Speaker 1: I'm married to a buncle pap.
Speaker 2: Oh oh, we got better to conjoined in a subway shop.
Oh oh, I'm married to a bunco.
Speaker 3: To a buncle.
Speaker 2: Amnin man, we got better conjoined in a.
Speaker 4: Sub Oh yeah, what's up y'all? Welcome everybody. It's another
live stream, another open for him. I don't know why
I was getting a double feedback loop there, but we're
gonna go ahead and just get into it as usual.
I'm a little late. We're on dire time, which the
Hodge Twins said was ethnic time, their joke, not mine.
I would never make such a horrible gracist comment ever, ever, ever,
But hey, I'm have black. What can I say if
I show up thirty minutes late. I'm just being who
I am, And if you call me out, you're racist.
So chew on that bigot. Welcome everybody. We're gonna be
opening it up here in a little bit. There's the link.
Let me start this dumb ass Twitter space for all
these dumb asses to come in here and make all
their dumb ass argus. Miss yeah uh, there we go.
Gotta hear that sweet Elon music. They hear that sweet
Elon remix the met more the Elon remix and the
Meat More Meat More. Yes, of course you need esoteric
Hollywood through you need all of the esthetic Hollywood series.
Speaker 5: My my, did I'm not include the I didn't include
the damn stream Labs link?
Speaker 4: Mom, Mom, let me get you out of the Strength
the Strength Labs. By the way, I'm in joined my
reading of Max Blumenthal's book, it's a good compliment to
the other texts in the series, as we noted. So
I'm about halfways through now. I wish I wish rid
Bond hadn't backed out of the debate. But it is
what it is, you know, as the book, as the
Boomers say, it is what it is. It was what
it was. Bloomer wisdom cliches, Member wisdom cliches, y'all like those?
All right, here is the super chat link if you
want us to support the stream. I tried to make
the topics broad, but sometimes that's kind of a mixed bag.
By the way, the I think the Hodgewins gave me
an inward pass, but many other brothers have also giving
me in word passes. So but I'm afraid if I
use it, the system won't recognize the past that I have.
You know what I mean, Like, if I go on
Piers Morgan next week and I try to use it,
I don't feel like they're gonna let me use it,
you know what I mean. So there's the uh, the
link if you want to support the stream right there. People.
So I woke up today to people saying, when you
going to debate thoughtful lds or I'm like, dude, I've
already debated that guy. What do you mean he he
came on and was one of the stupidest much of
nonsense arguments that we've ever heard on here. Now the
problem is, just like with Derek Brows, I don't know
which one of the clips, oh there it is is
that person. So if we go back to here, this
was a weird profile with an alternate name Derek Brose
with a Z, so I don't know if that's a
fan account or if it's his account, but it had
like one hundred thousand subscribers on Twitter, so I'm assuming
that's his account. But it was the biggest bunch of
gnostic nonsense I've ever heard. But here is the Derek
Brose clip. People said, well, where did you debate with
Dereck Brose? Okay, right, here, and I don't know which
of the Mormons is the thoughtful Mormon dude or whatever
his name is, but it's not even a big account anyway.
So here's Robert Gerr. Here's that wild Mormon chick that
called in. Had a just almost schizo level rant of nonsense.
It didn't even make sense what she was saying. Here's
another Mormon. Let's see if it's this guy. Maybe it's
this one. It is a fallacy. Can you can you
tell me what a fallacy? What's up?
Speaker 6: Papa?
Speaker 4: No, that was a different Mormon because that was a
recent stream. That's a different Mormon recent stream. Uh, Robert Gerr. Again,
maybe it's this guy. Let's see if this is the
right Mormon. There's another one, Thomism. There we go, the
smartest Mormon Thalmism, a lot of stuff like that. Okay,
I don't know if this is the right one, but
I'll give you this one. And then there's another clip
here this Mormon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember.
Speaker 4: The t or is that the same guy? That's the
same question and my friend saying that you but okay,
I think this is him. I think this is the
right guy. So for all the people asking when and
where did you argue already with I forget his name
on Twitter, but it might be this guy. I wish
people just use their name so we could identify them.
Everybody's got these stupid ass handles that are Mormon thoughtful
mystic sixty nine, Like, I don't, dude, just tell me
who are you? This is him because it's the same logo.
So this guy, I've already debated this guy, and I
think it's that clip that I just pull this one.
I think, so here's the guy looking kind of weird here,
and I let's let's hear him talk and then I
think we can figure out his voice. But it's it's
the same logo in his channel that I think was
on his.
Speaker 7: Twitter presented what members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter day Saints actually believe.
Speaker 4: No, we didn't, because your own church changes this position.
Your changes this position historically. So uh, let's see if
that's the same guy.
Speaker 6: Trying to get an understanding of the what do you
call it, the monarchical treated carrying?
Speaker 4: That doesn't sound like the same idea, does it.
Speaker 6: You like that, but it's like you had other things
that you want to debate about Mormonism or w.
Speaker 7: And how do I know this well? Because I am one.
And if you are not a Latter Day Saint, you
need to be aware that Jay Dyer and people like
him are misleading you. And by the end of this
video you will see why.
Speaker 8: You see.
Speaker 7: Jay Dyer is one of those internet apologists known as
the Ortho Bros of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he
was invited on the Hodge Twins podcast to give his
take on Jews and Muslims, but at a certain point
become rotation veered into a discussion about the beliefs held
by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints, or more commonly known as Mormons.
Speaker 9: Now, I remember as a little kid, me and Kim
was playing outside and these woman kids came to our
house on bike said that white shirts and black tyes,
if I remember correctly, and they went, Mama, whenever we
want to talk about God Jesus. My mom election in
the house, right, she's very religious. So me and my
brother's outside playing, and then I heard my mama, cause
get the fuck out of my house. Ristians right got you?
And I said, what happened, mama?
Speaker 4: You said?
Speaker 9: They said, I'm the I'm a descendant of Cain, and
that's why my skin is brown.
Speaker 4: So Mormons belief, Now this is specifically one of those
teachings that as we saw two calls back, we had
former Muslims in here. The Mormon Church has distanced itself
from so the pre existence of soul. Now, I think
they still believe in pre existence of souls, but they
distanced themselves from the older Mormon prophet teaching of the
pre existence of souls, leading to the people that sided
with with the rebellion against God being cursed to have
dark skin. Right, even Mormons believe in the pre existence
of souls. That you weren't created at your conception. You
existed before, okay, and so the reason that you have
black skin is because you send in your previous life.
It's oh yeah. They believe that black people are the
ones that followed Lucifer in rebellion, and so the curse
was to be born as black.
Speaker 10: No, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord,
for he do with that which is good among the
children of men, and he denieth.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but this is not even talking about their secret
doctrines which the Mormon that called in said, it's from
the Book of Abraham, right, And he said, that's where
it talks about black people can't be in the Mormon priesthood.
Right now. This what Mormons always do is they don't
talk about the actual teachings to normies. They act as
if they have the same kind of basic ideas as
the rest of Christianity. And they always base it on
word concept fallacies and equivocation. Oh, you believe in Jesus
being divine, and you believe in the Godhead, so do we.
But they mean totally different things, right, And I'm trying
to find the actual text from actual Here's Abraham, the
Book of Abraham, which is a forgery, by the way,
And let's see in the Book of In his book
Church and the negro Lds, writer doctor John Lewis Lund
cited David O. McKay from nineteen forty seven giving a
lengthy response about the fellow students that were perturbed about
the question of Negroids not being welcomed into the Mormon priesthood.
I know of no scriptural basis for the priesthood for negroes,
and I believe, as you suggest, that the real reason
dates back to our preexistent life. So here's one of
the Mormon leaders, one of the Mormon so called the Allogians.
I don't know if he is one of the prophets
LDS President David O. McKay, So that's pretty high up.
Such a statement carries significant importance because McKay referred directly
to the Yell Scripture of the Pearl of Great Price,
where the Book of Abraham is found by itself. Verse
twenty six might sound vague and confusing. It says Pharaoh,
being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his
people wisely and justly throughout the days. And then it says,
even in the reign of Adam and also of Noah,
his father blessed him the blessing of the earth and
the blessing of wisdom. And cursed, but cursed is he
that as pertains to priesthood. So this is saying that
the sentence of Cain cannot be Mormon priests. And as
you saw, it was because of quote their previous life,
their pre existence. These Mormon leaders felt that Abraham won
twenty six was a key verse when it came to
denying the priesthood to black people, and so doing verse
twenty six is put in the context of denial. Since
the Lord appeared to Cain and converse with him many
times before Kin killed Abel, Cain must have held priesthood.
God said to him, from this time fourth, it shall
be that the father of lies he shall be called Perdition,
and the Lord curse Kine with severe cursings. This is
not the Bible, this is their stupid made up book.
On those cursings was placed a mark of Cain, which
mark would be carried by his posterity throughout all generations.
This mark was Cain's black skin, according to the Pearl
Great Price LEDs. Theologian Hunter went on to say that
the greatest curse of all was the cursehood of black
skin and not having the priesthood. Hunter insisted that Joseph
Smith himself identified black people as the descendants of Cain.
In Nauvoo in eighteen forty two, the brethren were discussing
whether the Negroes or the Indians had received a worse
treatment from whites. The prophet Joseph Smith said, the Indians
have greater cause to complain of treatment of whites than
Negroes or the sons of Cain. Therefore, it is due
to the teaching of the Pearl Great Price that Joseph
Smith and the other leaders for bay Maid black people
from the priesthood and noticed that it was due to
the sin in the previous existence. So this is their
stupid ass theology and it's based on the pre existence
of souls. Here is Brigham Young, the second LDS President,
Brigham Young. The curse that remains upon them can never
They shall never hold the priesthood nor sharing it until
all the descendants of Adam have received the promises. Why
Mormonism cannot recover from the Book of Abraham? Right?
Speaker 11: Why more people left Mormonism over this issue than almost
any other.
Speaker 4: The Book of Abraham.
Speaker 7: What is this tiny, unassuming five chapter book that definitively proves.
Speaker 2: That Joseph Smith was a fraud and a false prophet
of all the different books.
Speaker 4: In Mormons true. Now, remember this is the book that
we just referred to the other day due to Posh
pointing this out to me, and then we had the
former Mormon who came on for about twenty minutes in
the livestream talking about the Book of Abraham. It's obviously
a forgery. It's not anything to do with actual biblical figures.
It's just old Egyptian funerary texts that Joseph Smith bought Charles.
What's up? I'll give you guys this video, but this
guy is going to be just saying the same stuff
that Posh said and that we said on the other
stream the other day. So I'm not gonna repeat all that.
What's up, Chuck, I'm mute, Chuck, I'm mute. Chose a spliff?
How come people don't I'm mute, man, I don't get it.
Maybe Twitter's not working right today, Chuck? Did you not
turn your Chris Smitt I should say, did you not
turn your mic on? It's like nobody's ever used Twitter
spaces until they come to my Space Bohemia. What's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 4: I'll give you guys this link to here if you
want to read the full article on the Book of
Abraham right here. What's up?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 3: What's the topic?
Speaker 4: I kind of the topic is all the things listed
in the topic description? Oh shit?
Speaker 12: Okay, So I would have a question because I'm deciding
right now right now.
Speaker 3: I'm a catechumen.
Speaker 12: And the Orthodox Church, and uh, I am pretty said
like I'm not the church hopping. I'm said, I'm becoming Orthodox,
and this next to your getting baptized. But I had a
question because I saw an Orthodox priests say that I
cannot if I am Orthodox, I cannot.
Speaker 3: Pray with Catholics.
Speaker 12: And I have a lot of Catholics friends, and I
one of my friends actually.
Speaker 3: Is a Catholic priest, and you know, I like Catholics.
Speaker 12: You know, I'm from I'm from Prague, so there's it's
a Catholic.
Speaker 4: You know city. Liking them doesn't equate to being able
to celebrate liturgically with heterodox groups. That's the teaching of
the first thousand years of Christianity.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I guess my question would be like about the prayer,
Like if I pray with Catholics, do you think that's bad?
Speaker 3: Like just like an outside the church, you.
Speaker 4: Might get permission in certain circumstances to do that, but
in general, the problem is that it suggests that we
have the same faith and we're all good and it's
just not true. That's why the agree. I agree, But
I mean, yeah, I would just like take a case
by case instead of trying to like find out one
size fits all situation, because there might be situations where
you know you need to go to a funeral. I'm
sure your priests would give you permission to go, but
you know you could privately pray or something like that
and not have to join in or something. Maybe vain.
What's up?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 13: Would you say that they are disabled if their descendants
of case?
Speaker 8: That was so bad?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Oh I get it now. I had to
think for a second. I don't I am not opposed
to wordplay, so I don't find your wordplay offensive. Vein,
I commend you.
Speaker 8: I just thought it was fun.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, it's okay. Is that it just one little
bit of wordplay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't want to take up time.
Speaker 4: That's all right, thank you for that wordplay. Now, guys,
you can support the stream through super chats, through a
stream las especially YouTube doesn't take a cut if youse
stream labs. The link is pinned in the show description.
Rolph Stakes became a member for fourteen months? How many
months I have to subscribe before you to drop the
next biggest cringe corps banger about Jordan Maxwell. Well, the
problem is if I do it Jordan Maxwell song, nobody
will get that or know anything about it. But maybe
I can find some time. I don't know, mister who
cares five dollars? What do you think about the patriarch
meeting the pope? Not much. I mean these kinds of
things happen all the time. I'm not a fan of
either one of them. H Brozi, five dollars. I'll make
this joke for you, Jay Jay is on now. Ah,
Brozzie is a black dude, so he says, Jay is
on inward time. He is truly one of us. I
have the pass. There you go, an actual brother gave
me the brother pass. So let it be known henceforth
and forevermore. I shall not be able to be canceled
given that the black community has given me honorary pass
being half black. To use the words top jacko maattic
ten dollars. I was at boot camp for three months.
My phone just came back to me. What did I miss?
Oh dude, Oh my gosh, what did you miss? I
don't know if I can make it through this whole
Mormon video. Let's just invite the Mormons to come. Well,
what you missed was I completed esoter Colli WITHOO three
that will be shipping in about a month. A month
and a half. I did a podcast tour throughout LA
and Vegas that was pretty hype. I did whatever debating
the fraud, not so erudite, and I'm sure all of
you saw the clip. Once again, Jay Dyer is vindicated,
and I wish more people would just have faith that
when I say stuff, I'm probably know what I'm talking about. Now.
Every now and then I get things wrong, all of
us do. He's infallible except for the Pope, just kidding.
Except for the Universal Orthodox Calogy Church. No one else
is infallible. And I told you guys that aerudite I
could tell, and Father Deacon as well. Ken I think
attest to this, who's more advanced in philosophy than I am.
If you study philosophy and you've done it at a
graduate level, you can very easily detect when somebody is
faking it, when they're a sued pretending to know about
a subject that they have no knowledge of. It works
to dupe dumb people like the Destiny audience. Many of
them fall for her her stick, which is to spout
out a bunch of terms that she reads on chat
GPTWO right, and I knew in the midst of that
discussion and I'll just play this one clip here to
remind you from my team. If you go to my TikTok,
you'll remember that I asked her a more more than
once on the second eight hour day that whether or
not she had read a single text that she could
recall the name of, and she couldn't tell me. That
tells me that she's a suit And she just repeats
what chat GBT tells her. And in the discussion, I
even said, I guarantee you she just uses chat GPT.
And this is what like zoomers and younger millennials like,
they think that intellectualism, academia, being scholastic is literally just
putting on the front of it. That's what they think
it is.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, that's a good point.
Speaker 4: Well, Dave. Dave Smith said this to Tucker the other
day that the left and liberals and these kinds of
people and these younger people, they think that as long
as you pull off being looking like an intellectual or
talking fast, then you're intellectual.
Speaker 13: Do you think that's because I mean just kind of
given the kind of relativistic and realistics kind of cultures
that they live in, that everything's.
Speaker 4: Just appearances exactly.
Speaker 13: Yeah, yeah, but have you appredictically derived from your categorical
imperative a sort of kind of dialectical Uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a contra distinction between the superposition of the
newmena and the phenomena in the Kantian deontological status of normativity.
It's like you just spout out.
Speaker 13: Words, yes, my brother, Now would you say that is
per se at intra or is that an n ray
dionea dialectical derivation of h.
Speaker 4: What what?
Speaker 3: What should I say? Or in other words, uh, descriptive.
Speaker 4: They're just like, yeah, they're like the Waynes brothers, right,
remember the skit on in Living Color? When Living Color, Yeah,
when one of the more the Waynes Brothers is he's
in prison and he's just he just misuses big words
to sound smart. That literally all of them are that guy.
So listen, here's me asking Arad to just name one
book which happened three times in this nightmare day of
eight hours of this nonsense acting what you know? You
could you name one philosophy book that you've read.
Speaker 14: The Five five Dialogues by Aristotle the Plato Republic.
Speaker 4: There's no book the Five Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic.
Speaker 13: Those are two books that I've read, So the Five
Dialogues as yet?
Speaker 15: Or do you would just want to be in that
to try to.
Speaker 4: Get one philosophy book from any philosophers.
Speaker 9: One philosophy book, it's your public.
Speaker 4: Did you read that? No? So I asked her to
name a book she read, and she named a book. Well,
I didn't read it, but okay, now let's listen to
Destiny do the exact same thing. So noticed she's literally
just female Destiny. Watch. Okay, can your name when you
read it?
Speaker 14: Off the top of my it's been very hard to
like read like full books and read a whole person books.
Speaker 4: What's your first book? But you're read what's trying to
think of a joke.
Speaker 16: Game?
Speaker 4: The game? Yeah? Okay, go hilarious culture reference? He okay, continue.
So Destiny couldn't name one book. He's reader couldn't name
one philosophy text that she's read, not just a text
that she's read.
Speaker 3: I love that she mixed Xeno Xeno's Republic.
Speaker 4: She said Aristotle's Republic.
Speaker 3: Oh did she?
Speaker 4: She said five Dialogues ariosotol Republic.
Speaker 3: My god, I heard her say Xeno's Republic.
Speaker 4: To be all up in there, because when you come
to debate, you know what you're talking about. Could you
name one philosophy?
Speaker 3: Read uh, five.
Speaker 13: Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic.
Speaker 4: There's the five Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic. So just gibberish,
right now, what was the point of all that. Let's
see what these bros over here on this podcast. I'm
not familiar with these guys, but shocker, in the midst
of a debate, she's actually using chat GPT, which is
exactly what Father Deacon and I have been saying. The
reason that a lot of people don't want to be
on video or in a live debate is because they
want to be able to use chat GPT. And what
do you know, this total sued fraud not so erudite
is caught doing that very thing.
Speaker 14: And then it switches over and oh brother, what is
she fucking doing? This is like the IRA, very delayed
and impact. Right, they're good things, but they're delayed and impact.
Speaker 4: Hold on, she got But we didn't even need to
have this visual confirmation that she does this because we
already knew that the way that she talked and the
nonsense that she was spitting out, which is why she
couldn't name a single paper or a single book by
any of the so called authors that she's familiar with.
Is because she's just regurgitating what Chad GBD spit out
at her. And she was at a huge disadvantage when
we got into the studios at whatever and Brian was like, no,
we don't need to have your Apple computer over here.
So she actually wanted when we first got there to
have her computer, and she got really nervous when Brian said, no,
you can't use your computer in a live debate. And
if you guys can't see it, like maybe you can
see it on the videos. I don't know. But the
entire time that Jim Boberus and I were sitting there
with her the first day of the second day, like
her hands were shaking. That entire time, she was so
nervous and so scared because because it's it's fraudulent, and
it's not wrong to call out people that are complete frauds.
People are saying, oh, you were you had a milt
down in that debate. No, no, no, it's to show
it to demonstrate whether it's her or the destinies here
in general, they're all frauds. Destiny couldn't name one book
and therefore he's not educated. So all these people are
like their deity, the deity of the SuDS is Ai
and chat GPT, and it's very obvious. It's very easy
to spot when you are aware of this kind of stuff. Anyway,
moving on, enough of that, but I am glad that
that came out because I told you guys, she was
a total phony. Caleb, what's up? Hey, j Yo.
Speaker 16: Hey, So basically it's nothing about what we're talking about
topic wise, but like probably you get a lot. I'm
kind of inquiring of the Eastern you know, Orthodox realm
of things, and.
Speaker 1: I'm just kind of.
Speaker 16: It's just as that basically the Euchrist and also.
Speaker 1: My confession and stuff like, I'm.
Speaker 16: Not my mind around why people that aren't baptized take
Eucharist if they do everything else besides you know, being
in the church.
Speaker 4: I don't you cut out? What's the question? Just ull
down the question? W you're cutting out?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me a little bit better?
Speaker 4: Yeah, just reset the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 16: So basically the question is is if you're not baptizing
the church, you obviously then can't take the Eucharist or
you know, do any of like the sacraments, And I'm
just it's kind of confused on why that is just
because you're not baptizing the church.
Speaker 4: Well, baptism is the entrance into the church, is the
right of initiation, So why would you be taking up
Christ when you're not initiated yet. So there's just a
logical order or two in the way the New Testament
presents the sacraments. Chuck, what's up?
Speaker 8: Bellow?
Speaker 3: Hey, hey, real quick question. What do you think about
the Belluman Bellmont Declaration.
Speaker 4: I'm not a fan of that, Well, so is it?
Speaker 1: The reason I'm asking is is it?
Speaker 11: I have a Catholic friend and he was he mentioned
and basically was coming from a position where he was
saying that, you know, this is why Catholics have this
innate ability or worldview where they're gonna.
Speaker 3: Happily, it'll be nice to you.
Speaker 8: But the Eastern.
Speaker 11: Orthodox is they're they're much more not aggressive. But I
get the way he put it, was trying to steal converts.
And he was like, I don't know, I just is
it not binding?
Speaker 1: I don't really know the terms, but is it.
Speaker 4: No, it's just a it's no different than like any
other you know, inter religious academic conference or statement. How
could how could it be binding? I mean, we're not
papists to where there's this issued, you know, execa theater
statement and everybody's bound by it. No, I'm not bound.
I mean if the if the MP makes a mistake,
we're not bound by it. I don't have to agree
to that. There's no infallible MP, there's no infallible EP.
So I think I'm not faulting you, but I think
it's a papal mindset to think that, Well, don't your
patriarchs make bad statements at times? Don't you have heterodox
patriarchs at times? So how is that any better than
the Catholic position. It's a difference between a systemic defeat
the same type of problem in another system that's not
a systemic defeater. If in the Roman Catholic Church you
had say a bunch of American bishops that were super
ecumenist and liberal and saying heterodox things, that wouldn't be
a defeater in the Roman Catholic system, if the Bishop
of Rome was Orthodox or ECU mean, the Bishop of
Rome was still orthodox in the little O sense. But
if the Bishop of Rome begins to teach the heterodox things.
That's a system level defeater because it denies Vatican One.
In the Orthodox Church, if all the bishops are decentralized
and one bishop says something erroneous, it's not de facto
heresy because it's wrong. It's heresy. I mean, it could
be heterodox, but it requires a senat or some condemnation
of the statement before everyone is bound by that. You
see what I'm saying. So it's two different ecclesiologies where
one problem might not be a system for the other system.
But I don't understand why people. People just can't grasp this.
I'm not talking about you, but like no one seems
to be able to grasp systemic level defeaters. If I
have two Roman Catholic dogmatic teachings that contradict, that's that
means the system's done. It only takes one one contradiction
between two different statements. And that's why you see the
romancalolis and scramble to try to say, well, it's not infallible,
it doesn't really count, or we can reinterpret it this
way right to make it work. It's not that is
not going to be a problem in the orthodox position,
because we don't have the view that any individual bishop
or patriarch is infallible or can never teach error. And
I just don't understand how people can't get this. Is
it that difficult to understand that one problem could be
a system level defeater for one system and not for
another because it's a different system. If we had the
position that the patriarch gets or the EP or the
MP were infallible, then it would also be a defeat
for our system. But we don't have that view. So
it's like no one can It's like they can't conceive
of what an internal critique is designed to do. Now,
as to your Catholic friend's statement that we're stealing converts,
we don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is half
of the church. We don't believe that it is the church.
So the Church is a single, unified, communal entity. It's
not a divided entity for the last thousand years that
hopefully we can heal and bring back together. The Roman
Catholic Church is not the church. It is, as mark
of market EPHISI has said, a para synagogue. It is
an extra ecclesial entity that operates more like a cult.
It's not as bad as Mormonism, but it is many
in many ways similar to Mormonism, because the Pope can
just revise and restate and redefine things to make this
system unfalsifiable. It's just it's just it's like the Mormon
said when he called in the other day. So the
reason I didn't go Catholic is like I didn't see
a huge difference between the prophets that had new revelations
in the Mormon sphere and the pope and his new
execa theater teachings, right, whatever they may be. It's just
really weird that it's like so hard for people to
understand a systemic level defeater.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just a comment on that, I would say to
the guy, like, think about it.
Speaker 13: Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople for three years before
he was condemned.
Speaker 3: Would we have had to have been an historian?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Like that's where I go.
Speaker 3: It's like, how do we solve it before was clearly.
Speaker 4: Right, and even Cyril didn't immediately lackt like you know
that the idea was to have a council right to
deal with that church wide issue. Z. What's up? But
thank you've been in a team for a good point.
Speaker 1: Any of me. Yep I said a question about transcendental arguments,
if that was all right?
Speaker 4: Yeah, FDA's here.
Speaker 18: Yeah, So I came across this critique about transcendental arguments,
and it was essentially that from a skeptical position, all
a transcendental argument can do is show what you ought
to believe, not what is actually true.
Speaker 4: Now that's the very strou position. So we agree with
Barry Stroud's critique of transcendental arguments. But the transcedental argument
for God is different because it's a systemic level argument.
It's not just a transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: Right, what would be like the meaningful difference between those.
Speaker 4: Because transcendental arguments can only show what ought to be
the case or what works within some conceptual scheme. But
the transcendental argument for God is a precondition for the
possibility of any schemes.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, I got it.
Speaker 18: Yeah they were They were just arguing that, like from
a skeptical position where you wouldn't have access to that
kind of thing, it was hard to show.
Speaker 1: How your mental state related to the world in that sense.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we actually use that argument. So when we get
people that come on and say that all I need
to do is show that the other positions are incoherent. Well,
that doesn't necessarily mean that your position's true. So you
need a stronger presentation than that to get epistemic justification.
For example, in the Manion paper, he points out that
just having a systemic coherence isn't even enough, because maybe
it just appears to us that our worldview or our
schema is consistent, but how do we know that it
actually applies to the world. And that's precisely the type
of critique that Manion makes of why you need more
than just the appearance of coherence or rationality.
Speaker 1: Oh, thanks, Manu Chef. Anywhere I can read.
Speaker 3: Up about them?
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Manion paper, Russ Manun's.
Speaker 1: Paper, Okay, thank you man.
Speaker 4: What's it called for? The Deacon father digging? Are you there?
I guess you had to step away. It's a revelatory theism.
I forget the full name of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up, chair? You know I got a question
on evolution. Is that under the topics?
Speaker 1: I guess?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 19: So I So I've been thinking about your the argument
you made that death doesn't enter the world before before
the fall, And so I have a friend who brought
up the objection that, well, if if if there was
no death, how did any animal that was a carnivore?
Speaker 4: How did the already answered this? And that's because the
entire structure of the world changed after the fall, so
they were not they were not eating animals prior to
the fall. But thank you for that question. Just read
you could even if you don't want to read the
full Genesis Creation Early Man, which has been reprinted, you
could read First Created Man by Saint Simeon Blessed Chungas.
What's up Eastern Orthodoxy? Ten rons, what's the difference between
begetting and proceeding? Sam Basil says that there is a difference.
We know what the difference is.
Speaker 6: We do not know.
Speaker 4: But if you think that this is somehow necessitating the philioque,
then you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that there's
a relation between the father and the son, that is
not the relationship between the father and the spirit. But
what the nature of the difference is, The Cappadocians say,
we do not know. So this is apathetic theology, and
all you need to distinguish the persons is their relationship
to the source, the Father. That's all you need. You
don't have to define the difference. In fact, no one
can to find the difference.
Speaker 3: What's up, man, can you hear me?
Speaker 6: Uh huh?
Speaker 20: All right, So I'm Catholic. I'm been Catholic for about
a year, and I'm kind of new to the whole
Christian world in general. Recently, I've been really liking your videos,
especially the ones on deconstructing movies and storylines. Before I
was Christian, I really liked like Slap Boys, I Can
Crawl Young, and the kind of deconstructionist stuff. And anyways,
I heard you say in one of your videos that
when you converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, you said something
like you were freed from something about Thomism, that you
didn't like Thomism.
Speaker 4: Or you found it kind of like.
Speaker 3: Burdens some or not coherent or something like that.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I was very interested in into Thomism
for most of my and I thought it was this great,
elegant system, and then I realized that it has problems
and I was able to eventually just admit that it's
a failed system.
Speaker 20: So I'm curious if you could in a short word
maybe describe what is the major problem of Thomism.
Speaker 4: Thomas Aquinas teaches a reductive identity thesis notion of what
divine simplicity is, which essentially undercuts the trinity and the
incarnation and the reality of uncreated grace. He teaches that
grace in itself is a created thing, all of which
undoes the reality of our salvation and glorification.
Speaker 20: So I know, okay, I can't just all of that,
but I'll try to reduce it for my brainlet status.
But so I know that there's major distinctions between Catholicism
and Orthodoxy, like theologically like essence energies distinction, and maybe
some of these.
Speaker 4: Ryan Rome teaches that via the denial of the essence
inner distinction, grace is a created reality.
Speaker 20: By the essence energy distinction, Grace is created reality by.
Speaker 4: Rome's denial of the essence energy distinction. They necessarily then
dogmatized their position that the grace that we partake of
is itself a created reality.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll research that more on my own.
Speaker 20: And I have a broader question to ask just about
sure Catholic Orthodox split because I heard you talking to
that Orthodox guy from Prague about how Orthodox are not
supposed to, you know, pray with athletics.
Speaker 3: I mean that sort of makes sense to me because
you know, I would not go pray in a Protestant
church or something like that.
Speaker 20: Right, I'm wondering this the vibe between Orthodox and Catholicism
come down to, like these theological issues like essence energy
is distinction or is it like more of a historical
political split.
Speaker 4: No, it's theological, and everybody who thinks that it's political
is sadly mistaken. I mean there are political elements, geopolitical,
historical developments that resulted from it and contributed to it,
like the Carolinians, But the essence of the fissure is
a totally different triadology, a different doctrine of grace, a
different doctrine of sacraments, a different ecclesiology. I mean, it's
totally different.
Speaker 3: Okay, Yeah, I'm just I'm just kind of learning the song.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I would say, go back through a
lot of the old, you know, videos that we've done
on my channel. You can find a whole host of
stuff that will cover that stuff. But yeah, I welcome
the questions. I appreciate that. Devon what's up.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 3: Uh huh, Hey, my name is DeVaughn. I. Uh, I
am a Protestant.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 21: I want to say I appreciate your videos and the
work you do. It's really kind of opened up a
whole in the world for me. I never really had
any sort of access to the Orthodox paradimonds I started
watching your videos.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 1: But uh I so, I think one of the biggest light.
Speaker 21: Bulbs for me was the distinction that you pointed out
between individual certitude and normative authority. And I'm trying to
make sense of how to deal with that tension when
they're in conflict. And so maybe I'm just maybe it's
more of a personal question, but how how have you
dealt with that on your journey and making sense of
all of this between what is considered normative versus individual
certitude and responsibility to the truth and what you feel
like maybe you'll be help responsible for personally, you know,
before God. I don't know if that makes sense.
Speaker 4: I mean the two I mean, I'm not meaning to
be flippant, but I mean the two things are pretty
obviously different. Things like me and my own personal journey
coming to certainty about this or that doctrine or this
or that position is a different question from is there
a historical group of people that can bind people's conscience?
Those are two different questions. So I mean, I think
I will be held accountable for all the stuff that
I talked about and my life like everyone else. Maybe
I have more culpability responsibility because of the audience. Okay,
but I guess I'm not. Are you confused on the
difference between these two things. It's the difference between do
I know what the institution says? Versus is there a
Supreme court that interprets the constitution? They're two different things.
Speaker 3: I get what you're saying.
Speaker 21: Yeah, Yeah, I think as I've tried to sort through
some of these things and try to understand the historical
church more obviously as a Protestant, a lot of things
come into conflict with what I've been taught, right, right,
So yeah, I'm just trying to make sense of like
there's this tension there between you know.
Speaker 3: What, I'm certain about it.
Speaker 4: Let's put it this way, right, Let's put it this way.
Set aside the issue of personal certainty. It's a fact
that historically, when the Reformation happened, the Reformation, even though
they wanted to have some notion of elders or bishops
or whatever, whether it's Anglicans or Lutherans or Presbyterians. The
fundamental idea that is necessary to the Reformation is write
a private interpretation and freedom of conscience. Write a private
interpretation is not do you read the books and interpret them.
What it means is no one can bind me to
their interpretation, Okay, okay. And freedom of conscience meaning that
my conscience is not bound by any external authorities telling
me what the word of God means. Yeah. That is
irreconcilable with the way that the first fifteen hundred years
of Christianity operated, where you do have a recognized, visible
authority structure that can bind people's conscience, and that no
one is granted the right of private interpretation. The right
of private interpretation is not can I interpret the text myself?
Of course everyone has to. But the difference is that
for an orthodox person you interpret them the way the
Church tells you to interpret them. For a Protestant, there's
no authoritative church that can bind my conscience. That's the difference.
Speaker 21: Yeah, okay, And can I ask one more question about tradition?
So I'm trying to sort through because I really appreciate this.
I mean, honestly, I feel like allowing tradition to help
me interpretscripture as actually give me a lot more freedom
to think about these things more clearly. But is there
is there a hierarchy of tradition or different degrees of
authority dependent upon the source of tradition, i e. The
councils versus I don't know, you.
Speaker 4: Know what I mean, Like, I mean, a council would
A council would have more authority than some you know,
individual saints speculation. That's why we hold the councils above
Augustine's on the Trinity constant and up one out ranks
Augustine's trinitarian speculations on you know, on the Trinity. That's
why we don't believe the Philly okuay okay okay cool.
Speaker 21: And so is the first seven documental councils kind of
are at the top rung or top tier tradition.
Speaker 4: There's nine authoritative universally received councils, not seven, but eight
and nine. Well, eight deals with the rejection of the philioquay,
and then not nine deals with the acceptance of holamite
essen syner distinction theology so technically speaking, most of the
Christology is summed up in the first seven, but eight
and nine are also you could call them universal, pan
Orthodox received synods, so they're all authoritative.
Speaker 21: Okay, okay, I think, can I one last question? What
are the like epistemological means that you use or maybe
the churches determine whether something's infallible versus not infallible, that
that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: Well, there are general principles like we're gonna believe that
the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council or divine revelation
is what's infallible, but there is no there is no
Roman Catholic list of all the infallible things. It doesn't exist.
Then none of the positions can give you that. Rome
doesn't give you that either, by the way, not that
you're tempted with it, but a lot of times and
when I say that, Roman Catholics say, oh, look he
doesn't have it. No one has it. There is no
list of all there is no infallible list of the
infallible statements. For example, scripture is inspired. Okay, yeah, and
then you've got the liturgy as another aspect of divine revelation.
So it's I think, functionally impossible to list all of
the infallible statements in some infallible declaration. So what you
do have is the direct experience in the Orthodox Church
which will lead you to those things. But there is
no extra extra sensory, juridical perfect list of these things.
They don't exist.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 21: So is there a distinction between infallibility and divine revelation
or are those to the same.
Speaker 3: As the same thing?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 4: No, I think they're distinct because divine revelation ceased with
the depth of the Apostles. There's no new divine revelations,
and every every cult is premised on there being new
divine revelations that are binding on the public, and thus
some new prophet. But we are told that the faith
once we're all delivered to the saints, and so the
totality of the apostolic deposit. When John the Apostle died,
that's it. There's no more new revelations. There's no more
uh apostolic deposit that can be added to what the
ecumenical councils are doing, even though they don't have it.
They're they're in errant, they're not making mistakes in their
interpretation of that revelation. They're all they're doing is interpreting
the apostolic deposit Okay, cool with that, Okay, and we
would say that that interpretation is infallible. It doesn't like
the Council of Ephesis didn't make errors, like Voice of
Reason says.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, cool, Well, I appreciate you, thank you v.
Speaker 4: But I would say too that there has to be
flexibility as well, which some people fall into this mistake
where they think that, well, wait a minute, you said
ephesis can't err. So that means that everything Ephesis says
is equivalent to divine revelation is an infallible That's the
canons are infallible. Canon law, by its very nature, has
to be flexible and cannot be equivalent to divine revelation.
It's church law. It's not the same thing as divine revelation.
I think you have to distinguish these things or else
you'll end up in absurd positions. So a lot of
times when I bring this up, rigorists act like I'm
being some kind of modernist liberal and oh diar doesn't
think the councils are infallible. Well, if you look at
the complexity of say, when Richard Price, you know, translates
the councils. There's a host of documents that are part
of the councils. There's letters from bishops, there's opinions that
are given, there's debates, there's dogmatic statements, there's confessions of faith,
there's Acts of the Council. Okay, they're not all equivalent,
and Roman Catholics will go through those. It's the very
thing ubi brought up in the Voice of Reason debate.
Roman Catholics will go through those quote mine and look
for anything that supports Roman premascy and ignore what the
document actually was. What a leegate giving his opinion that
binding on the entire church, unless you presuppose that it
can't want papal supremacy to begin with. So you see
how silly. This is the same attitude that the Roman
Catholics do when they mine the councils for papal stuff.
Psycho rigorous point zero five percent online Orthodox people will
mine the canons to find some way to call everybody
a heretic and apostate a modernist. When you literally cannot
follow every canon, it's it's just insane. So there has
to be some degree of flexibility with church law. And
by the way, whether you're Orthodox or Roman Catholic, both
believe in a degree of flexibility for canon law for
church law, Father, deacon, what would you call this like
even civil law operates this way where not everything is
black and white. You don't just follow the letter of
the law. There has to be flexibility with the interpretation
of law, and that's why you have judges. Are you there,
follow deacon? Right there, We can't hear you, but maybe
maybe you're out of a no, maybe there's no signal
where you are agent zero. Yeah, there's economia and a crevia, right,
so there's precision as well as flexibility. What's up?
Speaker 1: Hello? Hello, Yeah, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 18: Kay?
Speaker 17: Hey, hey, I have a geopolitical statement.
Speaker 1: I believe that's it.
Speaker 17: Okay, so it's about your previous dream.
Speaker 8: About because I called it, but my call dropped about is.
Speaker 3: Tiny mustache Man a tool?
Speaker 17: Yes he is, and he's currently being used as one,
particularly as you know you covered in these online groups
like MKU and the Order of Nine Angels and all
that stuff. So I think these people kind of like
young and dumb getting into this stuff. I don't think
they realize what it kind of leads to, and that
they could end up a dupe in something a lot
more nefarious and terrifying. And it's also being used as
a tool on the left to obviously kind of degrade
the conservative movement.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Sure,
I know we know for sure within the Satanic groups
that they utilize that tiny mustache men aesthetic and ethos
right to a degree. And I would not be surprised
if it's not used on a broader scale with people
like Yay or whoever. Can't prove that, but it wouldn't
be surprising.
Speaker 1: Yes, I totally agree with you on Matja.
Speaker 17: I think it's also used as a type of weird
culture war syop.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, appreciate that. Now people are saying, it doesn't
matter whether I'm here or whether I'm at the other place.
I've had the two different internet companies come out twice,
excuse me, at both places, probably here, probably ten times,
and it doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter
how many times they change the hub at the neighborhood.
It doesn't matter, nothing matters. It doesn't you can't get
a business connection here. I've tried everything so the people
that wind and complain about the Internet, there's nothing else
I can do. I'd have to buy a studio and
it has to be in town somewhere to where you
could get like a studio or like a business level
internet connection. I've had them replace the whole line at
both houses. It doesn't work. There's nothing that Exfinity comcasts
or any of those things. They can't do anything. Yes,
So in order to get you don't understand it, guys,
I've called them I don't know how many times. In
order to get business fiber, you have to be in
city limits. It doesn't matter if I use the Ethernet cable.
None of that matters. It doesn't get It's not even better.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me out?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Would you like to comment on law and how
law works? That it like even law in the secular sense.
You can't understand it as like a totally black and
white spirit of law thing.
Speaker 13: Well, again, one of the things that I think that
is either influenced by or.
Speaker 3: In terms in.
Speaker 13: Roman Catholicism, remember we were saying, is thoroughly Cartesian. And
I keep noticing this kind of this this theme, don't you.
So it's kind of mathematical certitude.
Speaker 3: And but yeah, look there's nothing in life that's that's
really like that other than mathematics. But yeah, law.
Speaker 13: Again, you have rules, and you have a precedent do
you appeal to? But the judge has to use and
what's really interesting, what do we always say virtue epistemology.
The judge has to use their discernment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, whether this applies, but they have a rule, you
can it.
Speaker 13: They have a precedent, they have something that goes so
they're not just a whimsical you know, make it up
as they go along, judge. But it comes in different degrees.
They can apply that in different that there's nuance and
stuff like this. So it's really strange that and you
see it is an orthodox too. It's not just Romancholtics,
but I think people who convert to Orthodoxy you can
have that that kind of ridget everything has to be
I have to have a list of the infallible stuff,
and then like everything in the council has to be infallible.
Speaker 8: That and it's just.
Speaker 3: That's not even what it's about.
Speaker 13: It's not about getting an infallible Cartesian list of.
Speaker 8: And what do I call it.
Speaker 3: It's abstractionism.
Speaker 13: It's like, congratulations, you made a cartesian abstract, mathematical dungeons
and dragons game in your head, Like.
Speaker 3: That's not going to save you.
Speaker 13: It's not going to heal you.
Speaker 3: And these people are just you know, algorithm worshipers. Like,
I don't know what to say.
Speaker 4: He's not talking about tag He's talking about the people
who think that church law is somehow like divine revelation.
And it's the same attitude the Pharisees. Right if you
think about if you go back and listen to the
debate that we had with Dale, a Protestant. It was
me and doctor Branson versus Dale and some of his
Protestant buddies. If you listen to that debate, doctor Branson
makes the point that the way that the Old Testament
Israelite system was set up was the same structure as
the way the Orthodox Church is structured. So you had
like a group of you know, Leevites, or a group
of sages or rabbis. The rabbinical system comes from Ezra,
for example, and it's their job to interpret the law
and come up with the right interpretation and to judge
between the parties. You see this with Solomon, for example.
That's why Solomon's always talking about judging wisely and not
taking a bribe and and so forth, because he's trying
to set the principle that Father Digging just outlined of
a virtuous judge versus just some sort of weird obsessive
legalists or some sort of weird you know, letter of
the law over the spirit of the law.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: You find that throughout the way Solomon judges and speaks.
So that's in the law itself. Now, when you get
to the Pharisees, they're a great example of one extreme
where they engage in all kinds of misuses of the law,
as Jesus points out in Matthew twenty two to twenty three,
et cetera, where they highlighted the smaller matters and neglected
the weightier matters of the law, so that lets us
know there's obviously weightier matters that matter more than the lesser,
weightier matters. They would focus on tithing small amounts of
spices and whatever, and they would hate their brother, right,
So it's like, what's more important whether you love somebody
or whether you tithe mint and Cuman? Right, It's like
it's backwards so they would engage in all kinds of
skullduggery to bypass what the law actually taught. So that's
one rigorous type of extreme misuse of law that Paul
is quite often in the New Testament disgusting and rebuking
and Jesus too, right, But you can also have the
opposite extreme, which was the Sadducees, who basically were superlibs,
didn't believe in anything like angels or resurrection or souls,
as they were naturalistic. They were the libs, and Jesus
calls them hypocrites too, but he has the most extreme
condemnations actually of the Pharisees. It's actually worse to be
some kind of legalistic law worshiper or authority worshiper, right,
And I would say that you in Rome, for example,
you get this tendency where Roman Catholics worship authority and
they worship laws, and that's just really the whole spirit
is contrary to what the New Testament I think is
teaching when it comes to Christ. I mean, how many
times did Jesus say that the apostles are not to
lord it over one another. The apostles are not there
to act like kings and lords, and the very thing
that the Bishop Rome becomes like the ultimate example of that.
He's the king of kings and emperor of emperor on
the emperors, on the world, in the world. I mean,
that's insane. How could anyone like read the New Testament
and think that the way the papacy acts in terms
of Middle Ages is anything like the way the New
Testament tells, you know, bishops to be. And I understand, yeah,
there have been. I'm sure there were corrupt bishops. You know,
in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Order. There's
plenty of corrupt bishops, and Orthodox bishops violated the ancient
canons if they went into battle. I understand all that.
But it's different in the case of the papacy, precisely
because the papacy makes itself the de facto god on earth,
and no Orthodox bishop could ever do that.
Speaker 3: The wait, what was the question about pat.
Speaker 4: The tag question was how would you respond to the
Barry Stroud critique that transcend arguments just show that something
appears has to be the case logically, but doesn't mean
that's actually the case. Oh yeah, And I said, well,
we would agree with.
Speaker 3: That, Yeah, exactly. We use Barrus Stroud's argument.
Speaker 4: So we've just got to.
Speaker 13: Get them to see see the problem is that people
are operating within all the autonomous epistemological categories. So they're
just thinking, well, they're just doing another thing that I'm doing.
Speaker 3: So what makes that argument better?
Speaker 13: You have to see the radical disjunt that there is
no solution of it, the agrippas trum trilemma Barry Stroud.
What Verry Strouds points out, it's true all of these
skeptical challenges is absolutely right.
Speaker 3: That's why it's calling to a radical different way.
Speaker 4: You can't do it.
Speaker 13: You cannot do it from your position within the space
of reason alone. I'm an autonomous first of all, because
you're not a position to know. Oh the way, I
don't have episdemic standing is what Russ's mannion. And so
the one who is in a position to note, because
he created the world, he knows somebody who creates something
that stands over and above their creation is obviously in.
Speaker 3: A position to know.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, JD has a good response to that guy's question.
Five dollars. Tag does not simply argue that people need
to believe X is the case it argues that it
requires that X is actually the case. Yeah, that's the argument.
It's two different layers of argument or levels of argument.
Thomas Miles has a great point too about system level defeaters.
The decentralized autocephalis layout is what saves the Orthodox ecclesiastical
system from the system level defeat that Papism is subject to.
Exactly perfectly stated. Now, good luck trying to get a
Roman Catholic to understand that basic point. Thank you, Jay
and Father Deacon for all you do. I'm sending you
love from Father Josiah's parish, Ao ten dollars, Thank you, Ao,
appreciate that Brian ten dollars. I was newly baptized underneath
the EP And I learned that some Russian Orthodox churches
don't recognize as sacraments. That's not true. I've never heard
that the every Russian church will still recognize the sacraments.
It's just that the two are not in communion, which
has happened many times. I bought a house here. I
don't know where you mean here? What challenges will I face?
I don't where is that? Should I visit us or
with Orthodox churches? Honestly, dude, I don't know your situation
or what's going on. It's just I mean, you can
you're not. I think that's father Deacon off On points out,
like you're not penalized by visiting another Orthodox church. You're
free to do that. You don't have to get permission
to attend another Orthodox church. Andres Palomades became a member
Aristotle five dollars. Did you know that Derek Mythvision and
doctor Malpass got together and they had a cope session
about the spankings that you gave them? Well, actually, I
don't know that to be fair, because the Malpass debate
didn't actually ever finish. I wouldn't even call that really
a spanking. He ended up wanting to just debate whether
or not Aristotle's retortion was a transcendent argument, which I
don't really care whether it is or is, Like, what
does that have to do with whether TAG works or not?
That's where he wanted to spend most of that discussion.
But I think Derek Mythvision is just super low tier,
so I'm not surprised about that. Henry two dollars, here's
a big super chat. How big of a super chat
do I need for you to call yourself, goy, I
don't think it even requires super chets. Eb jay, here's
get a better Internet. Sometimes it drops to one frame
per second. Yeah, I'm aware of that. What do you
want me to do? So you'll notice right now it
says stream health is excellent, and then it'll drop down
and then it'll come back. I've never been able to
solve this issue. Like I said, at both houses, I've
had guys come out ten times to work on stuff.
I've also tooled with the OBS frame rate settings and
the stream rate settings and maybe I just don't know
what I'm doing, but I've never been able to get
it right, So I don't know. Maybe maybe somebody who
knows this shit better than me can come figure it out,
because I don't know what else to do. Like Adrian
five pounds, here's a wild affirmation. Is bitcoin prop to
in order to purposely collapse it in the USA? I
don't think that makes any sense because it's decentralized, all right.
I mean again, just think about the Orthodox Church. That'd
be like saying the Orthodox Church is growing and they
want it to grow because they want to secretly then
collapse it and take it over again. You're missing the
point and the power of decentralization. So I mean, I
think if you really wanted to look for a possible
way that bitcoin could be no longer decentralized. A's like
if somehow you got like all the mining under one conglomerate.
Maybe in that way it could be manipulated or controlled.
But if you think about it too, like, no one
has an incentive to collapse it. If you've got two
trillion dollars right now of people's money across the world
in bitcoin and it's decentralized, you would have to get
everyone in on the dump and the collapse. Why would
I want to dump the majority of my wealth if
I have a huge portion of my portfolio and bitcoin,
it just it would be It makes no sense. So
I don't think that's a plausible scenario. And I think
if you read about study about bitcoin, you'll see that
that just really doesn't make any sense. Now, I mean,
if everyone got on something centralized like ether, and the
whole world in America started running on some sort of
fiat eth system which is centralized, it could be controlled.
Even if ninety percent of the bitcoin is held by
one percent of wealthy people, they don't have an incentive
to dump it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but have you thought about the quantum computer.
Speaker 4: No, I've never heard of that, which doesn't even exist.
By the way, It's like, what if one day, like
quantum bigcoin takes over and it destroys the existing big cooin.
It's like, well, okay, what if one day an asteroid
destroys the earth? What are you gonna do with your
bitcoin when the asteroid destroys the earth? What are you
gonna do? Are you gonna argue with me when we're
all destroyed?
Speaker 3: I mean like, yeah, oh one, I won the argument.
We're all dead?
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, I want to vindicated. Everyone's dead. Connor became
a member What's Up? Christopher Scott at five dollars? What's up?
Even though a lot of wealthy people have a large
amount of Bitcoin, they still don't control the network. You
don't understand that. That's why it's decentralized. Cardano is the
only decentralized network. Okay, yeah, sure, I don't. I don't.
I'm not. I mean whatever, I'm not gonna have this.
Speaker 3: Have you ever heard of them?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 3: Have you ever heard of ledye coin?
Speaker 4: Well, Hall Old Knights send a super chatter two dollars,
and he says that Father Deans is half Lamanite. What's that?
That's one of the people groups in the Book of Mormon,
the Lamanites. Oh say, he says, maybe you should be
Mormon if you're half Lamanite.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and them half?
Speaker 16: Uh?
Speaker 3: Was it half a quarter net one?
Speaker 4: When I sent my how tall are you?
Speaker 3: Six foot?
Speaker 4: That's a quarter You're not you gotta be tall or
not to be one half net one?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: Uh, let's see, let's talk God. Five dollars poured a
funk go in the pot watch it is dire on
that time he got theological riz. I don't know people
try to When people try to rap about theologies to me,
it's always cringe. I mean, I don't I appreciate your
super chat gainer Zilla ten dollars. Do you think it's
consistent that Protestants will say that the immediate successors of
the Apostles subverted Christianity? No, what would that be consistent?
I mean, Jesus says very clearly that the gates of
Hell would not prevail against the Church. And I mean
it's not just Matthew sixteen. If you look at Daniel
two Daniel two predicts that when the Messiah comes, his
kingdom is set up, it grows into a giant tree,
and it takes over all the existing kingdoms. Right, So
what empire did Jesus die under? And was his kingdom
set up under the Roman Empire? And what in three
hundred years his kingdom took over the Roman Empire became
the Orthodox Church. So it's predicted throughout the prophets. It's
not just predicted in Matthew sixteen. How many times does
Isaiah say that the gentile kings and queens will come
into the church? Okay, well what church did they come
into in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh,
twelfth century. It's not the Protestant one. Protestants will say
that the Holy Spirit guides them to the invisible Church. Yeah,
that didn't exist, right, that's the Protestant vehicle that they
invented to bypass the Historic Church, which proves that they're
not members of the Historic Church. Where do any church
fathers teach the invisible church doctrine? Nobody, not even Augustine
teaches the invisible Church doctrine. Nate five dollars, the clip
of not so aerudit doing her degenerate hand motions, and
your face when you saw it was hilarious, like what
just happened? That's that's because it was genuine. Scott G
five A's I just watched I hypocrites video on Glenn Greenwald.
Dear God, that's horrendous. Do you mean Glenn Greenwald's take
was horrendous or I hypocrite? I have not watched it,
so I don't know whose position was horrendous, Eastern Orthodox
Journey or you already did that one. Let's see. Scrolling down,
h Brosy says for five dollars, choppy internet is actually
based the chat needs to stop whinting. Yeah, that means
they're trying to shut me down. Dude, they're fighting me.
Green bear five dollars. If you were to debate a
Roman Catholic on geopolitics, what would the resolution look like? Uh?
I think the way I framed it was, what is
a better explanation for the actions of the papacy in
the last century? An infallible divine terrorism or geopolitical power
block influence? Because the way I would argue that is,
I think that the geopolitical power block influence is a
much better explanation than supposed divine guidance and infallible kerorism,
because again, like people don't understand. I remember when I
was a trad cat, when I first started reading a
lot of like a you know, trad stuff, and a
lot of stuff about Vatican two. The first thing that
you'll encounter, which by the way, you can actually see
Tim Gordon's kind of at this stage where you know,
he'll cite AA one, O two five or whatever it
is that supposed you know, KGB infiltration of the Cavic Church.
And I remember reading that back in the day and
I thought, oh, yeah, that's what it is. And then
he'll cite ALTA indeeda oh yeah, the Mason's infiltrate the
caloch Church and and all of that is partially true,
so it's not totally wrong, but it's like, okay, some
of this is partly true. This is a puzzle piece.
But it wasn't until I got into doing grad studies
of studying espionage and psyops and that kind of stuff
reading the whim Hoff book where you really start to realize, oh,
so the CIA it was all up in Vatican two,
and yeah, there's a Jewish role as well. If you
read Gordon Thomas's book, he argues that the Massade wasn't
really influential in the Vatican until John Paul the Second,
which seems plausible. I'm not saying Massad controls the Vatican,
but I'm just talking about different networks. I think the
CIA had a much stronger foothold in the Vatican way
prior to John Paul the Second. But I mean, you've
got normy books and critical books. Whether it's Kaylor's book
or whether it's Paul Williams's book, one's critical of the CIA,
one is pro CIA. They all admit, like absolutely, John
Paul teamed up with the CIA to win the Cold War.
In fact, Kaylor argues that one of the key signs
of the victory of the West and the Cold War
was the not just the John Paul ali Aga assassination attempt,
but various stuff like photoshops that John Paul the Second
took that were arranged CIA photo ops. Right, and then
if you look at the Bush Malta Gorbachew Bush, John
Paul the Second meeting at Malta, that's a huge concluding
meeting of the Cold War, setting the stage four where
we are now, which, by the way, amazingly Again, I
have some pretty pretty stiff criticisms of some of Max
Bluementhal's chapters. But the chapter that he just covered on
the neo conservative takeover via net and Yahoo's so Net
y'aw wrote this paper called clean Break. So after the
assass nation of Yitsuk Rabin, the Lekuds wrote a paper
called clean Break, which was to make a clean break
with the pro plo pro piece attitude that like Yitsuk
Rabin had, and then they brought in this seven Nations
plan that General Wesley Clark famously talked about. Magically, the
Big Nine event ends up supporting all of that, All
of that has been That's the other puzzle piece you
see to understanding the wasp Zionist alliance that characterizes the Cold.
Speaker 8: War and.
Speaker 4: The state of foreign policy after the Cold War entering
into a designed and planned war on terror. And so
Max Bloemhald's book is great for that, but I have
again he's he's two leftists on things like nation states.
He seems to be quasi socialist. He thinks that geo
engineering isn't real. I mean it's so it's like I
have some criticisms obviously in that book, but there's also
a lot of really good details. They're good information even
though there's criticism. So we'll be getting into this. I'm
almost halfway through the book. It's really good overall. But
Connor began to remember, what's a Christopher Scott? Since five dollars,
thanks Chris, let's see gainer Zola says for ten dollars,
you misread my question. I know that Protestants are inconsistent.
What I mean is a quote fully consistent Protestant. I
don't know what that means. Do they affirm the immediate
successors subverted the Church? Well, I think in the Protestant
world you have a range of views. So the only
people that I'm aware of that believe in a complete
subversion would be Seven day Adventists, Mormons. They're not Protestant,
but they're they have the view that the Church was
the Great Apostles. He happened right after the Apostles. Maybe
Baptists think that, but what's called the classical Reformation or
the quote magisterial Reformation, which is a retarded term. But
Luther Calvin Zwingley, those people, they believe that the Church
didn't apostatize right away. It just got subverted and infected.
But there was still true Christians, right. Calvin and Luther
would say that there were true Christians in every century.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So really it's only an a Baptist that I know
that are quote Protestant that have the view that the
church immediately fell away. That's a classically Anabaptist position, radical
Reformation position. Felt it snake ten pounds. Will you be
doing other shows again? I'm sure I will. I don't
know as of yet what other shows are doing. What
about the whatever podcast is that once a year. I
have no idea. It's up to I mean, I all,
I just when those people ask me to do shows,
I'm like, okay, we'll see. Brian asked me to debate Dasha,
and I just I don't think Dasha wants to do that.
I asked about it and she was like, oh, I'm
getting married, and I never heard back. So I don't
think she wants to do a debate on there. And
plus I don't know what we would debate. We'll just
have the same I don't think she's a feminist, so
I don't know that she would want to debate feminism.
So The problem is that there's not many people that
will debate feminism. So you know, basically you got to
get you know, basically Andrew just has to scour the
internet to find like the most insane feminists that are
willing to debate feminism. Can FDA interpret Wisdom of Solomon?
Speaker 10: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: It's an odd question. Are you able to interpret? Brother Dickon?
Somebody asked a weird question.
Speaker 10: It was like a.
Speaker 3: Can you interpret the signs?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like the Matt slick with Babe. How come
you don't want to go to any Bible texts. That's
because you don't like the Bible. You're scared of the Bible,
or else you would be doing.
Speaker 3: Matt, the Bible is a Protestant book. I ain't going there.
I should have just I should have just trolled them
all more autistic.
Speaker 13: I kept I basically kept Remember I said I was
handicapped and a wheelchair or something.
Speaker 3: Like that, and he was like, well, I'm autistic, and.
Speaker 4: No I forgot.
Speaker 15: And then what was weird is like I've traveled around
the country and like people were like, I thought you
were in a wheelchair.
Speaker 4: I thought you were serious I'm like, yeah, but now
you are, right now, you actually are in a whelchair
because broke your ankles skiing. But or as they say, snowsurfing.
People have forgotten. They don't know that you had a
debate with Matt Slick. And what was funny about it.
Speaker 10: Was that.
Speaker 4: The Protestants all were like, he's scared to go to
the Bible, and what Father Deacon was doing was trying
to debate him on epistemology, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because i mean what was going to happen is
all right, we'd go to the Bible and just like anything, Well,
that's not what the verse means. You see the versus,
it's the persecuted scripture.
Speaker 13: I mean clearly means what it says, and it says
what it means.
Speaker 3: And it means what I say and not what you say.
Speaker 13: And then I'm like, well that that's going to get
into prior kind of presuppositions of like well why you
reading the text that way? Why are and these kind
of epistemic And I'm like, well, let's just save time,
like why are we going to go?
Speaker 3: And this is all Protestants do. They just quote my
scriptures and create.
Speaker 13: The do the fallacy of tech, textonomy, contextronomy, taking stuff
out of context.
Speaker 3: And I'm like, this is so stupid, Like I grew
up as a Protestant.
Speaker 4: I know that's what you do.
Speaker 3: It's just like he who matches the most Bible versus wins.
Speaker 13: And then we could just supply our hermaeneutical principle here,
and which is hilarious. If it's so clear and obvious,
why do you have to have hermaanutical principles to guide
you through?
Speaker 3: Is it brought that up? And number two, if it's.
Speaker 13: Persecuted scripture, if it's so clear, like, isn't that a
worst argument for you?
Speaker 3: Like, then why are you so retarded to get every
verse wrong? It's so clear?
Speaker 4: So I have to read to you. I have to
read this to you. This is from the Book of Wisdom.
Wisdom is a gift of God. Reflecting on these things
and considering in my heart immortality lies in kinship with Wisdom,
great delight, in love of her, unfailing riches, in the
work of her hands, and in associating with her, there
is prudence, fair renown, and sharing with her discourse. I
went about seeking her for my own. Now I was
a well favored child and I became. I came by
a noble nature. Rather being noble, I attained an unblemished body.
And knowing that I could not otherwise possess her unless
God gave it, this too was prudence, and to know
the gift that she is, I went to the Lord
and besought him and said it with all my heart.
You're supposed to interpret those texts for the deacon.
Speaker 13: Well, first we're going to have to go to uh
astronomy and the blivements.
Speaker 4: No, but I'm seriously this guy sent a super chat
and he said, would you ask for that? I don't
know why he said, would you ask mister kool Aid's
please ask for that? You can any us to interpret
what the personification of wisdom is in these texts? And
can you I got to use the restroom, so could
you exposit these I'm.
Speaker 3: Looking at on the screen?
Speaker 8: What is it?
Speaker 3: Wisdom?
Speaker 4: What wisdom? Eight nineteen to twenty one?
Speaker 3: Listen a nineteen?
Speaker 4: I just pop it on my personification of wisdom like
a woman wisdom.
Speaker 3: That's a crazy task, like on the fly.
Speaker 4: I just have to.
Speaker 3: Go through a text. And nevertheless, when I perceive that
it could.
Speaker 9: Not pain her.
Speaker 8: Well, I'll do it right here.
Speaker 13: That's talking about autonomous epistemology right there. H.
Speaker 3: It was at that point wisdom was also the gish
she was, so God.
Speaker 20: Gave it her to me.
Speaker 3: I prayed unto the Lord, and he besought me.
Speaker 8: Let me see.
Speaker 3: It ends at twenty How far am I supposed to
go here?
Speaker 8: H I figured it out. I'm supposed to go before
that that.
Speaker 4: He's about the room. So it's just the wisdom passages
in wisdom.
Speaker 13: And yeah, he's obviously talking about autonomous pistemology.
Speaker 3: I'm not joking when I perceive that I could not
otherwise obtain her except God gave.
Speaker 4: Her to me. Right. So the personification of wisdom is
in one sense the divine energy of wisdom. It is
also the Holy Spirit, and it is also Christ praying
about his unblemished, immaculate body. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what it looks like.
Speaker 4: All right, That was it.
Speaker 8: That was the ex Jesus right there.
Speaker 13: But there is a notion of what twenty one is
showing those alpa faticism and humility.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly that.
Speaker 13: You know, it's a divine energy, Like you don't create wisdom,
you don't obtain it on and as it says in
Matthew and elsewhere, if you exalt yourself, God humbles you,
and if you humble yourself, God exalts you.
Speaker 3: So that seems to be true. And then yeah, it's true.
Speaker 13: It's thoroughly trinitarian as well. In that passage, I would say,
we've got Christ and the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit
as well, and the Father and the Father.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's a pretty good ext to Jesus. Thanks
for it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Aristotle says, for this is the actual aristotol ten dollars.
Do you remember that in your Derek myth vision debate
he prophesied that he would have five hundred thousand subscribers
by the beginning of this year or last year, and
the people would move towards his teachings. Yeahought, I remember that. Adrian.
There were interesting events happening in Romania and Poland. They
have to do with the recent elections. When it concluded,
all the extreme left rhetoric flooded online. Yeah you mean
that or Jescu being arrested and told that he can't run.
And yeah, in fact, I've been I emailed multiple times
with his people and we were going to do an
interview and then as soon as we're gonna do the
interview is when he he the court banned him from
doing interviews. So beyond that, I've not heard what the
update is, although I think Lord Voldemort mentioned the other
day an update, but I forgot what he said is
going on. So I don't know about Poland though. But yeah,
NATO doesn't want anyone who's not fully controlled by NATO
to thank you to have elections. Of course, Ea five dollars.
You definitely bring in a whole new audience if you
talk about seven day adventism. Nudge nudge. Uh, yeah, I'm sure,
I'm sure we would. Why don't some seven day avenues
call in a debate? I mean, maybe I should put
that in the title. I always forget when i'm listing
different cults at to put that in the title. Let's
see Jordan five dollars. There's a saying that if you
don't use it, you lose it. Keep those passes. Noah
m five dollars. Ask Jamie if I can use her
tallow like a lip bomb. She said, yes, you can.
I work in a cement factory and it seems like
this stuff works great. Yes, let's talk God. No, already
did that. Let's see noah m five dollars. I don't
know if you've covered it, but there's a big stink
being made on Twitter about this. What's the this? You
mean Francis meeting with the EP. I mean that these
kinds of things have happened all the time. What about
the situation with Metropolitan Tikikos being disciplined for requiring that
a woman undergo corrective baptism to get married. I don't
know anything about it. She was already christmated top jackomatic
ten dollars. We did him, Jake need him three dollars.
The fallacies of reification and anthropomorphism can be good tools
in addition to your tag work by critiquing God being
too apathetic or too imminent, which, in order to avoid
necessitates Yes, it's an interestinction. Okay, Yeah, that's interesting. Anthony
one dollar? What's service between you? Oh? We already did that,
Big Iron ten dollars. Thank you for recommending readings Space Trilogy.
I finished it. Do you have any similar recommendations? Should
I read Wmberto Echoes? I wouldn't read Romberto Echo. He's
his stuff is atheistic, nihilistic, postmodern Satanism. I don't know
if you mean, like in general or just in terms
of fiction. I mean there's a lot of good fiction.
I mean, look at the recent fiction text we've covered.
You know, if you haven't read Lord of the Flies
is a good one, Childhood's End. You know, these are
all just depends on what you're interested in. John underneath
your Space I commented an AI image illustrating a system
level defeating critique an AI image? Can you pull that up?
Not for one dollar, dude, I don't understand what you're saying,
arisol five dollars. We already did that. Tain't nothing ten dollars.
I'm sorry that if you already covered this, But are
you debating the Mormon guy thoughtful faith? He's yes, he
has already called in. We already had an exchange and
what he said was completely stupid. But I don't remember
which of the there's probably ten more clips now that
are out there. I just don't remember which one is him.
But he's we've already had an exchange. Christopher Scott five dollars, Uh, honest,
diecast ask father Deacon if he would rather have an
alien to work for him or to work for him?
Father deacon. Okay, he must have stepped away. Let's go
to the calls. We've got a lot of people on
the line here, Godhead, I'm mute, god Head on you?
Speaker 8: Oh sorry, sorry? Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Ye?
Speaker 20: Huh?
Speaker 4: Go ahead?
Speaker 3: So can I Can I come back to you in
just ten seconds?
Speaker 4: Okay? Do you want to just wait ten seconds with
so I'll read another super chet Brian. Five dollars is
the Catholic dilemma of them refuting the first thousand years
equivalent to the Islamic dilemma. I think when I talked
about Catholic dilemma it was just contradictions. I would say,
in terms of basic structure, a contradiction in Islam would
be similar to the contradiction in papism. Sure, gainer Zilla,
now we already did that. Bastion ten dollars or Oca
parish is just as good as ro Corps parishes. It
just as paris about parish, man, I would I would say,
check them all out. Lean five dollars. Does the Eucharist save?
I mean, it's part of salvation. There's no singular thing like,
oh it's just baptism. Oh, it's just the Eucharist. So
it's just the like all of these things are part
of salvation, because we're not Protestants who have like a
reductionist idea of salvation as just like a one time
event where you, you know, said the sinner's prayer. Jesus
says you got to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Correct,
what if you don't know about this? Again? Too much
is given, much is required Aristotle? No where did that
gainers ten dollars? I think a fully consistent Protestant would
have to concede that the immediate successors such as Clement
Ignacious Aeronaeus subverted the church if they Yeah, I mean
Protestants are never fully consistent. How about that? But the
Anabaptists will argue that Clement Ignacious and Aeronaus subverted the
church Lean three dollars. How would you debunk Sevendy Adventism
by going to the standard reputations of all the other
sects and cults, like there's no new revelations. Ellen White
taught that she was a charismatic prophet and she got
new charismatic revelations. Well, if there's no new revelations, that
immediately cuts out all sects and cults that teach new revelation,
whether it's Mormon, Muslim, or Seven of Day Adventists. So
again we've already done link these streams on the canon
of You understand, guys, it only takes like one argument
can cut out all the cults and sects. You don't
have to refute every single cult and sect individually, because
if the canon of Scripture is determined by the Church,
that undercuts every Protestant sect or cult, you don't have
to do all ten thousand of them one by one.
That one cuts them all out because they're all derivatives
of the Reformation. If the Reformation is false, those are
also false. I'm not trying to be rude to you, guys.
It's just like it should be obvious that if the
Reformation is wrong, all the sects that come out of
the Reformation are by default also wrong, if it's a
question of fundamental issues like the Canada Scripture and so forth.
So we just had a live stream on charismatic cults
right here, heated debates, charismatic Pentecostal stuff right here, six
hours right there, that will also, by necessity, by default,
also undercut Seven day Adventism. So would any debate about
the canon. So that's why you don't have to do
every single cult one by one.
Speaker 3: They're not gonna just ask about seventy advenus. Yeah, can
we get the same people in?
Speaker 13: Like my stream is your stream? That they've asked the
same thing too. And I was like, it's kind of
a weird question because I mean, the critiques that we
would have of any heterodox theoretical applies to Seventh Day Adventism.
Speaker 3: And I think the question I mentioned to this individual,
the question.
Speaker 13: Displays kind of a Protestant acumenism assumption in it, like, well,
what's the good stuff?
Speaker 3: How do I put this?
Speaker 13: It's something that a Protestant would ask, So, what's wrong
with Seventh Day Adventism?
Speaker 4: Right? They don't understand the system level defeaters again.
Speaker 3: But it's like, it's not like.
Speaker 1: How do I put this?
Speaker 13: It's not like there's something unique that like, I mean,
I guess you could dig in and try to find
some weird thing about.
Speaker 4: Uh, well, look, if there's no new profits, then any
system built on a new profit is canceled out right.
Speaker 13: Yeah, it doesn't seem to yet. Well, I would say veganism,
there's a.
Speaker 4: Well they're vegetarian.
Speaker 3: But yeah, right, that's vegetarian.
Speaker 4: But an easier like because they're just going to try
to argue stupid stuff about that, Like why not just
say that, first of all, seventy avodes and believes that
the Church apostatized in the first second, third century, so
that would violate Matthew sixteen and the promise at the
Gates of Elle will not reveal against the Church everybody.
Pre Icia teaches the same thing as post and Icea.
You can go watch my live stream with Inspiring Philosophy
on that where we talk about the pre Nicne teaching
and the post nice teaching on the Trinity and episcopacy,
all that kind of stuff is there.
Speaker 15: I mean, it's just a weird question to me, Like
it's the question, what is it uniquely that seventh Day
I don't that just have a problem that doesn't.
Speaker 3: That all Protestants?
Speaker 4: Yeah, he says, my mother is stuck in the church
and she says that there's a secret truth that this
church has and everyone that goes against it is satanic. Well,
I don't think I'm going to be able to logically
argue with your mom on that.
Speaker 3: Man, You're not going to be able to you have
to blackmail her.
Speaker 4: John says that's a joke. John says, were one dollar?
You missed my last stream.
Speaker 3: Lab Okay, I think you guys can have me.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. What's up, Godhead?
Speaker 8: Yeah, how's it going?
Speaker 3: How's it going?
Speaker 18: Jay uh and.
Speaker 8: And co?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 10: So yeah, I just want to say, hey, you'll or
your take on trinitarian morganism.
Speaker 3: It's such a tongue twister.
Speaker 4: Monarchical trinitarianism basically, yeah, is that what you subscribe to?
Speaker 10: You just out of interest? Yes, I'm a believer as well.
I am Protestant though, and I think your Orthodox, aren't you?
Speaker 4: Yes? Okay, well so yeah. One thing I would say
is like, if you look at the original Nights in Creed,
it's right there. Athanatians teaches that the Father generates of
his nature an identical son, identical by nature, and he
uses the Greek term for generation there versus creation. So
that is monarchical trinitarianism. Where you have the Creed, for example,
the Niceno consert polity Creed says that we believe in
one God, the Father. We believe in the Father of lights, right,
So typically the one God is referred to by the
Cappadocians and by the creed as the person of the Father.
And that's monarchical trinitarianism in its most simple. There's a
sole source that is the Father. The Father is the
source of the Spirit and the Son.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you see that bit what you just said about.
I know you're mentioning about the Father being the sole source.
So I think the question for me is if the
Father is unorginated, you know, how can the son and
spirit be coequal and colternal? Because yeah, I sort of
feel like with this this idea of should we say
trinitarism monarchia, the Father is somewhat seen as.
Speaker 3: He's seen.
Speaker 10: It's quite for me a little bit too distinct.
Speaker 4: That means two distinct. I mean we just follow the
teaching content, one which is Cappadocian, which is that the
Father is the sole cause. That's what is his hyposthetic property.
He's picked out as fount, ark, source, and arka, et cetera.
Those are all terms that are his hypostatic property to
pick him out as the source. Hence why Jesus in
the Gospel says that his God is the Father. So
even Jesus has a God which is the person of
the Father.
Speaker 10: But the Father also in Hebrews one calls Jesus.
Speaker 3: God as well.
Speaker 4: Is that right? That's because God is not a term
that has a single reference. It can pick out a person,
you can pick out the divine nature, you can pick
out divine energies, and it can also pick out humans, angels,
and demons.
Speaker 10: Okay, So you obviously subscribe to Father's Son, holy Spirit
being as.
Speaker 4: You know, equal equal in nature, not in role.
Speaker 10: Okay, So do you believe you know, I'm sure you
obviously believe that the Father's unoiginated the Son and the
Holy Spirit.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 4: Oration twenty three of Gregory nosanzeis where he talks about this,
and he says that the Father is on originate, the
Son is original.
Speaker 10: What about in Michael five, verse two, which implies that
you know, the quest is, you know, eternally existing John
one Verse one's two.
Speaker 4: Yea, none of we believe in eternally begotten son. There's
no beginning in time to his existence. So there's nothing
about monarchical trinitarianism that thinks that the Son wasn't eternal.
He's eternally begotten, as John one says, he was always
in the bosom of the Father even when he was incarnate, you.
Speaker 8: Know, you know, do you know one thing?
Speaker 10: I think one interesting thing is that it can somewhat
appear in a way that it's I'm not saying I
necessarily believe this, but it would be interesting to hear
your thoughts on is this somewhat because there's some arguments
that this is somewhat modalism and in disguise because modalism.
Speaker 4: How would it be modalism when it's almost always critiqued
as subordinationism and arianism. So maybe you're confusing. I think
you're confusing modalistic monarchianism with monarchical trinitarianism. Those are totally
different things.
Speaker 10: No, no, No, it's more like it's more about somewhat
the risks, like basically dis over emphasis on the Father.
Speaker 3: I know, I know that this is not different modes.
Speaker 4: In the Orthodox there is no emphasis on the Father.
It's just not true. The entire liturgy, the entire service,
the entire ethos is fully trinitarian. There's no emphasis on
one versity the other. O case, Okay, I would just
say go at ten Orthodox Church and you could see
if that's the case. But if you're looking for a
fuller treatment of this. Doctor bo Branson has an entire
lecture series that's on the channel GM. Just type in
Monarchy the Father Bo Branson, you'll get a five part
lecture series which goes through most of these types of objections.
But go ahead, go ahead and make your point.
Speaker 10: So you know the bit about it, you know, come
on so late in the day.
Speaker 3: So for us, I'm in the UK.
Speaker 10: So if you look at for example, John one, verse
one to two and he Brews nine, verse eighteen, Kelly,
the Son and the Spirit are co eternal.
Speaker 4: There's nothing about monarchical trinitarianism that denies the eternality of
the Sun. He's eternally begotten, as nicea One says. So
Athanatians talks about the son being eternally begotten and receiving
his existence and his essence and his hypostasis. Everything that
he has he receives of the Father. Right, as Jesus
himself says in the Gospel of John. None of that
entails that there's any form of ontological subordination, or that
there's any sort of diminnition, right, or that he's not eternal, right.
I mean, have you not heard me argue with Muslims
for years. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude
to you, but like I literally go through all those
texts when I'm arguing with Muslims to show that the
Old Testament teaches that the Son is eternal, the Son
is the eternal God. It's just that the word God
doesn't have a single reference.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 10: No, I've heard you debate wanted two individuals, you know,
Muslims and so forth. Sure, I think the other thing is,
I mean, what's your case for implying origin this begotten
and proceeding because I know obviously you don't subscribe to
feel okay.
Speaker 4: Basically, well, again, if you read the Cappadocians, everything that
we say is literally what Basil teaches us, what Gregor
Nazianzows teaches, and as orations, it's what Gregor Nissa teaches
and against Eunomias, like, all of what we're saying is
just literally repeated verbatim from them, and they had as
their chief opponent Eunomius. Right, Eunomius is modalistic, you know,
Unitarianism is precisely what they're geared towards opposing. So I
don't see at all but I think that they're perfectly
consistent with what Affanatius taught because consound number one is
building on the eternal beginning of the son that's pronounced
in the original original Nicene Creed that the cavedotions then
build on. So again, I just don't understand at all
where there's any emphasis over instants on the father or
subordination to say that there's a role. It's just like
a king and a son. Right, if you think about
a king and the king has a son who's a prince,
they have different roles, but the nature that they possess
is equal. Right. The prince has all the same authority
and power as the king. He has the same nature
as his father, the king, but they don't have the
same role. And that's why Jesus is always talking about
the Father as the one that's quote greater, not in
essence but in role, and as the one whom he
submits to, whom he obeys, whom he derives everything from.
So it's actually the Mormon or seeing the Muslim position,
which thinks that if the son derives his existence and
if he's not un originate, that he's somehow lesser. But
if you watch the debate between Jake and doctor Branson.
Doctor Branson demonstrates that it's just a logical fallacy to
say that