Speaker 1: I want to see you ask the floor, make it clap, clap,
bankers on the floor. Banker people bank together, such a
medal class.
Speaker 2: And I'm singing to the people on here. I'm not
singing to you. I want you guys to hear the
beautiful music. I want the people on Twitter space to
hear me singing. I don't need you in the chat
telling me to unmute. I'm fully cognizant and capable of
running this stream. Baby. Now we got some a little
bit of drama. I want to dress first. Shout out
to Snack and Lewis and the chat. Them old school
boys that been around for the long haul. We appreciate them.
And speaking of Lewis, Lewis reminded me some years back
of a great Oxford Union debate. And I'm bringing that
up because we still have a lot of uneducated people
who think that there's something inherently bad about debate. They
think it doesn't involve rhetoric jobs, they don't think that
it's even part of a classical pedagogy. So we live
in this weird time of highly uneducated people, and even
the edge of an influencer class still is under some
kind of delusion that debating is a bad thing. Part
of it has to do with feminization of the church.
Everybody being so soy, everybody is so reactionary. They don't
think through challenges and positions, especially via Twitter. Everyone just reacts.
But if you go and watch this debate about the
existence of God, you'll note that Hitchens does a great
job here of laying out a case presenting the remnants
of classical debate and pedagogy. Now, sometimes we do formal
debates and sometimes we do informal debates. When it's a
high profile person, I give them a formal debate. We've
done many of those. So the people that act like
I don't do formal debates are to scream over everybody
else is not true, and then we know that that's
not true. It's just a bunch of maloney, malarkey and
huey yesterday the debate two days ago. That was a
tongue in cheek debate. I thought a lot of you
would be hip enough to pick up on the fact
that she's a counterculture art galal, she was on Perfect
Guy Life, she's in TV shows. Of course, it's not
a serious debate with her and people, So what this
is the playo gift for you alone and people losing
their minds? Why would you have this girl wha she's
a hooker? Wh people losing their minds because of an
attractive girl is on the stream a bunch of dang
dorks that had never had a girlfriend or talk to
a girl. You were only nice to her because she's
a lot of chicky. Now wait a minute, so that
I'm nice to somebody in a tongue in cheek debate,
and I'm still bad. You're bad because you even did it.
So I can't win no matter what I do. I
can't wait if I'm nice to somebody in a fake
debate as a fake debate, man, it was supposed to
be funny and fun and by the way, almost one
hundred thousand people have watched it. Why did you even
do it? Because of one hundred thousand dorks that have
never seen this channel, Well watch it and they did.
That's why? Duh? Why does Andrew debate dumb dumb girls
on whatever? Cause hundreds of thousand of people watch it?
What do you think?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: How many new dorks came and watched stuff that have
never been over here? A lot she has a big audience,
So like what you don't even know how the internet
works anyway, Listen to Hitchins.
Speaker 1: In facts.
Speaker 4: I loathe taking part in it almost more than any
other argument.
Speaker 2: I'm not playing the whole.
Speaker 4: For why Because I have to come up here and
defend the religion of love, brotherhood, peace, justice and turning
the other cheek rather than kicking the other guy in
the crutch. And I have to listen. I have to
listen while I'm doing it to these gentlemen who remind
me constantly of the most irritating, infuriating, revolting person I
ever knew, namely my adolescent self.
Speaker 2: See, he's doing jobs, he's doing nags, he's making fun
of himself, he's making fun of everything, especially the opponents
whom he's saying at Oxford act like thirteen year old kids.
That's a jab, dummies, that's this is like the ultimate
informal debate, Oxford Union Debate, the classic medieval style. You're
not supposed to ever say anything, means the woman who
feelings Jesus is a feeye wee feey good.
Speaker 5: I feewy me few wey.
Speaker 2: No wonder people turn to Islam. You are the reason
people go to Islam. Yeah, Islam's dumb, but Muslims don't
go around good.
Speaker 5: You feel.
Speaker 2: Mohammed, I don't waken me.
Speaker 5: You feel feel good now.
Speaker 2: I wish I wish moment would give me a hooky work. No,
them crazy, It will just come attack you with a
dang great gang because they're crazy. Well, guess what the
solution that is not to be a complete goof, a
complete goober, a complete feels man. It's it's just it's
it's it's just crazy the way it is. You know
what I'm saying. It's just wild. I can't even explain it. Man,
I don't even know what to tell y'all, just all
the look. So all I did is ask Calvin Robinson
months ago, would you like to have He talked about
the Philioqua, and I said, would you like to have
a discussion on this? This is months ago?
Speaker 6: How dare you?
Speaker 2: And no, you're and your polemics and you're baiting and
your blah blah, this litany, this giant wall of Textboh,
I'm a bad person for just simply saying would you
like to do a formal debate? And he'll debate all
day about debating so I let it go. Didn't say
anything else. Today he's interacting, debating with other Orthodox priests now.
So in the DMS, I said, we, hey, would you
like to circle back, circle back and have a discussion
on philioquay. I don't want to participate in your baiting
and you're so bad and you're this and that. I'll
show you the DMS if you don't believe it. But
that's what happened. I mean, do you think I would
be able to do what I do if I didn't
have basic skills and capabilities of civility for professionalism in
messaging people and ask them to do a debate. How
would we even have the audience that we have if
I cannot function that way? Oh you're still bad though,
you're still mean?
Speaker 5: How for what?
Speaker 2: I just simply asked a guy, would you like to
have a discussion on this? And I get a wall
of text about how I'm a piece of crap. Now
I'm used to this. I don't really care. It's just
so tiresome. It's so stupid because everyone knows this is
at his hallowed halls of Anglican University, dumb that this
is just how a debate goes and by the way,
you are expected in academia to be able to defend
your positions. Did you know that if you have to
defend your thesis, you go before a board of professors
who quiz you, and you argue your thesis. Now, I
know a lot of you don't know that. You didn't
go to grad school, but you do this. It's normal.
It's part of educated academia, even if the rest of
the soy populace doesn't know that or things this is mean.
I watched the dumbest debate I've ever seen in my
life last night, and I'm mad at myself because I
watched the whole thing. I watched two of the stupidest
people I've ever seen. Worse than t don't worse than
anybody else you've ever seen a debate. I didn't block
you for nothing, man. People that talk smack and won't debate,
they get blocked people like we are you flustered? You
block people? Yeah? When a person won't come and have
a discussion and defend a position, I blocked them absolutely
because I don't care. I'm not You're You're canceled out
of my respect for you, because it means that you
can't defend the position. Educated people are supposed to be
able to engage in critical thinking, analysis, logic, rhetoric. They're
able to handle pushback, they're able to handle discussion. Yes,
the debate it was absolutely worse. I'm not kidding the
what's her name? Not so erudite and that boomer veteran
debating Jake Riddle, Snake and Jim Bob on feminism was
the worst debate I've ever heard in my life. I've
never heard anyone be so dumb, and I've never heard
the stupidest arguments beyond that in my life. I mean,
it was just it was next level, the dumbest debate ever.
So this is what people think is debating. They think
it's arguing, they think it's yappin', they think it's just
I don't know, Flair, who knows. But I don't feel
bad for just simply asking people to come have a discussion.
And a lot of people treat they think this is
an insult. They think, oh, I'm beyond that, how dare you?
And I don't know anything about Calvin Robinson other than that, okay,
one time he was out a thing and there was
Father Josiah there, and then he's at this other thing
and Pearson's there. Okay, well that's great, but I mean,
it's why is it even a big deal? All you
gotta do is say no, I'm not interested. Okay, fair enough.
You don't need a litany of insult to the person
who's just simply asking you to have a formal debate.
It's weird, it's it's a weird, sanctimonious I'm so much
better than you that how dare you? How dare you right?
Like Bill Clinton level stuff? Again, no one at this
level is hurt or scared or crying and freaking out
about oh my feelings? Oh my god? How dare you
speak to me? I have four hundred thousand followers? How
dare you even message me? Honestly?
Speaker 7: Honestly?
Speaker 2: I mean, haven't we all had it all?
Speaker 4: The four horus mithress. They are all the same. No, no,
not all the same. They all disagree with you. They
must be wrong. They can't all be right. This is
the staff of sixth form debate. That has been nothing
serious said against you.
Speaker 2: See that more jobs, my opponents are sixth graders whatever
sixth form is. I'm assuming in weird hogwarts Land, that
that's sixth grade. I don't know, but England is basically
hogwarts if you don't know, so I'm assuming sixth form
is some low level grade of education, right under a
motorized Rollingham class or whatever. Again, the old debate is
just his opening statement, and it's not all rhetoric, but
there's some rhetoric, okay, And we've got people out here
that literally think that any rhetoric is anti Christian.
Speaker 8: How dare you say such a thing?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, now I'm not gonna apologize for just simply
asking people if they like to have a formal debate.
And I don't feel bad about that, and I shouldn't
feel bad. This is stupid, man. It's people are just
freaking cry bully babies. You remember last time we had
this event, he tried to mog me and he lost.
My comments had like ten times more than his. This
is He's like, well, I mogged you, and then I
had like ten times more than him. So it's like
he even got mogged in his petty attempting at mogging me,
which was funny. But I don't like you'll notice in
the case of Dasha, Dasha had some decent questions She
wasn't the best debater, but she was less afraid than
any of these gigantic pop apologists vaginas, and that's what
they are, the world of the pap apologists are literally
the biggest vaginas out there. And I don't care. I
don't care if they think that. I'm mean, do you
think has anything made me change my mo?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: But I mean the dms usually are almost always pretty civil.
He let loose a walle text, baham a bad person.
It's all a ruse, that's your stick. It's a game.
And oh it's all bait. And I mean, is it bait?
When I was out there debating the top Muslims with
Sam Schimun getting three to five million views, that's all
just a bait. It's just I don't know. We'll open
it up because that's all I have to say on
that matter. You can go watch the rest of Christopher
Hitchens just giving me a kind of basic procedures and
examples of what normal debate is. Now, if all you
do is an insult, then that's not a real debate, right,
you can't be all rhetoric. But the thing is about debate.
The assumption is that the audience is intelligent enough to
figure out if you're all hot air and rhetoric and
no substance. Maybe it's not that way anymore. Maybe everybody's
too stupid now. I don't know, but our buddy here, Amateure,
wanted to come discuss. What's up? Man gotta I'm mute, dog?
Speaker 5: Oh can you hear me?
Speaker 2: What's hey?
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me on. Yeah. First, just want to
say I.
Speaker 9: Can't believe how hard Dush destroyed you last night with
the Slavic mind argument.
Speaker 2: You know, it was uh, it was fun. But the
weirdest part was everyone's reaction.
Speaker 5: To it, Like, yeah, they were all tweaking.
Speaker 9: I mean, they must have missed the part where she
was like smoking indoors and also beautiful, so therefore she wins.
But uh, yeah, I agree with you about the importance
to debate and everything Like debate brought me out of
the Jehovah's Witnesses to atheism finally to Christianity, and I
think that now that's bringing a lot of people to
Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Speaker 5: It seems like everybody's freaking out, and.
Speaker 9: I think it's really telling about the spiritual relativism about
our times. But my main question or debate wanted to
be about the Orthodox history of England, okay, and I
mean my first assertion about it would be, I think
the burden of proof flies with you to.
Speaker 5: Prove that England was Orthodox at some point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not an English historian, but I think if
you look to you know the way that the Church
is described in you know, Venerable bead Or. You know
when even when Augustine comes to England, not Augustine and
Pitpo the other Augustine the Canterbury, you don't find the
Vatican one attitude and mindset. And just like with the
Church in France, you know, the tradition there is to
not have the philioque to recite the Creed the traditional
way that the Orthodox Church does. And so no, I
would actually argue that the default position prior to you know,
ten sixty six would be that it's the Orthodox.
Speaker 9: So the Orthodox Church broke with the Catholic Church in
ten sixty six, Great Skins every.
Speaker 2: Ten fifty four, ten sixty six is the Norman invasion,
that's right, that's.
Speaker 5: Right, my bad, So no communion between the two.
Speaker 9: However, the Church of England only broke away and broke
communion with the Roman Church in the fifteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: You miss, You miss what I argued though. My argument
was that the faith of England prior to ten fifty four,
prior to ten sixty six is the identical synodal faith
that does not confess Philly oakuay and does not confess
papal teachings until later down the road when that's enforced
upon England. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 9: Okay, So your argument is that the Norman invasion is
the primary force.
Speaker 2: That's one period, right, Well, that's one period when you
when you have phases moving in that direction. I don't
believe that this like night and day. It's not like
there was one day where everybody in England suddenly woke up,
Oh we're all in excuse them now, because if you
look at the way the promulgation of things like lions
and Florence happened, is that it takes time for those
things to you know, promulgate throughout a lot of lands,
whether it's you know, uniate Ish areas, Romania, Transylvania, a
lot of those places were kind of ambiguous for many centuries,
even like in the time of a Lad the Impaler.
It's kind of unclear whether Vlad was Orthodox or Uniate.
So there's no it's not a black and white thing.
It's rather that it takes time for it to kind
of be received everywhere. So I couldn't tell you an
exact date as to when the entire you know, Church
of England went from Orthodox England to Papal England, but
it would it would be during these centuries of tenth, eleventh, twelve.
I do recall that the invested your controversy, especially with
you know, Thomas Beckett. You know, that played a big
role in the papacy taking over churches in places like
France and England because a lot of the bishops were
still being installed and appointed by the kings, and so
there was this it's called the investiture controversy, right, So
that's the period I would say when the papacy makes
its move to solidify control. And another way to see
this is that are you aware that it's pretty universally
known that before the Gregorian Reforms and up into the
twelve thirteen hundreds, the Bishop of Rome doesn't confirm every
bishop in the world. It's a local affair. That's something
that changes after the Gregorian reforms. So that also shows
you that the structure of the ecclesiology of the church
was not papal.
Speaker 9: Okay, I mean, I think my respect on to that
in my kind of argument hinges on the fact that
they were in communion with Rome before and after.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but so was the Orthodox Church. That how does
that prove anything?
Speaker 9: Well, it proves something because even after the schism, they
still are theologically consistent with Rome.
Speaker 2: More so than that just means that they accepted the
Roman position.
Speaker 5: Right, So it does it?
Speaker 2: How does that prove that they always believed the Roman
position when I just gave you an example from ecclesiology
where they didn't.
Speaker 5: So even before.
Speaker 10: What is it?
Speaker 9: So when Augustine came, there was an insular form of
Christianity there and it was different in liturgical practice to.
Speaker 5: Both the Roman right and the Orthodox right.
Speaker 2: So I don't really understand you're misunderstanding. There's the Orthodox
Church is not an Orthodox right. It is a confession
about the faith, the Niceno constabulating Creed, a communion based
around canons and the sacraments, and it's a decentralized, snodal church.
So that is the Orthodox Church. And so the mere fact,
for example, that there is no Vatican One papism in
the first thousand years also proves my point.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's fair enough.
Speaker 2: I mean, do you understand the argument that I'm making.
Speaker 5: Yeah, getting, I'm getting it now. I'm seeing where you're
coming from.
Speaker 9: Uh yeah, that's I mean, that's why my Twitter handles
amateur meditations. You know, I'm not very like learned on
this type of stuff or anything, but I thought.
Speaker 5: I'd give it a shot.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a similar situation in France, like the Church
prior to That's why you have these debates, and that's
why there's things like Gallicanism is like there's this holdover
of the older sinodal tradition that Papism had to conquer
all the way up until the modern era, where you
still have French Catholics who still have a degree of
resistance to the papacy. Snag that you want to speak
to that.
Speaker 11: Yeah, So it's important to distinguish being community with Rome
and even revering Rome because it's an ancient sea in
Roman Catholicism even after the schism. So I'm not quite sure,
but the ten sixty six state, because it's based on
the idea that the paperc said that William the Conqueror
could conquer. But if you look before that, you you
will be able to say, look the English and arts
during the eptarchies that were really influenced by Charlemaine. But
does it mean Roman Catholicism. No, Charlemagne like was fine
with of course, like you believed in the Philoque, but
it was fine with rejecting councils that room accepted. And
if you go even further, you have, of course, what
you call the insular form of Christianity. In England, it
disappeared a bit over time, but if you look at Ireland,
for example, it's it's we're a lot of sources from Ireland,
because monks from Ireland were called to re evangelize parts
of western Europe, western eastern France and northern northern France.
And you have people like Saint Columbanus who have no
problem thing that Rome Matthew sixteen eighteen the Seed of Peter,
but also in the same letters as that in the
same letter were caused the Seal of Peter unblemish. He
said that previous popes were heretics and and could be replaced,
and synod can be called against them, and even the
subordinates could judge them if they are heretics.
Speaker 5: So you're already really far from Trent Vatican One and that.
Speaker 9: Okay, Okay, I kind of see the argument everything, and
I do agree that popes can't be heretics and everything,
and I see where you're all coming from.
Speaker 2: Something that I think before let me ask you question
of that, because do you think that Vatican one argues
or posits that a valid pope can be a heretic.
Speaker 9: Hey, I'll be completely honest, I've never read Vatican One
in its entirety.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, it says that Rome is promised to be
the center, the source, and the preserver of unity until
the end of the world. So how you could have
a defectible pope who is at the same time indefectible
is to me just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, even in the even Peter in the Bible
was corrected by Paul and everything. But I mean, you
know that's.
Speaker 2: Different than in Roman Catholic canon law. You said a heretic.
Now Peter fell into error and was corrected, but a
heretic in Roman Calviolic canon law is a canonical penalty,
and that penalty has certain automatic things that occur taste cententia,
which is if so facto excommunication, that means without pronouncement.
And so if the pope were a heretic, which is
what you had said, then he would no longer be
a member of the church, and thus he could not
be a head of that which he is not a member.
Speaker 9: So my response to that would be, during the times
of Israel and the kings of Israel, there were several
kings that were obviously incredibly wicked and deposed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a common Protestant style Roman Catholic style analogy,
and this misses the point of Pentecost. The Church is
not one hu of percent identical to the structure of Israel.
The kings in Israel do not have the Keroism of Peter,
so you can it's a false analogy to compare that
to the papacy and a lineage of popes who are
bi Vatican one said to be indefectible and the supreme
teaching authority for all Christians.
Speaker 13: In the world.
Speaker 2: That's a total false equivalent see post Pentecost.
Speaker 9: So would the office of the Bishop of Rome become
completely invalid through if one pope or another pope became
a hairtaker.
Speaker 5: Spoke heir.
Speaker 2: I just think that the Roman Catholic position is inconsistent
because it claims on the one hand that the Roman
Church is indefectible, and then it also admits that there
have been heterodox popes like Honoius. So that's that's the contradiction.
It's two competing claims which don't make sense. About the
office of the papacy. It doesn't matter whether you say that, well,
the office is still infallible, but the people who hold
the office are the ones that are heretics. Now, it's
a living magisterium in its own definition, so you can't
separate the office. It's distinct, but you can't separate the
office from the person holding the office. That's why the
pope judges the tradition, not you, judging the pope on
the base of tradition. So a lot of trad cats,
a lot of Roman Catholues, get this backwards. They think
they can judge the pope's fidelity to tradition. No, No,
the pope is the supreme judge of tradition, not you.
Speaker 5: So isn't it correct if I'm wrong?
Speaker 9: But isn't it that it's ex cath when the pope
speaks that he's infallible, and like only when a council
is actually called and he presides on.
Speaker 2: It's not true. It's just a myth that Roman Catholics
constantly say. I'm not trying to be rude to you.
Ex cathedral is just one of the means or forms
of pronouncing infallible dogma. But that is not all that
a Roman Catholic is bound to. In fact, you are
bound to all of the ordinary teaching, even the teaching
that's fallible because of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff.
So it's the ordinary magisterium. Yeah. Right, So, and I'm
going to pull up because I'm not singling you are
being rude to you. But many Roman Catholics continue to
push this. And I'm going to show you five places
in Denzinger that condemned the position that you're only bound
by ex cathedra statements. You ready canon said. I've got
seven fifty two, so that's the last one. So Denzinger
eighteen thirty, Denzinger sixteen eighty three, Denzinger seventeen twenty two,
Dinzinger seventeen ninety two and Canon seven fifty two of
the modern Canon law. So those all tell you that no,
it is actually a condemned position to say I am
only bound by ex cathedra. That literally is condemned.
Speaker 5: Okay, interesting, I didn't know that.
Speaker 9: Would you say that there could be a time in
the future that the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox
Church could come into a harmony.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Bishop of Rome rejected all of the thirty
plus erroneous things that they believe.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, Hey, well, I appreciate you having me on.
Speaker 14: Great question, all my friends.
Speaker 5: I was gonna get dunked on, but I was going
to give it a shot, you know.
Speaker 2: So appreciate I appreciate you being civil. And it was
a great conversation. And uh, it's actually refreshing to have
that kind of a conversation as opposed to you know,
a lot of what we get THEO what's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 2: So again, I want people to understand that this is
a never ending, never dying trad myth that they think
that they're only bound to quote a handful of ex
cathedral statements. Again, here is the list, and by the way,
I've sent this to Shimoun and everybody because he says
the same stuff, because he hears all bractor whoever repeat
this stuff. And you know, it's funny because I don't
think I've encountered a single rooman Catholic apologies. There may
be one, but I'm not encountered one that actually knows
Danzinger inside or out. And I'm not trying to be arrogant,
but I do. So they never go to their quote
sources of Catholic dogma. Isn't that interesting? I got a
bunch of a pop apologist out here talking about a
bunch of nonsense and this and that quote and this
and that theological Why wouldn't they be familiar with Danzinger?
Do the didn't even know what it is? I mean,
it's weird.
Speaker 11: It's also it runs contradictorily to the historical case of
trying to make because they will go into history say
we'll look at every single letter sent or received by
your pope and said, looky, he says this is a
fort An order, and everybody obeyed, and you know, even
when it's not real. Yeah, but that's the case that
make historically, that's from for easam All Libara tried to make.
Speaker 5: This case or they tried to make it with just
some friendly less.
Speaker 11: As if it's a direct rule that everybody followed, and
then when they have faced with it in reality, in
the real life, no I don't follow it.
Speaker 2: What's up to you? Deal Hoxtable? What's up there on you?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 10: Hello, love, guys.
Speaker 8: Log I think I've been callowing you for many years.
Speaker 15: I'm a huge.
Speaker 8: Admirer of yours and all of you guys and your work.
I have learned so many things by your side, truly.
Speaker 2: So my question was that I.
Speaker 15: Read recently a book by jan Aras. I'm from Greece,
and he was talking inside this book about Orthodoxy.
Speaker 8: And it is between.
Speaker 15: Orthodoxy and the West, and he was describing like history,
mostly in some ecclesiology, and he was describing a situation
where the Greek Church like started to become more Protestant,
but in their fronima, not in their official doctrine.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I have all the systematic theologies of Greek theologians
from the eighteen hundreds and it reads like Thomas Aquinas
or it reads like a Protestant systematic theology. Yeah. So yeah,
the West and they had a similar situation in Russia
in the seventeen hundreds. The West was very influential in
these countries at different times. But by the way, I
would not recommend Nars. He's got some pretty wild out
there liberal positions.
Speaker 15: Actually what troubled me is this, well he this book
like Orthodoxy, and this book is called Orthodoxy and the
West in Modern Degrees.
Speaker 8: It has like some okay, it describes this.
Speaker 1: This party.
Speaker 16: Event, I mean, the protestantization of the influence by.
Speaker 17: The worst pretty well.
Speaker 8: But he falls victim to.
Speaker 16: Another another issue, and that's that's nationalism.
Speaker 5: Like he gives very much.
Speaker 16: He totally ignores nationalist.
Speaker 5: And he focuses on these specifics.
Speaker 16: So I'm also wondering if nationalism is also as an ideology,
like like it goes, we can't with this.
Speaker 2: With this event with Protestantism, I mean it could. I
mean modern nationalism is out of the you know, French
Revolution Enlightenment ideology, so it definitely could become an idol.
But there's also a way to have, you know, a
Christian nation without it being an idol. Lewis, I don't
understand why you're like, what did I say that's even controversial?
I mean I think that the model traditionally is you know,
ethnos and people groups and them having kind of their
own autocephalos you could say, governance, and then you can
have the Orthodox imperium, which integrates and tries to be
a balance of the one in the many. But I
don't think that orthodox or that nationalism is inherently Protestant,
nor is it inherently an idol. It just can be
go ahead Lewis.
Speaker 18: Yeah, sorry, I wasn't plumbing you down.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, I thought you were like calling me out.
I was like, here we go.
Speaker 17: No, I was just disagreeing with the idea that nationalism
was as in like I like Protestantism's because like the idea, okay,
find like nationalism was what caused Protestantism.
Speaker 5: But I think the kind of nationalism that has some involvement.
Speaker 17: With Protestantism, like for example, with the Church of England,
I think that's like pre Enlightenment. So I'm not disagreeing
with nationalism. Post enlignment is a problem, but I think
like pre Enlightenment nationalism, which is just a love for
your own people and your own in group and not
wanting foreign powers, which was what the papacy was influencing
your like being this fifth column in your nation. I
think that's I think that's good and natural. So I
don't blame Kenry the eighth for being like I think
it was. I think it was, you know, wrong for
some reasons. But I also think the papacy was stupid
to not just play real politic with his situation and like,
you know, have all this influence, and obviously he was
gonna be like, well.
Speaker 5: I don't want this.
Speaker 11: Means that we're playing real politic against him.
Speaker 14: Yeah, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: I think Snack has commented on I mean Francis even recently,
like like Francis saying everybody in your Europe and American
needs have open borders. I mean that's a subversive foreign entity.
Speaker 17: Like well, a lot of a lot of NGOs, A
lot of NGOs that fund and support mass migration are.
Speaker 2: So called Christian, yeah, and Roman Catholic, especially Catholic charities, yeah,
and other Middle Eastern nations, as I'm sure we all know.
But you can support the stream via super chests there.
Thank you to Lewis and Snag there for those good comments. Now,
I think we have a real Catholic who wants to
discuss what's up man you got an immune. Hello, Hey,
hey Dan, what's up?
Speaker 8: I am a few days ago.
Speaker 19: I think I might have Misshargie, but I got the
impression that you were saying that the logical position for
a Roman Catholic would be to be set of accountais.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I think that both set of a
constiest and uh, you know normal Novasorto Catholics are both
right and both wrong. So if you wanted to be
if you're talking about the Dasha debate, I was saying
that if she was consistent with her critiques of Francis,
then she would have to be set of a conciss.
Speaker 8: Sure, but I think that that also touched a bit
on your joint base.
Speaker 3: Jo.
Speaker 8: Anyway, Jay, I thank you impression that you.
Speaker 19: Got into Roman Catholic of him and you started to
question like the paper feat Thatcher.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I had a period where I was tradcat Latin
Mass doubted Vatican two absolutely.
Speaker 19: With you consider arguing in favor of athetical countering against
like a Artican chie complaining Catholicism. I mean, I know
used for Orthodoxy, but I say orstdoxy wasn't an option,
and you were talking to women Catholic, would you say
that there should be a set of cannabis.
Speaker 7: Well not now.
Speaker 2: I mean I would have said that maybe in two
thousand and six, But why would I Why do you
want to argue with me from two thousand and six?
Why not me right now?
Speaker 8: I guess it was a really curious position.
Speaker 19: And I guess it kind of gets into the interpretation
of bacon cheese text because I actually used to.
Speaker 8: Be a set of cantabas at one point. Oh so, yeah,
So when I heard like bacon che.
Speaker 19: Texts being described like a break in the face for example,
that immediately alerted me, and I was very curious on
the details a bit like, you know, it's a particular document,
good points, and say this section here with break with
traditional college ete.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I'll give you one example beyond no stra
taught there or something like that. I mean, the statements
on religious liberty, freedom of conscious, freedom of worship, I
would argue, are completely contrary to the medieval teaching of
the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop, which in when
I'm sanctum is made necessary for salvation.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm not not too familiar with that particular document.
Speaker 19: For me, said come Demangentia which made some similar arguments
about religious liberty.
Speaker 2: Well, well, hold on. So it's crucial to this argument
that you understand what that is. So in thirteen eighty two,
thirteen oh two, excuse me, Pope Boniface the eight pronounced
a famous document. It's not very long as when I'm sanctum,
and it's about, on the one hand, the spiritual authority
of the papers, but it's also about the universal temporal
supremacy of the papacy, in that he is also the
king of kings and head of all world rulers. And
it mandates that not only must you believe in the
spiritual supremacy of the Roman Bishop, you must also believe
in his temporal power and authority to be saved. That's
the last paragraph of the document. And if you recall,
I'm sure you know as a tradcat that the pope
used to wear a triple crown, right, and that signified
that authority. The post Vatican two popes no longer wear
that triple crown. Vatican two, under the influence of Jacques
Martain and others who were Americanists and essentially pluralists, promoted
and passed the idea via via dignitatis humane and the
other statements about religious liberty that now promote pluralism and
essentially a egalitarian, open society approach to religion and not
the preference of a Christian state. In fact, Benedicta sixteenth
even said that in some of the countries in Europe
they need to be de Christianized. So to me, that's
just absolutely completely the kill shot opposite position.
Speaker 8: I mean, I have read in Basancy documents.
Speaker 19: I'm not trying to share refection, but there is an
argument that the state should permit religious liberty participants.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to be rude, but did you hear
anything that I argue?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Could you repeat what I argued?
Speaker 19: Did you saying that in Geno Fountain there is the
idea that the papacy, kim king, et.
Speaker 8: Cetera, and.
Speaker 5: The state is required to.
Speaker 8: I made a Catholic.
Speaker 19: Religion which had been abandoned in paid by Spanie.
Speaker 2: I mean, basically, but it's stronger than that, because the
unham sanctum dogma is that to be saved you must
also confess the temporal power and supremacy of the Roman bishop.
And with the pronunciations and promulgations of that I can
choose religious liberty doctrines. That is no longer believed, nor
is it required. Nor have I heard of any Roman
Catholic church in the world that tells me that I
have to believe in the temporal supremacy to be saved anymore.
Speaker 19: Okay, I mean that, I mean that that kind of
gets somewhere, like, I don't think by scontigue arguing.
Speaker 5: He can be saved if church.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, See, it's not a question of inside
outside the church salvation. It's a question of the dogma
of the temporal supremacy and power of the Roman Bishop
was necessary as a belief for salvation in thirteen oh two,
it's no longer necessary. Therefore, Roman Catholic dogma changes and contradicts.
Speaker 19: I'd say it is necessary any gay.
Speaker 2: So you're telling me that post Vatican Two, the Roman
Catholic Church still confesses that the Pope is a world
emperor and world leader and the head of all states.
Speaker 8: That post be in that language.
Speaker 2: They don't believe that contradiction is opposite. No, of course,
it is to say that the states need to be decatholicized,
and that the Church now promotes religious pluralism in modern
society is the opposite of saying that you have to
believe in the temporal supremacy to be saved.
Speaker 10: I don't.
Speaker 8: I don't think fake. I mean, if you think the
states the purpose of state is chief force.
Speaker 2: Everyone to be safe, again, that's nothing to do. Did
I say anything about the state force of people to
be saved? So now you're going off into red herrings
and straw man.
Speaker 19: But I'm just trying to make the connection because you're
just saying that the bath can chieve permitted religious liberty.
Speaker 2: And that's not compatible with the temporal supremacy, that the
pope is the head of all world rulers. I think
it is okay, Well, yeah, you can think that. And
tell me where in the Roman Catholic world today you
find any Roman Catholics in communion with the with Rome
that teach the temporal supremacy.
Speaker 8: A sure, sure, I mean, I get back to that.
Speaker 19: I mean, but what I wanted to highlight them, if
I may diverge a bit, was for me said counting
them with Bilsom, reading bascant texts and seeing miss contradiction
with the tradition of face, which kind of quite a
way coming from Jay, But what I read was commentaries
on bascan.
Speaker 2: Cheat or commentaries fallible or infallible.
Speaker 10: They're fallible, but they teach you the interpretation of the text.
Speaker 2: So in other words, the way that romancallic dogma works
is that the final arbiter, which is the infallible dogmas,
now need interpretive contexts that are fallible. So what use
was the infallible dogmas if I need the fallible now
to make sense of it?
Speaker 19: Well, it was infallible in the sense that the person
who promagulated it meant meant it, and the debate is
really about you know what.
Speaker 8: Was meant by the question?
Speaker 2: So infallible dogmas don't to resolve the issue.
Speaker 8: Like that understand now?
Speaker 2: Oh so, what use then, is the purpose of the
infallible dogmas? When I thought their purpose was to solve.
Speaker 19: The issue, Well, then they do so the issue you
understand it correctly, which is the purpose of the commentaries
to help you understand.
Speaker 2: What they do solve the issue with the foul. So again,
they don't solve the issue if they require fallible commentators
to explain it.
Speaker 8: Yeah, they say they sold the issue, but if you
understand it correctly.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's what's in question. So you're just repeating your
position over again. Okay, I mean, look, I'm try'n to
be rude, but let's let's pause it there because I
don't want to have this go in a bad direction
and have a you know, you know I wanted to
Let's let's just stop it there because we want to
be cool. Alaska. What's up man? Now, you're welcome to
come back, go read some books and come back, but
we're going to try to have it as cordial and
friendly as possible. What's up, man, I'm Alaska.
Speaker 5: Principle.
Speaker 2: Are you there? Can you hear me? What's up? Man?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me? Oh?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I just had like a small question because I'm not sure.
I am a very new Orthodox.
Speaker 20: Cate of Cuman, and I had a question about the
Coptic Church because if I understand it correctly, they were
like the first schism with the Church because of the
natures of Christ, right.
Speaker 2: I mean there were prior to that. I mean thenovationists,
the donutists are prior to that. But go ahead.
Speaker 20: Yeah, I just wanted to ask about it because I
was wishing this video with this like Coptic monk, and he.
Speaker 2: Was like really cool.
Speaker 20: I thought he was like really you know, saying some
really good stuff, you know, And so I wanted to
ask your opinion about like is it heretical to church
or what's that?
Speaker 2: Yes, unfortunately they're heterodox. And you can go to my
channel where we have two of our ongoing series up
with me Kai and David rhun As. We're walking through
Eastern or semi Oriental claims. We will be back to
that in the next few weeks, I think now that
Kai is back from his honeymoon. Now, guys, we're looking
for people who disagree. So I appreciate the Orthodox catechumen questions,
and I'm not trying to be rude to you, but
it's very clearly today listed as debate between Protestant, Catholic
and Orthodox. So if you've got basic level catechumen questions,
please take those to your catechist and take that to
your priest, because you're really just taking the way from
what I want to direct today's discussion too, which is
the issues of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. So I know
you have diet questions, I know you have fasting questions.
I know you have can law questions. I know you
have questions about you know whatever, Please not today. I'm
just not doing that today. And it's really annoying when
everyone calls in with the same FAQ questions. When we
do this, Greg, what's that man? Before Greg comes on,
I want to note that, you know, there's this kind
of goofy news story going around that all the CIA
do classify that they might have found the arc of
the Covenant and that was done with remote viewing. All
this stuff is stupid, Okay, just because something's declassified doesn't
mean that it's really what the CIA was up to. Okay,
they'll declassify anything that was classified for various reasons, even
if it's just random journal, random speculative magazines, you're right,
like the one that mentions, you know, suppressed history or whatever.
It doesn't mean that it's true, especially if it's got stupid,
you know, remote viewing type stuff in it. So people
are talking about although they think they found the Covenant. Now, okay,
maybe this is possible. I don't know, but I know
that in Jeremiah it's very clearly prophesied in the Messianic era,
and this is when the Gentiles convert this is whence.
So that's how we know it's the Messianic era. It
talks about the gentiles being gathered to Israel. That's the Church. Okay,
that's not John Hagen's End Times thing in Palestine.
Speaker 8: This is the Church.
Speaker 2: And it says it will come to pass that when
you're a multiplied and increase in the land, they will
no longer say the arc of the Covenant. It will
not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor
will they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore.
At that time, Jerusalem would be called the throat of
the Lord, and the gentiles will be gathered to it.
That's the Church, not flesh Israel. This is a prophecy
of the Messianic era. How do we know because the
gentiles are being brought in verse seventeen. One of the
signs that we are in the Messianic Church Kingdom era
is that we will not have or know about the
Ark of the Covenant, because the real arc of the
Covenant is here, which is the Theo Tokos in Jesus's
body himself and the Church and all of your bodies
are living arcs. So is it possible they could find
some ancient relic of the art guests possible, I guess,
but we are not going to like.
Speaker 7: Go back to.
Speaker 2: Ceremonial Jewish temple worship like the premillennialists and the dispensationless thing.
What's up, Greg? I really enjoy your show, man.
Speaker 8: I wanted to see if I could ask you a question.
Speaker 2: Okay, if this is a good argument against ps.
Speaker 8: A and p s A.
Speaker 3: Is I understand that penal substitutionary atonement the Yeah, the
sin of Adam, the sin of man in general, incurs
an almost infinite wrath of the Father which Jesus has
to pay for.
Speaker 2: Correct typically, Yeah, that would be agreed with. Classical process
would agree with that, guess.
Speaker 3: So my question though, is wouldn't adam sin and even
my sin also be in the same affront to the
son as it is to the father?
Speaker 5: Yes, so who pays off the son?
Speaker 2: Well, this is a point actually that we do make
against penal substitutionary atonement in that it is a dieaddic
because you have this payment between two persons that neglects
the third person, and by extension, it would neglect the
second person as well. So yes, this is a variation
on and I'm not trying to be rude or still
your thunder. But it's a variation on the argument that
we made many times. So there's nothing in the Godhead
that occurs that's just between two people, or to precuent me,
two persons, right, So anything that happens has to be triadic.
So you can't have you know, the Father damning the son. Okay,
what about the Holy Spirit? Is he not involved in this? Well?
Like it makes no sense. So but I think you're
right to go that route too. It's another variation. But
also I think Protestants are just typically thinking of Jesus
as a quite a quasiti nestorian, just a man, right,
So I know they confess his divinity, but if you
think about it, ps A, it either requires a split
of the trinity or to a dual subject Christology, which
is an historian appreciate it. Yeah, that's a great question.
You're you're on the right track, dog Lord Jays. Do
you though have thoughts in the book Against All Heresies
by Saint Simon at Thessalonika? Stephen H Well, I know
that one of the mods got the book and said
it was really good, so I have it on my
I was on ta get list, but I don't have
it yet. Intel While five dollars, great work, Jay, thank you,
keep up the excellent work. Bradymore is five dollars. What's up?
Speaker 13: Jay?
Speaker 2: I got your minute there to his book. I can't
wait to read it. Appreciate that. And I've gotten the
more recent edition of Asster Hollywood three back from the publisher.
It's looking pretty sweet. I think it's going to be
pretty good, and that will be out actually hopefully sooner
than expected. You know, he had said originally anywhere from
July to September might even be out pretty soon. So
maybe even April May, that would be ideal. Evan, why
won't you debate Jakkub? But why would I debate my superiors?
It's my job to submit to superior as an inferior.
Anonymous ten dollars two years ago, your videos help me
take my first up to Orthodoxy. Next week, my family
and I will be joining the church. Thank you, Jay, Hey,
thank you Anonymous. Appreciate that many years to you. John
Isaac two dollars. Yeah, cuh debate with Jakub for real again?
And I'm not going to debate my creator Ka Kavier
one dollar. You are accused in heresy fallacy A good one, dude,
you got me. He misspelled it though, because I think
you meant to say a cursed Lawrence John fifty n okas?
Is that North Korean money?
Speaker 7: Knock?
Speaker 2: Fifty knock. The Celtic Church was in contact with the
Desert Fathers. Also, Vikings were Orthodox being guards in Eastern Rome.
Make the connections for Calvin R. Was that the guy
that was in it earlier? Brandon five dollars, Thank you
for pulling the stops on my journey to Rome. Some
of these things can no longer be unseen. Pope can
be infallible and ahertics simultaneously, exactly me and Eugene five dollars.
Thank you so much. G. Twenty six five dollars. Thank
you for continually destroying these Romancaley probable positions, Glory of
the Fathers and Holy Spirit. Appreciate that G. Twenty six
s S. Twenty one five dollars. Many Catholics are appealing
lately to the essence inergy distinction to get around church contradictions.
Are they allowed to hold this? I don't understand how
that would get around contradictions. That makes no sense. I mean,
first of all, it'll be admitting what was more or
less denied in the condemnations of the Palamite Synods, and
what's condemned, you know, at Florence. So to turn around
and say that, oh, now we believe in essence inergy sinction,
I mean the entire tone mistradition is going to reject
the essence center distinction. So I think that's just more
absurdity of the room mecallity. But how is that going
to help anybody say that dogma changes it? I mean
it sounds like they think the essence interitgsinction means that
God can change or it changes things or something. That's
not what it means. Elias, what's up? We came a member,
maximum became a member? What's up?
Speaker 7: Dude?
Speaker 5: Ma?
Speaker 2: Since ten bucks? Thanks dude?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: Lord Jays, you want to I mute? What's up? Are
you there?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 5: Sir? Hi?
Speaker 7: Hey?
Speaker 21: I was just watching your videos and going through the
ps A something more similar to what the previous people
were talking about, and I had a question.
Speaker 10: I've been studying this subject and looking for like like
answers and things like that. So when we say that.
Speaker 21: There has to be a necessary split and the trend
he if if Jesus was supposed to have the to
get upon himself the wrath of God, how is that
not how a Protestant is able to say the contrary
to that matter? I was watching your video where you
were explaining James White book on that matter as well.
How is it that they cannot see that? And is
it that obvious?
Speaker 2: Or Protestants don't have very good trinitarian theology, so they
in the Reformation they defaulted to the Latin Augustinian model
of the trinity. They don't have the monarchical trinitarian model
that we have, and they don't, by extension then have
the right toolkit for really distinct persons, and so person
kind of gets collapsed into essence or nature in the
Protestant view, just like it does in the traditional Latin
Roman Catholic position via Augustine and so an aquinas. So
if you don't have that right toolkit, that's why you
see the Tomuss. They don't think that the Theophanes are possible.
They don't think that the Angel Lord is the second person,
that Godhead, even though it's obvious in the New Testament
that he is because Jesus identifies himself as that, and
he's even worshiped and called you know, yahweh and so
forth throughout the Old Testament. They just can't fathom this
because they have a metaphysical system that prevents them from
believing that. And it's the same with Protestants, except it's
not so much a metaphysical system as it is the
baggage of what they think these terms and these systems
mean that prevent them from seeing that it makes no
sense from a trinitarian perspective to say that the father
damns the son. It's just stupid.
Speaker 21: Yeah, yeah, I was trying to who wrap my head
on that explanation. And then I went around and look
at Governor Ortland on video on that and he was
trying to reconcile recapitulation with.
Speaker 10: SPA so s A, I'm sorry, and he was saying
that it was possible, that it was possible to do so.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, So I mean that's you know, creativity on
his part. But like I think Protestants don't understand that
a lot of these doctrines they're not standalone doctrines, right,
like the the the monarchical trinitarianism is logically and theologically
connected to energetic manifestation and the Essen synergy distinction. It
doesn't make sense because you can find Protestant theologians he
will say, oh, actually I believe I think one of them,
Robert Moray. I think he says he believes in the
Essen Senter distinction. Yeah. I mean you can theoretically say
you believe that, but it's not a consistent position given
the fact that those doctrines don't stand alone, right, They
go along with other necessary doctrines, like a certain view
of sacramentology, the real presence, et cetera. So it's just
really an inconsistent position to pick and choose and say, oh,
I'm going to find a way to smash maximistic Confessor's
cosmic theology into John Calvin. Not gonna happen because in
John Calvin's theology, Christ does not assume universal human nature.
Speaker 21: Yeah, I see, appreciate your answers, thank you for everything, Okay,
appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, those are great questions. Appreciate you. Rolls takes
twenty dollars. Roman Caloks have a Schools of Theology frame
of thinking. Yes, absolutely, they think that the essence interstinction
in Polemism is a school of thought. Correct. They do
not understand it as essentially the sperience of all the saints,
and that's why you have essentially everything all over the
place with them. So you can have Roman Catholic spirituality
being Margaret merri el Coquid cutting yourself with a knife
and bleeding out, and that's a divine experience. And you
can be a crusader going into battle. That's a divine
because you could be a monk warrior, which suddenly exists
in the eleventh century and violation of the ancient canons. Well,
the Pope says, no, we can have monk warriors now.
So in the Roman Caloic system it can just be
anything you say. It's not just schools. It's also warrior monks,
just crazy shit, just made up, right, But you're correct
that regarding their perspective, they think it's a school. They
don't understand that when the sixth Ecumenical Council teaches the
essence introducecinction in Christology, it's not a school of thought
for them. Tumism is another school, and they can believe
in any of the ones that they want more or less.
I mean, it's difficult if you want to be a
Roman Catholic and contend with Attorney Patras, which Leo the
thirteenth says, Tomism is the official philosophy of Rome. And
that's why the more traditional you get, the more hardcore
Thomas they are, because they know they've read Attorney Patras
and they realize that it just is just a rough road.
When you're trying to sell Roman Catholics on quote Eastern theology,
they just it doesn't work. And so it's just a
bunch of nonsense. It's all a bunch of competing positions.
And that alone should tell you why would we have
infinite various ways of people experiencing God and being saved.
It would be the same experience of the uncreated light,
whether it's Moses or whether it's Basil, or whether it's Paul,
or whether it's recent saints in the Orthodox Church. That
alone should tell you that Orthodox he is the true
Church and not cutting yourself with knives and talking to
flying hosts and Jesus is your boyfriend and all this
crazy Fostina Kowalska stuff, That alone should tell you that
it's not right. What's up? Oh three? Og Dasha made
j soft. I think I'm just being the calm and cordial.
I don't know what this has to do with that.
What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 2: Are you there? Let's talk God? Can you break down
the Son of Jerusalem and decree three that it's not semipalagian?
So we don't have semi plagianism in the Orthodox Church.
The West thinks that if you're not believing in operative
grace or you know what Augustine talks about, they think
it's semi pallagian. The Orthodox Church is always taught a
synergy because it's a fundamental feature of human nature to
have human will and energy, and to lose that energy
or to have it supplanted would violate the teaching of
the Sixth Council on human Nature fundamentally having at all
times its own will and energy. So that means you
can't have a supplanting and a monogism in conversion, because
that would be to override our human nature and energy.
And you realized in that in Christology that would mean
that the Monothelites and the mono energists were correct. You
gonna umute, O three og? What's up, dude, O three og?
You have to unmute man. All right, we'll move on.
I don't know there we go.
Speaker 14: I mean, yo, hey, Jay.
Speaker 5: What's going on? How you doing? Pretty good?
Speaker 9: Pretty good?
Speaker 2: Quick question for you.
Speaker 5: I was watching the debate you had with Jake.
Speaker 22: The meta law foot worshiper or whatever, and I think
it was during your second rebuttal, I think he tried
to bring up Father Deacon and an ass paper, and
I'm more than sure he was straw manning the position,
but I wanted to know where I could get a
copy of the paper to read. But it essentially he
was trying to make an argument that all, like all positions.
Speaker 5: Are all world views, all all world views.
Speaker 22: Are fundamentally circular. And he tried to argue against tag
and say that it's that it doesn't necessarily make sense
for the orthodox position alone.
Speaker 2: I don't think Jake even understands what a transcendent argument is,
so I don't even recall what he was trying to
argue there. But you could get Father Deacon's paper by
just dming him or sending him a message. So let's see,
he's on Twitter as Norwegian news, so I would just
message him, you know, publicly. I don't know if he
has his DMS on or not, but you could do
message him to get a copy of that paper. Josiah,
what's up? By the way, here is a twenty minute
video about PSA from a while back. Guys. Any of
the Protestant you know, videos that we've had up for many,
many years, any of the Calvinist lectures that we've done,
you can go through those and it's gonna critique dsay.
So I'm not trying to be rude. It's just like
every time I do, somebody asked about PSA every time,
and I'm just getting to the point where like I
just don't even want to repeat the whole particular. I mean,
I'll do it, I guess. But what's up, Josiah, you
gotta unmute man, So y'all want to see this or here?
This is what y'all are after. On my Only Feet's page,
there was some zoomers who were like, I can't believe
he did that. That's porn. Like if you think feet
are sexual, you got to issue what's up?
Speaker 18: Okay, how's it going to, Jake?
Speaker 2: What's on your mind?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 23: Yeah, So I'm an atheist and watch a few of
your debates I was just wondering, could you give like
a brief recap of the transcendental argument for God?
Speaker 2: Yeah, any knowledge claim requires a certain set of categories
to be the case, to be the preconditions for the
possibility of knowledge, and those categories require some kind of
grounding and justification and some thing that makes them all
cohere together. And that being is specifically the Christian God? Sure,
and how do you know he exists? Though? By the
transcendent argument is one example. I mean, you're saying that
there has to.
Speaker 23: Be a justification for every belief, and for you, that
justification is God.
Speaker 5: But isn't that ob secular?
Speaker 2: Yeah? But I believe that every worldview at a base
level is self self recurring or recursive. I mean, not
the atheist worldview, though I would say it is. I mean,
you could try to argue for self evident principles, but
you're going to quickly fall into being self referencing.
Speaker 24: Okay, So.
Speaker 5: Give me or do you have like any examples.
Speaker 2: Or well, if you have an atheist worldview, I mean,
are you saying then that you're a classical foundationals who
believes in self evident principles?
Speaker 8: I don't know what that means to be honest.
Speaker 2: Well, if you don't believe that worldviews are at a
base level self recursive or whatever, or circular at a
paradigm level, then most likely you would believe that there
are foundational self evident maxims or axioms. Yeah, okay, So
two problems with that. One is the criterion problem, which
is that you can't have a knowledge claim without a
criteria of knowledge. But if you have a criteria of knowledge,
that's also a knowledge claim, So you'd have to solve
the criteria problem. And also, if you believe in self
evident principles, then you would have to have a standard
or a benchmark by which you judge the self evident
and the non self evident. But if you have a
benchmark that's the prior category to judge those, then they're
no longer self evident. So these are two variations of
the problems of self evidence.
Speaker 8: Okay, but I mean, you know, I could say that.
Speaker 21: Gravity exists.
Speaker 12: How is that.
Speaker 5: Like? How does that not?
Speaker 23: How is that not a true statement.
Speaker 2: Like self evidently? Well, again, I could just go to
the criteria problem. If you're gonna if you're gonna say
that something just is the case it's first of all,
it's ad hoc. Why is that assertion of the thing
that is self evident? How do we know that it's
self evident? Because you need a criteria of knowledge to
have knowledge claims. So if you're gonna start with that,
then what's the criteria of knowledge to let you that
lets you know that that's self evident.
Speaker 23: It's the criteria of knowledge to know that gravity exists.
Speaker 2: That the assertion is self evident. You understand there's a
difference between believing in gravity and the truth of the
proposition that gravity is self evident. Those are two different things.
Speaker 23: Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're saying.
Speaker 2: So when I say the tree is brown, yeah, okay,
that's an assertion, that's a knowledge claim that's different from
the proposition itself having truth value. Is it true that
the tree is brown? Are those higher order? It's two
different things. Do you understand that?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay? So to say that gravity is self evident at
the base level, that's an assertion about the external world
and phenomena going on in the external world. On another level,
there's an assumption that that's a universal truth claim that
is the case, And so I'm asking how do we
know that that is universally the case? Maybe it is,
but on what basis? What's the criteria of knowledge to
know that?
Speaker 23: So we know that that gravity is real because you know,
we can run experiments and show objectives.
Speaker 2: So you're missing the point. The question is about the
truth value the proposition itself, not whether gravity is going on.
Speaker 5: In the world.
Speaker 2: How do we know that that sentence meaningfully conveys a
universal truth claim? No, did you say something because we
couldn't hear you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I said, I know that.
Speaker 23: So the criteria for something being true is that it
accurately reflect reality in my opinion.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that's true, that's your criteria. Fine, but how
do we know that that is the right criterion?
Speaker 23: How do we know that something being true equals it
accurately reflect reality? Yes, because I mean, how else would
you tell that something is true?
Speaker 2: Well, just saying that I don't see it any other
way isn't a justification. In fact, that's a fallacy. That's
a fallacy of incredulity. Yeah, you're right, you're right.
Speaker 23: Well, I guess then you're kind of going into like
basically saying that words don't necessarily have a meaning and
different people have like different interpretations of words.
Speaker 2: Maybe, I mean, I mean, you can go into all
these different directions because I'm just doing variations on what's
called the criteria problem.
Speaker 23: Yeah, but again, you know, you're you're kind of going
into semantics, specially saying different things.
Speaker 2: Epistemology is not semantics. There are two different things. Anyway, Look,
go check out the difference between those things. Not trying
to be a jerk, just saying, like, just go take
a look at those distinctions and maybe that'll help with
you know, we're welcome to come back. We can continue
that discourse a victor, what's up? Victor? What's up?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up? Man?
Speaker 17: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah? What's on your mind?
Speaker 18: First of all, I'm a big.
Speaker 2: Fan of what you do.
Speaker 25: I mean, watching you a lot. I've had I had
two questions. I have a cow of his friend who
I'm kind of in the stalemate with.
Speaker 18: We like arguing with each other.
Speaker 2: Are you all playing life chess? But he's check mated
you in life?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 25: I just like we like debating, and we haven't been
able to get past this point, which is the subject
of predestination.
Speaker 2: Like, okay, I would say so I have two talks
on my clips channel that are about three hours each,
and I would say just go watch those and take notes.
Not trying to be rude, it's just I don't I
can't rehearse the same thing over and over and over. Cleo,
what's up? Guys? If you go to if you have
questions about Calvinism and PSA, remember all you gotta do
is go over here to my clips channel. It's called
Jade Are Livestreams and Absurdities, And if you scroll down
you will see two talks right here about Calvinism Calvinism
Refuted Part one, Calvinism Refuted Part two. This will cover
all of those questions regarding PSA election predestination. I've got
other talks about Augustinianism original sin on my main channel.
Some guys, you can go check those out and take notes,
and those should answer your questions. Cleio, what's up? Man?
Speaker 5: Hey Jay?
Speaker 24: Thanks for shaking my call. I think your your patients
in Greece doing this is very commendable.
Speaker 2: Hold on, how do you come to that conclusion? Because
I thought I'm the meanest man on the internet, which
one is it?
Speaker 5: I never said that I'm joking.
Speaker 8: I say that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm pretty brand new to you.
Speaker 24: One of my close friends is a big fan of you,
so he's been showing me some stuff. But I kind
of got into the word about like nine months ago,
and I pretty much take Christianity at face value. With
like what I read in scripture, it seems like a
pretty simple religion, right, It's like love your neighbor, except
to Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God.
Speaker 2: And like, well, I mean that sounds like the basics.
But no, I don't think that the religion is just
some simple thing of LCD what was common the nominator stuff.
That's usually I'm not fussing with you, I'm just saying
that's usually what evangelicals say. It's like, oh, Christiana is
just you know, believe in Jesus and you know it
be nice.
Speaker 24: Yeah, it's it's what I know that this is uh,
kind of scoffed that, but it's kind of what people
like about what I call like non.
Speaker 5: Denominational and yeah, you know, but I mean it's.
Speaker 24: It's it's understandable how someone comes to that conclusion. I mean,
you have versus in the Bible like James two chapter
James Chapter two, verse eight. If you really keep the
royal law found in scripture, love your neighbor, it's yourself.
Speaker 5: You're doing right. I mean, like it's pretty simple.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that but that doesn't doesn't say that that's
all there is to the religion. I mean, you're you're
expected to you know in John six, if you eat
my flesh, you have life if you If you don't,
you don't. So you're expected to participate in the Eucharist
for example.
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, And I'm over simplifying it. But I'm going
to get to maybe a better argument in a second here.
So when Jesus was, you know, going around Juda in
Galilee with his disciples, I think he was preaching like
a pretty I don't want to say simple, but we're
not gonna a better term in a simple message of
you know, like loving your neighbor, like not putting the
rich over the or anything like that.
Speaker 2: So again I have to disagree because there are places
where he says those things, like the Sermon on the Mount,
but there are countless places where he also goes into
great depth about the Old Testament prophecies. He goes into
great depth with his parables. You know that to me
does does not jibe with the idea that because there
are some simple statements, therefore the entire thing is therefore simple.
So that's like a parts whole fallacy.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I think that's that's totally fair.
Speaker 24: But I guess the way I see, you know, he's
talking to these like illiterate like citizens, you know, preaching
whatever it is he was preaching. But like, obviously after
all of these teachings when he's.
Speaker 5: Tramp, so you obviously came to Earth to save these people,
these people that he was teaching to be the intention
of saving, one could assume.
Speaker 24: So it wasn't until you know, after his death at
the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church kind of you.
Speaker 5: Know, came to be and whatnot. And I just like
my biggest issue, so.
Speaker 2: We don't think that after his death the Orthodox Church
came to be. So we think that Apostolic succession is
the teaching of the New Testament, and so the church
is founded in Matthew sixteen when he talks about the
giving them the keys and you know, the ability to
remit and retain sins at the end of John and
then you get the statement that the institution of baptism
in Matthew twenty eight and then you get the empowering
of the church at Pentecosanacts two. So I'm not sure
you got the idea that the Orthodox Catholic Church is
founded after where you send the New Testament or after
his death. Maybe I'm misunderstood you.
Speaker 24: I mean, if you look it up on Google, I
think it said like the Catholic Church starts some time
in the first century.
Speaker 5: But you know, maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Google is not going to be like,
you know, we're not under Pope Google, right, So right,
the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, is who put
the books of the Bible together, so you can't you
can't get Bible without church.
Speaker 24: Yeah, I'll be the first to admit you you're a
lot more wise in this than me, who picked it
the Bible nine months ago.
Speaker 5: I'm still like learning a lot.
Speaker 24: But I guess my question meant because it seems to
me that a lot of these traditions that Orthodoxy claims
to be, like the true path of Salvation sudn't have
been achieved by those that Jesus was preaching to in
Galilee and Judea and whatnot.
Speaker 5: So were they not saved.
Speaker 2: So again, I don't know why it would come to
that conclusion, because, for example, Jesus himself attended synagogue, attended
liturgical worship, attended normative Holy days and practices and fasts
and the apostles. Much of that goes into the first
century Church when it is set up. So we have
fast days, we have Easter, we have Pasca.
Speaker 5: We have.
Speaker 2: You know, these celebrations. We have a divine liturgy. We
have imagery like the Old Testament Temple had. So there's
a direct continuity between the Temple and synagogue worship service
and the Orthodox Church's worship service, even things like imagery
and relics. So no, I mean even the Old Testament
add baptisms that had ceremonies, that has many things that
continue into the New Testament tradition. So I think that
if you think about Jesus himself, Jesus himself worshiped the
Father throughout his whole life in a liturgical way. And
that's because it's Jesus that gave the Old Testament law
and worship to Moses, and so he's the one that
has the authority to say this is fulfilled. Because all
of those things pointed to him, and so when he
sets up apostles to guide and establish his church, they
also have authority to make judgments to bind into loose
in regard to what the church will and won't do.
That's why you see in Acts fifteen they have a council,
and so counsels become normative for the church, and the
earliest councils of the church teach the same thing to
the Orthodox Church esys today. There's no deviations there.
Speaker 24: Okay, So you would assume then that if the people
that he taught to were saved and they were like
living in practice, how Orthodox live today.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean not identically, because in Redemptive History, his
preaching to the Jews is prior to his zephyl resurrection,
so they don't have the full message yet. In fact,
it's not until Luke twenty four where it says that
he opened the apostles eyes to see and understand everything
about him in the Old Testament scriptures. So even the
apostles got glimpses and they got pieces of it, but
they didn't really understand until after his resurrection. Hence Luke
twenty four literally says that Jesus opened their eyes to
understand the Old Testament.
Speaker 24: Okay, I guess my final question I want to leave
off with is getting that there's a place in heaven
for people that accepts love and read scripture like love
Jesus and reads scripture, but haven't been exposed to I mean,
you know, I have a friend who exposed me to Orthodoxy, right,
A lot of people don't have that blessing.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, Yeah, I think Jesus for those people, well, I
think Jesus is very clear that to who much is given,
much is required. And you know, we don't really have
the means and the capabilities of judging people who you know,
have limited exposure. That's you know, we leave that to God,
and God is a merciful just judge. So what we
do know is that we tell people to enter the arc. So, hey, Jamie,
did you met me? A double shot? Thank you? But
those are great questions. Appreciate you coming on. Man, I
forget this guy, William Die, I forget what you're What
were you on here about? I forgot remind me? Hello, Hey,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Quick question here?
Speaker 6: So regarding Mormons, what would be the correct philosophical refutation
if they would say that all intelligences are eternal.
Speaker 2: Well, that would be multiple eternal entities. That would be polytheism.
Speaker 6: What if they say that it really is not because intelligence,
that there are not gods.
Speaker 2: Okay, well you can define gods in a different way.
But they actually do believe in multiple gods because they
believe that Adam is a man who can become like
God the Father, as can we all. So they actually
do believe in polytheism. Their view of the Trinity is
three gods in the sense of three distinct beings who
were at one time human beings who evolved into it.
So they do believe in polytheism even from that vantage point.
But say that there are multiple eternal, uncreated minds, that's
that's polytheism. How would it, in other words, that they
would have to explain how it's not.
Speaker 26: Well, I mean the guy that you debated, Robert Gerd,
actually admits of being a polytheist.
Speaker 2: Well, there you are, So, I mean, the religion of
the Bible is not polytheistic. In fact, there's quite a
bit that's a warfare against polytheism. Sense I mean, I
mean Mormonism is just like that stupid but whatever, go ahead.
Speaker 26: Understand, But so what I should I go after the
fact in terms of epistemology that if you have multiple intelligences,
there's it's actually impossible for you that to ground anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you read Agentes of St. Anthonasius, his critique
of polytheism is that it's chaos essentially, and the gods
fight with each other, they disagree. You know, there's multiple uh,
you know, competing forces in the universe. Uh, and conceivably
at odds with one another. I mean, just think about it.
Mormons think Jesus and Lucifer are brothers fighting each other.
So I mean, yeah, I would fall prey to Saint
Anthonacious critique and adgentes absolutely. Okay, by the way, Uh,
if you've not read that, it is a great apologetic piece,
and you'll notice that although he's not presenting tag, what
Athenasius does is that he does an internal critique of
and world views. And you know, it's a classic of apologetics.
And that's you know what we do to Jake, what's up, man?
We were just talking about me. Jim, Bob and I
are going to do a stream, by the way, about
Mormon stuff in the near future because we've had there's
been this dust up of Mormons popping up right all
over Twitter, and supposedly they have a couple apologists out there.
And Jim, Jim Bob and I were going back and
forth about all the kind of wild stuff and Mormonism
that you don't usually hear talked about, because Mormons do
this thing where they like they eat, they like butter
you up, you know, like scientologists before they tell you
the heavy stuff, right, and then after you've been involved
and you've got the feelies for a while from praying
their goober prayer. Oh, by the way, we believe in
sci fi space opera about bout start lactic goal lords
of Colob stuff. And I'm not joking when I say
that they literally believe in Lords of Colob. The people
that did Bossarga lact to Go were Mormons. So they
believe in eternal matter. They believe in They have Masonic
temple ripped off Masonic temple ceremonies for their endowments, and
ceremonies Jesus and Lous for our brothers. They believe the
lucifer enlightened Man in the garden. They believe that Bigfoot
is Cain. I am not kidding. Many of them still do.
The intellect is eternal matters. Eternal. Black people are the
creations of the bad God or that they were punished
in the pre existing state, their fallen entities, and that's
why they're black people. They have magic underwear. They believe
that God the Father was a human being who achieved godhood.
And note that when they try to be a humanists
and talk to you like, oh, you believe in deification,
so do we. They don't believe what we believe. They
believe in the Lords of col Ob space sci fi
star trek shit. I mean, it's just crazy, dude, and
that's just part of the magic of more. Jake, what's up?
Speaker 5: Hey? What's up?
Speaker 14: Jay?
Speaker 27: I'm an Orthodox inquirer right now, I'm god willing going
to start my catechiss after Easter. But there's kind of
two things I was wondering if you could help me
out answer them before I'd become a cate Cuban.
Speaker 2: You want to know how to get to colob Is.
First of all, space ax is going to have to
create some kind of I don't know, like traveling space
church that can fly to co Ob. So probably when
Elon converts to Mormon, we can solve this problem. Go ahead.
Speaker 28: I was I haven't really gotten many good answers on
why bishops cannot be married in the Orthodox Church, and
I haven't had an opportunity.
Speaker 2: To talk to my priests about I mean, it's a
tradition that developed on the basis of needs of the time, because,
for example, bishops constantly have to do administrative stuff and
travel to various parishes. In the ancient and medieval world,
that was very difficult for a person to do with
family and children, and so it became easier from a
practical perspective for the Church to draw bishops from the monasteries.
But and this might be controversial, I'm sure that there's
canons that have been laid down. I mean, there's nothing
inherently technically wrong with a bishop, like in cases having
a wife is just not the norm. But I mean
some of the apostles had wives, so I don't think
that there's anything inherently wrong with that.
Speaker 11: I think there are some mettestations of married bishop in
Russia to the sixteenth century, but yeah, in general, they
were john from the monastery. It's also tied to the
development and the arise as a monastery as a more
important institution as the Early Church. But yeah, technically, I
mean it wouldn't be canonical, but it's not dogmatic at
some point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good way to put it, okay.
Speaker 28: And then my second question was regarding well student, I
forgot it. It's something to do with bishops and being married.
But I appreciate what you.
Speaker 2: Yeah's cool, that's right, think about go you know, you
can think about it and come back in if you
don't too, if you remember it. What is the relationship
of Colob to Earth? So I want to bring you
I enjoyed Battlestar Galacta. I have to say, I mean
this is like you know, nerdship from ten years ago,
fifteen years ago. But it was a fun series. I mean,
you know, it wasn't like maybe this was a two thousands.
Maybe we're already like twenty years from Battlestar Galactica. But uh,
I've never actually looked at the Mormon mythology that they
believe about Colob.
Speaker 13: So here's some goober a video on Colob and the Earth.
A very interesting quote from Brigham Young that I think
shed's light onto the possibility that the Earth was created
first near onto Colob let's look at that and see
the scriptural evidence.
Speaker 2: I guess if you like the Dune universe, you would
like the Mormon universe, right, because they're kind of like
the same sort of sci fi larp world in my mind.
Speaker 13: For that, as well as Brigham Young's quote, Brigham Young
stated in the Journal of Discourses, the Earth is our home.
It was framed expressly for the habitation of those who
are faithful to God and who prove themselves worthy to
inherit the earth. When the Lord shall have sanctified, purified,
and glorified it, and brought it back into His presence,
from which it fell far into space. Ask the astronomer
how far from we are from the nearest of those
heavenly bodies that are called the fixed stars? Can he
count the miles? It would be a task for him
to tell us the distance when the Earth was framed and.
Speaker 2: Brought So, yeah, there's quite a quite an elaborate fan
fiction narrative going on with the Lord's a colab here.
Let's see who why are women? God's living out there? Right?
Gods ado with a body. So we got like Mormon,
Mormons and Muslims can like you know, Solafi and Mormons
could get together on this. You know, God the Father's
got a body. He's up there kind of maybe flying
around in like a space chariot pyramid. You know, maybe
Yakub could get in on this. Let's see.
Speaker 7: The Eldest Church teaches that their God is just one
of many gods throughout the universe and lives near a
planet or star called co op. It's founder Joseph Smith taught,
I will preach on the plurality of gods. The heads
of the gods appointed one God for us. Mormon apostle
Awesome Pratt taught there are more gods than there are
particles of matter. One world has a personal God, and
the inhabitants thereof worship his attributes.
Speaker 2: They're looking like Darwin over here. Look at this, We've
got Mormon Nietzsche. Look at this, Mormon Nietzsche. We have
Mormon Darwin right here, and we got Mormon Nietzsche kind of.
Speaker 7: Gods stretching back into the eternities. Mormon apostle John Wister.
Speaker 2: Oh shit, here we got Mormon Sam Hyde or aka
Mormon Leon Trotsky taught that.
Speaker 7: There is a plurality of gods is a fundamental.
Speaker 2: Truth of fundamentally truth.
Speaker 7: The Eldest Church teaches that their God is not the
Supreme Creator mcmarly an organizer over his area.
Speaker 2: Of the universe. Damn son, we got sci fi Lords
of Cola? Did anybody watch Bylstar Galactica the Mother? Nobody
remembers Lords of Cola anyway? M exposing dispensationalism, How you doing?
Jiub says for two dollars that Mormons have a heresy
or of succession. Checkmate, Jay, who got me slowed by
wild war? Two dollars? Asked that guy if his name
is James, I forgot sorry, Dave Mustard staying five dollars,
wouldn't inherit to guilt make Jesus guilty of sin at
the moment of his incarnation? I mean Protestants will just
say that's why there was a virgin birth and that
he was the one that it was exempted because he
was a perfect man. Cold quest five dollars. I'm with
you on UFOs being a syop. I'm having a hard
time explaining an orb but that my girlfriend and I
saw physically it was very close. Well, just saying that
UFOs are psyops doesn't mean that there's no you know,
supernatural phenomena or inexplicable phenomenon. I think there are inexplicable
phenomena cases, you know, demons, angels, maybe even stuff we
don't know about yet. So I don't think that everything
is a syo. What's up exposing dispensationalism.
Speaker 5: I'm also an Orthodox inquirer. I had a question about iconography.
Speaker 22: Okay, So I was raised in a culture where you're
not allowed to draw pictures of like.
Speaker 18: Anything like Jesus or anything in heaven.
Speaker 5: Or anything like that.
Speaker 23: Like, how did the Orthodox justify or interpret the second Commandment?
Speaker 2: Right? So we would agree that you cannot have idols,
and the first and foremost prohibition is on idolatry of
the heart. Right, So remember the law as a matter
first and foremost of the heart, not just externals. So
a lot of times Protestants when they hear this, or
Muslims or anybody else, they think of idolatry as an
external action where it's creating some kind of totem or
some kind of picture. We know that that's not the case,
first of all, from Exodus itself. It's in Exodus that
instructions are given for creating a labert iconography for the
interior of the temple, including the hanging curtains, including the
arc of the Covenant with the angels on the top
of it, the seraphim. So we know that it's not
inherently any imagery that's wrong. And in fact, even in
the Masoretic text and Joshua seven, you have the case
of Joshua prostrating before the arc with all of the elders,
so they're bowing down physically prostrating themselves before the Ark
of the Covenant. Other chapters you have very similar things
where all of Israel prostrations before Solomon and the temple
when he dedicates it. And so it's not physicality, it's
not imagery that is the problem. It's idolatry, which would
be to make an image of anything not to be imaged,
such as the divine nature. If you notice in Acts
seventeen Paul says the divine nature is not like anything
created in Orthodoxy. We actually agree with that you cannot
make an image of the divine essence, the divine nature,
or even God the Father should not be imaged. However,
Jesus is the icon, and that's used the New Testament
Colossians for the Greek word for who. He is the
icon of the Father's hypostasis. He's the direct image of
the Father. So he is the one unique icon in
image of the Father. And his becoming flesh means that
he was circumscribable or limited in time and space in
that incarnate state, and that means that in the icons,
what we are picking out is the divine hypostasis of
the Son in the flesh. So we're not drawing the
divine nature, we're not drawing who the Father is in
some speculative way. We are doing it in the way
that Jesus himself said, if you've seen me, you've seen
the Father. Because he's saying I am the icon of
the Father. Hebrews one says he's the image of the
Father's hypostasis. So that is the legitimate usage of imagery.
And in the early Church, when the apostles out and
set up the churches and the seas that they set
up seees, they established liturgical worship for the church, just
like Israel had in the temple and synagogue system, you see,
and that's why early synagogues also are covered in imagery,
like the Dora Europos Synagogue, and so the early Church
was always pro imagery. You can find if you go
to the catacombs in Rome. I went last year to
Rome to the catacombs. They're everywhere. I only went to
one of the catacomb systems. You can see imagery, you
can see Christ the Good Shepherd, you can see altars.
They had all the same stuff even in the catacombs
that you'll find an Orthodox church.
Speaker 5: Oh okay, that kind of answers that question, then thank you, Yes.
Speaker 2: I would recommend our friends over at Orthodox Shahada made
a great documentary on this very question. It's called Christian
Worship and the Old Testament. Every Protestant and every iconoclast
minded or background person should watch this documentary. It's one
of the best. We always end up recommending it. Lewis
spent a tremendous amount of time on it. It's based
on a couple of the texts you know that well,
I didn't mention them, but it's based on Williams and
Anstell's book. It's based on Louis Bouillet's liturgy book. It's
based on Hugh Wybru's Byzantine Liturgy Book. So it's actually
partly based on arguments that Protestant scholars have written like Wybrut,
so it's not just some you know, Orthodox assertion. You
can actually see all the citations from Protestant liturgical scholars,
and Lewis just really walks through all the elements of
the Jewish temple and synagogue liturgy that carried over into
the Early Church in the Apostolic era and in the
first and second third centuries. So it's an invaluable documentary,
even to the point of the similarity between the clerical
vestiments that the high priest war in the way that
you see an Orthodox bishop decked out their their analogus,
their fulfillments of one another. Sec on YouTube or yes,
it's called Christian Worship and the Old Testament, and I've
got it pulled up here on the screen. It's putting
a chat for you guys. But the channel is Orthodox
Shahata s h A H A d A. And the
documentary is Christian Worship and the Old Testament. Now for
all the people who are lazy and they just repeat,
not you, but they just repeat what Gavin Ortland says.
And this is all these Protestant things, like nobody just
goes and watches the documentary I'm not talking about you,
I'm just talking about general sort of the people that
hop on here and say, you guys arete dollars. We don't,
we don't worship the way. It's like, did you not
watch this documentary that literally deals with every one of
these issues. Every one of those stupid things that Gavin
Ortland endlessly brings up is answered in this document Like
the Early Church has this style of worship, admittedly from
Protestant scholars, and they have elements of imagery, iconography, and
other sacramental things that are not in Protestantism. Okay, So
when Gavin Ortland says, where's all the elaborate, ornate iconography
in the first, second, and third century, Oh, you mean
when the churches in the catacombs when they're being persecuted.
Who's going to be able to set up a giant
cathedral with elaborate temple level iconography when you're getting persecuted. Nobody.
It's silly argument, right, ignoring the contexts and the history.
But guess what if you go to the catacombs in Rome,
there's images, Well there may be images, but they did
not revere them.
Speaker 7: How do you know that?
Speaker 2: So notice the shift in the argument that burden approof shifts.
There's no, you can't prove there's images prior to the
fifth and sixth century. H really, so you give examples
of catacombs. Well, there's images, but you don't know that
they were. So now you move the goalpost. Now that
we prove that there were images, but you can't show
it being raversed. Oh, excuse me, it was the Eucharist reverence. Yes,
it was because they taught the real presence in the first, second,
third century. Oh well that doesn't coult because that's not
But it is an image, even in your view the UK,
even though you don't believe in the real presence, you
still believe it's an image of Christ with the bread
and the wine. Right, Well, it's a symbolic image, yes, Okay,
well there you go. So there's an image prior to Well,
that's an image that the Lord ordained. Well, hold on,
so now it's what Christ ordains. Because no Protestant church
has any biblical evidence for how the worship service is
supposed to go. So now you put yourself in even
worse position because you don't have any evidence of what
Jesus ordained for the actual worship service. I don't understand
that Protestants always just I think this is devastating. When
I was Protestant, when I was Calvinist, I realized this,
Wait a minute, the New Testament doesn't have a worship service.
And when I read Nate up and abay, who, God
seems to care quite a bit about how he's worshiped. Right, Well,
if solar scripture is true, why wouldn't he have laid
down in the written text that the church is all
supposed to have as its final authority. The pattern of
how a worship service goes there should be like Paul's
epistle to you know the Church of Corinth on the
liturgical service. Well, guess what, we don't have that. But
God seems to care quite a bit about how he's
worshiped because he kills people that do it wrong. And
even the New Testament, Paul tells the Church of Corinth,
if you eat unworthily, you could still be killed. So
he still cares about worship enough to kill people over it.
So how are we supposed to worship? Well, I don't know.
I guess Pastor Randy Balls can just make it up
as he goes. Well, brother, I pray really hard, pray
really hord and the Lord's done told me that we're
going to worship in the style of Bishop TD Jakes.
We're going to scream and hoot and holler, and we're
going to do the Roger Rabbit in every service. David,
what's up? Roll stakes, Let's talk God. Five dollars? Can
you break down? We already did that. Cursed world, just
ten dollars. Curse world problems with the spicy meat ball
of icon questions waiting on the Twitter space. I mean,
are they requesting to speak because you got to come
on and I'm not reading a bunch of text questions.
But thank you for that, Rosa Tron forty two dollars,
Thank you so much. Thank you for opening my eyes
at Orthodox Church. The answer is forty two. I was
that the Douglas What's his Face? Satire book Cody asked
three dollars. God, Protestantism is insecure in regard to his creation,
afraid of honoring his saints, diminishes his glory. It's incompetent
in guiding his people, and holds lower standards for relationships
than most spouses would accept. Those are some good practical critiques.
Of Protestant Theolgio degree Rachel Wilson five dollars. Okay, So
in Mormon theology, Jesus is a middle manager for the
Department Earth correct and he's also loose for his brother.
Did I get that right?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: Wild Mormon captured three dollars. Mormons hate it when you
call them by their temple names. Try it.
Speaker 13: How do we know?
Speaker 2: How do I know what their temple name is? David whatsoever? Either?
Speaker 12: Yeah, Hey, Jay, I have a question about the second
temple destruction in Mark thirteen. I heard you talk about
how that's a fulfillment of the coved worship in Deuteronomy
twenty eight.
Speaker 5: I was just wondering, is that just.
Speaker 12: In the David Chilten book or is that can you
find that the Church fathers too?
Speaker 2: No, Chris system is very explicit as our other Church
fathers about seventy eight being what's happening in the all
of that discourse?
Speaker 18: Okay, do you know like what Hamley that is?
Speaker 2: Because it was right, it's just Hombily's on Matthew twenty four.
Speaker 18: Okay, all right, you know what is that the only
one you can think of?
Speaker 2: Christystom No, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. Mint. I don't remember
specifically about Matthew twenty four, but I think so Cyril Jerusalem,
I think of the Catechetical Lectures has a seventy eight reference.
Saint Athanasius has a seventy eight reference for Daniel nine.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, I don't exactly remember where, but
he does have a preterist person predist statements. Origin does,
and I think other there's some other Eastern father references too. Now,
there is a Protestant website used to be up. Let's
see if we can find it that that actually had
collected a lot of these. Let me see if it's
still I don't know if it's still around or not. Yeah,
Preadist church fathers. But I will say that the partial
predatorist reading is way more Oh Usebius, I forgot, there's
a good one in Usebius. It's way more evident in
Eastern fathers than it is in Latin fathers. I'm not
saying it's not in Latin fathers.
Speaker 13: I know that.
Speaker 2: For example. Oh, oh, I know another good one. Hillary Hippologists.
Saint Hippologists of Rome is a very early uh prederist statement.
The Didiki has a predist statement. It's either Dideki or
Pistol barnabas As. Yeah, exactly. Oh, Clement of Alexandra, I
didn't even I forgot. Now he's not a saint, but
he's an early witness. Let's see. Yeah, No, it's not
gonna look for I don't say the old website that
used to be up about preterism in the Church Fathers.
It's the dedicated by the way, it's not the pistol Barnabas. Okay, Uh,
those are the ones that come to mind. But I'm
sure you can dig up some more if you spend more.
Speaker 8: Time on it.
Speaker 12: Okay, yeah, no problem. Also, I did have a question
regarding Unham's sanctum in Denzing You're it says a quote
where Boniface rejected that he was trying to basically usurp
phill up the fourth authority, Like what would you think
of that when you bring up there, because I, like
I have read it it does have like very strong
statements of temporal authority. But then he also kind of
tries to, like it seems in the quote he kind
of tries to like pull it back a little.
Speaker 18: Bit when he's questioned on it.
Speaker 2: Well, I think even in the Roman Catholic system, you're
bound by the dogmatic statement itself. So and you're saying
that after this he dialed it back. Yeah, well, I
mean even if he dialed it back, I mean the
expectation from like Dick Tatus Pope, which is two hundred
years earlier, three hundred years earlier, like, the expectation is
pretty much the same until I mean, maybe somebody should
do a study on exactly the whole history of the
temporal supremacy, because it's it's there from Dictatus Pope clearly
until Sanctum. I don't know of the explicit Well, let
me rephrase it this way. If you go to Lamenta
Billy into the pre Vatican to strong and cyclicals that
condemn modernism, Lamenta Billy, for example, condemns the separation of
church and state. I think it references. It doesn't explicitly
say temporal supremacy, but there is a statement about the
idea of dechristianizing the states, and let me pull up
Lamita Billy. There's something along these lines. So I would
argue that even Lamenta Billy still has this idea at work.
And I would just argue that. I mean, post Vatican two,
the Church does not hold to what Lamentabiley says for sure.
Speaker 12: Even the Tatas poppy was obviously used to depose emperors
as well, so I mean they yeah, so yeah, that's fair.
Speaker 18: Okay, Yeah, I think that's everything.
Speaker 5: Thanks ja.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's see, I'm scrolling through Lamentabilia says stuff like, uh,
I know there's some of these propositions about temporal supremacy.
Let me see.
Speaker 12: In Vatican one as well, I believe I just read
it recently. It did talk about how it's wrong to
have the like religious liberty of Protestants as well, so
I think that's also a pretty strong No.
Speaker 2: Actually, well there's actually quite a few. There's not. It's
I always forget these encyclicals. But if you get the Tan.
Speaker 18: Books, Quanticua Libertas as well, that's it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's Quanticua, there's Lamentabilli, there's Pacindi Dominici, Grades of Pies,
the tenth and what's it called. It's called Popes against
the Modern Errors. It has all of these, do you
know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that book from Tan right here, it has all
those sixteen papal documents in it.
Speaker 12: Yeah, Catholic answers response was that although they're not teaching
a complete.
Speaker 18: Religious liberty, they're just saying it's allowed. So they thought
that that was a good reputation to that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, that's I need a better answer to this.
So here's the sixteen documents. If you don't want to
get this book. By the way, here is a full
Tan Books offers the entire book as a PDF. So
I'll give this to you guys in the chat. But
the specific papal and cyclicals and documents are Mara revalse
against liberalism and and by the way, some of these
will reference the temporal supremacy of the church as still binding.
Syllabus of errors excuse me, that's the one I could.
It's Lamentabilly and syllabus of errors and syllables of errors
is attached to vout Itican one for those who don't know.
But Silvia Savars talks about errors regarding the civil power
of the Roman pontiff. That's it. Let me pull that up.
I was getting Lamentabilly and the Silaba Savars mixed up,
so let me pull that up. Okay, let's see Syllaba
Savars after the condemnation of socialism and communism. In section eighteen,
it goes into errors concerning the Church and her rights.
The Church is not a perfect society. These are a
condemned proposition. The ecclesiastical power auto exercises authority without permission
of the civil government. Assume me ought not. So this
is condemning the state in the church. The church has
not the power defining dogmatically that the Catholic religion is
the only true religion. So this is still affirming Christian
states and Christian christianization of the civil states. Specifically, it's
twenty one Roman pontiffs and acumenical councils wandered outside their
limits and ussurped the rights of princes. This is a
critique that I'm making, Okay, So when you hear me
saying that the Roman pontiff is not the quizos Hoderock,
this is condemning that proposition right here. The Church does
not have the power of force, nor does she have
temporal power. Condemned proposition right there.
Speaker 18: Okay, yeah, interesting, all right, And.
Speaker 2: By the way, there's more if you keep going. Besides
the power of the episcopate, the temporal power that has
been attributed to it by the civil authority can be
revoked condemned. So you'll notice here in the twenties, not
nineteen twenties, but in the twenties numbered of the document
Silver Savaras of eighteen sixty four, which is attached to
Vatican One, throughout the numbers twenty to twenty nine or
thirty ish is still upholding the temporal supremacy ow ambishops.
So again this is even stronger for my case because
this means that temporal supremacy was taught from dictatus a
unam sank them all the way up until the Syllabus
of Airs in eighteen sixty four attached the Vatican One,
and it even cites the other documents where this has continued.
These so when you see that the church, the Roman Church,
is