Speaker 1: I know, I said, as a Protestant, and I'm looking
into the Orthodox Faith because I finally looked into early
Church history and solve my beliefs like fold before my eyes.
Speaker 2: So how many chack right now?
Speaker 1: But I kind of want to ask real quick, if
you can start all over in your journey and learn
Orthodox faith, what would you do from the very beginning.
You don't have to go on like a long like
like right away read the Early Church father.
Speaker 3: Or just take my time and not rush into it.
Start by reading Athanacius, start by reading the Church Fathers gradually,
just take your time. Lull lull topic. The reason that
the Orthodox Church does not strictly identify Catholicity with universality.
I'm well aware that that's what the word means is
because of the fact that you can have the fullness
of the faith, as Ignacious talks about in his epistles
at the local church. That's why. And because it's not
an issue of numbers. And it's very important to stress
that because many times in the history of the Church,
the true believers were reduced in numbers. Okay, any Orthodox
theology book that you read will discuss this. In contrast
to the Roman Catholic notion that it's essentially identified with universality.
And the reason we'd say that is because Roman Catholics
always say you need the four marks of the Church,
and because Orthodox don't have Catholicity in terms of numbers,
they're not the true church. It's a stupid argument. That's
why I said that. I knew since I was eighteen
that the word Catholic means universal. Come on, go ahead, man,
what's up? No, yep.
Speaker 2: I had a bunch of good questions for you. But
now after those okay, retarded people coming in talking about
kinditive dissonance towards you, is I lost my train of thought.
Speaker 3: Well, hold on a second, think about it for a second.
Victoria loves Haesus ten bucks. Most Protestants are taught that
Catholicism is fake, and all the churches I grew up
in nobody really knew anything about Orthodoxy. So I'm excited
to learn more. Well, welcome, take your time and hear
the things out. Don't get triggered. Cole Marshall five dollars.
What is the right of interpretation? The Protestants proposed a
doctrine of individual freedom of conscience and write a private interpretation,
that no one could bind you to their interpretation of scriptures.
You see. So they were chiefly arguing against the Roman
Catholic papal system, which was always arguing against them that
you need the papacy, you don't have authority. The Protestants said,
I have my own conscience, don't care about your your
pope binding me to your interpretations. So the Protestants came
up with the right of private interpretation. This is one
of their hallmark Classic Reformation doctrines. Boomer Slayer, fifty bucks.
I went to church for the first time ever last Sunday.
Whoa dude, hope what it was? An Orthodox church? I
planned to keep going. Thank you awesome name, and I'm
glad that you made it. Steve Grady twenty bucks. I'm
researching Orthodoxy, but I wondered if Orthodoxy has old new
calendar issue. I mean that's a very minor I mean,
just find a good ro Corps Serbian Antiochian church. Don't
worry about that kind of stuff. Yet, Is it an
example of Orthodox clergy making up innovations? Well, I think
that the calendar issue was in a way of innovation,
but I don't know that I wouldn't like in that
to Protestantism is way more extreme than something like that.
David James Flood two memberships. The Gentleman that asked about
tag questions should read Father deacon Ni's papers, Yes, definitely,
but those come up in the old videos. By the way,
go ahead, RCI.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks, I'm gonna try to fly through some of
this one being not on topic of any debate stuff.
But are you only open for debates or do you
also do like interviews and stuff too?
Speaker 3: What do you mean interviews?
Speaker 2: Like if you came in a podcast and we're talking
about the Eastern Orthodoxy and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: I mean I have done that on many It depends
on the podcasts. So what are you who's talking?
Speaker 2: I don't know. There's a couple of Catholic ones out
there that would love to have you on and get
you on.
Speaker 3: Catholic ones want it. Why would a Catholic want me
on their podcast? Dude?
Speaker 2: I think you have a lot of good stuff to say.
I disagree with it, obviously, but I think there's a
lot of questions out there, Like I've watched, I have a.
Speaker 3: Lot of good stuff to say. I disagree with it.
How is it good. If you disagree with that the first, then.
Speaker 2: You can't have good arguments and disagree with it. Everything
has to be shit.
Speaker 3: Like what podcasts.
Speaker 2: I don't have a specific one in mind right now,
but I was just curious if you were ever to
be open to it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I've gone on some Catholic podcasts, yeah, and
mainly for the purpose of, like again, like I've watched
dude one hundred plus hours probably her stuff, and it
is it'd be nice to have a lot of the
Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 2: It would be Catholic, the Protestant stuff really like concise
concise in one place.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean maybe you're I don't know if you're
new to a lot of this stuff, but I mean
there's a long kind of backstory of just nasty interactions
with a lot of these podcasts, So they don't I
don't think they want me on their podcasts.
Speaker 2: I'm sure. Yeah. I always a lot of that. So
I then more on topic just for questions and stuff
the Orthodox Church, because I'm doing my best to read
up as much as they can and listen to your
arguments and stuff. You guys reject centralized leadership, right, it's
always a council. Is it just heading patcher?
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean that's the highest authority.
Speaker 2: See, there's no eucmenical patriarch or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Well, there is an ecumenical patriarch, but he's not above
a council.
Speaker 2: What is his position for.
Speaker 3: Identically the same as the patriarchates in the first thousand
years had as a canonical it's a canonical honor that
they have within their jurisdictions, within their synods. It doesn't
mean that they tell the rest of the church what
to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair, So there's multiple, there's not just one.
Speaker 3: Well, historically there are five patriarchates. Rome broke away from
the rest of the patriarchates. So what does that say.
Speaker 2: I'm just asking right now currently, is there one? Is
there multiple?
Speaker 3: There's multiple?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 2: Deep for which jurisdictions?
Speaker 3: Well, a patriarch again, is just a honorary place and
title for people who have a position as the bishop
of a very ancient metropolitan See. So you have the
patriarch at of Moscow, you have the patriarch of Jerusalem,
you have the patriarch Constantinople, Patriarch of Alexandria, Patriarch of Antioch. Right,
so these are the main ancient patriarchal see. Of course
Russia is not antriarchy, but in the Orthodox view, there
can be through conciliar gift, you could say, or honor
autocephalist churches. So the Council of Ephesus created the Autocephalis
Church of Cyprus. Did you know that?
Speaker 2: By the way, I not oside my head. I'm sure
read it somewhere.
Speaker 3: Well, so I'm asking that is like many Roman Catholics the.
Speaker 2: Question I'm sorry I miss the question.
Speaker 3: There was a statement many Roman Catholic The reason I'm
asking you that is that many Roman Catholics are not
aware of autocephalist churches, and so when they hear that,
they think it's something that we as Orthodox have made up.
And what I'm saying is that if you look at
the Council of Ephesus, they create out of the council
the first autocephalist church. So it's a thing that your
church did as well.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, yeah, I can understand that. So there's multiple patriarchs.
There's not one you can medical patriarch. They're all acting
in that role. Correct.
Speaker 3: Well, there's one person who has the title ecumenical patriarch
and that's Constantinople. And the reason that he has that
role is because in the ancient Canons Constantinople Council one
in three eighty one they said, let Constantinople or Old
or New Rome have the place after Old Rome in
the canonical list. So the Canons of the councils gave
to Constantinople the number two roll.
Speaker 2: Yeah, canon three? Is that imperial or is that episodic?
Speaker 3: Is what an imperial or epistolic?
Speaker 2: I'm giving that phmacy can't say.
Speaker 3: Well, if a council does it, by definition, it's a
ecumenical action if it's an ecumenical council. But Rome didn't
accept that until many centuries later.
Speaker 2: Are you asking me if I'm asking the historical reasoning
for constant privacy being brought up in canond three? Uh?
Speaker 3: To my knowledge, there's nothing apostolic about it. It is
accorded to that church from the council.
Speaker 2: Does that not like raise eyebrows for you at all?
Speaker 6: Or not?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 3: My gosh, here we go. Are you the guy that
always calls in and doesn't know anything about this topic
and has the same stupid debate every time we do this.
Speaker 2: This is my second time calling it.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I thought that's why I thought, does what
not reason? Do you not understand what I do has
told you about the autoct Okay, why you interrupting me? No,
you don't understand why you're interrupting. Don't interrupt me. If
you listen to what I said about autocephalist churches, if
an ecumenical council can grant to the Church of Cyprus
an autocephalist independent status, that it doesn't matter if the
church is quote Apostolic, they have the fullness of the
Apostolic faith because they've been given that from an Apostolic council.
Ecumenical councils are Apostolic councils because they're apostles successors doing it.
So there's nothing about the ecumenical patriarch it that makes it.
You're referring to the claim that's later on where Constantinople says,
maybe we have Apostolic pedigree like Rome. They don't, so,
but that has nothing to do with whether a council
can grant to these bishoprics that authority. And do you
not understand that Rome Constantinople as second centuries later?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't. I don't want to dismiss what you
said at all. It doesn't necessarily answer my question or
my point, but to kind of give more context, do
that the I don't cephalos excuse me, was and I'm
going to time my head so I literally might be
mistaken here, and you can tell me. Wasn't Ukraine given
that in Russia not? Or was it vice versa or something?
Speaker 3: Ukraine is not an autocephalist church. Ukraine was under the
Russian Church because Ukraine is an ancient Russian area.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, So again I don't want to dismiss your point,
and I just think it subverts what I'm actually what
I'm actually saying.
Speaker 3: I don't understand your point, man, I'm not. I'm trying
to be patient with you because I don't want to
argue in fair Okay, So explain to me you're trying
to say, because I have no idea what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Okay, I guess I'm looking for clarification on what. So
like Rome as clear apostolic, IM sorry for being you
know throughout history we all I think we both agree.
Speaker 3: That again you're you're misunderstanding right away. So Rome being
apostolic is does has nothing to do with whether or
not other churches are also Apostolic. Antioch Antioch is apostolic,
Jerusalem is apostolic, said, Alexandria is Apostolic. Yep, okay, that's
let me finish in our view that in the in
the history of the churches and the Council and the Fathers,
those churches are honored because of their lineage and because
of their ancient history. It does not detract from any
other church later established, like say the Moscow patriarch It.
It doesn't mean they're less Apostolic because they're not an
ancient Apostolic church. It's just an honor, that's it. There's
nothing about those churches that makes them more Christian, more holy,
more powerful than the others, because, as Ignacious says, the
fullness of the church is where the bishop and the
sacraments are.
Speaker 2: Agree.
Speaker 3: Well, you don't agree with that because you don't believe that,
and you always argue that you're you were arguing, come on, man,
don't play these games. What what's your point? Man, dude,
you've called in with these same arguments.
Speaker 2: Come on second time?
Speaker 3: Being okay the second time, yes, help me understand your argument.
I don't get what you're I'm.
Speaker 2: Not even making an argument. I'm really looking for clarification,
which you're partially given. But you've also ranted past where
I'm trying to go.
Speaker 3: Because I don't think you understand these topics. Maybe you
need to be ranted at because you don't know what
these topics are about. Brother, do you do? I don't
think you do. You didn't know what an autocephalistic which
was you don't know? Okay, So if how do you
know these topics? If you don't know what an autocephalist
church is.
Speaker 7: I didn't know.
Speaker 2: If the top of my head, it's freaking nine o'clock.
Put my kid to bed, Like, what do you want
from me? I'm coming onto your show trying to ask
a question in your details.
Speaker 3: No, you're not. You're you're acting like like you know
these you don't know the subject matter.
Speaker 2: About five Anusker Well, Rome does this? It's like, I
don't care what Rome does right now, I'm asking you
a question.
Speaker 3: Are you Roman Catholic?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Then you do care what Rome does? What are you
talking about?
Speaker 2: Not from not I'm pertaining to the conversation. I'm asking
you a question about the imperial decrease.
Speaker 3: Not being passive aggressive, just make your argument.
Speaker 2: Okay, So again, it's not really an argument's more just I'm.
Speaker 3: Curious, make your point.
Speaker 2: Why was it based on an imperial decree and rather
than apastolic authority like Rome had. Then later I understand
you explained that part I'm trying to finish. Then later
you have the instance where which everyone warned concept about
was I think six hundred I think it was Saint Gregory.
The East was calling themselves the universal Bishop. So how
does this stuff not continue to lead to those issues
where now you have a euc medical patriarch which is
apparently just an honorary title, has no actual meaning.
Speaker 3: Are you saying that that's what I said? I said,
it's an honorary tiger where he has canonical privileges in
his jurisdiction. I didn't say it had no extra Sorry,
go ahead. I didn't say it had no meaning. Don't
put words in my mouth.
Speaker 2: No, I said that. I'm not saying you said, Okay,
I'm sair enough. Has he ever exercised any primacy authority
in over the church? So for example, you guys can't
agree on if someone should be rebaptized, right, So if.
Speaker 3: Don't play this one game Dude, you're starting to piss
me off. That's not true that we don't agree with
that because some people have disagreements online. You're assuming that
we can't figure this out or agree with it. It's
because of the principle stop interrupting me, or we're never
going to talk again. Okay, good, it's because of the
principle of the interpretation at a local level that's allowed.
And so there's not a one size fits all rule.
You don't even know that your own canons of your
church in the ancient then the sixth Council, for example,
specify that certain people have to be rebaptized even if
they were baptized in a Trinitarian formula, for example, the
Politians or the Eunomians, because it was a Unitarian baptism
even though it said the right words. So there's canonical
reasons why we do that. It's not an issue of
we can't figure it out. It's left to the local
bishops to decide that. And that's how the church did
in the first thousand years.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 2: Okay, And by the way, I'm perfectly fine accepting stuff
like remarks like that, I'm not staying outright. Hey, you
guys do this, Like, if you want to correct me
on that stuff, that's great. I've had multiple Orthodox priests
tell many different things.
Speaker 3: That's why, well guess what, I guess how many Roman
Catholic priests are going to tell me different things? So
that's what does that prove?
Speaker 2: That's fair? I think that's fair. I'm just telling you
I can say that based off the experience I've had
with the Orthodox people that I've spoken to. So I
don't want to take up so much more time, but
one more question of would have then if you have
these like schisms, these ethnic based schisms, right, So you.
Speaker 3: Mean like in the Roman Caloic church like in Antioch
where there's three patriarchs of Antioch.
Speaker 2: That no more ethnic centric?
Speaker 3: So like, does that ever happen in Roman Catholic churches
like Croatia where they're ethnocentric? Do you mean like liturgically?
You said ethnocentric liturgically is linguistic? So well, I guess.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to undertand.
Speaker 3: When I go to if I go to Poland, is
it ethnocentrically Catholic or what it's Catholic? Oh, but it's
not nothing centrically Catholic.
Speaker 2: Well, if I if I go down the road to
my Catholic this is again getting off the topic of
my question.
Speaker 3: No, it's so you you load your questions with these
passive aggressive jobs and then you act like a victim
when I call that out aggressive. No, come on, dude, No,
I know my heart.
Speaker 2: Dude, it's not as aggressive, I promise you. I literally,
I'm just trying to engage these things that literally from
me mm hmm yeah literally, yeah. But why do you
have such a war.
Speaker 3: Editor because you're it's it's inauthentic, dude. I've done this
for twenty years. I can spot the passive aggressive bullshit
any day.
Speaker 2: I actually think it would be good buddies. But uh,
that's yeah. Another time.
Speaker 3: I guess it's because you guys always act the same way.
You do the same stuff, and I can tell by
the way and then you interrupt me a year you're
asking loaded questions and you load it with the passive
aggressive jabs like so like with you're that's nocentric religion,
and you know what that's getting at. You're trying to
say the Orthodoxy isn't ethnocentric, and we have these problems
as if your own freaking gay church doesn't have that problem.
Speaker 2: I guess I'm asking in what way do we have
that problem?
Speaker 8: Then?
Speaker 3: Are you serious?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 3: Made a claim? Are Mexicans ethnocentric with their with their Catholicism?
Speaker 2: Meaning what give me an example?
Speaker 3: My gosh, all right, don't ever talk to me again.
Just go away. Yeah, you can't actually make good arguments,
and that's why you because your arguments are retarded and
stupid and they just rambled. They are you think, I
don't know what a loaded question and a loaded loaded
statement is.
Speaker 2: If a question appears, if someone's interested in and they
get these.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't believe you are because you come
and you ask bad faith questions.
Speaker 9: That's why.
Speaker 2: But you're saying their bad faith and they're just there
questions that appear.
Speaker 3: All the chat. Believe that you're gaslighting and being a bitch.
So you're calling me a bitch.
Speaker 2: I literally don't care.
Speaker 3: Well good, that's God's good that you don't care, because
nobody's buying your crap.
Speaker 2: That's why it's not crap.
Speaker 3: Why don't you make an argument? Why can't you make
an actual argument?
Speaker 2: Because I didn't come here to argue with you, but
you did.
Speaker 3: You did because you're debating, So just be honest and debate.
I would respect you more.
Speaker 2: I know you get a hard on from debating people. Yeah,
I'm literally trying not to do that. I'm trying to
engage Eastern Orthodoxy polemically, yes, like obviously from an apology.
Speaker 3: Okay, polemics is debating. So why are you talking bullshit again?
Speaker 2: Like you're not debating and stating that my questions while
they arrive in polemic nature.
Speaker 3: That's debating. Stop being such a skittles man and just
make your point like a man. Dude. What's your argument?
What's your question?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 3: Everyone believes your bad faith, so you've not convinced anyone
that you argue with.
Speaker 2: You want to talk about jealousy?
Speaker 3: Stop, how's that a fallacy? It's an analysis of everyone everyone.
I don't sound like that, dude.
Speaker 2: You're in your chat. Of course everyone's going to agree
with you.
Speaker 3: Jay, there's plenty of Protestants in the chat.
Speaker 2: I don't want no pro agree with me.
Speaker 3: So you've you've missed on. You didn't know what autocephalist
churches are, and you're here to tell me that. You said, yeah,
because it's embarrassing. You said you know these topics.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, embarrassed me.
Speaker 3: No, I do know the topics, but you don't know
a basic about church history and church governance.
Speaker 2: So, like I said, it's nine o'clock.
Speaker 3: Oh, so that's your excuse, Yeah, because your kids are goodbye,
waste of time, and everybody knows you're being a slam ball.
Right up. I do know these topics, but I'm putting
my kiss of better and it's nine o'clock. Nine o'clock,
so what and everybody here saw him. They love to
throw these jabs, the passive aggressive Roman Catholics will throw these.
So you're you're ethnic churches. It's like a Roman Calgary
church is not ethnically based. What are you talking about?
What do you even mean? What do you mean? Or
Mexicans death? No Catholics, like obviously you know what I mean? Ryok,
what's up on you?
Speaker 2: Hey? What's up?
Speaker 8: Jay?
Speaker 10: I'm a Catechuman, but I thought this was a relevant topic.
I wanted to get some clarity on. I asked my
priests about it, and it's kind of a gray area.
I'm a transitioning to Greek Greek Orthodox from Protestantism or
like non denomination, I guess, and can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, but it's not catechumen nights. So I'm not trying
to be mean to you, but I asked for people
who disagree. So what your question?
Speaker 10: So my church, we have a relic of the Holy Cross, right,
and we had the service last night, and uh, there's
Catholic church that is also attending. So I kind of asked, like,
isn't this like not allowed, Like isn't it heresy?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: I mean I don't know that exactly what's going on,
but like for them to come and attend is not
necessarily wrong. But if they're giving the Eucharist to Roman
Catholics that would be bad news. But uh, yeah, you
might want to find a you know, better Orthodox church.
All y'all, People do not bring me those kinds of
I'm not being I'm just not in the mood for
the catechumen questions. Man, I'm all hyped up, and I'm like,
we got two idiots in a row? Low, what's up?
Speaker 11: Hello?
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yep? All right?
Speaker 12: So my first question is I didn't watch a lot
of content a few how did you came to the
conclusion that you want to be Orthodox or that orthodox
is is that in.
Speaker 3: The topic, that is the topic. My journey into Orthodoxy
Protestantism is false. Proved me wrong. It's not my testimony today.
Anybody from this point out not keeping to the topic.
You're out mocking profit.
Speaker 8: Hey Jay, you.
Speaker 7: Had a posting on recently on X a couple of
number of Church Fathers canon lists, and notice that you
circle first and second eestras on a few of them,
Ethinatious being one of them.
Speaker 8: Just wondering, isn't that ezra nei maya correct?
Speaker 7: Okay, it looked like you were circling it as is
to show that it's an not one of the canonical.
Speaker 3: No, it's canonical because it's titled differently. But I was
circling from my own personal notes at the time I
read that book when I was Protestant, right, so that's
my notes from twenty years ago. Okay, twenty five, twenty
three years ago, got it?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 7: Okay, just on that point then, like, how do you,
as an Orthodox.
Speaker 8: I'm a Protestant, so how do he as an Orthodox.
Speaker 7: Understand the canon lists, especially with like Athenais being really
you know, much closer to a Protestant canon and not
just Athenians. You got the other Eastern fathers as well,
pretty early ones that are closer to a Protestant canon.
Speaker 3: No, they're not. I don't even know what are you
even talking about?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean the list that you had there of
Athenais for example, I mean I don't have in front
of me.
Speaker 13: But you know it doesn't have the Macabees on there.
He doesn't list t bit Uh, it's just a bunch
of them like there.
Speaker 7: It's a closer canon list to Protestantism than it.
Speaker 3: Is to So again, did you not hear like the
first hour today?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 6: I didn't.
Speaker 3: Okay, it's fine, let me scroll back to it. So
individual church fathers lists are just one way of demonstrating
variation and debate about the Old Testament canon. Okay. Athanasia
specifically says that the deuterocanonical texts are the best for
catech humans to read. So the fact that he says
that it's for categ humans means that it does teach
theology and doctrine, because this is what you're teaching the
new people in the church, right, So he doesn't just
because something is a Deutero canon does not mean it's
not inspired or not canon It means that it's specifically
its own purpose for catechisis it doesn't have the same
import as the rest of the text. But that does
not mean that it's not canonical, nor does that mean
it's not inspired. What I argued was, if you go
to the example of the Canons of the Apostles, the
apstol Canons, which is early church law, you're familiar with that?
Speaker 8: No? Not not with that one?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 3: Can you pull up Apostolic canons on your phone? Are
you on online right now? Or not?
Speaker 8: Just on my phone?
Speaker 3: Okay? So Canon eighty five of the Apostles, this is
the normative church law in the East right in the
three hundreds, and it lists the Deuterocononical books as the Bible.
So the normative canon beyond just one church Father Athanasius
in Canon eighty five of the Apostles, does include it's
called the apstol Canons. It does include the Deuteroconical text.
It does not even specify that there are a separate
section section, separate second group. It just says they're the
Old Testament contemporary with this a few years after let's
say this is three hundreds, maybe it's three fifty, because
it's between three to four hundred not too long after that,
you have the Council of Rome that Augustine agrees to
that Pope Damasis affirms, which does include the dudocononical texts
as the canon. And at the same time that councils
of Carthage affirm the Dudo canonical texts, and for the
Orthodox Church, by the time of Trollo and the Seventh
Ecumenical Council it affirms the canons of Carthage. So the
East and the West by the time of Trollo and
the Seventh Ecmmenical Council all agree universally that the Dutero
Canon is part of the Bible, the text that hold
on last thing, last thing, last thing. The Protestant excuse me,
the list that I have Melito of Sartists does not have.
It's not the Protestant Canon. In fact, we showed that
earlier because Melito's list includes Wisdom. So this is not
actually accurate. Athanasius Is canon has Barrack in it. Barack
is not in the Protestant Bible, so that's not going
to help you. Yeah.
Speaker 8: So okay, So a couple of things here. One is
maybe I'll go maybe I'll go former than and then
go to the latter. So Trullo is, so how do you?
Speaker 11: How do you?
Speaker 8: Is Truello? Where you get your h The main list
of canon.
Speaker 3: For your Trello affirms Carthage, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council
affirms Trollo and Carthage.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so, so okay, John Saint John Damascus, he doesn't.
Speaker 8: He's after Trullo. And why wouldn't he.
Speaker 3: Affirm Trullo Because because he's riding at the time of
the Seventh Ecumenical Council, he's one of the theologians, that's
the his theology is used at the seventh Aeminical Council,
and the Orthodox view does not have a rigid notion
of this. We have flexibility because even as later John Damascus,
as you're pointing out, he probably thought that the Canons
of the Apostles is the right canon because canon's' Apostles
includes Clement. So most likely John Damascus thought that Canon
eighty five was the right canon, and that's why he
listed as he does.
Speaker 7: Okay, So okay, So if I go to your other
point there, why do these guys, you know, even Serle
of Jerusalem, the Cirl Jerusalem Athinatious, Uh, I think one
of the Cappadocians that that actually lists the canons there.
Speaker 8: You know they don't.
Speaker 7: They don't have these books that.
Speaker 8: That you have.
Speaker 3: And hell, what are you talking about?
Speaker 8: Like they don't list for Sirl Jerusalem.
Speaker 7: He actually says that he does in list the Dudoconicals.
Speaker 8: He says, don't even read them. And he says that.
Speaker 3: No, he doesn't.
Speaker 7: Yeah, he says, by the apostles the list that he has.
Speaker 3: Where does he say not to read the Dudoconical texts.
I've read the catechetical lectures. So where are you getting that?
Speaker 8: I could pull it up right now.
Speaker 3: But so I mean in the list that Lee McDonald has, Uh,
Cyril of Jerusalem also has Barrack. And as I pointed out,
when Athanasius talks about these texts, he says the Duo.
He says, the Wisdom texts of Wisdom of Solomon and Syruc.
He says, those are great for catechumens to read. So again,
the fact that they're not listed in that list does
not mean that for the Orthodox Church they're not part
of the canon. You're just assuming that canon must be
read in the Protestant sense, like, we don't have a
problem with flexibility on this because we believe in tradition.
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, okay, so if if yeah, so your.
Speaker 7: Point about Athenaious listing judochrononical book like barug I think
the Protestant claim is more that that these canons are
closer to the Protestant canon, not that they're not.
Speaker 1: Though.
Speaker 3: That's the thing is that it's not so oh so
now it's moving the goalpost, so now it's closer, right,
So it's not the protest.
Speaker 8: I can So that's been my point from the beginnings.
Speaker 7: I always said, we're the Protestant canon is closer to
what these guys are claiming than what.
Speaker 8: You guys are.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but again you're missing the point, which is ironic
because the ecumen, the more broad accepted canon beyond just
individual church fathers, is the Deutero canonical text in the
East on the basis of the Apostolic canons Canon eighty five.
That's church law, which is more widespread and normative than
just what Athanasius thought.
Speaker 8: But I mean, why wouldn't.
Speaker 3: Because they didn't believe in soul scripture. Man, That's why
because they weren't thinking that the church follows one written
authority as its final authority. They can have different canons
because it's not a religion based around the book. That's
the point.
Speaker 7: Okay, So okay, So Cyril Cyril's catecular lectures here, he
says that, Oh, man, I don't know if you have
it there.
Speaker 8: But he says he lists the canon.
Speaker 7: He says, these are the ones that have been handed
down by the apostles, or that were handed down to us.
He says, there's there's a twenty two book canon, so
you know, aligned to the Jewish counting, not necessarily identical.
Speaker 3: This is not going to help you. What's his new
Testament canon?
Speaker 8: Zinon Testament cannon is.
Speaker 7: Seven Catholic epistles, James Peter, John Jude, the epistles of Paul.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, notice anything missing?
Speaker 2: Probably revelation correct.
Speaker 3: So how's that going to help you? Why are we
supposed to follow him?
Speaker 8: Well, no, I'm not saying that we need to follow
any one person.
Speaker 3: Well, now it's moving. Now we move the goalpost, right,
so now it's now it's not any of them, who
is it?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 7: I think that I think that the canon does come
through tradition. I'm not denying that as a Protestant. I'm
what I argue as a Protestant is that I think
that the church Fathers are we're trying to get to
a twenty two canon.
Speaker 8: I really think that the twenty two book is something
that was handed down to them. It's consistent.
Speaker 3: Well, on what basis are you're just asserting list because
they all say that, like, no, they don't, No, they
don't books. He doesn't have the Book of Revelation. What
are you talking.
Speaker 8: About about Old Testament canon?
Speaker 3: The question is how do you on what? How do
you know the epistemic principle that you're saying is the
right way to go about deciding? Is that all the
church father dis church Father many of them? How do
you know you're just asserting these things. Oh, it's the
twenty two we're.
Speaker 7: Trying to get to the you know, we're trying to
the beat is over. The Old Testament can not necessarily
new one.
Speaker 3: No, it's no, it's not. This is false. It's both
of them because the way that you know both of
them is the same means tradition. That's why, that's how,
that's what.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's one means, and I agree with you, it's.
Speaker 3: The only means. How do you know, Matthew wrote, Matthew.
Speaker 7: Well, there's a couple of ways that you could go
about that. Tradition is super helpful for that that, Matthew wrote, Matthew,
but we also have you know.
Speaker 8: That it dates to the first century. It doesn't date
to the second or third sevend.
Speaker 3: A lot of forgeries date and pseudographa date early.
Speaker 8: So what yeah, but none of them dates to the
first century?
Speaker 3: No, well does How do you know that? That's the criteria?
You're just asserting those things as principles? Are they self?
Are those self evident principles?
Speaker 8: No? But nobody.
Speaker 7: How do you know the Gospel of Thomas, for example,
this is probably the earliest gospel.
Speaker 3: How do you know that because it's old, it's therefore
part of the canon. That's what you're asserting these things
as if they're self evident. How on what basis?
Speaker 7: You asked me, how do I know that, Matthew roll Matthew,
and one of them is that?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 3: Obviously No, I said that, But I'm making the point
that tradition is necessary. And you conceded that, And then
you said there's other means too, like it's old, Well,
how does it being old tell you that it's canonical.
That's an assumption, because there's fake documents that are old too.
Speaker 8: Sure, there is fake doctuments that rule.
Speaker 7: But if any fake documents is written to be purported
to be written by an apossible but it's not in
the first century.
Speaker 3: How do we know that your list of these principles
is the right list that we're supposed to all follow.
This is the point. This is Protestant self popery. You're
the new pope that's gonna tell us the list. Oh
you see, I've derived that the church fathers wanted a
twenty two book Old Testament canon even though the majority
of them don't have that, because I just gave you
church law which was more widespread than individual guys. And
then you're saying, well, who cares what individual guys said?
It's not this guy or that guy or that guy.
Speaker 7: I'm not saying who cares the individual I think it's important,
like I think that affenacious. These church fathers also operate
under this principle.
Speaker 3: Like, okay, how do you know the principal's true? Where
are you getting it from?
Speaker 7: Well, we want to know who the apostles were, who
wrote those texts we get it from.
Speaker 3: I'll tell now, I thought we were telling the Deutero cannon.
You said, it's twenty two books.
Speaker 8: How do we know, Oh, yeah, the Old Testament book?
Speaker 7: Yeah, okay, So there's a number of arguments for Old
Testament canadal.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, you gave a principle that we want to
do this. What is the basis for your assertion that
that's what we're supposed to follow? How do you know that?
Speaker 8: Like, that's what the church fathers?
Speaker 3: Who where we received the That's begging the question because
I'm giving you countless church fathers that contend with that.
Who's right?
Speaker 11: Oh?
Speaker 3: Because the church father should it?
Speaker 8: Well, I know there's other arguments as well.
Speaker 7: For example, I'll give you like, there's many arguments.
Speaker 3: What's the argument for that principle of the books that
use it's these books this number, what's the argument for that?
That's not circular? How do you know?
Speaker 8: The argument is this?
Speaker 7: We want to know the canon that the Old Testament canon.
Speaker 8: That Jesus and the apostles used. How do we get
to that?
Speaker 3: Well, did you know that the Deutero canonical books uh,
excuse me. The Septus includes the du canon.
Speaker 8: Yes, I'm aware of that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Do the Apostles cite the deuterocanonical texts, yes, they did.
Speaker 8: They did, they say to the Seuz. I don't not
where that they said to.
Speaker 3: You don't even know the New Testament references to the
dudoconical texts. Not explicitly, No, there's many explicit ones. But
what's the basis for your assertion of your axiom? How
do you know that that's the case?
Speaker 8: Okay?
Speaker 7: So one additional argument I was going to say is,
if we want to know what Jesus and the Apostles
believed was canon, there's some internal evidence in the New Testament,
so you know.
Speaker 3: That has not that you understand? The question is prior
to you citing the New Testament, I want to know
the basis for what the list of the Old and
New Testament books are. You're saying, let's go to the
New Testament books. We don't know that they're canon yet.
This is the prior question.
Speaker 8: You talk about the twenty two books.
Speaker 3: Either one, dude, because it's the same principle for us
as to an authority post apostles to determine and compile
a binding decision, loosing and binding upon the church. The
thousand years of the First the first thousand years of
Christianity has Orthodox church fathers doing that and councils doing that.
You're telling me that's all wrong. Listen to me, mister
Protestant man.
Speaker 7: Well, no, I believe I'm operating under the same principles
as Athenaious and these guys.
Speaker 3: Why are we supposed to follow Athenasius because there's other
church fathers that disagree with Athenasious and Athenasius says that that.
Athanasius says catech cumans should be catechised with the Doer canon.
Speaker 7: Do you believe that, I think says that duder canons
cannot be used for canon for doctrine linkedown.
Speaker 3: No, he doesn't, he says, so he wants catechory. He
says catecumans should be catechized with the Dutero canonical text
like Wisdom and serrac But you're telling me that, but
you shouldn't learn doctrine from them. Catechumens are learning doctrine.
Speaker 8: Well, he says, you can't establish doctrine. Yeah, you can
read it and learn from this. There's a lot of
books you can read learn from it.
Speaker 3: I think, why are we supposed to follow Athenais and
not Augustine?
Speaker 8: Well, because you can follow anyone.
Speaker 3: Oh, we can follow any we want exactly, and that's
why I Protestant. All right, we're done, so you can
follow anyone you want. I'm glad you think it's funny.
So thanks for wasting my time with all this ahead
question for you.
Speaker 8: One more question for you?
Speaker 3: Why are we supposed to follow athenaious over Augustine's cannon?
Speaker 8: We're supposed to try and get to the oldest canon possible.
Speaker 3: Says who you just keep as certain? How do you
know that that's so? Now it's the oldest. That's a fallacy.
Speaker 8: We're trying to get to the twenty two canon tradition.
Speaker 3: How do you know that it's that you just keep
as certain? Who'se it's twenty two because it's twenty two?
Who Cyril doesn't help your case? He doesn't have your cannon.
He's a bishop. What do you how does he help
your case?
Speaker 8: Explicitly says twenty two books?
Speaker 3: So what why are we You're just you don't understand.
You keep arbitrarily saying this father, no, this father, no,
this father. On what basis is that right? Because it's
old that's a fallacy.
Speaker 8: So I believe it's right based on the multiple traditions
from him.
Speaker 3: Now it's multiple traditions, and how do you know which
ones are right? What's your epistemic basis?
Speaker 8: Epistemic basis is that all the Church fathers seem to agree.
Speaker 3: With all of them, know they don't. Now you're lying,
But let's get out of here. All of them agree.
Come on, we just showed you they don't agree. Waste
of time byzantine?
Speaker 14: What hi from astrective astle. So this is about the
topic of you know, Protestants and all that. Like when
I talk to Protestants who know their stuff, they always
use like little disagreements between early Church fathers as a
reason to downplay them. They even sometimes use being quiet
on a certain matter as a reason to disregard that. Yes,
the early Church believe the stuff that the Orthodox believe. However,
one thing that sort of scares me jay is the
fact that they use this idea that John Chris, sorry
John Christosten had a sort of a lesser view of
Mary than you know, say, I talk to us than
most orthodox that I talk to do, can you like
sort of address.
Speaker 9: Like you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: It's like again' It's like I think a lot of
Protestants go to the Church father and treat the Church
Fathers with a Protestant mindset the way they would treat
the Bible. And we do not believe that the Church
Fathers are infallible or got everything right. In fact, the
variations and debates about the canon itself shows that many
of them got it wrong. But we don't say that
they're not saints or that they're not church fathers because
they got these varying canon lists wrong. So we don't
have this strict attitude. But Protestants quote mine and cherry
pick to prove Protestantism. That's it, and they exclude the
things that go against product. So I've not done a
study on Saint John Christism's view of Mary, but I
won't have a problem saying that he got it wrong,
just like Jerome got things wrong, just like Gregor Vnissa
got things wrong, Augustine got things wrong. So we're I
think we're a lot more flexible and realistic with admitting
that church fathers got things wrong. And the iron is
that Protestants have an even lower view of the Church
fathers than we do, and they're going to just sit
there and pick appanations as canon. But I mean, it's
because it's Cyril said it, because another guy, but it's
not Augustine.
Speaker 14: It's annoying when they do this, isn't it. Yeah go ahead, yeah, yeah,
it's very annoying.
Speaker 2: When they do that. So, like.
Speaker 14: So, like before coming into this sort of like like
mindset of I always thought, well, if the church father
said it, there must be sort of like a union
between what they believed. And then prost and Church started
showing me that there was disagreements among them, and so
I got a bit scared.
Speaker 2: I thought, oh, how am I going to do this?
Speaker 14: And then I started listening to people like you and
like and other people who speak on them, and I
realized it's okay, Like, it's okay that sometimes they got
stuff wrong. They're not fallible. They're not like they're not God.
Speaker 3: Or any exactly.
Speaker 2: They're not infallible.
Speaker 14: So I'm no longer scared by the fact that they
made mistakes and that they disagree with each other from
certain options. However, like, so this is why I got
like the idea of like John Crosostigty because actually sort
of scared me because me myself, I think I have
a bit of a high view of the theos.
Speaker 2: Like but yeah, so thanks for that.
Speaker 14: But I will I will say this when it comes
to Protestants, though, they always try to use tactics to
make young believers like myself sort of drift away from
the faith because they think we're.
Speaker 2: Demonic for some reason.
Speaker 8: It's very deceptive to wouldn't wouldn't it be.
Speaker 2: Isn't it.
Speaker 3: You're saying Protestants use deception to try to get you
to leave or the lead Orthodoxy.
Speaker 14: Yeah, sometimes they try to deceive me a bit.
Speaker 8: Like I sometimes meet.
Speaker 2: Like like like a.
Speaker 14: Protestant who's KJV only kinds of people just like exactly
it as a cult exactly.
Speaker 2: I try to tell them this, but.
Speaker 14: Like I don't even know, like I don't know, maybe
I'm maybe I'm maybe I'm just speaking like out of
my butt, But I have to I have to say
that they can they can be they can be pretty
smart when they're trying to make the Catholics in the
Orthodoxy and like wrong about Mary and how tradition and
about the idea of the canon. Right, So, like, would
you agree that sometimes they do have to use deceptions or.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they have to, but they tend to, right, Yeah, right,
But anyway, appreciate your comments. I'm trying to find here.
So here's it's catechetical Lecture four. I couldn't remember which
lecture it was where he talks about the canon. And
let's see, he does include Barrack and he does not
list the Book of Revelation, and so I just do
not understand how any But then he says, oh, but
we're only going to look to him for the Old
Testament canon. Now wait a minute, if you're going to
cite Cyril, why is it only Cyril's Old Testament cannon
and not Cyril's New Testament. Oh, because Cyril doesn't have
the Book of Revelation, So that doesn't help you any
Sola scriptura is the argument that a final, fixed, written
word of God is the sole final authority for the church.
And the point is that if the church does not
possess that in Toto for many centuries, then the church
was not operating on sola scriptura. If the church was
not operating on soul scriptura for centuries, then it is
not true. It's that simple, and just because by the way,
if I recall and I read all the Catecortical Lectures,
I remember making notes about this because I read it
when I was looking into Catholicism and leaving Protestantism. I
remember making notes. I'm pretty sure he still cites them,
and even to prove arguments. So even the Church Fathers
are not even consistent if they don't include the Duro canon,
because many of them will still cite the Deuro Cannon
to prove their points in their positions. Well, let's see,
I'm gonna I hate to use the ai, but I'm
just going to do it to make it quick. Let's see,
does serial of Jerusalem. Because I don't have my church
Father's set here, it's at the other place, I can't
pull out my volume and look it up. But if
you do have the Chaft set, you should have an
appendix in the back of the Catechetical Lectures which should
show you any places where he cites dud canonical texts,
and even Jerome, if I recall, will cite duterocanonical texts
as well. And it's like well, he doesn't believe it
proves doctrine. Well, maybe he's being inconsistent. Do you ever
think about that, because we don't have any problem in
meaning that the Church father are inconsistent. Does Serial of
Jerusalem cite dutero canonical books in his writings? Now it's
if he is to whether Rock has been pretty good
about a lot of this and I'm having I'm only
doing this because I don't have my chefs out here.
I apologize Cyril does cite them. Let's see kind of
cut electures four thirty six. He cites Wisdom and Syric.
Speaker 9: So let's see.
Speaker 3: So no, he does have Barrack right, so that that
doesn't fit the Protestant canon. Well, but it's just one book.
Well no, wait a minute, I thought we believe in
solar scripturer. If you're a sol scripturer, you know, infallible
Word of God proponent, I'll only need one book to
disqualify it, because if Barrack isn't inspired scripture in your
Protestant view, and he's including it, that doesn't afford you
any any help. Now, I don't know where Groc is
getting wisdom, though Rock says. I think Rock's wrong there.
I want these specific citations. Can anybody does anybody have
a specific I know he cites it, I know in
I'm like ninety percent sure that he cites it in
the Catechetical Lectures. So well, but it doesn't prove doctrine. Yeah,
but I mean, I don't understand how Cyril helps you
at all. He doesn't have the Book of Revelations, so
what Oh he includes the dou econonical sections of Daniel too.
That's weird. Let's see, we need some way to search.
I don't know does anybody in the chat have I
know that this exists. I just don't have in front
of me anybody have a reference to that. No, I
mean it's you know, there's no question if you read
the Catechetical Lectures that I've read them all, like, there's
no question that. I mean, it's theology is not remotely Protestant.
Everything in that is one percent orthodox theology. But again
it's it's not the Protestant canon. So I don't understand. Well,
but it's closer. Well, so now you're moving the goalpost.
I thought you're a you're trying to prove the Protestant
canon or just something close to it. And how do
we know that closer makes it right? Like if it's wrong,
it's wrong. So anyway we can we can put underneath
the comments. Later on, I'll look and find Cyril Jerusalem
referencing deerconical text in the catechetical lectures. I know he does.
I know he does. I'm like ninety percent sure, go ahead, Hey.
Speaker 2: Jay, thanks for bringing me on.
Speaker 15: So if the church fathers had debates on scripture, how
do we know what is the correct interpretation for like
all these different passages that even Protestants debat up amost themselves.
Speaker 3: Well, it's like Saint Vincent of Lorenz says that in
his commandatory he talks about we believe what is believed
by everyone at all places, at all times. So that's
what universal means in the Orthodox sense, and that's a
helpful guide, but it doesn't tell us a lot of specifics.
So there will be debate over various Bible verses, there
will be disagreements, but there's not going to be disagreements
or debate when the Church formulates and settles big issues.
So nicea happens. Right, there's a lot of debate about
Jesus's status that settles that issue, okay, and that becomes
the codified belief for everybody. So ecumitical councils are the
highest level of authority, and the Church Fathers help us.
They have you know, countless commentaries, countless discussions, but you
will find place is where church fathers disagree with one
another on a specific passage. And so again, no church
fathers infallible. No church father has it all right and
it all figured out. The more you read the Church fathers,
and I've been reading them for twenty five years, the
more you will see I'm not trying to degrade them,
but they were fallible men, even if they're saints, even
if they're great theologians. To treat them in some sort
of like unrealistic way, I think damages our positioned. And
there's some Orthodox people who do this where they act like, oh,
the Church Fathers and saints never disagreed, and so if
there's a parent contradiction, it's not real. I can look
at their list of canons right here and tell that, well,
they have different canons, so they can't all be right.
So again it's like expecting having unrealistic expectations like as
if and a lot of times when Protestants convert to
Rome or to Orthodoxy, they have the same mindset where
they expect that, Oh, I'm going to just quote mind
the church fathers and they're never going to have any
disagreements because they all teach the same thing. No, they don't.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 3: And after you spend you know, a few decades in
these things, you're gonna notice that they don't always agree.
And there's no easy answer to you know, well, how
do we know what the right interpretation over verses? You
got to be patient, You got to ask God to
guide you at the end of the day. That's the
only way to know. Ben Ella, what's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 3: Last one before we close it out tonight, all the
oh five bucks snate Candling church is Kennon church Father
Drake malfoy said, so well, might as well follow him
as well as anybody else. Theology Explorer two dollars. Don't
forget about James Thora's dead. Bring out wisdom to it
always shuts down Protestant arguments. Well, I mean, they're just
gonna say so what so it's similar to what Paul wrote,
or it's a prophetive Christ. So Wisdom one and two
and other chapters of wisdom are like perfectly parallel to
Romans prophetive Christ. They don't care if there's a they'll say, well,
there might be pagan prophecies that I mean, it's part
of scripture. Mark Kamowski five dollars. The point is that
Protestants don't have any coherent criteria as to how and
why and what scripture is. It's all just arbitrary, all conflicting,
and it's just like, well, follow me, I'm the one right,
Frankish Malcaifi bucks something angered me as a Catholic that
was a manatory observance of Guadalupe. I'm not Mexican. Catholicism
is super ethnocentric. Obviously, that guy was just being totally
bad faith for not admitting or acting like he didn't
know what I was asking. Wallhim single five dollars. If
I can very orthodoxy, can I celebrate Protestant Valentine with
my family? I think your priests would probably give you
a blessing for that, not but you had to ask him,
not ten dollars. You felt like I was being passive
aggressive and jabbing at you. No, you were obviously asking
questions and sending jabs that you knew would be annoying,
and then you're playing a victim. When I tell you
to stop doing it, you get so pissy because of
interactions that were in the past. Yes, because you're bringing
the same dumb arguments as last time. Don't be a
bitch and unblock me. You got me all wrong. We're good, man,
You go your way, you go do your thing. I'm good.
W a n ghaf ten dollars. Is itreticably the New
Covenant applied since the beginning of creation? No, the New
Covenant is Christ's covenant and it was always operative. Jesus
always existed the trinities in the Old Testament. No that
I mean Abraham had faith in the Trinity. Abraham was
saved by Jesus. Van five dollars. Roman Catholics. This is
the Roman Catholics, finest ladies and gentlemen. No argument, just
passive aggressive, playing victim. He calls Jay a little bitch,
but he's projecting pathetic. This is what they always do.
They wonder why I get heated with them, because it's
because the way you're acting. Man, you can't just come
on here and say what your point is and say, look,
I think the ep is an inconsistent position. It's not apostolic.
Why you just say that and said all this tone policing,
acting like a woman osmotic? Ten dollars. Should I stay
away from the Greek Orthodox Church because of a Pita foos?
I would be weary of being underneath him? But you
can check out the local priests. Drago passport two dollars.
Get this line ball out? They got here, Martyr Steven
hundred se k unrelated question, what's your favorite theology book?
I don't know. I honestly don't have one that favorite man.
Have you heard of the book Rediscovering Orthodoxy in the
Middle of Heretics and Acumenists by doctor Stamatis? I have not,
but thank you for the recommendation. Paul five dollars. Do
you have issues with the oc Are there issues with OCA?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: You can look back at my channel for previous OCIA discussions.
Jordan two dollars. You missed my last chat, Habibi. I
thought i'd read dr chat after Lord Voldemort. Is there
any possibility that you work with an Orthodox media network?
I don't think so. I mean, I'm not technically not
doing Fourth Hour, so now I'm happy doing what I
do and working for myself. I don't want to have
a boss, and I enjoy writing for Sam Hyde, so
I'm doing everything I want to do. We got that,
We got that. Hello, Jay, the Mormon talk had me debt,
dying and laughter. How do they accept Justice Smith inserting
himself into the Bible. It turns out they actually believe
that a prophet can correct and write himself into text.
I mean, I kid you not, And they don't see
what that's a problem. Cole Marshall, we read that when
Serbia fifteen dollars take you so much? Steve Grady twenty dollars. Oh,
we did that and be shocked three dollars. Is it
better to go to a Randy Balls church in the
South or to not go at all? No, it's better
to not go. The nearest Orthodock church is an hour
and a half. Well, that's actually not that bad. So no,
you can't go to Baptist Church of God churches. That
stuff's crazy. You got to just make some time and
drive the worth our church when you can't haul in
the goods five bucks. Did you see the conversation between
Jenco and Voice of Reason. No, man, I don't watch
any of these people you think I watched Voice of Reasons.
I don't watch these people. It was a bad look
for the Catholics. Maybe you should go on their podcasts. Man,
these people don't want me on their podcasts. What are
you talking about?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 3: Grace and five dollars. I just started reading anti Nicee
Church fathers. From my understanding, Clement's Epistles of Corinthians is
the same Clement Paul mentions and Philippians. What's the consensus.
I mean that's a traditional view. I don't know that
there is a consensus. What is the evidence that it's not.
I'm not a textual scholar, so I would defer to
the church's tradition that it is O'Brien's kayak. Five dollars.
Every time I protest of debates, I swear it always
devolves into them tone policing because their theology is feels based.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, when they start feeling bad, they blame you and
try to play victim. And that's because Protestism is very
much based on feelings. Absolutely, Arisola, five dollars. Thank you
all your content. You're the goat. God bless us start
Hollywood looking forward to two and three. Thank you Glitchy
rhythm two dollars. He said, don't be a bitch, unblock me.
Good try bro no face kill at ten dollars. I've
been reading thinking Orthodox. I don't know. I haven't read
that the author made the claim that the church didn't
make the claim Marios without sin. Well, he's talking about
immaculate conception. So Mary is the Spotles virgin in that
she didn't commit actual sin. I haven't read the books.
I'm trying to give him the best charitable interpretation that
I would assume. He means actual sin is different from
original sin. Rom mccallach's believe that Mary has immaculate conception
and she's exempted from original sin. Orthodox believe she had
the effects of original sin, but she did not commit
an actual sin. Alula five dollars. Thank you, Jay, Thank
you so much. Thomas B. Two dollars. Read my earlier
super chat. I'm trying, man, there's a whole bunch here
that if you barely scroll at rolls past a bunch
of them. Let's see your previous super chat. Well, I
was going to try to get out of here. Here
we go, Thomas B. Five dollars. How our bishops that
allow contraception or chrismate those who aren't fully triple immersed
to be viewed. I mean, we're not rigorous, so like
you can't control how they do the baptism properly, and
contraception is not promoted by the Orthodox Church. But there
might be situations where there are people who are allowed
in some cases that because of economia. Roman Catholics don't
understand the principle of economia except when it's the pope
doing whatever he wants. By the way, suddenly Roman Catholics
are all about economia, and pope can do whatever he wants.
But when we extend economia to individual churches, they lose
their mind and they think that they've got us. Anyway,
but the Orthodox Church might permit things in certain situations.
There's a great doctor Bradshaw essay on this on natural law,
and it's a critique of the Thomas position. And for example,
the Thomas position argues that you can never feel fear
with the tilos, the biological tilos of the Organs. And
so if the any frustration of the Organs is a
worse sin than frustrating the Organs, I'm not kidding. So
this gets so silly that a Roman Catholic would has
to say, if they're trad I kid you not. This
is doctor Bradshaw's a great critique of this that let's
say you had a blockage in your male area of
this of semen retention, which it can actually happen, people
can get a blockage there. The Roman Catholic would say
that you cannot, through quote unnatural means, to take care
of that in any way, or the hospital can't take
care of that in any way, because that would be
a deviation from the natural function, and you have automatically
committed a mortal sin because you're going against biological Aristotelian
Tilos Tellos for that body organ. This is what led
to Quinas. Could you not I'm going from memory. I
haven't looked at this a long time, and I'm pretty
I'm appy sure this is in the argument in the essay.
But Aquinas thought that if you spanked it, okay, that's worse.
Could you not hear me out? That's worse than sleeping
with your mom or your sister, because spanking it is
more of a deviation from the natural law function of
the organ than to be with your mom. And you
wonder why Thomas act like Internet retorts that's what they
And by the way, these are the same hypocrites that says,
let's say that a quietus, for example, every city should
have a whorehouse because if you don't, the then adult
true will run ramd. But I'm not kidding. They actually
reason that it's less it's better for the common good
for this city to have a whorehouse than to not.
I kid you not. There's this whole look up and
the Roman Catholics are a thousand pages coping to make
sense of this because they're devoted to systems right that
they have an in a lack of flexibility when it
comes to their moral systems. And you've got these idiot,
teenager people on the Internet who think that they're masters
of all this stuff. And they could just go read
Bradshaw's essay. You got to read this if you want
the full thing. I'm gonna tell you it's Ryre. It's
Bradshaw Natural Law. I cannot remember the exact name of
the paper. I was there when he is into the paper.
By the way, I was like, whoa, this is crazy,
mind blowing. That's not doctor David Radshaw Man. I hope
that's not the paper that's I think UBI has an
interview with him on this topic, though, so we might
could find that. But you gotta see this because this
is pretty devastating to the Thomas and the Riscitilians, if
you can get them to I think it comes up
in this UBI discussion here, but I'm trying to find
his exact paper on it.
Speaker 5: This is it.
Speaker 3: It's called what does it mean to be contrary to Nature?
Speaker 5: This is it?
Speaker 3: It may not be available on academia. E du oh,
here we go. Maybe it is available.
Speaker 2: No, that's.
Speaker 3: It's not the full paper. I don't think. Here we
go it is an academia. Look at that, but is
it the full paper? Let's see. Oh, it may not be.
It is not the full paper. Dang it. That's I
was afraid of. Yeah, it's only the first few opening
pages on academica. Do you sang it? But I think
in the interview with UBI and Lewis, I think he
brings up these points. So probably the next best thing
would be to watch this interview. I don't know if
he mentions Aquinas's contradictions, but so you get the like
these Roman Catholics are like so sanctimonious about their moral positions,
and they don't even realize like the stupid shit that
Aquinas says about this stuff. It's just like you guys
are out to lunch. Dude. I'm trying to put this
in the chat for you guys. Internet sucks tonight. A
same dog recipe is two dollars. Good stream. I learned
something and had to laugh. Thanks man. Noadic requests two dollars.
Check out catechetical lecture nine, paragraph sixteen. Ooh, we got
Ortho bros. To the rescue dog. It's been some years
since I watched this interview, but check it out if
you're interested in what I was talking about earlier. I
got to x out some of these windows. There's too
many windows open, the computers all freezing up, burning up.
Hot Okay, Uh, good grief, dude, h BROSI five dollars.
I guess Michael Knowles was staying true to his cult
leader by being the lead defender of Nala.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 3: Also, I don't think Knowles is going to do the debate, so,
I mean, shocker. I didn't expect them to. But there's
that interview right there. I've got more super chets over here.
I gotta read too, h Belooney Bong five dollars. Do
you believe there's a hierarchy to sin? Well, I definitely
think there's sins that are worse than others. You know,
if you read the Ezekiel. You know, if you read Ezekiel,
he says, and come, son of Man, I will show
you even greater abominations. And he says, I will show
you even greater abominations. So there's greater and greater abominations
than evils.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: You know Jesus talks about in that way as well.
But I don't believe it's like this, like scientifically rigid
list like Roman Catholics will spit out. I'm trying to
make sure I didn't miss all these people get really
mad if I missed their super jet. So I'm trying
to make sure I hit all these Mark Kumowski five dollars.
Thank you. I can't worry for hit him or not.
DC woodwork. He became a member my family and I
received in the church tomorrow. Hey, what's up, dog? Glad
to hear that man. He says, thank you for the
work that you do. Glory to God, Thank you man,
appreciate your support. What was I doing? I already forgot
what I was looking at. Oh, Catechetical Lecture nine sixteen.
Let's check that out. Well, he had some feisty i's
the individuals tonight.
Speaker 6: There you go.
Speaker 3: Nine sixteen is what it was. Aha, I knew it. See,
I told you he would quote the Dudo economical text
Catechetical Lecture nine sixteen. He says, he cites Wisdom. See you, guys,
I told you. This is Thank God I've got this
is me remembering reading this twenty years ago. Okay, I
read this twenty years ago. I told you he cites
the duder chrononical texts within the catechetical lectures. Now again,
if you call it secondary canon, as we do even
an Orthodox, that doesn't mean it's not inspired or not
part of the canon. It's still just secondary canon, and
we don't have a problem with that. But none of
that Protestantism's canon, nor the principle by which any Protestant
would epistemically justify their canon, you see, And in fact,
this just shows shows he's citing it to prove his doctrines.
He cites Wisdom thirteen to five right there. Thank you.
By the way, I knew that it was there. So
thank you for finding that noetic quest much appreciated. Bologneybond
five dollars one more just to say I found you
through an old Sam Hid interview right as I was
acquiring about Orthodoxy. Well we've only done one, Like what
a year ago? Is that what you're calling old? Or
you mean like he oh, you mean the old and
when I interviewed him like three year or four years ago? Okay,
that's probably what you mean. Yeah, I appreciate that. Uh,
I don't know why the internet's being so crappy or not? Ben,
what's up on you?
Speaker 11: Yo?
Speaker 6: What up?
Speaker 3: How are you doing? I'm good?
Speaker 5: Are you.
Speaker 7: So I can ask a quick question.
Speaker 8: I'm from the UK.
Speaker 2: I think I've asked this before. I'm not sure if
it was to you or someone similar.
Speaker 5: But I'm not really religious, and I'm a boxer and
I grew up in a kind of masculine working class
culture and I want to I really like to get
into religion someday, but the religions around me are just
so fucking gay. It's it's all about love and peace
and submission.
Speaker 2: And you know, if somebody slash you return the other
cheek and.
Speaker 5: Them shall inherit the earth, So would you recommend or adoptsy?
Speaker 2: And if so, is it is it the least gay?
Speaker 5: As I've heard and as I understand it, at least.
Speaker 3: It is it is the least gay, it's the most masculine.
But I can't guarantee that you won't encounter uh, you know,
skittles weirdos there as well. So that's everywhere. But I've
found the best hetero cool dudes in the word ox
Church by far. And I was in the Roman Catholic world,
I was in the Evangelical world. Those are the worst.
But definitely Orthodoxy is the best. But that doesn't mean
you're not going to encounter you know, issues there as well.
So last one anti heresy. I'm kind of winding down,
so and I don't want to lose my patients. I
feel like if I get I was really biting my
tongue with that Catholic dude and the Protestant dude like
I was, I would start to I was about to
like I was about to go a little too far.
So it's better to end the discussions before I start
like losing it and making fun of them, and you know,
it's just going to go too far. Go ahead, man,
what's up on you? It was going on? Man, Yes, sir,
all right, I'm going to argue with you, brother, Oh
what's on your mind?
Speaker 16: I want to know what's your biggest issues with Catholicism
excluding all the theology. The theology and doctrinal whatever errors
that you claim they are. But well, it's your biggest
concerns with the Catholicism.
Speaker 3: I would say outside of that's actually I appreciate that
question because most of the time people ask the you know,
theology questions, so I'm happy to address.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 16: You got to remember, like majority of people don't understand
or even they don't even have the ability to comprehend.
Speaker 8: Most of that stuff, so it's kind of like.
Speaker 3: For a particular group, that's true. I would say the
main problems outside of the theology would be that I
think the Vatican was pretty deeply corrupted a long time ago,
but nowadays totally corrupted and pretty much an organ of
the globalists. So that's my big one.
Speaker 16: Okay, So pretty much you're you're saying that the Roman
Catholic Church is engaging in the whole NW New World
Order agenda.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're a part of it.
Speaker 8: Like one of the players in it.
Speaker 3: Well, the Vatican, not the average Roman Catholic, but the
institution of the Vatican at the top I think is
completely co opted.
Speaker 16: Yeah, okay, and I'm assuming your evidence for that would be, like,
would it be like just the CIA involvement.
Speaker 3: I think that's one window into it, But no, that's
not my only evidence. I think you can go to
Roman Catholic writers who critique this point of corruption within
the Church. It's not just the CIA, it's British intelligence,
it's Israeli intelligence having relationships with the Vatican. It's a
sexual compromise in regard to a lot of the p
PDF stuff, Vatican Bank operation Gladio. I think all of
those are windows into a lot of the corruption.
Speaker 16: And yeah, I'm assuming I thought the only reason you
would have a problem with that is because of the
claim of infallibility.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not the only reason I was a problem with.
The problem I would say is that the Roman Catholic
Church around the eleventh century started to explicitly say that
it was a state world power. Prior to that, most
of the churches in the East and the West didn't
see the Church as a global state power. But the
papacy for various reasons, not all of which were bad,
but for many reasons, began to step into the vacuum
of a collapsed Western Empire and took on more and
more worldly power. And so that made the Vatican into
a very worldly geopolitical power.
Speaker 16: And you probably credit most of that to like in
the modern area, speaking of you probably credit most of
that government influence our CIA influence.
Speaker 3: In the modern area, yes, But in the Middle Ages,
I think there were confluences of interest German uh. The
popes for all the eleventh century were appointed by German kings,
and so they had their own issue of Cicero papism.
I think that wealthy Franks then and Medici's used the
papacy for their own designs. So that's going on for
a long time, and I'm not I'm not denying that.
You know, there have been corrupt Orthodox bishops and patriarchs too,
but the Orthodox Church doesn't make the claims that Vatican
one makes, And if the Vatican one's true, then I'm
going to have to believe like that when the CIA
was helping to get Paul the sixth elected, it was
really the Holy Spirit using the CIA to get. I mean,
it's just crazy to me to go down that route.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I mean with the CIA helping to get elected,
were they just like given like who they would prefer
or were.
Speaker 8: They demand him?
Speaker 16: Because I've seen the documents on it and it said
that they kind of asked who they would want, but
in the end it was decided by the cardinals made
the ultimate decision.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's hard to say exactly how that went down.
I think that if you read the Paul Williams.
Speaker 8: Book, I put like a gun to their head and
was like this guy pull now.
Speaker 3: Now. According to Paul Williams, uh Gladio and the operators
in Gladia were able to probably sexually compromise cardinals and
that was It's true.
Speaker 8: It is true, though you know it's true.
Speaker 16: But my whole thing is I believe the infallibility it
can't pertain to the individual themselves.
Speaker 8: It has to be to the title, the title.
Speaker 16: Of pope, you know, because there's no no I mean,
I don't know what's.
Speaker 3: Your perspective, but you can't. You can't divorce the person
who holds the office from the powers that he's supposed
to have. And one of those powers is supposed to
be the ability to speak ex cathedral.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 16: Logic like like a police officer does something bad, so
the whole police force, or like if the poll does
something bad.
Speaker 3: You know, no, no, no, no, that's a false analogy
because it's not a question of him doing a moral evil.
It's a question of infallible teaching. No, it's it's that
he can't teach wrong or like contradict Catholic teaching.
Speaker 2: So not a question of yeah, yeah, yeah, and then
and what's what's what?
Speaker 11: What would you say?
Speaker 16: Stands out the most like the most obvious, like theoretical
teaching that's.
Speaker 17: Been put out.
Speaker 3: I usually give three examples. First example is if you
look at dictatus Pope, and if you look at and
these are easy to find, and then you look at
when them sunk them those are not very long. Documents
are pretty short. One from eleventh century, one from the
fourteenth century. They both say that you have to believe
that the pope is also a world power to be saved.
So if you don't believe that he has spiritual and
temporal power, namely that he's a world ruler, you can't
be saved. Post Vatican Two, the Romancalliy Church no longer
teaches that. That's one contradiction. Number two. Francis has said
many times over that the death penalty is.
Speaker 16: The first, the first one you brought up with, having
to believe that pope is a state power or what.
Speaker 8: Say, yeah, a state power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're a world ruler ultimately basically king of kings.
Speaker 8: Okay, and you think that that would be a heretical claim.
Speaker 3: No, no, I'm pointing out contradict. Well, yeah I would,
but I'm saying like that contradicts the post Vatican two papacy,
which no longer wears the triple crown. If you remember,
the pope used to wear a triple crown that signified
that triple authority. They don't wear that anymore because post
Vatican two, they don't teach the temp moral supremacy the
Roman bishop anymore. So that to me is the contradiction.
Speaker 5: Two.
Speaker 3: Uh, Francis has said the death penalty is contrary to
the Gospel. But prior to Vatican two, Uh, the every
cality church every day they tall the death penalty, So
that to me is contradiction. Three.
Speaker 16: Yeah, Vatican two is is pretty much like what he
was talking about the Muslims and whatnot.
Speaker 3: That was my third one, right, So nosro tat in
Letmagentium sixteen say that Muslims and Christians worship the same
god uh and that, and then you can you can
also see places where they talk like Jews still have
the same covenant and force.
Speaker 8: It's something that.
Speaker 11: I've been actually thinking about.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's more, but those are my three.
Speaker 16: I'm sure you yourself can attest to this, like the
frustration that comes with debating, like they say muslim is
Protestants or just like any like the frustration that she
had caught her with, like how people.
Speaker 8: Are unable to underst.
Speaker 16: That and comprehend and this is like literally just scratching it.
Speaker 8: Like probably what is wrong with these people?
Speaker 2: Like why why is the world this weeking?
Speaker 11: Why?
Speaker 3: Well, a lot of people don't want to Yeah, I mean, yeah,
you're right, and I appreciate your call. A lot of
people don't want to look at the documents. They don't care.
People don't even read books anymore. So if you read books,
you're kind of like, you know, already a weirdo brando. Yeah,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 8: Question for you.
Speaker 17: I've been dipping into your like live streams and following
your your tweets about Christianity, Bible stuff. I got turned
on to you through Info Wars doing your Fourth Hour
on Fridays. Love all your your subjects matter and deep dives.
I was a Christian, well, I am a Christian.
Speaker 2: I think, but I was raised in a Baptist church.
Speaker 17: I backslid and started buying the whole alien nonsense with
you know, some other being out there other than God
had a child. My view on that has changed a lot.
I've seen a lot. I'm forty five, I've seen a
lot happen. I see the nature of good and evil
in the world, and there's no doubt in my mind
that there is.
Speaker 2: Evil and good.
Speaker 17: But I've been watching like the that that show The
Chosen with my family, and it really like tugged on me,
like like I need to like really get involved and
and read more and research more, and I want to
read the Bible.
Speaker 8: I just want to know it based on your recommendations.
I've heard you say it because like I said, I
dip in what Bible should I.
Speaker 17: Like buy to like study, Like there's different ones.
Speaker 3: Get an Orthodox, get the Orthodox study Bible, the one
that I'm showing right here, so I think it's still
available on I think you can still get it online.
But thanks for your call, Austin, and don't go to
Protestant church, go to Orthodoxers. Mason McGahee one dollar, Thank
you so much. Santos Jimenez twenty bucks. I know the
Bible wasn't put together by God, but I'm struggling to
understand how to interpret anything outside the Bible. Obviously, Peter
and Paul taught people that went on to write letters.
Do we take those as an authority? Do you mean
like the post Apostolic fathers like Ignacious and Clement, they
are authorities, but they're not equal to the Bible, right,
So you know, if you read Ambrose or Ignacious or
Clement of Alexander, I mean Clement to Roma should say
they are going to be helpful, and they show the
unanimity and the continuance of the Orthodox faith in those centuries,
but they're not identical to the authority of you know,
Peter and Paul. I believe the Apostles have a clear
authority that is not continued on in the sense of
like new divine revelations. So once John dies, there's no
more public divine revelations. There can be gifts and miracles
and clairvoyants, but that's not the same thing as public
divine revelation. There's never going to be like, oh, you know,
Saint so and so has a new Bible chapter that's
going to be added to the Book of Revelation. Like
that's not going to happen. Everything that councils are commenting
on is commenting on the faith once for all delivered
to the saints. If it's once for all delivered as
you three says, it's not evolving. There's not new charismatic
cults coming up with new revelations. That's cut out immediately.
No Mormon, no Joseph Smith, no Muhammad. It's all immediately
cut away. Hcim lvl Fishing became a member. What's up?
And why would we not want the obviously easy position
of that cuts away all these goofball cults. Like if
divine revelation is complete and finished and sealed up when
John dies, there's no new divine revelations that are public
theological revelations. Don't you understand? That makes it very simple
that any cult leader coming along claiming to be a
new prophet and have new revelations is automatically out of here. Dude,
we already know you're a fraud that cuts out like everything,
even Protestant crops like you don't teach according to you know,
the tradition handed down his pulses. What's up, Austin?
Speaker 2: What's this?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 6: I have a question about the trans and gental argument.
Speaker 3: Thing that you.
Speaker 17: Go by it.
Speaker 8: And I was like curious about the Kant like is
was a Lutheran.
Speaker 3: Or Carl was a Kau was raised by a German
Pietist family, so they were and they might have been
influenced by Lutheranism, but it was Pietism.
Speaker 8: And isn't it Protestant technically or that's not.
Speaker 3: No, probably absolutely Protestantism is Pietism is absolutely Protestanism.
Speaker 6: Absolutely so when you bring that up, because I've watched
your great debate or you're.
Speaker 3: Very good at what you do, okay, So can I
just immediately I know where you're going with this. So,
first of all, the transmonal argument for God is not
from Kant.
Speaker 9: From uh.
Speaker 3: You could argue it's in a way it's done by
John Damascus in his fam out of knowledge, but I don't.
I'm not aware of anybody specifically doing the transfit argument
for God until modern Protestants. But do you know what
a genetic fallacy is?
Speaker 6: Uh? No?
Speaker 3: So that's when you say that something is right or
wrong based on the source. Okay, so the fact if
a Protestant made an argument, that would have nothing to
do with whether they argument is true or false. So
the source of the thing doesn't prove or disprove, just
like when Roman Catholics, like when they when they say,
you know, Aristotle's first cause argument. Oh so does that
mean it's fake because it's a ariostols a pagan So
you see, it's a it's a It's called the genetic
fallacy because the source really has nothing to do with
whether it's true or false in most cases.
Speaker 8: With them, that make Pluto.
Speaker 6: Technically a genetic fallacy. Then with the Bible, because he
dead is like a religious like ye had make a
religion his whole plutonium and whatever stuff on to like
correlate with what con did you talking about?
Speaker 3: Plato? Plato or who's Pluto or Plato?
Speaker 6: Sorry I'm in Plato.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm like I'm thinking of like I'm thinking of
like Disney. I think I'm thinking of Disney. I think that.
I think nowadays a lot of people were I believe
in the plu the Pluto forms, like the form of
Pluto like, I'm sorry, it's just funny, dude. Now wait
a minute, so what so what does that do with Plato?
Now I'm lost? What about it?
Speaker 6: No, because Plato didn't he have like a thing where
he was talking about how to create a religion, you
know before you know, he.
Speaker 8: Had his own like take on.
Speaker 3: Kind of I mean, he believed he was by the
way I'm still learning, I mean, he believed in noble
he believed in the noble lit so he thought that
the perfect republic could have a fake religion that was
a kind of a cult. Yeah, so that there's an
element of that in Plato. Shure.
Speaker 2: Okay, well yeah, as well as I was asking.
Speaker 3: About your Yeah. So so to be clear, right, so
Kant makes transcendental arguments. He's not the first to do it.
You could argue that Aristotle is the first to do it.
In metaphysics, John Damascus following Aristotle does a very similar
move at the very beginning of Fount of Knowledge. But
it's actually not until you know, the last century that
Protestants started making c s. Lewis makes a type of
transcendent argument too one time, very close to it. But
the transcen areum for God is pretty modern, and it
is Protestants who do it. But the argument stands on
its own like it's it's either true or false on
its own merits. It doesn't matter whether a Protestant came
up anymore than Aristotle's arguments for first cause are tru
or false. Because Ariostota was a pagan, he has nothing
to do with whether it's good or whether it stands
or false. So but good question. I'm not trying to
make fun of you or he means you, but it
was just it was funny. I'm thinking of like pute
Plutinism now, like like Pluto, like the Disney Indian Disney
like actually now like I remember when I was a
philosophy student, like Plato, he's cool, he's esoteric. Plato is
kind of an idiot dude, like I would. I would
more so kind of nowadays be like more into Plutinism,
like Plutoism, Like I forgot that Pluto was Goofy's dog,
the way a dog has a dog. That's actually kind
of funny. So Pluto is Goofy's dog, and Goofy is
a dog with a dog. That's actually pretty funny. I
never even thought about that. It's meta, dude, Disney's going
like full meta. I'm all, I'm all about some Plutonism now, Alias,
what's up? Alias? We got Jennifer Garner in the house.
Speaker 8: So I'm not really I don't know a lot about
this subject.
Speaker 11: But what do you mean by falls?
Speaker 3: False just means not true.
Speaker 8: So Protestantism is false?
Speaker 5: Why?
Speaker 3: Uh, it's not true because it's a copy of a
copy of a copy of a split of a split
of a split.
Speaker 14: Okay, so what is it?
Speaker 6: What?
Speaker 2: Like, what's missing?
Speaker 3: You've never heard of the word false?
Speaker 2: Well, well yeah, but like what is missing in Protestantism?
Speaker 3: A lot of things are missing. Sacraments, tradition, authority, lived
experience of lives of the saints. I mean a lot
of things are missing.
Speaker 18: I think like a lot of Catholic people seem to
be an Orthodox people too, seem to be very very strict.
For me, for example, you know, Christianity is very simple,
It's kind of like an organic thing.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking, like does it really have to be really strict?
Speaker 18: And like oh, you know, because there are like many
ways to believe in you know, God and you know,
different things.
Speaker 3: I think we have to follow what Jesus told us.
And Jesus didn't say that there's many ways to believe
and do the religion, so no, he said there's one way.
So I think what you're saying is just not even Christianity. Javon,
what's up? And if you don't like Christianity, consider Pluto
Plutonism named after Pluto. Javon On, mute man, what's up?
Speaker 14: Hello?
Speaker 11: I was coming on here to kind of talk about
the cannon and like, second, maccabees, would you be willing.
Speaker 2: To discuss that?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 11: Yeah? So I just was wondering, like like just like
for the basis of like my argument, like you would
agree that apostle and prophet, for example, are have the
same authority from Jesus Christ to you know, have be
given revelation.
Speaker 3: Right, I'm sorry, could you repeat that? As somebody was messaging?
Can repeat that last point.
Speaker 11: That profits I'm not a Mormon, by the way, Like
I'm not trying to make like an argument. I'm saying
that Christ chose the apostles and they have the same
authority as the prophets to receive revelations. That's that's my
first point. Like do you agree with that?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Okay?
Speaker 11: So my next point is that scripture requires a living
prophet or a living apostle to approve or author scripture.
Would you agree with that, like the Twelve including Matthias
Paul or any of the profits of the Old Testament,
like they have the authority and they would be needed
to approve or author scripture.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, the I mean divine revelation is written by
in the New Testament, those people appointed to do it.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay.
Speaker 11: So then my third point is that Second Maccabee's and
some of the books of the Dudo Cannon do not
have a living capital p or capital a apostle or
prophet to authorize or author that scripture.
Speaker 3: Oh you said up, I thought were talking about the
New Testament. So no, I would not I would not
conceive that, Okay, that there's some self evident criteria that
canonical scripture can only be written by some living appointed prophet.
I'm not sure that that's.
Speaker 11: We're authorized.
Speaker 3: Well who authorizes? What what do you mean?
Speaker 11: Like when Peters and second p so like Second Peter
Chapter one, when he's talking about prophecy never had its
origins with human will, but God gave it to the prophets,
and that would include him and the Old Testament prophets.
You would require one of them.
Speaker 3: But that isn't laying out necessarily the basis for a canon,
because we already have. I mean, does Ezra I'm just
thinking out loud, does Ezra prophesy?
Speaker 11: I don't think he necessarily has to, but I think
the presence of a prophet to confirm that revelation is
required because my problem we're running into issues.
Speaker 3: Hold on, wait a minute. The Book of Wisdom prophesies Christ.
If Wisdom prophesied Christ, why wouldn't that meet the criteria
of prophecy.
Speaker 11: Because I think there's specific like capital peep like not everybody.
Speaker 3: Okay, so now it's capital P versus. So now you've
added another You've moved the goalpost that it's not prophetic.
It's now it's a special capital P. Well, how do
we know that because.
Speaker 11: The apostles are only allowed to are Do you agree
with that?
Speaker 3: No, I'm talking about the Book of the Book of Wisdom.
If that prophesies Christ, why does it not fit into
your criteria of prophecy.
Speaker 11: I believe that a living apostle or a living prophet
was able to confirm.
Speaker 3: Well, how do you know that the writer of the
Book of Wisdom wasn't a living prophet?
Speaker 11: It's not that the person who authored the book. The
person who authored it doesn't have to be a prophet.
What I'm saying is, there's.
Speaker 3: A okay, so how about this? Okay, I see what
you're saying. So how about this the New Testament writer's
default approve of the Judo canonical text by citing them
many times and using the septuagent, which includes the dudo count.
And how's that?
Speaker 11: I don't agree with that because not only were they
not present at the time?
Speaker 3: Who not president at the time? What are you talking about?
Speaker 11: They weren't present at the time of its writing.
Speaker 3: Okay, but hold on, what are you talking about? Of course,
Peter's not going to be how is Peter going to be?
Hold on? So now, how is Peter going to be
present at the writing of the Book of Wisdom?
Speaker 11: Another prophet is.
Speaker 3: What what are you talking about? I don't understand. Can
you explain what you're saying?
Speaker 11: On or sign yes? So Nathan would be around during
the time of Solomon.
Speaker 3: Right, I mean he's during the time of David. Maybe
he lived into Solomon's days, Okay, yeah he did.
Speaker 11: And I'm saying that those those prophets were authorized by God.
And so what I'm my main argument is that no
profit who is able to have the authority to author,
author authorized, or or even write scripture is alive during
the time of second mccabee's writing.
Speaker 2: Like that is my main argument.
Speaker 3: So you have a presupposition that the only text that
can be included are quote authorized prophets. And I'm giving
you examples of how why wouldn't the Book of Maccabe's.
Let me see, the Book of Wisdom fit into this
criteria because it prophesies, and how do we know that
it wasn't a prophet that wrote the Book of Wisdom.
Speaker 11: Well, my my contention isn't with the Book of Wisdom.
It's my contention is with Seco mcabees.
Speaker 3: So, I mean, if so, what you're you're going to
be the one guy who believes that the wisdom can
be in the cannon, but just not maccabe's.
Speaker 11: I just don't think that that has to be included
with my argument, That is all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: But the basis for your argument is arbitrary because now
it's not about prophecy, it's about a criteria that you
have asserted, is there must be a living prophet at
the time that authorizes it. Where do you get this?
Speaker 11: I different, well, that that God delivers revelation to only
certain people, like only.
Speaker 3: Like, how does that tell you that Maccabee's isn't isn't?
How about this? The Church has the authority to authorize
the canon of Scripture and it authorizes Macabees. How's that?
Speaker 8: See?
Speaker 14: I can.
Speaker 11: We can talk about that point. I just think that
because the because Paul sites like right epimenities these Greek philosophers.
But that doesn't necessarily mean just.
Speaker 3: But nobody says that just because yeah, but nobody's arguing
that just because it's citing the New Testament is therefore
in the canon. I never made that argument.
Speaker 11: Yeah no, And I'm not accusing you that. I've simply
just wanted to be like, is would your your criteria
does not include that a profit be present or authorized?
Speaker 8: Because I just.
Speaker 3: Haven't, Like, I just don't know where you're even getting
this criteria, Like it's it's this you're asserting it, But
where is that from? How do you know that?
Speaker 11: Yeah? So second Peter, if you you know two Peter,
chapter one, ninety, But.
Speaker 3: That doesn't tell you anything about the canon. That's just
Peter talking about inspiration. How does that tell you that
this How does that tell you that the principle that
you're asserting is proven. Just because Peter says that no
prophet spoke of his own but was moved by the
Holy Spirit, that doesn't tell you that quote. A prophet
must be present to authorize the writing of a text,
and how do you know that there was? How do
you know that there wasn't a prophet present in the
days of the Maccabees or the writing of Wisdom?
Speaker 11: Because I believe God makes a specific point that Malachi
is the Honestly, some people make the argument that it's
Zechariah because Jesus mentioned Zacharia being murdered in the temple,
so some people think that Zachariah was the last prophet
to live. But since we placed Malachi at the end.
In Malachi's message is that God is going to send Elijah,
Oh Jesus.
Speaker 3: Well, that's just you're assuming that it's because of the
Protestant placement of the books, that that's the end. That's
a Protestant placement of the books. So it doesn't mean
it's the last of that nobody prophesied during that time.
Speaker 11: Well I'm well, I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So it's an argument from silence, No.
Speaker 11: The message of Malachi four, Malachi four or five, when God.
Speaker 3: Says he's going to Okay, So do you know how
like the Orthodox Bible, how what its last book is.
It's Daniel. So the fact that it's ordered in that
way and your Protestant Bible doesn't mean that it's the
last of the prophets. So you're reading into all this
stuff a bunch of the Protestant assumptions.
Speaker 11: I can see that, and again I concede it like
some people believe it's zacharias Jesus mentions him being you
know from I can't remember the first prophet he said.
Speaker 3: How do you know that these principles are the case?
You just keep asserting that this is how it works,
And on what basis? Where does this how do we
know that this is the case? Well, I mean, where
does Peter. Peter doesn't say he's laying out a cannon principle.
He's just talking about inspiration. So where is that where
you're getting that?
Speaker 11: Well, we must agree on some point that not everybody
who author scripture correct.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, but that's an argument from silence. That doesn't
prove your positive case about there must be some living
profit president who confirms it that we know.
Speaker 11: So okay, I'm sorry, Maybe I should have asked your
assertions first. So do you what do you believe is
the basis of what should be considered scripture? Like is
there any authorship like criteria?
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, authorship plays a role. Like Matthew, the
disciple of Christ needs to be the Matthew that we
think he is. But we only know that from the
tradition of the Church, because Matthew doesn't tell us who
that is. So we need external witnesses as well as
internal witnesses. I don't deny there's internal you know, Peter
refers to Paul's text as scripture. I don't have a
problem with any of that. None of that proves any
of the Protestant arguments for solo scriptura or that they
can derive the canon through some sort of you know,
arbitrary you know, personal reason he left, so whatever. It's like,
I think Protestants missed the point when it comes to
when we ask them for the epistemic principle, they just
keep sort of asserting, well, it's this, Oh, but it's this,
you see, Well, because we all agree with this, it's
got to be this. None of that addresses when I
ask about epistemic criteria. So I wasn't trying to be
mean to that guy. I don't know if maybe he's
dropped off like his sel cut out, or he just left.
I don't know. Levka two dollars, Thank you so much,
Levka eight five dollars. If the apostles follow the subtuagent,
why is there such a problem or controversy the Old
Testament canon amongst the church fathers. Well, not all the
church fathers necessarily knew what all the apostles were doing,
precisely because the evidence that they would have looked at
to see what the apostles were doing was in question.
But again, the majority of the church fathers do include
due to econonical texts. So why wouldn't if you're a Protestant,
why wouldn't you just go with the majority of the
church father's position. But of course it presents a problem
for them, so they have to go to pick and
choose this or that church father, which really it's only
Jerome is the only one they have. So I don't
like people talking smack, like, why don't you just hop
on in the stream instead of arguing in the chat.
You guys are frightful, a bunch of frightful children. I've
had about enough. I think I don't think I could
take much more. You guys want to support the stream,
you can do so by going over to chalk dot
com c choq dot com. Use the promo code J
forty to get forty percent off all of those products.
You can test them out with the J forty promo
or you can do J forty four live that's J
y four four L A F E to get forty
four percent off those great products over at chalk dot com.
If you use that promo code, it is a recurring subscription. Okay,
I'll go to I'm only going to you if you disagree.
I'm not doing you know, anything but disagreements, so you
can unsubscribe at any time if you want to use
chalk dot com. I don't see anybody else. I thank
you guys a lot of fun tonight. If you would
feel free to clip this, feel free to so I
see people in the chat or like people not understand,
like just asserting that this is the principle. Competer's epistle
doesn't say that this is the principle of canonicity, right,
that's an interpretation. Maybe his interpretation is correct, but even
his interpretation, like all he was arguing is that this
shows me that Maccabees isn't canonical. But there's nobody in
the world who believes that