Speaker 1: Who is this, I don't know. It's me. It's amid
the Ruins. It's a guy who makes dire Way of music.
It's amid the Ruins.
Speaker 2: And since.
Speaker 1: Dire Way Music, what I've talked about in you know,
probably one hundred articles of Jason Aalysis is the implementation
of the AI smart grit and giant smart cities, which
is what IBM talks about publicly building. And that's where
we're going, and that's what I think we have to
be really concerned about. So all of these tensions. They
are putting a long term strategy to basically get everybody
moved into mega cities. They'll be forced to they'll be
forced off of land and so forth for an environmental
reasons and basically concocted and invented environmental nonsense. Then you'll
be stuck in some hell a whole megacity, in a
basically a carbon size apartment, living over a target or something,
or inside of a target or a Walmart. As I
said several years ago, it's actually coming true. Now there's
actually target cities. This is all of the long term
globalist strategy. But to get there, you've got to have
the constant clash the constant alchemical blending and mixing and
smashing together right out of Manicheanism to produce the convergence,
to produce the synthesis. And that's what's crucial in all
this and what is absolutely true from an alchemical esotery, philosophical,
angioglotical perspective the fact that the ruling elite seek to
be host you know, Jason alsos dot com. You can't
try to fix today's problems political. This is what so
many people that all circles and all ride and whatever
on media, they all seem to think that there's like
a political solution to man it's problems. And really the
whole of modernity is built on this neopagan concept of
political salvation, and there is no political salvation for mana
because man's problems are not essentially political, they're spiritual. The
hierarchy of how man views himself in the world has
been inverted.
Speaker 3: I've covered over and over and over the white papers.
Speaker 1: That actually discussed how to invert and subvert that changing
images of man things like this. So what has to
happen is that the inversion has to be reverted back
to the way it needs to be, and that means
that first and foremost for man, it is the spiritual issues.
Those come first. Then we have the things like the
philosophy and the family and the social issues and things
like that that comes next, and race, where ethnicity can
be classed as part of that. That is, in other words,
you caring for your people is just a broader extension
of the family, the tribe, the nation.
Speaker 3: Right, It all depends on what we mean by these.
Speaker 4: Words in these terms.
Speaker 1: Now America and Americanism, it's the first attempt at a
completely compositional nation. And this is well known. This is
not debated in political theory. I think even Abraham Lincoln
referred to it, though.
Speaker 5: Jaye Ion Jay Snells. It's Jay Dyer Jay's analysis.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome, we are live on another installment of
Q and A. And as we said, we're going to
be doing Q and A from the audience as well
as the super chats you can super chat by a
stream lab, and we're going to cover this excellent little
book that is overlooked. A lot of people overlook this
book and they don't think that iconography, you know, they think, well,
it's kind of a neat thing that relates to worship,
and you know, Roman Catholics don't really disagree with us
over that, and we all have that in common. And
that's really just a question for Protestants to kind of
solve on their own if they're looking at Orthodoxy, or
maybe it's a problem that Islam has with Orthodox iconography
or something like that.
Speaker 3: But that's not actually the case.
Speaker 1: In fact, everything in this book will argue on the
basis of Christology. Right, we're going to see the Saint
Cyril's Christology. We're going to see that Calcidon dialphysitism is
crucial to how it's possible to have iconography, and then
of course the Fifth and Sixth Councils. The Christology in
relationship to energies is going to be relevant to how
we're able to do Christology the triad as well. Right,
if you don't have a nature person distinction. For example,
we're going to see that it's impossible to do iconography
because everyone agrees, whether it's the iconoclasts or the icono files,
everyone agrees that you can't image the divine nature, the
divine ussia. Well, now we're presented with a problem because
if we can't image the divine nature, and we know
that Christ can't be split or divided.
Speaker 3: What are we picturing?
Speaker 1: What are we imaging when we image the logos the
Son of God incarnate. If it's just as human nature,
then we're dividing Christ. So we're going to need the
proper theological bag baggage, a toolkit. You could say that
the proper theological toolkit philosophical toolkit to allow for the
nuances and the distinctions that make iconography possible, of course,
without falling into some crystological error and.
Speaker 3: The christological doctrines. As we'll see.
Speaker 1: As you've heard me say for many, many years, correct
Christology is a direct reflection of correct, correct triadology. If
you get your triadology messed up, your Christology is going
to mess up, and by extension, your worship will mess up,
because your worship is going to reflect your view of
how God relates to the world. Your sacramentology, it's going
to be messed up. Right, if you don't have the
energy's doctrine, there's absolutely no way to have a correct
doctrine of the sacraments. And likewise the ecclesiology, you're not
going to have a correct doctrine of the church is
about a Christ because you don't have the possibility the
energies in terms of their imminent presence in the church.
Real quick, before we get to the chat. Now we've
got open VC in the discord. Father Deacon Ananius is
joining me and I put his Twitter into the chat.
Speaker 3: Be sure and follow him on Twitter.
Speaker 1: He's wanting to kind of grow that a bit, and
you can also follow his YouTube channel. It's also in
the show description. And then we may have other mods
in the discord popping on. So we're going to be
answering questions first, me and Father Deacon. So any atheists,
any Muslims, Protestants, Roman Catholics, it's open for him. I'd
like to give that open invitation if anybody wants to.
Speaker 3: We will give preference to the super chats.
Speaker 1: Obviously, if you support the stream via the stream labs,
you click that link and you can do a super
chat via stream labs. We will answer your apologetic questions.
One question I'd like to address, which is a new
thing that the Roman Catholics are relying on to try
to play gotcha, is that in the Eborro debate from
a couple of years ago, I made the statement that
not everything in the ecumenical councils is fallible, and this
is now being spun into Oh I don't I deny
ecumenical councils. No, no, no. If you go read, if
you pick up say Prices book or any of the
academic books that will treat of the documents out of
ecumenical councils.
Speaker 3: You'll notice that there are tons of documents.
Speaker 1: There are the minutes of the Council, there are the
various decrees, there are the canons, there's the dogmatic professions
of faith. Right, so there's mountains of documents that actually
go into and are connected to the ancient ecumenical councils.
Speaker 3: Many of these documents have not even been translated into.
Speaker 1: English, or are still awaiting translation or are in process
of translation. That's why the Richard Price books are so
expensive if you go to Amazon right.
Speaker 3: Now to try to get them.
Speaker 1: Now, what the reason I bring this up is that
I was very clear in what sense I said and
in what way I said that ecumenical councils the same
status is not accorded to everything in the council. So
the fact that a canon says this does not mean
that it's equally authoritative or equally binding as something in
a dogmatic pronouncement or an anathema or something like this,
or the profession of faith of the council. So, for example,
many canons in the ancient Church are no longer applicable.
Many canon laws promulgated by ecumenical councils don't relate to now,
They relate to cities and jurisdictions that don't even exist
in the world. So obviously those canons are not binding.
Speaker 3: This is not even that difficult. It's a it's.
Speaker 1: Just a attempting to play gotcha, as if I meant
that entire ecumenical councils can be denied just willy nilly
or something like that. That is not what I said.
I was clearly talking about the context of canons, the
minutes of councils, or which bishops signed on first, or
this kind of that these kinds of details are not
actually part of the dogma of the council. And I
also made the point that, contrary to the Roman Catholics,
actually this problem is the reverse. It's not actually a
thing that I'm promoting or an error that I'm promoting.
It's actually a problem that's more applicable to their position,
because the Roman Catholics believe that the theologians writings of
the councils don't even matter. All that matters is what
the Pope approved in this or that council literally, so
they will actually ignore the crystological presuppositions of this book,
which is the which is the basis of the Seventh
Council right as well as Saint John Damascus's books on
the Advine images, or they will ignore the theological augmentation
of the Cappadocians in terms of Father being the sole
cause source archae monarchy in the Trinity, and they'll say, well,
it doesn't really matter. We can still have the phillioquay
because later on we decided that we can have the philioquy,
So it doesn't matter that the theologians behind the Constantinople
one actually preclude the possibility of philioquay, because we're only
bound to these specific sections of the councils that the
Pope approved.
Speaker 3: So actually their.
Speaker 1: Position is the one that is more ridiculous, more ahistorical,
more absurd, more nonsensical, and without any real factual basis,
and just completely contrary to what is obviously the case
in terms of the theologians of the councils. For example,
could I interpret Ephesus without Saint Cyril's theology? Of course not,
And I don't think anybody would deny this. This is
so patently obvious. Right. Could I interpret and Isicia without
Athanasius's theology?
Speaker 3: Of course not.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that everything in Athanasius or everything in
Cyril is infallible? No, nobody believes that, right, But it's
also not the case that in the Romancolic perspective, we're
just going to that.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm saying this is their view.
Speaker 1: Their view is that all that really matters is what
the Pope approves in any given council. And then of
course they themselves are not actually consistent because what is
the first lateran or or or one of the romans
centims I think the six forties that I mean, it's
papally approved. There's no reason for them why it's not acumenical.
But it's not acumenical. So an actual fact, it's their
position that is completely arbitrary, and they know good and
will that I wasn't saying arbitrary that you just I
just I reject documentical cultils when there's a problem. But
I don't like they know that's not what I was
arguing specifically talking about canons, this or that canon can't
nobody believes Canon law is infallible. It's not given Davina,
it's given by custom. It's the Church law. Now exactly,
Father Deacon, this is the point you always make. Ill,
let's you chime in here, because this is why we
let bishops interpret the canons. Right. When catechumens or people
try to take take upon themselves to interpret canon law
at leads to disastrous consequences because there's no nuance, there's
no understanding of the times.
Speaker 3: Just because something was in.
Speaker 1: Canon law doesn't mean that it's your job as a
catechuman or an internet person trying to interpret as an
appliant to the church.
Speaker 2: Right, a weird mix between of pharasitical legalism and which
treats yeah, laws and end in its own right rather
than laws and means to an end. And it's like
a mix and a hybrid with like contient, yeah, the
anthological ethics or something like that. And so that's right.
The Muslim and many even Protestants will have this kind
of idea to you that whatever God reveals is eternal
and there's no nuances it right and whatsoever, and then
everything is an eternal. So if God said to you,
I want you to sustain from abstain from eating bread
for three days, there think well it comes from God,
that's an eternal statement. That would be one instance of
kind of lack of a nuance. But the idea with
the laws that again, what is Christ say, all of
the laws summed up in this. Yeah, I love God
with all heart and mind, soul of love neighbor itself.
So if it goes against that, if applying the law
the letter goes against what it's actually trying to achieve,
then it defeats the whole purpose of law. And that's
why God's given the grace and authority to the bishops
to understand that kind of context to see that. I
think about it this way. I was thinking about this
and ethics that if you have these kind of universal
non nuance kind of compt you you should always give
back property to its rightful owner and your neighbor. That's
the law, let's say. And you got to apply that
and just stick with it, you know, in a wooden
literal fashion. Every single time. Now, what do you do
when your neighbor loans you a gun for hunting and
then he tells you he's he's been drinking and he's
and the serious depression, wants to commit suicide. And by
the way, he wants his gun back. Well, the losses
that you've got to give your property back to its
rightful owners. So that kind of attitude that you see
among people, especially layman, young inquirers or catech humans, it's
disastrous to apply that kind of You leave that to
the bishops to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean imagine and imagine relatives when you go go.
I mean I've read. I've been reading can of law
for many years. I'm not a Candona expert. Personally, I'll
find canon law very boring. I don't find it for
that interesting. It's it's there's people who are into that
good that's their job.
Speaker 3: That's not what I'm into.
Speaker 1: And when you read the law, the canons of the councils,
you get into canon law, you get into the canons
of Sartika, you get into the canons of of ephesis,
get into the canons of Gangra, of the African synods,
and how they're reaffirmed in Trollo and Seventh Council.
Speaker 3: I know all this stuff, but the point is that
those are just church laws most of the time, not
all the time.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they relate to theology, and they are relevant to today.
But it's not the lay person's job to try to
like comb through mountains of canon law to figure out
what's applicable to given situations. That's what I'm not a bishop.
I don't and i'm not don't want to be. I
don't have any interest in trying to apply ancient church
laws to today. But guess what, many of them don't apply.
You can't apply the ancient laws about, you know, not
going to the theaters. Okay, that's not talking about going
to a movie. I've actually had Orthodox people get so
like faarisaical. Let's say you're forbidden in the Canons to
go to any movie. Movies are haram, right, they're like
Salafi's or something right like it's it's it's that's what
the right Muslims say when it's forbidden. Right, movies are
hot up right. So uh again, I'm not saying you
should be watching every degenerate Hollywood movie. That's not the point.
The point is that you can't take these ancient canons
that dealt with when in the ancient world somebody went
to the theater and they had to give obeisance to
the pagan gods. That's the context, right, not talking about
and and by the way, the same people who do
this kind of a move in the Orthodox sphere, they
end up going off into schism and they decide that
everybody's you know, lost grace, but them, them, and five people,
five people in a trailer park are the only people
with grace. So it's not your duty to try to
figure that out if you're Orthodox. And simultaneously for the
Roman Catholics. Uh, again, I didn't say that ecumenical councils
are wrong. It's just that they're not listening to what
I'm saying, and they're not. It's I'm being very nuanced
and being very clear. There's no ecumenical council that has
a dogmatic profession that any person could reject. I constantly
tell the fact that the Confession of Saint Cyrilo h
excuse me, San Soophronius of Jerusalem, that's a dogmatic confession
that's part of the Six Council, and it teaches the
essence energy thing. It also teaches a creation.
Speaker 2: Right identify that as a straw man fallacy?
Speaker 3: Yeah, could you illustrate that? Why is that a straw man?
Speaker 2: So again, if you're actually being nuanced on that. So
what's a strong man fallacy? It's when you take your
opponents position iither purposely misrepresented or represent in a way
that's weaker than it actually is for the purpose of
easily knocking down the arm man.
Speaker 5: That's actually an informal fallacy.
Speaker 1: The Orthodox believe in ocumenical councils. Here's jaysaying, not everything
in ecumenical councils infallible. And they can be wrong. I said.
Canons can be wrong, Yeah, or they can they can
be applied at a point that's no longer applicable. So
there's a maybe wrong is not the right word. There's
a transience to some canons.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Local synods can have canons that are wrong. Sure, but this.
Speaker 2: One there's canons about subdeacon's not marry.
Speaker 1: It's also possible that a canon can be right in
principle and wrongly applied.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Roman Catholics also believe that
there are many councils that have erroneous canons. They themselves
don't accept Canon twenty eight of Calciledon. They think it's wrong.
Speaker 2: That one fits are named jan and I are coming
up with new new faucy names, and that one would
fall under the one that we came up with. I'm
excluded from the critiques, and I'm applying to you, Fallacy.
I'm critique.
Speaker 1: We can't use it on me, Fallacy, exactly right. Remember,
keep in mind the very thing they're accusing me of.
I'm being nuanced and explaining in what sense canons can
be transient temporal, not relevant for all times in.
Speaker 3: All places, which is obviously the case.
Speaker 1: If some of those canons relate to cities and jurisdictions
and bishoprics that don't even exist anymore. Meanwhile, they turn
around and say that I reject chemical councils because I
said that one of these canons might not.
Speaker 3: Be relevant anymore.
Speaker 1: Uh, And they turn around and reject Canon twenty eighty
calcil On. They don't affirm that count, but because that
canon says that the Bishop of Constantinople is equal in
honor and dignity as Rome, and they reject that canon.
Speaker 2: So they did the same thing with it as me
when I was not that Sung and Chris Thomas Rosher
are really graceful. But let the people that come on
in the comments, right, they're always the oh, this deacon
doesn't know what he's talking about. He says yes and
no in a way yes and a wait, wait a minute.
I thought those are just called distinctions. I thought Thomas
and Roman Catholics love distinction. And now I can't do
it well as the Orthodox person. He can't do that.
We're about to you can't do that that. I'm executed
from the critique of applying to you. Fallacy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and let's talk.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I also said that individual fathers
can err and everybody believes that individual church fathers can
get things wrong. So Abara, if you remember that today,
it was trying to say, well, then what if I
find a Western pope that's accepted by you as Orthodox
before the schism and he says something that has a
strong view of the papacy that proves the papacy. No,
it doesn't, because in our system it's perfectly applicable for
somebody to be wrong as an individual church father.
Speaker 3: And by the way, your system says.
Speaker 2: That, so that the same kind of methodology that I
find that Roman Catholics and Protestants are very similar in
this way that this kind of quote mining. I'll just
find what I want and I'll throw that verse over
that father, and and that proves my point. But we
don't have an ecclesiology and.
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy that's like that exactly.
Speaker 2: We have a consensus in.
Speaker 1: Reception, right. And that's also why I was trying to
make an argument about paradigms and presubositions and data being
theory laden, and Ybarro never got that point because they
don't think that way. Roman Catholics don't think about paradigms
and presubsitions. In fact, their whole system is pretty much
adopting that classical foundationalist model. So they don't believe in
thinking that way. So for them, it's just let me
show you a machine gun spam of twenty five Catholic
answers proof text for the papacy. There you go, it's
like number one, you're still partly relying on forgeries. By
the way, has Eric ever admitted that he was still
relying on forgeries in our debate? No, he hasn't. Has
he admitted that he's his initial essays that UBI showed
were relying on forgeries. No, he hasn't. Has he admitted
that he changed his position about the tone of Leo
being ex Cathedra, He took down all of his old
posts saying that it was No, he hasn't made him
into that.
Speaker 3: So there's this. This is constant sort of.
Speaker 1: Game playing and dishonesty, and that's why they're having to
resort to gotcha's and to purposefully ignore the nuances. Anyway,
let's move on. If father dickon, if you have anything
else to say about canon longfa Okay, welcome everybody, if
you would pleaseit like and share. Today we're gonna talking
about theology the icon, as well as doing open Q
and A open Q and A is first you got me,
got father deacon here? Does anybody have any topics that
they want to discuss. By the way, we got two
big fat super chats from a couple of days ago.
Thanks sent one hundred dollars, Thank you, thanks, thanks, thanks,
and then thank you. Jay sent another one hundred dollars
and says thumbs up, mate, I'm glad to see that
your star is rising.
Speaker 3: Uh oh, that's a cultic.
Speaker 1: We'll let the We'll let the illuminate confirm exposers take
that comment and clip it and say that I'm illuminate
confirmative highly edified astrology. Dude, you're doing astrology, highly edifying
in the deep end of truth. All the best, my friend. Well,
thank you so much for that. Thank you, thank you,
thank you. There's anybody in the discord have any topics
or issues or discussion that they want to get into?
You got We got a room full of people, does
anybody have we had somebody earlier said I want to talk.
Speaker 3: I want to ask you a quite about Islam. Are
you still here?
Speaker 1: Dogs kept crewing here? Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 6: I got my question.
Speaker 1: You forgot your question?
Speaker 6: Must that I got my question?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I was talking to a friend of mine who's a Muslim,
and he brought up, I don't I'm not my Bible.
I think it might be Matthew twenty four if.
Speaker 7: I recall correctly, it's he's something about the end in
days no one knows they, or the or the hour.
Speaker 6: And then he says only the Father knows, not even
the angels.
Speaker 7: And then there's something that I didn't know that I
looked in my OSB and it said that some translations.
This is what he was saying, say, not even the
Son knows. No one knows except for the Father, not
even the angels or the Son. And that kind of
sued me for a loop a little bit.
Speaker 1: I hadn't heard that, right. This is an ancient aryan argument.
It's been around for forever. Basil covers this in letter
to thirty five. Let me make sure this is the right.
Maybe it's two thirty six. Uh, there's a I know
what it is. There's a a good essay at the
Preacher's Institute.
Speaker 2: On this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put it on typing it because I want
to put it in the chat for the It's not
saying that that Christ lacked knowledge, because Christ is a
divine subject, divine person, so he's not lacking knowledge, but
he can speak by appropriation is the word that Saint
John Damascus will use.
Speaker 2: Hold on a second.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I was trying to tell him about Christ doing
and saying things proper to is.
Speaker 6: Human nature, and I was.
Speaker 2: I was really trying.
Speaker 1: But it's like the well, they're only interested in they're
only interested in certain texts, right, So they're not gonna
look at all the texts, right, I got to fund
the exact title.
Speaker 7: They don't wanna like even to understand the concept of
like a distinction between nature and person or how a person.
We can show it happening to two natures and acting
and speaking proper to one of the natures.
Speaker 6: It's it's like a brick wall, dude.
Speaker 1: Right. So it's similar to like when we call Christ
a curse and like Protestants like, oh, that means he
like literally became cursed and the father hated him. It's
as if he were cursed, right, he is treated as
one cursed, does not mean that he is literally cursed.
Or if you read it's if you read John Damascus
book three, it's the sections twenty eight thirty. I think
it's the last three chapters in book three where he
describes appropriation. And so it's the son saying it's as if, right,
Like it's it's an as if statement, right, or a
for our sake statement. It's a what's the word I'm
looking for? It's like an exaggeration where I say, like, like,
no man even knows, not even any man knows this, right,
not even the center.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Hyperbolerea, That's what I'm looking for, right, Yeah.
Speaker 6: He does that a lot like Coldman's father.
Speaker 1: Well, cut your hand off. It makes you sin. I mean,
come on, that's well. They won't allow nuance when we
interpret things, but when it comes to the Koran. Oh,
you better give me nuance with all these problems in
the Koran.
Speaker 2: Right, but you enjoy that tweet. I forget to be
sent it out since says call them and father is
the same Father Abraham and Sunday School.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, Uh, let me it's I know it's. Basil
has a whole letter on this. It's right here. Maybe
it's thirty nine after thirty eight on nature in person.
Bezel is a really good letter on this. But I'm
just trying to find it. No, that's about war. It's
not that two thirty six. Let me grab my copy
of it because I know where it's marked in there.
Speaker 2: H dons with Muslims.
Speaker 6: It's like it feels like talking to a little kid,
like you have to slow down mm hmmm, like talk loud,
like an elderly.
Speaker 2: Said, I want you to make distinctious M page pages prayer.
Speaker 1: I got my Basil help. So I'm just trying to
find the letter I'm thinking of. It's right after that
where he talks about two thirty letters to thirty four.
I think, here we go, Yeah, here it is. It's
two thirty six. So here's Basil's letter two thirty six
on the ignorance of the son's Yeah, here it is,
and I'm gonna put it in the chat for everybody.
So and the Preacher's Institute article just site it just
restates Basil and letter two thirty six. So so, he says,
because the Arians were always using this as one of
their key arguments, no man seems to be a general
expression that not a single person is accepted by it.
But this is not its use in scripture, as I observed,
in many passages, there's none good but God, right, Jesus
says that does that mean that Jesus isn't good, only
God the Father. For even in this past is the
Son does not speak to the exclusion of himself being good,
because in other places he calls himself good.
Speaker 3: Since the Father is the first.
Speaker 1: Good, we believe the words no man have been uttered
with understanding the addition of the first. So with this passage,
no man knows the son, but the can. Somebody stops,
that's really loud scraping. No man knows of the Father,
the Son, but the Father Matthew eleven, twenty seven. So
there is the charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but
only so. In other words, if we say no one
knows the Son but the Father, does that mean that
the Holy Spirit doesn't know the Father.
Speaker 3: So these are as Father Deacon said, hyperbole.
Speaker 1: Even here there is not a statement of the ignorance
of the Holy Spirit, but a testament to the knowledge
of his own nature that naturally belongs to the Father first.
Thus we also understand in Matthew twenty four to thirty
six that no man knows to refer to the Father
as the first knowledge of things, both present and to
be generally, and to exhibit to men as the first cause.
Speaker 3: So in other words, it's just like.
Speaker 1: When Jesus is saying, no man is good but the Father, right,
No man's good but God right. It's not to the
exclusion of himself, but it's to give the deference to
the Father as the soul caused arka and principle. Right,
does that make sense?
Speaker 6: Doesn't make sense.
Speaker 7: It's one of those things where kind of gauge some
of the Muslims and then.
Speaker 6: You're like, are they gonna be able to even process.
Speaker 1: It's just kind of Slacksand I mean, well, unfortunately no,
because they again are not big fans of nuance. So
and I'm not meaning to be mean, but I mean
we've had many interactions with Muslims and they're not that
interested in nuance. And a lot of the apologetic from
Islam is just based on these kind of like word
concept fallacies, very you know, blistic either or fallacies, et cetera.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think you said to thirty six.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I put it in the link in for the
people in the discord, and that's also Yeah, just let
at two thirty six. It's a good, good letter. I
wish I could find that uh essay at Preacher's Institute
that talks about it. It's really good. Here it is,
it is, I found it. I will put this also
in the chat for everybody who's this buy father somebody,
Oh you didn't say it, doesn't say he wrote it.
It's just it just has a it just just posts
it here.
Speaker 2: I don't know we're going to follow somebody's on Sunday.
Speaker 1: I will share this in the VC general in the discord,
So give me just a minute, I'll share it there.
But yeah, that's the The point is that it's linguistic.
And he cites a letter to thirty six of Bagel
and he points out there's none good but God. No
man knows the son of the Father, et cetera. My
father only.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Does that mean when Jesus says my father only, that
it excludes the Holy spirit? All these those are reduct
yos right? So if that was the case, all these
statements would also be interpreted in that way and would
reduce to absurdity, which are all really good arguments, right anyway,
So there's that, and there's the two sources that are
good on that. By the way, you can follow father
Deacon there. He's in the chat if you missed it,
there's this letter two thirty six of Basil, and then
this article at Preachers Institute is really good on that.
All right, Nevin says, for five dollars, what is the
difference between natural law insert Mark Pasio's voice, natural law
and the Kybalion hermetic principles? How does one differ or
relate to what Jesus taught?
Speaker 3: The easiest way I can.
Speaker 1: Answer this is to say that for any system, whether
it's Mark Pasio and his kind of esoteric alchemical natural law,
or whether it's Enlightenment philosophers, or whether it's Tomass Thomas
Aquinas and natural law. The easiest way I could classify
the difference is that for all those guys, this really
has nothing to do with the Second person of the Godhead.
There's no direct connection between the laws of nature per se,
what those laws are, and the Logos aka the second
person of the Trinity and his imminent presence in the world.
For the Orthodox, the laws of nature are logie right,
They're the principles that God is established ultimately right. I mean,
it's principles and laws for the created order. But they're
patterned on the ordering of the Logos himself. Okay. So
that's the big difference is that nobody from those schools
of the Enlightenment, or even the Thomists would say that
nature in its laws has any direct relationship to Jesus
per se. I think that down the road, yeah, a
Thomas or Aroma Colly would say, well, maybe down the road, yes,
I can kind of link this to Jesus and the Trinity.
But when we're doing natural law, we're just we're just
doing autonomous reasoning. We're saying there's no autonomous reasoning. It's
not possible. You can't do autonomous reasoning in a coherent way.
You can do it physically, right, noetically you can do it,
but whether you can give an a count for it and
justify is a different thing. And that's what we're saying
you can't do. And that's why Justin Popovitch, Saint Justin
Popovich wrote a whole essay saying that.
Speaker 3: We don't believe in natural law.
Speaker 1: And he's talking about in the sense of Tomism Western philosophy,
and how the Western ethos of natural law that's the
wrong book. The Western ethos of natural law leads to atheism,
it leads to deism. That's one father, deacon, would you
comment on what would you say to somebody who said,
what's wrong with just going by natural law according to
you know, like Enlightenment philosophers or something.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, you see a series of departures. And again
this is kind of word concept fallacy. Just because we're
using the same word doesn't mean that throughout the kind
of various ages and philosophies that means the same sort
of thing. The departure from orthodoxy, remember, is always personalized,
and so there isn't this, Oh, there's the transcendent God
out there and even the Holy Trinity and stuff like that,
and then there's God's created order. And then we just
from our own minds and this created order reason up
and find kind of God's thumb print. That's kind of
the way it is, right. It's like the the the
after effect of God left is almost kind of what
I would say is scholastic kind of notion that reflects
but that's not personalized, that God is actually both transcendent
and imminent within creation. And so the way that that's
why we don't have natural theology, the way that the
Roman Catholics in the Westwood we have natural revelation and
supernatural level and they're not they're all understood, as you
rightly pointed out, was really well that you said it
that way, personalized understood in terms of specifically the second
person of the Holy Unity. Now, after you get after
the kind of Tomistics and the Scholasticism the Enlightenment, because
the modernity that mechanizes nature, so at least with the
with the Thomas and Scholastics, their natural law was things
have natures and essences in the material world, and that
obviously comes from God, is grounded in God, so there
is some sort of connection there. But once the the
modern philosophers mechanized nature and abolished essences and forms in nature,
they just keep natural law by name. In fact, what
you'll start to see in the Enlightenment thinkers is natural
law is the law of reason. Because nature, there's nothing
to be found in nature. It's just a machine. Right,
So rather than look into nature, you look to everything's
anthro centric, percentric concerns now, and man's elevated higher than
all of nature, not within nature, and really almost higher
than God. So man's law of reason becomes natural law.
You find this in all the like Rousseau, Caant Hobbes,
they all talk about this, the natural law, the law
of reason. Right, what's the law of reason? Well, whatever
I say it is right, it's always and then eventually
that's just kind of abolished altogether, just right. But you know,
even the Founding fathers talk about like natural law, their
Enlightenment natural law think and there's nothing ian actually nature.
It has to do with kind of lawlike structures within
the mind that are supposed to be universally applicable to all.
But again once you give to get the critics of
the Enlightenment, and that just falls apart as well. So yeah,
really has nothing to do with the kind of words,
the box concept of all. But anyways, I hope I.
Speaker 1: Didn't None was a great answer. Yeah, we got more
super chests. But does anybody in the discord have a
question open for him?
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 1: Say?
Speaker 2: What can you and me?
Speaker 8: I've been thinking about the fate of the Byzantine Empire
and Middle Eastern Christendom. Lately, Eastern Orthodoxy and other Christian
denominations been in the decline from the advances of the
Arab Caliphate and Ottomans to the high rates of help, migration, persecution,
and low birth rates among Middle East and Christians. Today,
Christianity and Orthodoxy are favored by God.
Speaker 2: Why has this happened?
Speaker 1: Well, if you read Apocalypse two and three, Jesus says
that you will be persecuted and if you are faithful
to me, I will bless you.
Speaker 3: But if you're not.
Speaker 1: Faithful, I will bring chastisement. So we don't always know
the reasons as to why this or that church perishes
or doesn't exist anymore, but Jesus does warn that actual
historical churches will have their lamp stands removed. And in fact,
if you look at the seven Churches of Asia Minor
and Apocalypse two and three, some of those don't exist anymore.
They're not around. They've had their lamp stand removed. Now,
I'm not going to sit here and try to look
back in history and say, ah, this was the point
where they were judged, and Jesus removed their lamp stand
at this point and you know one fifty eighty I
don't know that. But we have the principle laid down
in Apocalypse two and three that covenant blessings and Covenant
cursings do continue on in terms of the life of
the church. And by the way, Jesus said you would
be persecuted. So persecution and the numbers is not what
determines orthodoxy. In fact, in one point the Roman Empire,
the majority of the empire was heterodox, So it's not
a matter of Catholicity is not primarily concerned with numbers.
Speaker 8: I have another question, if you don't mind, sure you
think of the prophecies of Saint Pasius related to the
future war between Russia and Turkey see the prophecy as
inspired by God, and do you see any hint of
it beings fulfilled.
Speaker 1: I would not say that any individual saint has the
ability to prophesy with the authority of God per se.
I think that the Holy Spirit can of saints clairvoyance
and they can understand events ahead of time, but that
is not the same as divine revelation. And also I
don't know to what degree all of the difference so
called claims of Saint Pezios are his, So I'm not
saying that. I'm not saying whether.
Speaker 2: He was actually intending to speak himself prophetically about they
could be easily take him out of context. And again, uh,
Stack and I were talking about this the prophecy, isn't
it so much intended to predict the future, is to
kind of confirm and be understood once it's happening as
kind of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I mean, it's entirely possible that he
predicted things about a coming war. I don't have any
any I'm not saying that it isn't true. I've talked
to people that I respect to believe that all of
those statements are true. I've talked to people that I
respect that say that some people have claim that there's
prophecies of his that are not actually his, so I
don't have any view on that. But I actually I
actually shared months ago his statement on the statutes from
his book from many years ago, so that one is
definitely valid.
Speaker 2: Do you remember Father Star from Rose's lecture about the
end times? And you had a really good point about
you know, you're not to get too specific on the details.
No man knows the hour, the day or hour, but
we're to have nepts, we're to be watchful. Yeah, so
I think it's good to listen to these things. They're
not dogmatic. Again, we don't exactly know, but there are
signs of the times coming, and I think it's good
to be on guard and watchful. So you could use
those and be like, maybe that's true, maybe I should
be careful about I think that's probably a healthy approach.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean there were Greek peasant people who thought
that barcodes on products were the mark of the beast
and time, and that's just you don't want to get
caught up in over obsessing on that stuff. But obviously, yeah,
there will be some form of a you know, tracking,
controlling thing. Whether this is it, I don't know. But
there will be.
Speaker 2: We don't want to become Alvin. These those are the
only questions I had.
Speaker 1: Great questions, Yeah, great questions anybody else it's open.
Speaker 2: Formay just quickly campaign enough questions. Sure, just on the
question of holy tradition.
Speaker 9: And I know this is going to sound pretty typical
coming from a person.
Speaker 2: How can we justify say, some of.
Speaker 9: The more some of the more minort tangents on holy tradition,
such as the specifics which I can't really find any.
Speaker 2: Historical justifications for, like what so for example, And this
again is going to come from a proper viewpoint.
Speaker 9: The dual mission of the say tokos for example, and
just to name a specific can be that one specifically?
Just a general question on the validity of all evasion.
Speaker 1: Right, So we would say that all of the truths
of dogma are handed down from the apostles to their successors,
and it's easy to demonstrate that not all of that
is purely written. In fact, the church itself is who
determine the canterscripture. That's easily verified, right, And there are
many things in fact that are not in the written
deposit that were believed from the earliest times. But the
fact that we don't have a specific reference to something
in the first century does not necessarily mean that it
was not believed. That's an argument from silence. So in
other words, I would say to you, on what basis
do you know that there must be a specific reference
to each type of thing that's believed to make it
part of the depositive faith? How do you know that
that's the case. And by the way, whatever you answer,
you're not going to be able to be consistent with
it because you don't even believe that, because you don't
have a canon of scripture in the second, third, or
fourth century that's consistent and coherent and believed.
Speaker 9: Okay, yeah, interesting answer. I would just go on to
say a lot of the interpretations again also come from tradition.
So for example, the between the Old Testament and New Testament,
which again some of them might see, some of them,
I think.
Speaker 2: We're a little bit of a longboated droll, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Give an example, what you're talking about? You lost me there,
Old Testament, New Testament? What are you talking about?
Speaker 9: All the archetypes between the Old Testament and the New
Testament kind of a mirror mirroring, for example, of some
of the some of the stuff written in the laws
and the prophets, and some of the stuff which would
later come on.
Speaker 1: In terms of Mary or what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I'm just talking about in general?
Speaker 3: What what? What is a what is a stretch?
Speaker 1: Are you coming from a position of saying that you
don't think there's continuity between the Old and New Testament?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 9: No, I think there's continuity between the Old and the
New Testament. But for example, some of the more some
of the more weed interpretations that had come out, such
as that between Adam and He's sleep, comparing that between
Christ and his resurrection, his resurrection and specific doctrines surrounding that.
Speaker 2: That's just a specific example.
Speaker 1: Oh so you're saying that sometimes typology is a stretch. Yeah,
I don't have a problem saying that sometimes the church
Fathers engage in typological interpretations that could be reaching. Sure, okay,
but that does not prove that typology is an invalid
hermeneutical approach. It's the apostles themselves that engage in typology,
engage in typological harmneudics consistently. Hello, yep, yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: That just man answert it.
Speaker 9: Sorry I framed it in a horrible way of trying
from it that the next time.
Speaker 3: Okay, no problem.
Speaker 2: By the way, I'd argue too, it's very easy to
see when there's traditions that are innovated, because in the
history there's always a response to innovations. Therefore, because the
principle is once received, we're kind of the same vincent
vincentian king and quote way quote semper quote, app'll be
los create some st what has been believed everywhere, always
by all. That's the kind of rule the candid that
because we believe these these traditions are handed down. When
we find something that hasn't been believed everywhere or always
or by all, it becomes immediate evidence, and we have
the fathers and the Church respond to them. So as
far as like the dour Mission, we have some pretty
I have a great book. It's it's the Life of
the Virgin Mary, and it's the largest collection of all
the historical writings from scripture to uh, you know, fathers
and traditions compiled about that and goes back pretty early
as far as the dorm Mission. But just again, as
Jad said, simply because let's say you found something written
the first time it was written was or recorded about
something in the fourth century doesn't mean that it wasn't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an argument from ever were prior to that.
Speaker 10: That's like saying I'm not going to accept I'm not
That's like saying that's like saying I'm not going to
accept the canon of the scriptures unless I see the
Protestant or the Orthodox canon listed specifically in.
Speaker 1: The first and second centuries.
Speaker 3: Well, guess what. Nobody has that, So you're not going
to find.
Speaker 2: It, Yes, but.
Speaker 1: Sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 9: In the case the domation, the dominion, for example, the
I think the earliest example you can find of it
is actually in a condemned work to proto Evangelic with James.
Speaker 2: I think it was condemned twice once in another time.
Speaker 3: Condemned.
Speaker 1: Where what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: From the text, not the belief of the text?
Speaker 1: Hold on. So not being canonical does not mean it's condemned. Okay,
do you uch is not canonical?
Speaker 3: It doesn't mean it's condemned.
Speaker 2: Points it means it's not it's not scripture. But it
doesn't mean it's false because then I mean, think about it,
we'd actually you have to condemn all of history.
Speaker 1: It's not because.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's like we use history. That's how we
know and kind of verify things in the church. To you,
just when we when we say it's not in the canon,
we mean it's it's it's not the level of scripture,
it's not about the same thing. It doesn't, but it
doesn't mean that it's false.
Speaker 1: And again again so let's let's but let's remember the
Protestants uh presupposition here, which is that the ultimate ground
of authority for the believer that's infallible is the written
textas scripture. And so but he's also got this standard
that I'm only going to accept as something consistent with
apostolic revelation that I find explicitly mentioned earlier than said century.
But again, the very thing that you appeal to scripture
does not have the correct canon listed prior to said century.
So your own, your own requirement under cutch, your own
system starting point, that is, that's all that's needed to
show that that's not a good argument.
Speaker 9: Well fair, just getting back on the kind of evangelic
m of James, because again we seem to give that tengent.
I've got the specific day Tea was condemned to buy
Pope the text condemned by Pope Innocent Fantasy five x
four and again by the Galician decree around five hundred,
despite you know, of course being influential for this doctrine condemned.
Speaker 2: We're asking that question. It's was not received, is canonical,
but yet.
Speaker 1: Rejected rejected from the canon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, condemned and rejected from the canon.
Speaker 1: Those decrees that you're talking about are when the West
was trying to determine the canon. That's what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that it's false. It means it's not
hard of scripture.
Speaker 1: That's what it's the book of in the Book of
United The Book of Unit contains true tradition.
Speaker 3: It is not canon.
Speaker 1: It's cited by Jude.
Speaker 9: Well, yes, But to get on your point, poll so
sites of criton poets at one.
Speaker 1: Point, I believable that my point, because Paul has no
problem finding truth outside of the canon of scripture exactly.
And just because Paul cites a pagan poet doesn't mean
that everything and it's extra canonical is of the same status.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 9: But of course, how do we know to take what's
legitimate out of the extra canonical books and.
Speaker 1: What is Because Christ established a historic normative body of
authoritative rulers in the church, the bishops.
Speaker 2: And I actually argue that books can't be authoritative. So God,
on the Protestant model, God gives you the book is
the ultimate book for authority implies a body. Right, the
book can be only authoritative in as much as there's
a normative body.
Speaker 1: The books the book, who.
Speaker 2: Enforces the book and also who settles to suits and
miss it when you have disputing interpretations. We could talk
about the constitution of a country being more authoritative only
in so far as there is a body that's a
normative authority that's able to settle disputes on a constitution.
So doesn't even make sense, even on a Protestant model,
to say the book is the highest Books are not authorities.
You need a living body of people that are given
a normative power that can actually bind it and tell
you that their interpretation of that book would actually be binding.
So it doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: And Lewis just did a video where he outlines the
authority that the church has in terms of worship. Right,
So Protestants right lacking any kind of coherent way to
know the proper way to worship God.
Speaker 3: If you look at the video on orthodox Htah.
Speaker 1: It also shows how the Church has the ability to
bind and to make decisions about worship. And so that's
why we weren't left where they do it yourself approach
to how we worship God. We were actually given a
pattern of sound doctrine, a pattern of liturgical worship in
the church. Lewis's video is excellent. I highly recommend if
you've not seen his video Christian Worship and the Old Testament.
He proves that the patterns and principles of Old Testament
temple and synagogue worship carry over into the Church such
that the Church can create and celebrate her victories. Right. So,
in other words, is it true that in the is
there a Sunday of Orthodoxy in the first century.
Speaker 3: No, But that's because the Sunny Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Is celebrating a victory that happens centuries later in seven
eighty seven, which we're going to be covering here in
a minute with this book. Right, And that's because the
church has the authority, just like the synagogue had the
authority and the power to institute services puim celebrating what
happens in the book of esther Hanukkah.
Speaker 3: Right, why would the church have any.
Speaker 1: Less power to institute her feasts and her solemn ceremonies
and liturgical celebrations. Well, she doesn't. She has all that
power and authority because she has a succession just as
much and more so than the Old Testament. Israel had
a succession and the Protestants don't have that succession.
Speaker 2: Ja also add it's not like there's the authoritative body
looking back under seven hundred years going, uh, well look
at this old, dusty text that we felt like it
isn't cannon, but we could use Remember as far as
the part of angels, James, those in the time were
able to actually say that these things in that text
are true because there was a living practice, tradition of
these things about Mary.
Speaker 6: I mean, we even know the standard.
Speaker 2: It's not just like we're looking back in the past
as the question what books do I know are reliable
that are outside of scripture? You've got it backwards. It's
those who were in the time that in many of
the text there were additional texts too that are lost,
that they're actually able those followers in the times say
that we know that so and so said this, we
know that they did this, and they'll refer to those texts,
and they refer to the living practice traditions of those
believers who believe that everywhere, at all times, and and
so that's actually the criteria. It's in conjunction with that,
there's a continuity and consistency within history, within the practice,
within the beliefs, within the recorded text of those who
at present time, in conjunction with the authority of the church.
Thanks all right, thanks, thanks, thank you.
Speaker 1: Somebody would in the VC General in the discord put
Lewis's link in there for him, for the Christian worksman
the Old Testament, because it's it's a must see. Let's see,
we had a couple of super chats herea let's see,
here's a good one. So, uh, Nevin for five dollars,
what is the difference between wrong guy Xander the great?
Three dollars? Hey j and father Deacon, thank you for
your work.
Speaker 3: How does God have.
Speaker 1: One mind and yet be three persons? So for Orthodox theology,
in our metaphysic, you could say mind is a property
or faculty or constituent component of nature, not a person.
This is confusing to a lot of people in the
modern West or in the modern world. Because they think
of mind or soul as person. Right, that's not our
conception of this. In fact, even amongst human beings, we
share a common principle or power or faculty of mind. Right.
So I know that sounds a little weird because you think, well,
my mind's not your mind. Correct. That's where we get
into the question of mode.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So mode is relevant for the trinity because because even
though we're saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have
the same principle of mind or faculty or attribute or
power of mind, it doesn't mean they each have the
identical mind in the same way.
Speaker 3: So the Father uniquely.
Speaker 1: Instantiates or in hypostatizes mind in his own way, the
Son uniquely instantiates or in hypostatizes mind in his own way, and.
Speaker 3: The Spirit does the same.
Speaker 1: Just like between you and I, we both have can
considered in itself mind that's the same mind, mind as
mind mind qua mind is the same. But mine mind
is not your mind. So how is it different? Because
I uniquely instantiate mind as the mind of Jay in the.
Speaker 3: Mode of person.
Speaker 1: This is why person and nature are so crucial to
orthodox Trinitarian theology, and that's why we will say, for example,
in the Trinity, the trinity has one nature, one mind,
one will, right, one essence. Human beings right considered as
huge in terms of human nature itself. All human beings
possess one universal human nature of body, mind, soul, will.
Does that mean that everybody has the identical body, mind, soul,
and will in one sense? Yes, and that it's all
one It's all one type of human nature that we
all can substantially share. Yet it's all so uniquely instantiated
and particularized or individuated on the basis of the person
that has that nature. I'm the person Jay, and I
uniquely instantiate human nature in the way that I have it.
You're the person, Bob. You uniquely instantiate and have human
nature in the.
Speaker 3: Way that you have it.
Speaker 1: Right, according to the idiomata or the characteristics that make
up you. Right, this man is snubnosed, that man has
long legs. This man is eight feet tall, right, this
man is four feet tall. Right. Those are the idiomata
or particular characteristics that pick out that person. But the
person is not the idiomatic or characteristics. The person is
the inner core or subject that has that nature. So
that's how and why we say that the Trinity is
not three person excuse me, three minds, It's one possesses
a single mind, uniquely instantiated in three hypostasies. And the
analogy of the Cappadocians is to humans. Human nature is
uniquely instantiated in the mode of each individual hypostasis, Me,
you whoever. So I know that might be a little confusing,
but hopefully that makes sense. That's why we don't say
God has three wills, because will is not a property
of person, It's a property or faculty of nature. This
is why Christ has two wills for us, because he
possesses a human nature and a divine nature. But the
person that possesses those natures is the Logos, the second
person of the Godhead from all eternity, Father digging anything
you want to add to that a p. So, this
is why we have to understand person, nature, will, energy,
and mode tropos right to have the right priadology and
the right christallity. That's why we always harp on this
in terms of orthodoxy. Me and Joe Hicks for ten dollars,
what is the difference in the way that we under
excuse me, the understand the old Testament versus the New Testament.
Speaker 3: Is it related to the carnation and.
Speaker 1: Thiosis, the incarnation and theosis and pentecost do play a
key role in telling us the difference. Right, So in
one sense there's continuity, Right. There's continuity in the sense that,
for example, we're not saved in a different way. Right,
it's not Some evangelicals, for example, they think, oh, in
the Old Testament, you're saved by works. Now you're saved
by purely gracious beneficence on the part of God. No,
you could never be saved by works. Okay, Paul makes
this point about Abraham. Was Abraham saved by his human
efforts and work or his biology or his you know,
racial lineas No, so salvation has never been by works.
Fact same Maximus even says that the Old Testament saints
noetically perceived God via their news, so when they see
the Theophanes, he says, that's that's a no.
Speaker 3: There's no other.
Speaker 1: Way to have known and perceived and had a relationship
with God than via the no eedic facult. So even
in the Old Testament, the saints perceived God directly via
the noedic faculty, or even sometimes via their eyes Saint GARYA.
Palmer says that they even saw God in terms of theophanies,
sometimes physically, and God can do that, right, there's nothing
that restricts God from being able to do that unless
you're Roman Catholic you believe that it's holograms manifesting or
something like that. But for our theology, no, there's nothing
that restricts God from doing that. So I would say that.
But typically when people think about this, they're thinking about
the ceremonial laws, right, And this is what Paul is
arguing in a lot of his especially Romans and Galatians
right where he's trying to give an account for how
Abraham is a great figure because we all know that
Abraham was a friend of God and was righteous prior
to the giving of circumcision. So therefore circumcision, just like
with Noah, right, can't be a requirement if God accepted
Noah or Abraham before circumcision. You see, So circumcisions is
not inherent to being righteous with God, even though God
did require it after he gave it, and it would
have been a sin in the case of remember when
Moses lacks about having his son circumcised and Zipper fusses
at him and says, you're a father of blood to
me or whatever. He says, a man of blood or
something like that, and she's mad at him over that, right,
because he's being negligent. One of the instances where Moses sins,
just like when he loses his temper and he throws
a tank commandments down. Right, he made some mistakes. The
Saints make mistakes. They're not perfect anyway. Point being is
that so in the sense of how we're saved, In
the sense of what is being believed the Old Testament,
Saints did not find salvation.
Speaker 3: Through quote judaism.
Speaker 1: They did not find salvation through works or through generic theism.
They believe according to the New Testament, in the Messiah
to Come, there's literally no other way to be saved
than through Christ. Abraham, Paul says, looked to the of
the Savior, looked ahead to Christ. Jesus says, Abraham looked
for my day, and he saw it and was glad.
Right Hebrews twelve eleven and twelve. Right, the Gospel was
preached beforehand to Abraham. Right, they believe the gospel in
the Old Testament, or they didn't believe it, right, But
now it's different in the sense it for us right,
we live after the coming of them side and the
key event that's usually forgotten. Everybody knows that prior to
the death rone resurrection, but everybody forgets Pentecost. Pentecost is
the empowering of the Church to go forth right with
that new degree of power that was not present in
the Old Testament. So does that mean that God wasn't
present and on the present in the Old Testamer, that
the Holy Spirit wasn't around in the Old Testament. No,
but it's a new way of being present in the church, right,
it's a new mode of being in the Church that
was not prior present due to Now after the incarnation,
human nature has been sanctified, right, and that's why Jesus says,
if I don't go away, the helper won't come. So
it's a matter of degree, emphasis and power that distinguishes
the New Testament from the Old Testament. There's nothing inherently
missing that they didn't have, right, Like, oh, they didn't
have the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: No, there's many tech.
Speaker 1: Passes that tell you that they had the Old Spirit
or they didn't have a theosis in the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: Yes they did, and Maximus.
Speaker 1: Says it, but they didn't have the degree and the
power and the focus that we have. And that's why
even after the coming of Christ, right, is everything totally
quote spiritual? Now, no, right, you can still get physically
sick as a punishment or a chastisement after the resurrection
of Christ. Again, what does Jesus say in Apocalypse two
and three to this about the seven Churches? He says,
there's a false teacher at one of these churches, and
I'm gonna throw her into a sick bed to give
her a chance to repent. And if she doesn't repent,
that church is gonna lose the lamp stand or they'll
be destroyed. So there's even still in the New Testament,
there's still physical chastisements, there's still physical blessings. I mean,
who would be so absurd as to think that if
you're wealthy or if you have a gift in the
New Testament, is that not from God or from God's providence.
Speaker 3: Now, of course it does. That's why Saint John Chrystistom
says that.
Speaker 1: You have a duty to help other people if you
are wealthy, because God gave you the wealthy says to
help others. So blessings, chastisements, cursings even still after the resurrection,
after Pentecosts do apply in the post right in the
times of the Gentiles in the Church era, you could say,
but even still, we're all still one city and one
heavenly Jerusalem according to Hebrews eleven and twelve, Father Deacon,
Was there anything you would add?
Speaker 2: That's great? Yeah, question on that.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 2: Jada's toss says everything better than I do, so I'm
gonna let you talk to.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 11: Oh so, in regards to iconography, you know said a
lot of these that were perceived poetically. So would that
be why it's the Old test iconography? I think in
the chronicles are focused element. They talked about this fiction
of angels and share of Him and whatnot, that it's
all pictures of noetic beings.
Speaker 2: Is that kind of related to that in the iconography.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not saying that the Old Testament saints didn't see.
Speaker 3: God directly, right, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I wasn't talking about iconizic Yes, okay, so I wasn't
talking about iconography per se in the Old Testament. But
I mean, because angels could could manifest physically too. I
mean they can, they can manifest. That's why Hebrews says
that you can entertain angels unaware, but I don't. I'm
not sure I would make a direct connection per se
between the fact that the Old Testament Temple has angels too,
only perceiving noddic beings. I don't know about that. I mean,
the Old Testament Temple had other things that are not
noedic in it, like it had it had Edenic imagery,
it had trees that had pomegranates. It's got all kinds
of symbolism there. It's not all necessarily no eddic.
Speaker 2: Okay, that makes.
Speaker 1: Those anybody else have any questions?
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, I've got a quick question.
Speaker 12: So what exactly do you mean when you say that,
like public vine revelation is closed?
Speaker 2: And how do we know that that was? The Harrison?
Speaker 1: Sure, there's already an early Church heretics that claim to
continue uh public divine revel When John the Apostle died,
there's no more public revelation, there's no more new revelations.
Anything that the Apostles taught in writing or orally was authoritative,
was normative, and was divine revelation, right. And when John died,
Saint John the Apostle, he's the last one. When he died,
that's it. No more public revelation, because from that point
on it's the passing on of the deposit, the deposit
of the Apostolic faith.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And so we even have in Zechariah the statement that
when the Messiah comes speaking of the Messianic age, if
any man attempts to prophesy, they will stone him with
a stone because they will say, you speak wives, because
there won't be public.
Speaker 3: Revelation and prophecy anymore.
Speaker 1: Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John
the Baptist. No more prophetic office like the Old Testament prophets.
So in the New Testament, yes, there's the office of
prophet or teacher when Pentecost comes and sends in the
church out and establishes the church, but that doesn't mean
there's new revelations. And in fact, at the end of
the Apocalypse there's a curse for adding new revelation. So
one way we know is that Apocalypse twenty two curses
anyone that has new revelation, and that's in that's consistent
with what's in Zachariah about not prophesying anymore in the
Messianic period. That doesn't mean that an individual saint like
Saint Piezios or many of these other saints, that they
can't have clearaboyance or know that the elders can't know
things about you in a supernatural way. But that's not
equated to public revelation. We don't we're not romancoul There's
no fatoma that's going to give us like a new
way to you know, like the like the Trads do,
or they don't care what they don't care what the
Pope says. They just follow apparitions. Are you there.
Speaker 2: That that that makes sense? Thank you?
Speaker 1: Sure? I'm looking for the Texans zachar Ya that talks
about uh h, no longer propha signing because they came
up in the discord the other day. Can somebody mute
instead of typing on the computer, let's see.
Speaker 13: H hey, Jake, quick question here?
Speaker 14: So dealing with people who are judaizing and taking a
step further of Sabbatarianism, but rather saying, you know that
we need to keep the Old Testament Holy days right.
Speaker 2: The common criticism I've.
Speaker 14: I've had in my apologetics to some of these people.
As I point to you know, the continuation of these
holy days and the fulfillment of them, and you know
Pasca and Pentecost, but you know that the third major
best of season right in the fall, the fall festivals
like the visa Trumpet's a feast of atonement and feast
of tabernacles. What what comes to mind as the best
New Testament or church fulfillment to those days?
Speaker 1: Well, atonement is what Christ did when he ascended and
sat the right hand of the farm. Mean, and it's Paul,
it was it Romans three or four talks about Christ
cleansing the mercy seat when he ascended to the heavenly tabernacle.
Speaker 3: So Hebrews will tell.
Speaker 1: You what atonement is in terms of the new reality.
It's when Christ descended, right is it? Hebrews seven? Or
Christ like the High Priest goes in the day of atonement,
Paul says, Christ's ascension is the fulfillment of that. Do
you do you know what I'm talking about in Hebrews?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, right, right right?
Speaker 1: And what was it was the other one you listed?
Speaker 14: He said, Tom And what like Well, I guess mainly
like the feast of tabernacles, right, that was like the
third major like feast where there was pilgrimage to the temple.
You know, we have a very distinct, possible season. We
have a very distinct Pentecost season.
Speaker 2: What what I mean?
Speaker 1: Because yeah, isn't it isn't feast the booths directly related
to uh in gathering feast of gathering?
Speaker 2: Ye right? Right? Right?
Speaker 14: And we do have the you know, in dwelling of
the Holy Spirit and and all these things. But I
don't know, I've heard I've heard it b say that
we point to like the feast of the Transfiguration as
a as a fulfillment of these things.
Speaker 2: But I'm just wondering what you had to think.
Speaker 3: If you read Edersheim's book.
Speaker 1: I looked at this last Pentecost and he actually talks
about the inter relationship between boots and Pentecost or weeks
in Pentecost. Right, Uh So, I think, do you have
the Edersheim book that I'm talking about?
Speaker 3: You know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: What's the title of it?
Speaker 1: Alfred Edershean he has two famous books, one on Christ
and the Law and then one on the Temple and
its ceremonies. So he he actually has a really good
chapter on this question.
Speaker 2: Thanks. I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 1: I've got to hear somewhere. Let me sit back upon it. Anybody,
I got another question?
Speaker 2: I got a question.
Speaker 15: So going back to the question of what profits are
and the closing of the office, what do you make
of Acts eleven, twenty seven, twenty eight, which talks about
a bunch of profits who came to Jerusalem and one
of them called Agabus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: This is the transition period. So the time of the Apostles,
the Book of Acts, that's the founding of the church.
There is the office of prophet. But you'll notice when
the apostles die, when the early church is set up,
justin Martyr Ignatius. Herein as Cyprian Tortullian, nobody talks about
prophets anymore up except for Tortullian, because he fell into
the heresy of Montanas and became a Montanist. And the
Montanists did believe in the continuation of prophets, namely that
their own heresy orc Montanas was the voice of the
Holy Spirit himself. In fact, Montanus said he was the
incarnation of the Holy Spirit. But point being is that
we know that the office of prophet does not continue
on after the death of John, but yes it is
president in the Book of Acts Simpaul's Epistles too, Paul
says there's prophets, teachers, apostles, et cetera. I mean the
fact that Paul mentions apostles, there's no apostles, doesn't continue on, right, But.
Speaker 15: There are prophets after church on the Baptist but not
after the death of say John the Revelator.
Speaker 2: Correct or something something like that.
Speaker 1: All right, But what I was saying is that when
we think of a prophet as like the Old Testament
office of a prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah, I'm saying
Jesus says the law and the prophets were until John.
And so that's that's in the office of prophet, prophet, priest,
and king. That's fulfilled in Christ. We don't need prophets anymore.
But prophets in the Book of Acts and im Paul's Epistles.
These are people who are teachers in the church. And yes,
they do have the ability at times to have clairvoyance. Uh,
there's I think Agabus has an instance of clairvoyance right
where he takes that belt. So but but they're not.
That's not an office. That's that's for the founding of
the church, just like speaking in tongues is the gift
given there at Pentecost, all right, Tongues is not happening
up into the times of the Church fathers. So this
is the Edersheim book that I was talking about the Temple.
It's ministries and services, and there's a whole chapter on
what you were asking about, unleavened bread and Pentecost and
Timer Nichols's chapter fourteen. And he's a famous Jewish convert
to Christianity. I don't know if he was an Anglican
or what he became PRESBYTERI or something like that, but
he is relevant because he was a good scholar who
kind of was able to look at, you know, Jewish
history and tradition and find quite a bit of stuff
that backed up you know.
Speaker 2: That was Alfred, Sorry, Alfred.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, they're very they're famous books. They're pretty much
in every Christian bookstore.
Speaker 2: So right, okay, very very good.
Speaker 14: You know, Jane, I've been noticing this huge optic in
judaizing you across.
Speaker 1: They have it too. It's very strange, uh, father deacon,
would you want to take over for a minute. Are
you still there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just came in. I had to what's going on?
Speaker 1: I just got to take a brief break. We were
talking about judaizing in this tendency. Are you seeing an
uptick in Hebrew Israeli or Judaism or or Messianic Judaism
and this kind of stuff. You want to speak to
that while yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, oh sorry, what's your what's your take on
what do you think the rise of that?
Speaker 14: Well, yeah, I've noticed it a lot in dissonant you know,
like dissonant right spheres. This the same I guess founding
myth that you see in all these restorationist groups that
you know, there was a falling away at some point
in church history and then to actually revivifying the church
when you return to what was done in Old Testament
and you know, by by the Mosaic Law and all
these things. So it's just another you know, branch of restortionism,
but realism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's yeah.
Speaker 14: But then it's like trying like a humanist twist to it,
you know, like we need to read and speak the
original language and have the original name or original name
of Jesus, you know, and pronounce it properly and all
these things.
Speaker 2: It's so bizarre. Yeah, that's right. And what's strange too,
is then, well, I mean the idea that well, the
apostles and so they want to go prior to to Christ.
I guess, but I guess they'd have to start learning
Greek Aramaic. But the Hebrew that was being written is
nothing that's available to that, right, it's not modern Hebrew. Yeah, right,
what the what is that? It's like, it's not Paralysic,
it's like Middle there's different phases of like Hebrew. It's
amazing if you actually look at and see how different.
But no modern too to be able to read anything
from that. But yeah, it's really it's almost what's the
word I want to use? It's good because this kind
of comes up in Yeah, they almost make like the
words like talisman's or something like that.
Speaker 1: That's a good way of superstitious.
Speaker 2: It's superstitious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like you think that the demons fear the
language of Latin.
Speaker 2: Latin.
Speaker 1: You're just speaking Latin, the demons will melt. It's just
superstitious Latin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there is. I think just if You're right,
there is some type of political connection to that's causing
this to.
Speaker 14: Oh yeah, like if you looked at the QAnon boomers, right,
Like if you if you looked at any like q
Andon threat, there would be people shilling like you need
to observe the Sabbath, you know, blah blah blah, like
he's crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, I wonder if like I just finished in and
it was a couple of weeks ago, but when I
was teaching this political philosophy, we just finished a section
called messianic nationalism mm. And the messiatic nationalism was that,
I mean, it's really materialistic in some sense, but that
through a nation and a people in a very materialistic way,
that you would be able to bring in salvation for
the world, a new age, right, a new kind of Escanton,
like a new Aon, and it would transform the quality
of existence of man in the police. And I think
that you see this. I think that the certainly the
Jews had that kind of understanding as well too. And
I see that this reservices throughout history many different times,
this kind of messianic nationalism that the nation, I mean,
it's even in the United States in some sense, so
it's something more than just patriotm It's like a group
of people in a nation will transform the existence of
all mankind in the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, national that makes.
Speaker 2: So I see a in politics of that kind of
thought again. And there could be a link there that
draws them back to this kind of archaic kind of
notions of ancient Hebrews messianic nationalism in their kind of theology.
And you know, there's just a general temptation a lot
for people of what I call archaanism. Right, it must
be true just because the older it is right. And
so this ends up a jam I talked about. This
is one of the problems with the non Chalcedonians, at
least into the problem is they won't allow any kind
of development of words to address certain like heretical issues.
They'll be like, I'm just sticking with this word. I'll
never let the you know that ever develop in the
kind of way it responds to. Well, you end up
getting problems. So I think that might be another element too,
that people think that if I.
Speaker 1: Just go back far enough, well, the irony is that
everything that all these messianic types are looking for is
in orthodox I mean, that's the irony here is that
all of these feasts and all this stuff they're looking for.
Just go watch Lewis's video again. That's why I put.
Speaker 7: It in here.
Speaker 1: I mean everything there that they're scrounging around for and
trying to find is right here, right, It's in this
video right here.
Speaker 3: So once they yeah, grasp that.
Speaker 1: And by the way, what would you expect, Well, if
the church has its roots in the temple and the
synagogue worship, and it goes out to the nations as
all the prophets said it would when the Covenant opens
up to the nations when the Messiah comes, that's exactly
what happened.
Speaker 3: Of course, it's going to.
Speaker 1: Bear the stamp of both its synagogue temple roots as
well as its Byzantine period. Of course, it's going to
bear the stamp of that. That's what we would expect, right,
and that's what has happened. So it's just silly to
expect that somehow it's going to be this pure I
don't even know what, right, because I mean, Judaism itself
goes undergoes many periods, in many phases. There is no
ancient pure Judaism in the sense of what the Messianic
Jews are trying to recover or whatever they're trying to do,
like Orthodoxy is Messianic Judaism.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 1: That's why the Byzantine Empire condemned Hellenism in the Schools
of Plato, and it did it for Biblicism. That's what
Mindor says. Mind Or says, Byzantium is the victory of
the Biblical worldview over Jerusalem. I'm excuse me, over Athens.
It's a victory of Jerusalem over Athens. So let's see.
We got another ship jay here from Crypto Currensteine fifteen dollars.
I don't have any questions, but God blessed well. Thank
you Crypto Currenstine, much appreciated anonymous for five dollars.
Speaker 3: Thank you for these streams.
Speaker 1: I pray and help that hierarchs and priests come to
light soon in our churches who say that we should
not venerate the icons. Yeah, that's where it's getting down
to the to the nitty gritty, right where they're trying
to tell people not to ventorate icons who work miracles
and are part of the true faith exactly. Thank you
for defending the icons. Yeah, that's one reason we're doing
this is to point out what we're supposed to believe.
Right to venerate the icons, you'll be blessed, Xander the Great? Yeah,
go ahead.
Speaker 2: What are they gonna do? Kick you out?
Speaker 1: Well, they're starting to have this segregated like stabbied non
stabbed sections, So yeah, I saw that. Yeah, Xander the Great,
two dollars, that makes so much sense. What was this question? Oh,
Nature in person in terms of the Trinity. My sister
and I are trying to point to Christ. Thank you
for answering the questions about one mind in the trinity. Yeah, yeah,
probably reading Basil's letter thirty eight because Basil has a
really good discussion on the on Nature in Person. And
then try watch the video that David just made on
not three Gods because Saint Gregor and says kind of
dealing with that question too in his Trinitarian treatise on
how it is that God is one and yet also
three and then we're not polytheis right, there's not three gods.
So David just made about a twenty minute video on
that work by Saint Gregor.
Speaker 2: Nissa.
Speaker 3: What's next is that it for the super chats?
Speaker 1: Anybody else in the discord have a topic they want
to discuss before I get to this book by Saint Theodore.
Because we've already gone for two hours almost forty.
Speaker 2: If I could just chime in one last you.
Speaker 1: Know what, I may just wait on this and I'll
retitle this and do it something else. We'll just continue
with the Q and A, and then I'll do the
book later, and then I'll just retitle this this topic
based on what we end up.
Speaker 2: Talking continue and just just a real quick side piece
of this. You know.
Speaker 14: I we were we were discussing about the q Andon
connection to Judaizing and the Masianic nationalism, all these things.
I really like that term Masianic nationalism. Thank you, Father
Deacon up. I see with that tie to you know,
it seems like America itself, right, Like this is the
audience that we're mainly working with is American Protestants, right that,
And it seems like the mind virus of chileasm is
so deeply rooted in the American psyche.
Speaker 1: I guess y, yeah, it goes back to the City
on a Hill, the Puritans, Yeah, right right.
Speaker 14: And particularly like you know, like pre millennialist. You know
this this notion of the millennium coming literally a thousand
years and and forgetting forgetting that as the church age.
I feel like that is like probably the main block
that I see that Protestants need to be destroyed.
Speaker 2: Could you could you touch on that on how the churches.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, you're saying the belief. You're saying the
belief needs to destroyed, not that all Protestants need to
be destroyed. Oh yeah, yeah, Sorry, Sorry it sounded funny.
It sounded like Protestants need to be destroyed stample mode. Yeah,
So I did a I did a talk what one
month ago, two months February twenty fourth, I did Protestantism
with Alicism and dispansing. So if you're interested in that topic,
it's the last third where I deconstructed dispensationalism and pre millennialism.
There's the link to that video if you guys want
to go watch that. But yeah, I think you're right
that it's sort of just ingrained in the mindset of
American Christianity of this kind of millennialism, this killism, this
imminentization of the escaton that the nations because Protestants doesn't
have the church right. So they've they've lost the historic
continuity with that supernatural entity that is the Church. The
Church is not a human social organization. It's not fractured
into a million different sects. It's one historic group with
absolute succession with the true faith, with the sacraments right.
And if you don't have that, then you don't have
the church. So that is the church. And since Protestism
has lost that, it's just got kind of like these
pieces of the puzzle. It's got the Bible right, but
they don't have anything else. Now, they might get something's
right right. They'll get the Trinity maybe correct in a
little bit of a way, or the deity of Christ
or whatever, or you know, these kinds of basic generic ideas.
They might get that stuff right, but they will then
tend because the actual origins of Protestantism historically are actually
state churches. When Luther got his Reformation going, it was
with the aid of the German princes Calvin right, he
turned to this basically theocracy in Geneva. The other churches,
the Protestant state churches, the Anglican churches, a state church
Henry the eighth right, the very origins of Protestantism turned
the nation state into kind of a version of the Church.
And so it's no accident that the Puritans in America
they're sitting on a hill, doctrine and all this kind
of stuff. It turns America into the new mystical body
of Christ, the mystical Church. And that's why they will
treat the constitution like us this inspired revelation of God, right.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then and then that's a big cause. They're looking
for these things that they lost when they lost the church.
Speaker 14: So anyway, wonderfully put thank you, thank you, Jim, uh.
Speaker 1: Huh, anybody else we still got, We'll go for another
twenty minutes for so until we get to two hours.
Speaker 2: They have a question.
Speaker 1: Sure, So, Uh.
Speaker 4: I have a friend that I talk with from time
to time, and he's a non denominational Christian, and so
when I you know, we debate or whatever, to go
back and forth, and he says stuff like, uh, well
the Bible predates all of these uh, all of these
early Christians that that interpret the Bible their way. And
he'll say something like, well, even if you're right, what
does it matter. What does it matter if you have
seventy whatever books and we only have sixty six what
do those extra books matter?
Speaker 2: And he just kind of goes down that route.
Speaker 1: Actually it's the other way around. The Church predates the Bible.
I mean, that's that's totally backwards. First of all, there
was no Bible collection of books before the church. The
Church was established at Pentecost. It exists historically before the
canon of Scripture, just basic fact of history. So that
was that's just flat out false. And then again I
would come back to the point that, well, if he
believes that the Bible is the you know, final rule
of faith and morals for any Christian that's that's authoritative
and infallible, then he needs to be sure that he's
got the right one, right, I mean doesn't it doesn't
it matter which? Well, which one?
Speaker 2: Yeah matter? Then why not just like throw Matthews Like
you can just tear Matthew exactly, Like now you know
what he could do. He could do, uh what's his name?
He just makes a Jeffson Bible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great that's a great analogy to bring up.
Is that, why do you have a problem with the
Jefferson Bible that removes all the miracles or I I
like my example of I say, guys, I prayed really hard. Uh,
I've asked the Holy Spirit. Trust me.
Speaker 3: It's the Holy Spirit that's leading me.
Speaker 1: And I've come to the conclusion that only the Book
of Jude is the New Testament cannon.
Speaker 3: Sorry, guys, I know if.
Speaker 1: You probably want but that's it, that's it. But I
trust me. I prayed a lot about it, uh, and
I'm pretty sure that it's God that's leading me to
believe this, So just trust me.
Speaker 3: So in other words, why what who has the right canon?
Speaker 1: If you've got these different groups, how are you how
are we going to resolve this question? There's no prima
fascia like a priori, you know, just well you just
look at the different books, right like I've got here
before me, right now, here's this Bible that's an Orthodox Bible,
and this is my old Calvinists Reform study Bible. They've
got way more books than this one than this one.
How do I know which one is the right Bible?
How are we going to determine this? Just looking at
the two books isn't going to tell me. Reading it
a bunch isn't necessarily going to tell me. How do
we know?
Speaker 4: Yeah? And so like so like when we go down
this route, we kind of end up going like, well,
you know, he'll say something like, well, why do you
need to pray to saints? Jesus is sufficient on Jesus?
Speaker 2: You really need to.
Speaker 1: Read he Okay, well, then then why do you ask
your friends to pray for you? Your prayers? Talking to
actually notice, and.
Speaker 2: I noticed that if somebody in the chat was the same
way too. This is typically somebody who's either evangelical or
influenced by it. They fall into the false dichotomy and fallacy. Now,
if they were consistent that they would do exactly as
why do I need to talk to anybody? I don't
need any family. All I need is Jesus.
Speaker 1: Right, so I.
Speaker 2: Don't need to eat, I don't need to have any
social interactions. But do you see how silly that is?
It's not an either or right that we all work.
We intercede for, we pray for one another both and
ask for each other's prayers, both in this life and
those who gone into the next life.
Speaker 4: Right, and then he'll say something. You know, I'll say, well,
you know, the Bible says the prayers of the righteous
m and I shouldn't.
Speaker 2: Get it too.
Speaker 1: Tell them to read the Book of Amos, because Amos,
the whole Book of Amos is about Amos praying and
interceding and quote changing God's mind. Now, Amos didn't really
change God's mind, but the prayers of a righteous man
are efficacious. They actually God wanted to demonstrate that he
has chosen to include the prayers of his people in
his governance of the universe. And so our God our
theology too.
Speaker 2: Right, so the energies of God would work with his people,
and we work with the energies of God. It's never
in either.
Speaker 4: Or yeah, And so you know that he'll always or
I guess it's not just him. They'll always say something
like all what is that? It's like all no man
is good?
Speaker 2: No, not want or something that.
Speaker 1: Well, that's just a hermeneutical mistake because I mean, Jesus not.
That's what we covered in the first fifteen to twenty
minutes is hyperbole, right.
Speaker 2: Got you like call no man father yeah.
Speaker 1: Or cut your hand off if it makes you sin, Well,
your hand doesn't make you sin. Okay, it's hyperbole. Uh,
no one, no one is good? But God, Well, I
mean he's some of the Father. Does that mean the
Holy Spirit's not good. I mean, does that mean that, uh?
You know, it says, for example in Luke one that Jack,
Ryan and Elizabeth were righteous keeping all the commands of
the Lord. Well they were good, they were good people.
Speaker 15: Right.
Speaker 1: I would ask your friend this. I would say, uh,
what do you think is the pillar and ground of truth?
And I like to ask that question because when I
was a Protestant, right, people would bring that up and
I'd say, the Bible, right, the Bible's.
Speaker 3: A word of God, the Bible pillar and ground.
Speaker 1: Bible was a pillar and ground, a true And I
would always just say, and I remember when somebody asked
me that said, they wud say, well, how come Paul
says the church is the pillar and ground of truth?
Why doesn't Paul say that the written texts are. And
if you read First timod. Three fifteen, that's what Paul says, right,
uh know, how to conduct yourself right in the in
the Church of God, which is the pillar and ground
of truth. The living body of the community is the
pillar and ground of truth, not the written texts. The
written text and then the written texts are the liturgical
documents of that pillaring ground of truth, living body of
the Church. So in other words, protests just take this
book out of the context.
Speaker 3: What's the context the liturgy.
Speaker 4: Of the church, right, and then you know, no, I
was just going to say, and you know where they're
going to go after that. They'll say, oh, yeah, the church.
They'll say what you know, they'll just say like, yeah,
the church. If they go this route, they'll see, yeah,
the church is just you know, the invisible church.
Speaker 1: Paul says that the church is as visible as Jesus
body is visible. There is no invisible church. That's a
made up Protestant doctrine. That's a Nestorian doctrine of ecclesiology.
And now I would say, where's your church in the
third century, where's your church in the fourth century, fifth century, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineteenth.
Tell them to tell me where is the true believing
church in each of those centuries, and then I'll believe
your church. And they won't be able to do it
because nobody believed anything Protestant in those centuries except for
stupid heresies.
Speaker 2: Yep, okay, thank you. It just kind of reveals that
people think that they, oh, I can figure out what
the teachings are by just picking up a book, and
it illustrates the myth of.
Speaker 1: Neutrality, right, yeah, yeah, the Texas means what it says,
and it says what it means.
Speaker 2: I'll just apply to my critical hermeneutic. All just figure
it out. But the problem is people aren't figuring it out.
They're going all over the place. You have to have
the right paradigm in order to read the text, so you,
I mean, it should it should be patently obvious that
when people are coming up with these interpretations, it's obviously
they don't understand what these They don't know how to
read the text. And it's not like reading another book.
I mean, I guess there was even some analogies to
with other texts. If you don't have the right paradigm,
you're even going to read, you know, like non sacred texts.
Speaker 1: Well, I can remember when I was a Protestant thinking
when I would be challenged with these kinds of questions initially,
and I remember thinking, well, I mean, I'm sure there's
something akin to basic Protestant ideas in the first eight
centuries of the church. I mean I just assumed, well,
I mean there's got to be something like that, and
they're not.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's that's I mean that's kind of what
what brought me out of Protestantism was all the uh
not all Protestants, but the Protestants I was around there,
you know, kind of touted Saint Augustine.
Speaker 1: And I used to too. And then I realized that he
was a bishop and he believed in apsodic succession, and
he believed in relics and the Eucharist and all this
kind and I was like, oh, okay, so he doesn't
actually support my position, right, yeah.
Speaker 4: And that's that's kind of where I began. And then
I ran the anti Nicene Fathers, and right all of them,
I think, to the man talks about the Eucharist and
bishops and stuff like that, and that's really where I
started doubting Protestant.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the Canons of Nicia, right, I mean
Nicia show, the Canons of Nicea show that, like I thought,
I was believing, you know, Nicee Christianity as a Protestant.
And I remember when I got my Philip schaft set,
I read the the Canons of Nicia, and it's talking
about bishops, it's talking about eucharists, it's talking about uh,
you know, christ Nation is talking about fasting. It's talking
about all the stuff that you know is totally antithetical
to Protestantism, and in fact, as a Calvinist, as a
reform Protestant, I thought was heretical. So I'm like, no,
wait a minute, how am I going to call these
people heretical? And yet, well, but I believe they're they're
creed about Jesus right, and the eternal generation of the
Son from the Father, right, these equally divine homousius blah
blah blah blah. But I had no I'd never and
by the way, my pastor he didn't know where the
cans and I SEO said they'd never heard this stuff. Uh,
And then they just doubled down and well, okay, well
I don't have a problem saying that they're all in
error in heresy. That was the they doubled down. I
was like, no, I'm not gonna I mean, it just
doesn't make any sense, right, So, okay, Well, if they're
all heretical, then where's the church.
Speaker 3: Well, the church has error. Their church has errors, and it's.
Speaker 1: Got spots, and it's been divided and fallen into mistakes
in every century. No, that doesn't work because the gates
of Hell won't prevail against the church. You can't have
the whole body of the church apostate. That's just stupid.
That's why all the Protestants that are consistent, they end
up in like Joseph Smith, physicians. Well, it's time to
restore the church. Yeah, there was a blackout. Paul washer
of the famous internet Calvinist preacher. He says there was
a blackout from the time of the death of the
Apostles until I don't know, Anabaptist whatever he thinks there's
a blackout.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what my friend. I mean, he goes to
church or whatever, but like he doesn't even believe everything
that he's church.
Speaker 1: Because he has well ninety nine percent of the time
with not every time, but I mean there's a few
exceptions where it's just people that are bad willed and
double down, like James White or somebody like that. But
ninety nine percent of the time it's uh, people are ignorant.
Speaker 4: So, yeah, he has a he got his masters and something.
Speaker 2: I can't remember.
Speaker 1: He has masters, yeah, and what.
Speaker 4: I don't remember where he went, but you know, he
got his masters at.
Speaker 1: Some Bible call non nominational or a Baptist or what
I think.
Speaker 2: It was a Baptist.
Speaker 1: I had to ask, Okay, well, yeah, I mean it
is possible to get your masters as a Baptist and
be completely ignorant of church history that I've seen many
people like that.
Speaker 4: Anyway, one last thing kind of regarding this, have you
are you aware of a person.
Speaker 16: I've got something to say to you. Brother, I've got
something to say to you, and you're not going to
like it. But I've seen into Hell, friends, and I've
seen into Hell. And when I looked into Hell, I
saw you there and I wept over you, friend, because
I don't want you to.
Speaker 2: Go to Hell.
Speaker 3: I want you to be saved.
Speaker 16: But I also believe in predestination and election. And by
the way, I'm a missionary who works for NGOs, and
please give me money, friend, because I'm gonna cry at
every point time I do this, simon exactly thirty nine
minutes and forty two seconds, I'm going to cry because
I'm Paul Washer and I have a fake affected New
England almost English accent fringe.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Speaker 1: Somebody was requesting and Paul Washer impression in the chat,
so I did it.
Speaker 4: Hilarious. You know who Vody Bocam is.
Speaker 1: No, who's that? Okay, who's he?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: He's uh, he's another guy that influenced my friend.
Speaker 1: A lot, voting Bockham. That's real. That's a realm, a
real name.
Speaker 2: It is a real name. It sounds like a like
a surfer or something.
Speaker 1: Dude. Yeah, it's like the Patrick Swayze in Point Break body.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's a big black dude.
Speaker 1: Okay, well he must be right. If he's a big
black dude, then I know he's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's yeah.
Speaker 4: The reason I asked you is because my friend. Anyway,
thanks for.
Speaker 2: Taking my question. Your friends.
Speaker 17: Uh, I got a question, Jay, And I'm totally not
YouTube regarding to you.
Speaker 2: I'm just a.
Speaker 1: Random we got we got we got Delvin the Red
med White.
Speaker 17: Yeah, total total random. This is a This is gonna
be a very stupid question, but I love stupid questions,
so I'm gonna ask it.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 17: Would you agree with the assessment that we can have
knowledge only in three base and I'm not talking about
like justifiable for example, I'm talking about three different ways
of knowledge where we can have them through sense data,
you know, seeing things that we can know things by contemplation.
For example, let's say we're contemplation gating logic, Well, it.
Speaker 2: Has real existence. We know logic exists.
Speaker 17: We can have knowledge true that, or we can have
knowledge true knowing something's essence. Would you agree those are
the only three vays to know something or would you
say that there can be more vase ways.
Speaker 1: Like I would say for knowing the created order as creatures,
I can't think of another way. And then for the
Christian there's the direct perception of the logie, which is
a higher way for those who achieve.
Speaker 17: Yeah, I'm asking in the Christian sense pretty much like
not in the secular sense, but like if you're a Christian,
I guess I guess knowing the essence will kind of
that will answer the question more details, like perceiving.
Speaker 2: You are more accurate, right, bit, So.
Speaker 1: I would say that when we perceive objects, I don't
think that Aristotle is or John Damascus are wrong to
say that we perceive an object and then we we
do abstract. The mind has the power the ability to
abstract principles and things from objects. Yes, and that is
in contemplation.
Speaker 2: Sensing wouldn't be knowing. It'd be like a pathway to
you knowing.
Speaker 1: Right, And I think that ultimately what gives unity and
coherence and meaning to what we perceive is the logie,
even though we may not directly perceive the LOGI ultimately
that's where it's grounded as the mind of God. But
even an unbeliever can have correct, factual knowledge about things
and can make true statements because even though their noos
is dark, and they're still able to do contemplation and
still able to get part of the picture to speak.
Speaker 17: So the reason why I'm kind of asking this is
and if we had a chat on this couple of
days ago, on this voice chat as well on I'm
kind of thinking that does any other religion kind of
you know, how do they even answer the question of
the knowledge of God? For example, let's use the example
of Roman Catholics. I think that will be an easy example.
How can we even come to know God? If in
that sense I mean, we will answer, well, we can
contemplate his energies and they have actual existence, so we
can know about God that way. But you can't really
answer that question if you're a Roman Catholic or even
a Protestant, and really even if you're in a story
or non calcedonia to be honest, and you can extend
this to other religions. So my kind of train of
thought is like, are there any religions that kind of
answered try to answer this question or what do they
even answer this question with it?
Speaker 2: Because I feel like this is kind of a no.
Speaker 17: I think the question that it is not tackled enough
by like these people.
Speaker 1: I think, right, So you can take the critique of
absolute divine simplicity and apply it to epistemology. And in
the Roman Catholic system, their doctrine of knowledge is analogia entis.
The Protestant system, their epistemology will be analogia fe dae,
so they'll say analogy of faith, and ultimately their principle
of pistemology is the Bible of revelation. They'll say that,
really the only thing that we have certitude about is
the Bible. They're inconsistent because they actually believe that the
effects of sin, if they're a Calvinist, for example, the
noedic effects of sin are such that even after you're degenerated,
you can't interpret the scriptures right. So they don't even
get to God either. And even if they did believe
you could have the direct knowledge of God, it's still
created grace for the Protestant m Catholic has the same
problem because it's just created effects. That's all there. Their
analogia Inth this is still just created effects. So it
doesn't actually work as a principle of pistemology. Although a
Quinas tries to answer this. I just read this in
whipple By, and I was right because I've said this
all along. But just another Thomas scholar who backs this
up in an entire chapter. They believe that they can
ground even natural knowledge in the divine ideas. So the
closest that any of these people can come is a
kind of divine conceptualism where they're grounding either the essences
of creatures or the ideas of things in God, which
we agree with that that's Maximus's logi doctrine is doing that,
but they put them in the essence of God across
the board, so and you don't know the essence of God,
so it does nothing. It doesn't help you to have
a form of divine conceptualism for your epistemology that locates
the ideas and the thing that you can't know. It's
so dumb I.
Speaker 17: Mean you're going to have divine conceptionism, for example, you're
going to have conceptions about God. Well they kind of
have to be actual in real as well. They can't
just be kind of like creations of the mind or
even an analysis of something created, because how can you
at all even like get to something created to uncreated
verus in our system.
Speaker 2: We can contemplate.
Speaker 17: I mean, this is why it connects to prayer hesychasm
as well.
Speaker 2: And I think I'm very sure. I think your Palamas.
Speaker 17: Starts by saying, you know, like his defense on essensity
distinction is defending hesechasm.
Speaker 2: And I think that's kind of connects to that.
Speaker 17: Is that, like it's part of the contemplation of God
and what we contemplated. We're not contemplating created you know,
substances or effects or something, but rather actual you know,
same maxims with the things around God. And like what
I'm getting at is that and yeah, you answered the
question regards to yeah, like this is That's how they
try to answer. But it seems to me the center
of the problem. There's no bridge between the created and
not created. For like any other religious system.
Speaker 1: Does it seem like no, there's not. That's one of
the problems of ads is the epistemology. You can do
an uh, an epistemological critique of any simplicity religion or doctrine.
Speaker 17: Yeah, and in a way, yeah, I think I mean,
if you think about the body and soul analogy because
the soul is immaterial and the faculty like the mind
or I think one could one argue that that's already
kind of like a.
Speaker 2: A mini bridge in that sense.
Speaker 17: I think you used the term, what was it, the
mind is an icon of God's minds gem in mind?
Was did you say something like that? I think in
your previous videos or I remember something like that.
Speaker 1: That's that's yeah, the Father speak that way.
Speaker 17: Yeah, So I mean and will that I can't be
the mind's immateriality.
Speaker 1: Well, the mind as a attribute or faculty is immaterial, yes,
uh And.
Speaker 3: I'm getting lost there.
Speaker 1: So the so the fact that we have a mind
that's immaterial and the relationship between body and soul, are
you trying to are you trying to make an analogy
to the way that God interacts with the world because
he's immaterial? Is that ever're saying.
Speaker 17: I'm basically trying to say, like just how just like
how something immaterial the soul and the body can unite
right and immaterial and material thing is it can? Can't
that also be an analogy of kind of how God
can interact with the material world immaterial.
Speaker 1: Yes, because the model is the same for the interpenetration
and yet distinction in body and soul. That's applied to
the interpenetration and of the two energies in Christ because
of the two natures interpenetrating and yet retaining their natural properties.
Speaker 3: And that's the that's also the model for how God
relates to the world.
Speaker 2: Yes, mm hmm.
Speaker 1: That's why Maximus can say that the whole creation is
a kind of garment.
Speaker 3: That the Logos wears.
Speaker 1: He speaks of the three embodiments of the Logos.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 17: So I guess I mean it's like a health question,
health like about like even outside of Christianity, like for example,
like Islam, like do you know or anyone else maybe
like know, like how they will try to answer this
question because it seems like there really is no answer
in the system.
Speaker 1: Is that I'm looking into every every Muslim that I've
debated an apologists that I bring this issue up with
doesn't answer it because of their boxed in doctrine of God,
their radical dissimilarity of creep to God. It doesn't allow
for there to be a bridge.
Speaker 12: Yeah, And the final question is what I'm that kind
of apex point of what I'm getting at full the
argument that your religion is kind of atheistic because you
cannot account for knowledge of God, because you cannot account
for contemplation of the uncreated.
Speaker 17: Can this argument apply to any religion except for Orthodoxy? Basically,
can you kind of use this as a tag argument?
Maybe you have used it and I just didn't, like
don't remember.
Speaker 3: But like no, I brought it up before as Yeah,
you can use this.
Speaker 1: In fact, I have a critique of temas epistemology where
I critique this very point from about eight years ago. Yeah,
I think you can use you can you can do
a type of tag this way, where you're saying that
if you don't have the right distinctions between nature, will, energy, logi,
et cetera, you don't have a way to actually ground epismology. So,
for example, the Wiemlane Craig believes in a form of
divine conceptualism, so he thinks that objects in the world
the way that we know them is because they're grounded
ultimately in God. Now we would agree with that, but
what do you mean by grounded in God? And how
does that actually work? Well, he doesn't have a Logi doctrine,
so he thinks the essences of creatures are the ideas,
or he would say, what's the idea? Is the essence
of a creature and it is the essence of God
or it's in the mind of God. Right, And we're
not identifying the logi or the idea with the essence
of a creature. Creatures have their own creaturely essence in
creatures that are patterned on Logi. So in other words,
they collapse the creaturely essence into the essence of God.
Speaker 3: And that's why that doesn't work. So you can't have
a you can't have.
Speaker 1: Divine conceptualism as a form of epistemology without the logi doctrine.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Is that confusing?
Speaker 2: That absolutely makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I've been trying to apply I've been
trying to apply Maximus to apologetics.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 17: And like, as a final note to the viewers and
and all that is that.
Speaker 2: I think it's very interesting.
Speaker 17: I would definitely recommend them checking out the Cappadocians debate
against you Know meis because actually a lot of this
is kind of repeated there, and a big part of
the debate that is, like I have not seen academics
talk about this at all, Like they talk about all
sorts of boring nonsense, but they don't talk about this.
It's about knowledge of God. I mean, that's a big
team in their debate, Like you know because that's why
you know Me says we know God's essence one, because
that's like, why will he say something so stupid? Well,
it's because for him, there's no other way, because he
has to reject distinction, right, And the point is that, really,
you know Me says, let's say, you know what I
mean his response is what the response of the other
world's religions in general, right, as I will say, Islam
are he is Protestants and non Casadonians I don't, and
Buddhist him Douce and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, thanks for answering my questions that differently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this relates back to the point that I always
make about Thomism the word I can't find my Thomas notes.
But you can't say, uh, we only know what God is.
We don't know what what God is, but we know
that he is. And then turn around and say and
we know what we know what he is? Doesn't work. Yeah,
here it is, here's my notes.
Speaker 17: We would that even refer to if it refers to essence,
then like congratulations, you are.
Speaker 2: You know him?
Speaker 1: Mean, yeah, we know that God is not what he is. Okay,
these are the first two points of temism. But Thomas
and the Thomas also say God's essence is identical to
his existence.
Speaker 3: You know his existence.
Speaker 1: His essence is identical to his existence. We don't know
his essence, then you don't know his existence because you
just equated him.
Speaker 17: Yeah, pretty much, or either that the only really good
answer you can give, which is not a good answer,
but the only consistent is probably you will hit it
that existence we know of is a created thing, which, yeah,
but then you don't know God's exist you know, a
created version.
Speaker 2: Rights to get around this and which I talked about
this and about the analogical questions to article one, remember
that we're able to find the problems with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the Whipple.
Speaker 1: The Whipple chapters on this, and it's about participation.
Speaker 2: So for a.
Speaker 1: Quarticle two, forgive me.
Speaker 2: A question to article two.
Speaker 3: So the on the on the chapter on the one
of the Many, and aquitas in.
Speaker 1: Whipple, it's about how is their participation in God on
the part of creatures. And if you ever talk to Thomas,
they'll try to persuade you. Oh bro, we're just saying
the same thing. We're all on the same team. Look,
you Orthodox believe in participation, so do we. And then
when Aquinas goes to explain what it is, it's participation
by likeness, not actual metaphysical participation. That can't happen, right,
Creatures don't metaphysically participate in God in the sense of
partaking of God. They partake of God by likeness, by similarity,
similitude and a loggia. And the other explanation is by
the fact that the divine ideas that are the patterns
of creatures are patterned on the divine essence. But there's
not a metaphysical participation in God himself. It's participation by lifekeness.
So it's not really participation.
Speaker 3: That's the point.
Speaker 1: By the way Aquinas does not believe that universals have
a real existence.
Speaker 2: It's got like Obama saying to do that.
Speaker 6: I can't.
Speaker 3: By the way, Thomas, aquin It doesn't believe in the
universes have a real existence.
Speaker 1: Uh can you believe this, folks? Can you believe this book?
Speaker 2: Folks? Can you believe this is oak? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So anyway, I mean here's like, you know, top Thomas
saying everything I've said, what if we.
Speaker 2: Just did all our like apolitics and like past precedence.
Speaker 18: Quiet has tear down this wall. You can have peace
right now, Thomas, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: And I forgot by the way, that you can read this.
I read the Cambridge Companions of Quintus years ago. It's
got Norman Kretzman in it. I mean it's it's this
is not a this has recognized. It has eleanor Stomp,
it has Norman Kretzman. And there's a whole chapter on
aquinas as epistemology, which, David, you would find that interesting
because it goes into some of what you're talking about.
Aquinus's theory of knowledge, Arizona quits questions metaphysics by Whipple
that I just pointed out. And yes, these points are
brought up. I mean the essay that I wrote several
years ago. I just realized that if Thomas believes that
natural knowledge is also based on the divine ideas, then
you can't Then this is going to be in conflict
with his distinction between natural and supernatural knowledge, because it's
both are grounded in the divine ideas, but the divine
ideas are the Divine essence. There's no similarity between the
divine essence and creatures because they're fundamentally one. If the
distinctions in the Divine essence are not real distinctions, then
creatures based on those patterns are not really distinct.
Speaker 3: We're all just one bro.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't work as a as a way to
ground epistemologies. I'm trying to say, if you collapse the
divine ideas into the Divine essence, then this is not
going to function as a way to have distinctions.
Speaker 2: In the world.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work for the one the many
problem because the essence of God is not really distinct.
Creatures are really distinct from one another. I'm not you right,
We're actually different. But if we're based on the essence
of God and there's no real distinctions in the essence
of God. Then how is there real distinctions in the creatures.
There's not multiple creatures have multiplicity. The essence of God
does not have multiplicity, and they'll always come back with well,
but it's a distinction in terms of the multitude.
Speaker 3: Of the effects.
Speaker 1: No, we're not talking about cause and effect.
Speaker 3: I know what he said about that.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the ideas, the doctrine of divine ideas
that are identical to the divine essence. There's an idea
of me, there's an idea of you, there's an idea
of every creature. That's the grounding of the creatures that's
in the essence of God. It doesn't work, And Thomas
doesn't just ground supernatural knowledge in the divine ideas. Natural
knowledge itself is grounded in the divine ideas. That's how
crazy this is. But now, wait a minute, we don't
have any direct perception in this life of the essence
of God. Yeah, exactly, So how do you actually know
that the creatures are based on the divine essence? It
doesn't work because you've cut the human mind off from God.
You only know creative effects, so you never get back
to the divine essence. That's why this doesn't work. Does
that make sense what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Actually no, it yeah, all right, you say for the
last two and a half hours has made any sense.
Speaker 1: But I've just come claiming along well, Emanuel for well,
Emmanuel for ten dollars, says I am afraid by supporting
the stream that I will not catch up to the videos.
By the way, I put a link to David's channel
in the chat, you can follow David the real medwide
as well. Tom Green for three dollars. Since life thrives
on death, if a cow eats grass and then a
cow dies and feeds the soil for the grass, how
would this work.
Speaker 3: In the Esketon? Well, there's no death in the.
Speaker 1: Esketon, right, So the whole creation is operating under a differating,
different operating system right than it would be in Eden
or in the Esketon. So that'll all be done away with.
Is this something we have no idea about? Well, we
have a general idea about it from Eden and from
what we're told about the resurrection, right, so we know
it'll be physical. We know we'll still have bodies, they'll
still be people. There's still be trees, you know, the world, universe,
et cetera. But there won't be death, So how exactly
all that works, I don't know. Tom Green three dollars, Jay,
do you reckon that? You can do a stream on
soul after death by Father Sara from Rose. Uh. Yeah,
I just haven't got around to it because it's such
a controversial, sort of annoying topic. Not the doctor itself
is not annoying, but the way people get all tripped
up on it's annoying to me. But I think David,
didn't you just do a toll House video by the way.
Speaker 17: Yes, I've done a video on that issue. It is
based on that book.
Speaker 1: You can go there's David's channel.
Speaker 3: Go watch David's video.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was like one of your most recent Yeah right,
mm hmm, all right, that doesn't that doesn't cover the
entype book.
Speaker 17: It just but it does get a lot of quotes
and patristic citations from that book. But like there's a
lot of things that the book covers about, for example,
sickular afterlife experiences and how it really store to doc
see that I didn't really covered.
Speaker 2: So I mean, if Jay, so.
Speaker 17: If you're planning on I mean, I'm definitely down to
like join it.
Speaker 1: Because yeah, I just have to get around to it
down the road. We'll get to that eventually, Lord William.
Speaker 3: But all right, I'm getting tired.
Speaker 1: But everybody, thank you. I'm sorry this uh, I'm sorry
the stream was mistitled. We didn't actually talk about the book.
I'll talk about that book some other time and rename
the streams. I'll be sure to follow Father Deacon, follow Snack,
follow David real ed white h follow everybody in our
just