the point. Only a romancolol that
could take that passage and say, well, it says worshiping, Yeah,
I don't have a promise saying they worship. They worship
all kinds of false things. That's jesus rhetorical point. You
worship this idea you don't actually know God, because he
says for salvation is of the Jews. We do know
who and what we worship. We worship the Father. You
worship an idea, you don't know God. That's the point.
Only Robin Calvius could take that and make that the
opposite of the passages, meaning and they do the same thing.
In Acts seventeen, Paul walks to the areopagus. There's all
these idols everywhere, and he says, I saw an inscription
on one of your idols. This is a rhetorical point.
It says the unknown God, the one that you worship
without knowing. So they're equivocating on two senses of no
and saying, see, they know God. The whole point of
the passage is the one that you don't know. You
do not know him.
Speaker 2: So what did I tell you?
Speaker 1: Your worship is listen, I'm sorry, the worship is in vain.
It is vain, idolatrous worship. Because he goes on to say,
you make the nature of God like gold and silver
and created things, but the divine nature is not like
any of those things. And so you worship a thing
that is like man's devising. So the thing you worship
is a thing you don't know. Oh, but they know
him because it's still the Trinity. And that's why Muslim's
worship attorney. Muslims explicitly reject attorney. That's how silly this is.
Speaker 4: So do you remember what I told you about what
my priest father Russell said. All of this is what
they call hunters call stocking horse, where you set up
a decoy and you the hunter sets out a fake
decoy horse or horse and hides behind it to test
the prey. Yes, how they respond, So you have to
understand that Roman Catholics are purposely using this equivocation right
to test the.
Speaker 2: Waters to be like, can I actually strike?
Speaker 4: Can I actually and then well, look if the praise
gonna get I e us gets scared and.
Speaker 2: Come back, then we'll be like, well, then that's not
what we meant.
Speaker 4: You see, we meant by know that, like in this
generic sense, this philosophical reference.
Speaker 2: And you see, but it's obvious, you.
Speaker 4: See what they're doing, right, And I think that's a
really good analogy, the stalking horse, like putting it out
there and then using the ambiguity of language.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're equivocating on no. Just like the guy in
the chat Justin is making the exact same argument and
saying but it says they know God, you're equivocating. Do
you know what equivocation is? It's trading between two different
senses of a word. And that's the whole point we're making,
is that you can have again, Justin, I told you this.
This is the same point earlier with Jake. Jake the
Muslim metaphysician knows the Trinity, does he worship and adore
the Trinity? No, So it's two different senses.
Speaker 4: Of no, and way you have to realize that the
Roman Catholics are doing this on purpose.
Speaker 2: Their system is at least.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, natural theology is predicated on this ambiguity. It's
abating switch.
Speaker 4: You can obviously see if you see the pope praying.
Speaker 2: With Muslims, well, but that's not really what it means.
You see.
Speaker 4: That is the stucking horse that you're putting out there.
But like, welly can you use the language and equivo
kate on and be like, wow, you see the logical
terms of the semantic reference. We're not really worshiping and
you can dial it back.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not that the.
Speaker 4: Pope's really blessing same sex marriages. We can that's stalking horse.
Speaker 1: The whole religion is all of this need to fall
for this, like well, that's why they're all liars, is
that they lie to make this system work. And the
Pope is acting on this document right here.
Speaker 2: And we know what the last two popes believe.
Speaker 4: This is so stupid that all of you have the
Pope's pointing and be like, well, that's not really what
he meant. It's like, but we know what he means,
we know what he believes, like you using, So what
do they do? They do the classic move of an abstraction. Well,
let's go to the analytic propositional meaning of the terms,
and that's not really what it means. Like when you're
looking and you're seeing the person committing the crime.
Speaker 2: Depends what you mean by is right? Like God to
help you? People like why do you fall for this?
Speaker 1: Well, it's like John one.
Speaker 2: The abstract world that's less real.
Speaker 4: Right, we won't get you do this logical propositional thing
and talk about terms, which is a slide of hands
to distract you, which is a demonic device, by the way,
from what you actually know when you're looking at the
person committing the crime.
Speaker 1: Let's get Paul's out. So notice that Greek Polytheism did
sacrifice to these entities. Okay, let's get more commentary and
explanation from Paul. In One Corinthians ten twenty, does Paul
believe that the gentiles and the pagan philosophers are worshiping
the one true God? No, he's saying, the gentiles and
you would sacrifice to Apollo. In one of the Platonic dialogues,
Socrates offers an animal sacrifice. Are they worship the one God? No,
it's offered to demons. The worship is to demons and
not to God first Greenia, ten twenty. I don't know
why this is so hard for Roman Catholics, but this
is what happens when you worship a delusion and a system,
and you double down and double down and double down
Martin Luther.
Speaker 4: None of the Roman Catholics were doing this until it
became kind of more obvious that like this was dog
they have to defend