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