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