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