Speaker 1: Well, just like the tech issues that we recently had
where our entire systems shorted. Sorry about that. Sometimes confusion
comes into our lives. We often don't understand the reason
why we live. We don't as to the purpose of
our existence, and we're trying to find out exactly what
it is we're supposed to be doing here. Now, many
Americans have decided that, you know, the way that we
find out who God is and what our purpose is
is through Christianity. But when you approach Christianity, it's not
as simple as you think. Sometimes you look around you
as Protestants, there's in there, there's Evangelicals, there's the mainline denominations.
Then you go out and then there's Orthodox, there's Catholic.
But if you notice today with the gay flags in
front of churches and the pastrixes, the female pastors, and
the weird ideology, a lot of young people are finding
out that the modern church perhaps may not be the
best version of Christ's Holy Church. In fact, maybe just
maybe the people of the past knew a little more
than we did. When looking back in history myself, I
found there's two churches. There's the Catholic Church, we'll call
it in General and the Orthodox Church. They both claim
to be the true church. One follows the papacy, it
looks like the other one doesn't. And yet at the
same time, when you ask either of them, really, where
should I go to church? They'll say, well, most of
them you should go to Catholic, but you know you
can go to Orthodox if it has an Orthodox to
say you can, but Catholic, but you should go to Orthodox.
Speaker 2: So why do we have both? Then? Which one is true?
Speaker 1: Which one is the way to be a part of
Christ's eternal body, to be a part of the living,
breathing unit of Christ. Joining me today to discuss the
true Church, whether it's Orthodox or Catholicism. We are talking
to experts in their field. Jaydyer. He's a podcast host,
author of many books, an avid reader. Jay Dyer, welcome
back to the show. Let us know who you are.
For those that are just joining for the first time.
You want to explain a little bit about what it
means to be an Orthodox or what that even you
know defines itself as in a little bit about where
people can find your podcast.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jay Dyer, I have been Orthodox since about twenty seventeen,
and prior to that was Roman Catholic from many years,
pretty dedicated Latin mass go or was raised Protestant in
the Reformed Baptist and Reform tradition. And yeah, I would
say that what Orthodox Christianity is is we believe it
is the Church of the first millennium, still preserved and
still holding to those synodal traditions that are essentially found
within any of the canonical Orthodox churches throughout the world.
So we think it is the church that Christ established.
We think that it doesn't change. There might be political
geopolitical issues that happened, but the fundamental constitution and beliefs
of the Church do not change. And so we take
truth to be the most important category over things like
numbers and things like that. And me personally, you can
find me at Jays Analysis dot com and a fourth
hour host of the Alex Jones Show for the last
five or six years, and I write for the Sam
Hid Show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, jack of all trades and also an incredible guy
behind the scenes. He's the real deal, by the way.
And joining me to represent Catholicism, we'll find out a
lot about it. Timothy Gordon's also podcast host, pretty influential
in this field and all around.
Speaker 2: I'd say, you consider yourself a theologian. Correct? Awesome, you
hear me? Yeah, there we go for a second. All right,
I'm a tomistic philosopher, trained trained graduate philosophy, but but
I taught theology for many, many years. And yeah, the
Roman Catholic Church is the center piece of of what
I do. Uh, physics, metaphysics, ethics, politics, That's what my
podcast is on. Rules for Introgrades is the name, and
I try to clarify. I try to clarify the issues
because the Catholic Church receives so much attention. There's so
much mis and disinformation out there. A lot of it's
genuinely confusing to people, and it's a big tent. We
have orthodoxy that always has to be separated from the
chaef of heterodoxy, and there's been some confusion. Some of
it is legitimate confusion, and some of it is confusion
that has been stoked by media and opponents of the church.
But a lot of it's been legitimate in the last
sixty years. So I try to be a voice of clarity,
a lay voice of clarity, and that's what I do
on my podcast, The Rules for Introgrades. Timothy Gordon awesome.
Speaker 1: We'll be talking a little bit about their podcast later
on and the rules in just a few moments. My
name's Elijah Schaeffer and it's approximately seven forty five pm
Eastern time in the United States. We are usually live
right now Monday, Wednesday, Friday at seven pm Eastern time.
We usually don't have our production booth blow up in
the middle of things. But if you want to know this,
we can do what we should always do and we'll
just blame the Jews. Now, I'm totally kid, that's not
what we're going to do. Thank you guys for joining me.
Are going to be reading the super chats periodically throughout,
so you send them in. I see Rachel Wilson's in
there for twenty dollars saying to you guys, much love
to Tim and Jay, much love to Alive for hosting.
Speaker 2: America will become Orthodox, America will become holy? Will it?
I go about that and so much more.
Speaker 1: Here another episode of The Riff Live right now, Let's
start the show.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Rift. You can find us at
riftv dot com.
Speaker 1: New articles every single day on culture, politics, and religion.
Also us a litt announcement for your joining us for
the first time. This is a new network, it just
launched a few weeks ago, and this is one of
our shows, so we're hammering out some of the details.
We have a couple of new shows launching, including Joel Webbin,
who is a Protestant that is coming on and doing
a new show for our network. We're very excited about that. Plus,
Sarah Stock has a new channel. If you don't know,
it's Sarah Stock on YouTube. She's also launching a new program.
And we also have a new White House show with
the Gateway Pun and Jordan Conradson. We're launching on September fifteenth,
So God is good. We got our security clearances for
the White House and we're very happy to be here anyway.
Joining us today are my guests Timothy Gordon and Jay Dyer.
They're both infamous, i should say, in their own right,
and have both come on the show previously to discuss
what it means to be Orthodox, what it means to
be a Catholic, and so if you want to watch
those episodes, you can go back. You can type in
their names and you can find them. They're very, very
very good, very developed individuals and thinkers. Let's go in
and let's talk about what we're gonna be doing. So
we're gonna be mainly talk covering three topics today. One
topic is going to be whether Christ did or did
not establish a visible head of church. We're talking about
apostolic succession in its own way, what really defines the church?
You know, the Orthodox and Catholic disagree on that. Plus
topic two, we're gonna be talking about the Holy Spirit
does or does not hypostatically proceed from the Sun, So
we're gonna kind of talk about the Trinity, talk about.
Speaker 2: What's going on there.
Speaker 1: This is a very interesting topic, especially for me background
and Protestantism. And number three, we're talking about the Divine
essence is or is not absolutely simple and for the
affirmative position not composed of any parts or potencies. Now,
in the middle of these topics will have a normal
struct Sure, there will be an opening statement, there will
be a rebuttal, there will be a cross examination and
a closing.
Speaker 2: It's a very formal debate.
Speaker 1: So if you're not familiar with that style on this channel,
we're trying it for the first time today. Because these
are academics, they are not retarded like myself. But in
the middle of these topics, we will have a little
bit of a break, so these will be a little
bit lengthy might want to take out notes, and we
will also be asking a few other questions more relevant
to the culture and topics and what their responses are
as the Catholic and the Orthodox church. All right, Jay,
we'll start with you with your opening statement. Our topic
number one that we are discussing whether Christ did or
did not establish a visible head of church. We're talking
I believe the correct phrase apostolic succession.
Speaker 2: I know you guys believe in the I know you
guys believe in in uh they believe in in the
in the papacy, right, and you don't correct?
Speaker 3: We agreed on divine divine simplicity or act as purists?
Speaker 2: First? Okay, out here a right that I have.
Speaker 1: I have the opposite on my on my, on my,
Let's go to that. So you said, uh, we'll start
with the we have as topic three, but we'll we'll
go to that one second.
Speaker 2: Or you have one second or third? Which one the
visible head of church? It's all over here, so I
just have this one. All right, let's go.
Speaker 1: Let's go to topic we'll change topic three the topic
one here. Let's all the divine essence is or is
not absolutely simple. Go ahead your opening statement, right.
Speaker 3: So, if I look at scholastic dictionaries from Roman Catholic texts,
we see that for God or for philosopher, Scholastic philosophy
in general, pure act is defined as simple for perfection
without any imperfection. It is free from any potency in
the strictest sense. It is therefore unqualified perfection of existence,
without any passive or limited potency. And this is from
the dictionary Scholastic Philosophy. Aquitta says something very similar, and
as does Etenial Sown the student rehive me the one
of the premier tomas of the last century. In defining
who God is, there is this beginning point that comes
from Hellenic metaph physics. We would not, as Orthodox, necessarily
agree with every you disagree with every usage of the
word your act. But what we would say is that
when I look at that definition and I compare it
to the teaching of say same Maximus the Confessor in
his famous two inter chapters, he begins to work by
saying that God is not in himself as in as
far as it is possible for us to know any
kind of first principle. Nor is he in an intermediate state,
nor is he in an end, nor is he any other concept.
For he is indefinite, immobile, and infinite, since he is
infinitely beyond any substance, any potentiality, and any actuality. So
notice there he is not pure act in himself. He
is not actuality in himself. He goes on to say
in section four, God is not therefore a potentiality, nor
is he a first principle, nor is he an actuality, nor.
Speaker 2: Is he a first cause.
Speaker 3: And he's citing from Aristoitilian categories and definitions.
Speaker 2: There he goes on to say, though, that in another sense,
we can.
Speaker 3: Call God these things. And the reason for this is
that for Orthodoxeology there's two very crucial key distinctions, or
a name, the ways that we that we name God
that are distinct. We name God first in terms of
the intraternitarian life, or God in himself, and in that
way we do not positively predicate of the divine essence.
So even though tim will agree with me that there
is a via negativa, Orthodoxeology has a different conception of
what apathetic theology is so when we speak of the
divine essence, we do not speak of it as identical
to anything much less identical to pure act, first act act.
Speaker 2: As purists, et cetera.
Speaker 3: The divine essence is unknowable, imparticipable, unapproachable, and it is therefore,
strictly speaking apathetic.
Speaker 2: How do we know God? Then?
Speaker 3: If God is apapatic in this sense, well he's not
only essence. God is also person and the Saint John
Damascus says multiple times in on the Orthodox Faith, the
key to all heresies is to confuse the distinction between
nature and person. The Orthodox Church, that distinction is as
quote real or as strong as the distinction between the
persons themselves. So while in Tim's philosophy he would agree
agree that the Father and the Son are really distinct,
that real distinction is somehow not applicable to anything else
in the triad, be it God's attributes, operations, or the
distinction between nature and person itself, which is conceived of
as only mental or volitional intmistic philosophy. And I would
argue that in Roman Catholic theology that holds as well,
because the fourth latter in council accepts the Peter Lombard
definition of what simplicity is known as identity thesis. This
is denzing or four thirty two that person and essence
are essentially identical, but they're only mentally or rationally distinct.
Thus God is his essence. So notice for them, God
is first and foremost essence. But the Orthodox position is
very different. And Maximus goes on to describe the way
that we do speak of God in positive catavatic categories,
and that is because the energies are positive and known
to us. Those energies are his operations.
Speaker 2: Where does this come from?
Speaker 3: Is this something that the medieval Byzantines made up? They
just came up with this idea that energies are these
things that God has that are other than him, and
they are these other deities, these polytheistic parts of God.
Absolutely not. In fact, we would argue that the only
way to have divine simplicity consistently is to adhere to
the divine simplicity of God. Yes, but also that his
operations are really there and really different from him. How
do I know that? The Coppadition's made a plastic analogy
for how this is the case by looking at the
difference between a man is nature and the work of
nature and the product of nature. Allow me to quote
Saint John Damascus briefly here for that specific distinction. John
Damascus says that observe that energy, capacity of energy, and
product of energy and the agent of the energy are
all different. Or the Orthodox Church we call these things
the difference between nature, person will, essence and operation or
energy and the effect of that energy. Energy is the
efficient and essential activity of the nature. So notice that's
the first statement from John Damascus. The same statement is
made by Saint Gregory. Excuse me, Saint Maximus in his
at the Lassios sixty three he says that God's supernatural
energy is the identical energy that the Father of the
Son and the Spirit possess. That also the saints are
deified by Saint Gregora Nissa says, and against Unumias two,
the common nature is identified by common energy. Saint Grege
Nissa says again, the essential invisible God becomes visible by
his energies. He is not visible in his essence, but
in some of his operations, And to quote Saint Cyril
of Alexandria, things with the same energy are acknowledged to
be of the same essence. So energy proceeds from essence
and is the proper signifier in work or operation of
that nature or essence. Now, natures don't operate. Eight persons
with nature's operate. And this is why for John Damascus
in Book three, section fifteen, there are two wills, two energies,
but one divine hypostasis working in and through those two wills,
and those two energies now to shift out of the
philosophical definitions and statements that we have. And I would
add that definition, by the way, is accepted at the
six Ecumenical Council, where the Confession of Saint Sophronius, pulling
from the explicit teachings of Saint Maximus the Confessor on
essence and energy, two wills, two operations, and by the way,
many energies, to cite John Damascus in book one, that
is accepted at the six Ecumenical Council as the teaching's
crystological definition. Again it's called the Confession of Saint Sophronius.
You can find the Oxford text available on Amazon. Thus,
even in the patristic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,
three minutes from the early few centuries achieved from the
early seventh centuries. In six eighty six to Me sixt
eighty one, at the six Secumenical Council, we have the
affirmation of the teaching of Saint Sophronius and Saint Maximus
that John of Damascus encapsulates in his later text of
on the Orthodox Face, reflecting on the essence synergy sanction,
which is seen most clearly in Believe it or not,
not triadic speculations, but in Christology. In other words, it
is the uncreated energies that Saint Ceerl says, deify us
in this life through feeding.
Speaker 2: On the flesh.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be interested to hear how a person
who believes in the real presence, that is the body
bloatsole in divinity, president of Christ in the Eucharist, as
the Roe Mecallity Church claims to confess how this is
possible given that in the Orthodox conception, it's only possible
given that the uncreated energies, as Saint Ceerl says in
the two Letters to exth Census, deify the flesh and
thus make it the thing that we participate in to
be deified. He says in the two Letters to Sixtensus
and this is reflected and then teaching the Council of Ephesis,
by the way in the anathemas, that we do not
eat the flesh and blood of some man, but the
deified flesh of the God Man, made divine, not by
the divine essence, but by his uncreated energy and immortality.
Speaker 2: So Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
Speaker 3: The fourth act, the third Actumenical Council of Ephesis is
pretty explicit when we get into the actual teachings of
how we participate in divine life. On the other hand,
in the Roman Catholic Church, if I read from the
teaching of Ludwig ott Louis, God says that them the
grace that we receive in the Roman Catholic Church and
theirs and their and their belief sanctifying grace is a created,
supernatural gift, really distinct from God. In other words, the
very thing that you are participating in, which by the way,
point number one says is a creation. Point number five says,
is a participation in the divine nature. I'm pretty sure
the divine nature isn't a creature. So I don't know
how we participate in God. If the thing that we're
participating in is a quote quote created gift really different
from God again quotes from a famous Roman Catholic agmatic manual. Lastly,
I would say that there are a couple more examples
that I think are very difficult for people who deny
this distinction, particularly when it comes to what are called Theophanes.
The often these are manifestations of God in the Old Testament.
I'll give you a few that I think are really problematic.
How much time to have one? You can have it,
you can have. Got a couple more.
Speaker 2: I got a couple more examples, and then I'll be done. So.
In number twelve we read that the Lord said to Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam, come you three to the tabernacle of meeting.
And they came out. The Lord came down in the
pillar and in the cloud, and he stood in the
door of the tabernacle and called out to Aaron and Miriam.
Speaker 3: Now noticed that we have this day authentic manifestation in
the Old Testament where God comes down and specifically said
to stand there. When we go back to the situation
in Genesis. In Genesis thirty one, we read that the
Angel of the Lord, who identifies himself as the I
am the God who appeared to you at Bethel is
there talking to Jacob. And that same I Am that
appears in time and space is also talking to Jacob
and calls himself the form of God. This is out
of the subtuision text. The form of God was seen
by Jacob. And then we have another statement that it
is the Im that he wrestles with, because Jesus at
the end of John one says that he is.
Speaker 2: The gate the doorway.
Speaker 3: To have the ladder of Jacob and the angels descending
and descending on the Son of Man signifies and shows
that he was the one wrestling with Jacob. Jacob wrestled
with an actual form or being in time and space
that manifested in an energetic manifestation, as the Church has
always taught. But after Tomism and after the Middle Ages,
the Roman Cacolic Church moved away from this and decided
and said that these manifestations are rather created images, holograms, angels,
et cetera, whatever imagery you want to use, they're not
the uncreated energies of God in time and space. Why well,
because of divine simplicity, it's not possible for God to
be present in time and space in these ways, because
God would then undergo change. But I want to remind
them as I close in this point, that this theoteny
argument is actually the basis and the predication, the presupposition
for the doctrine of the incarnation. It is not the
divine Essence that became incarnate. It is this second person who,
according to Philippians too willfully limited himself to step into
time and space in a mode of being that the
Father and the Son did not enter into. So the
reductionist act as purest position will undercut not just the
ofphanies and the real manifestations of the glory of God
in time and space.
Speaker 2: The Leviticus nine says.
Speaker 3: This is the glory of God that appeared God's glories
under creature John seventeen. Thus this refutes the Roman Catholic
simplicity position.
Speaker 2: And just to clarify, so thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Since you guys do have a bit of a rigid structure,
do you prefer to do an opening statement and then
do rebuttals after?
Speaker 2: Do you want to rebuttle him and then do an
opening statement, I'll do. I'll do opening statement. Okay, let's
go ahead. And so representing the Catholic side.
Speaker 1: If you're just joining the stream, shout out as well
to in the chat crucible, Andrews said, it's a one
hundred dollars super chat. We're not going to do weird
sound effects for this, will keep it very very serious
to the point. But it also said thank you Andrew
for that. He said, Andrew Wilson here, thank you very
much for hosting this. And Andrew's Orthodox correct, I think correct.
So that's cool that you're tuning. I appreciated. I's all
your wife there too. So go ahead, Timothy your opening statement,
you have a ten minutes, give or take. Since he
took an extra two minutes, will give you two if
you need it. You have twelve minutes on the clock.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Pure act is the basic expression of God's perfection,
all powerfulness, his essayity. That means He's self subsisting, his necessity,
his eternality, his simplicity. So God as pure act according
to classical theism Western definitions of God, which has included
broadly speaking, it's even included a lot of Orthodox thinkers
Eastern thinkers over the last two thousand years. It is
the most basic expression of who and what God is.
So when you think pure act, because this is the
term of pure metaphysics, think pure being. By pure being
we mean being without any becoming or potency mixed in.
There are no non actualized potencies that are mixed in
with the person of who God is now. Just so
we are clear, Jay told me the last time we
debated that mistaking a single aspect of God's reality means,
in the context of Islam, worshiping a false God rather
than worshiping the true God. Arrently, I would say, I
hope for all of our sakes, Jay's sakes here too,
because he's a friend and he's a good guy, that
this isn't true. Because mistaking God as being a composite
of act with passive potency is the most fundamental mistake
you can make as to who God is. Passive potency
means something else can change you. And we have to
talk about passive potency today. The fact that Jay has
asserted on multiple occasions that something else can change God
through this term passive potency. So there's some basics of
classical theism. One God cannot change. This is in Malachi
three six. It's reflected in James one seventeen. God can't change.
This is a basic pillar of classical theism. God cannot
be affected by anything else. It's reflected in Acts seventeen
twenty four to twenty five. Thirdly, God cannot fail to
be what he is. The principle of necessity only applies
to him in this sense that he is utterly perfect,
and he cannot be anything other than what he is.
This is reflected in Matthew five, verse forty eight. Now,
if God were not pure act, and by this we
just mean pure being, there are so many equivocations that
are going to be made here on terms I just
mean pure being, Thomas, and the Aristotelian lexicon that he's
working out of just means pure being with no becoming possible.
The basic definition between a creator and a creature is
there's only one creator. He's got to be pure being
itself outside the categories of time and space. Anything inside
the categories of time and space has to be a mixture,
a composite of act and potency, form and matter, substance
and accidents. There are seven modes of composition, and anything
inside the categories that was created by God has to
be a creature who is a composite of these things.
But God has to be immutable, meaning he cannot change.
He cannot change because he's outside the categories. He must
be eternal. Nicia actually anathematizes anyone who says that he's
anything other than the eternal, meaning there's no change in God,
meaning God cannot exist prior to X and after X.
That would that would earn one the anathematizations of Nicea.
He can't be composite. And if if God were mixed
in the way that Jay is saying, act with potency
in any manner, he would be composite. I mean there's
a composer behind God, because one would have to be
composed of their parts by some posterior principle, and that
composer itself would be God, not God. So he has
This is why he has to be simple. Passive potency
means that that something else can change God. This always
implies temporality, so God would not be perfect. This is
a complete and total rejection of all classical theism. That
doesn't make it good or bad. I'm just stating it
from the outset that that classical theism requires God to
be pure act for him to even obtain all the
properties that we're talking about. Now. What Jay will say
is that God transcends logical category. If God truly transcended
logical categories for one thing, this would require that we
predicate being unifically, and for a Roman Catholic, we never
predicate being unifically. We always predicate being analogically. So that's
not true. Because we predicate being analogically, we can actually
talk about God in one way and one way only.
That's what the analogy is. But if it were true
that we predicated God unifically and and he transcends logical categories,
then there would be no debates. We wouldn't be able
to do what we're doing right now, wouldn't be able
to identify God, name God. There'd be no dogma, no councils,
no scripture, anything that's important to Catholics or Orthodox. So
there's an absolute equivocation on this idea of analogical versus
unifical predication of being. Now that because there are so
many different terms between the East and the West, I
will say this, there is unintentional equivocation, meaning good faith
equivocation between the Eastern thinkers and the Western thinkers on
what pure act is and what it requires, but in
some sense, in the sense of meaning being pure being
without becoming. We have affirmations of one sense or another
of pure being by even Eastern thinkers like Gregory of Nissa,
Maximus the Confessor, Athanaceous, John Damascene, even Gregory Palamus, though
he puts forward a kind of alternative theory, the heartline
distinction between God's essence and energies, and more recently scholars
like doctor Bradshaw admits that God must be pure act.
Now I'll just run through a few of these, and
against Eunomias two, we have Gregory of Nissa saying, except
for the divine essence, nothing is uncreated, meaning the divine
essence alone is uncreated. This is good because for God
to be God, for there to be a real distinction
outside of the Uziah of God would be to posit
a second God. Gregory of Nissa also says, and again
he's operating on an Eastern equivocal definition, so I'm not
saying that he means exactly what Thomas means, but he
means the important part of it, that God is pure being,
and that if he were any bit of potency passive potence,
he would have to be inside the ten categories of existence.
He says, the untouched and formless God is free from
all composition and likewise the only begotten. So this proves
a couple important things at once. That because God is
the untouched and formless God, free from all composition, that
means any of the seven modes of composition, most importantly potency.
Same thing with the Sun. That's Gregory of Nissa. Maximus
the Confessor says God is the active and inexhaustible state
of all actualization. The important aspect of what he's saying
is that he is being. God is pure being, without becoming,
no becoming, mixed in, no potency. Maximus also says, for
it is not natural to contemplate any change in God.
Of course, this has been anathematized right at the beginning
at Nicea to say that there's any change in God,
in whom we cannot conceive of any movement whatsoever. So
there can be no admixture of change in God. And
again this is basically obvious to everyone. Uh Saint Athanasius
says God is holy what he is, he means, no potency,
no division. I'm just demonstrating here that there are Eastern
thinkers who are operating out of the basic existential fact
of God as pure act Just think John of Damascus
says God is uncreated, immutable, and not composed. So composing
doesn't just mean act potency. It means any of the
other six modes of UH possibly composing God. Now we
can reduce this to a syllogism to prove it, since
we're debating. After all, this comes out of Theologia one
nine one basic. First premise, whatever has passive potency can
be changed or moved from potentiality to actuality by something else.
By definition, this is what passive potency is. Second premise
is God can't be changed because we all agree on
that premise, and the conclusion is therefore God has no
passive potency. It's important to note for logic nerds that
this can be propositionalized. You can use symbolic logic to
prove that this is true. I won't go through the
symbolic logic, but it's important that people know this ought
to be sacricynct for any of us. Whatever has passive
potency can be changed or moved by another. We don't
agree that that can be done with God. Since God
can't be changed it's been anathematized at NICEA. We have
to say God has no passive potency, and Jay has
said otherwise multiple times recently in the last year eight months.
So there's a simple way of explaining this to people
the analogy of an automobile, since we're using all these
terms composition, pure act, potency, whatnot. Composed of parts is
how automobiles and all things operate. Think of your car,
a drive shaft, the wheels, the windows, the chassis, whatever.
They are dependent on an external assembler. A composite is
ontologically posterior to its parts. If God had parts to
you depend on a composer, a God behind the God.
This is not a mere logical category. This is a fact.
This is an existential fact. It contradicts his assayeity, meaning
he is self subsistent, and his necessity to say otherwise. Now,
where you know, Jay, I think is equivocating or misunderstanding
Tomism is on several of the terms. They're just real
terminological differences that I think of good faith are eluding.
Now he will confuse platonism, neoplatonism, and aristotomism. These are
three separate systems that disagree radically, and they have informed
Christianity at different parts, But the Catholic Church is informed
by aristotomism, which I said predicates being analogically, which goes
right to the heart of what we're going to be
debating with Palamus later. We don't use Platonism, which predicates
being unifically. I know the sounds absolutely insane, The terms
are are bizarre, but it's really really important because for
us to even be able to speak about God, we
have to predicate being analogically. That means we have to
be in aristotomist mode. Jay has said before he thinks
that Aristotle and Thomas made being a genus. They explicitly
reject this in Platonism. So the Tomistic predication is never nivical.
Being is never a genus. This goes right to the
heart because of these equivocations. There are some basic terminological difficulties,
confusions equivocations on that he makes on essence versus nature.
These are very technical in matter, very much energies versus accidents,
act versus operations, Like pure act doesn't mean God is
pure action. It means God is pure being. And this
confuses the matter, and I think that might literally be
all that we're debating at the end of the day,
because God is pure being and even Eastern thinkers accept it.
Passive versus active potency, and relations of opposition versus contrariety,
all of these together mean that necessarily think Jay is
intending to say that God is not pure being without
any becoming. We have to get to the heart of
the matter, all right, and at a time on that.
Speaker 1: I'll be adding another minute here Clark for a rebuttal,
because he went over a little bit there.
Speaker 2: I was saying it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because I was I was trying to,
you know, execute some things you were saying, and Groc
went just as complex. He was like the onontological exigency
of also the dogmatic corpus. I was like, wow, when
you have two people here there speaking at a level
of the ai' I'm asking the question. You know, this
is a very complex debate has been going on for what,
in many ways well over a thousand years right now
as we're talking. And that's kind of an interesting point
is that, you know, people that are Protestant are not
used to these complex, deep discussions.
Speaker 2: And the things are like what do we want to
do today.
Speaker 1: In Protestantism, And sometimes it's like, let's all be gay
pastors and everyone's like yay, and it's like okay.
Speaker 2: But you know, people have.
Speaker 1: Been thinking about some of these topics for for centuries,
you know, even for a millennia if you look at
the actual topic here and when we talk about what's important.
I just want to remind you guys, if you're watching that,
take notes and rewatch, rethink, re listen, and try to
understand the complexity of their arguments. Also crucible. Andrew Wilson,
for another one hundred dollars, said, and here's another. He
also yelled out, say my names. I don't know why,
We'll just say your name Andrew Wilson in the chat.
It's good to see you here. We're very happy to
have you. He also sent another chat for one hundred dollars.
He said, here's the last one. Take these guys out
to dinner, Elijah and yourself love you all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys are free afterwards, but
we'll check that out. If you're just joining for the
first time, don't forget to like the video, don't forget
to subscribe.
Speaker 2: It's very important that you do.
Speaker 1: And I want to jump into what I believe to
be the most important part, which is give them a
chance to respond to each other. Particularly before we do that. Though,
just a reminder to check out one of our sponsors
for today, redpill Threads dot com. They are a T
shirt company, but they're not just T shirt company. They
are a merch company that has shirts that actually align
with our values. These are not just like mago ts.
When you check them out, you know, it's actually kind
of crazy, Like they have you know, Hollywood on Fire,
basically mocking Gavin Newso. And they also have you know,
Disney T shirt, but the Disney Castle has a star
of David or bath Mett what are you Gonna call?
On top and it says propaganda instead of Disney. And
so there's so many of the other T shirts they have.
Plus they also have the Burger king guy with his
mouth opening a cartoon and a memes style. They have
a I think they have like a monkey skull and
it says something like fully developed or something I don't
even know. And then they also have the commet Pingpong
pizza T shirt the brands so it's basically provocative shirts
of all the right wing memes and culture that we've
created over the last you know, decade or so, since
we've sort of emerged on a four chan and they
put it right on a T shirt. You get ten
percent off today at Redpill threads dot com R E
D P I L T h R A d s
dot com. Use promo code rift for ten percent off.
Check it out, guys. It even just helps if you
click the link of the description as we are a
new network, a new channel, and if you want to
know what Rift TV is just a shout out or
the first mainstream network developing from funding from only Western people,
only Western countries, and we are not being defined by
any Zionism or any sort of outside influence that will
try to destroy our core message, which is to save
Western civilization. That starts now and here with what we're discussing,
especially with Christianity. Now, let's go over to Jay Dyer.
I want to give you an example here. Jay is
representing the Orthodox tradition in this discussion. You have six
minutes on the clock. If you want to use, I'll
give you a minute. You want to use the minute here?
Do you want to use a minute on the cross
examination of the clothing statement?
Speaker 2: I can tell your minutes up, I'll go and use
it here, because he touched on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, you have six minutes on the clock. Your
time starts now, all.
Speaker 2: Right, I'll work through this.
Speaker 3: So the first thing that he said that was a
basic theological mistake was that he identified God in the
Divine Essence with asayity. Of course, all the three persons
have a sayity or self existence or our auto theos
in that system, if they're identical to the divine essence,
except that he's not aware of Cappadocian theology, nor the
theology of Constantinople, one which accepted unanimously with explicit decree
the necessity to follow the Cappadocian dictum that the Father
is identified as autotheos. But to identify the Divine Essence
as autothaos is actually to introduce the later Christological and
Trinitarian heresy that the Calvinists introduced, that the Son and
the Spirit are also this autotheos because they share the
same divine essence.
Speaker 2: So he's not aware of that.
Speaker 3: That's a classic theological problem. Next, I didn't say that
God changed. He's confusing the idea of what orthodox call
reciprocity with the idea that God undergoes change. What we
mean by that is that if you read the Book
of Amos, for example, God says he's going to destroy Israel.
Amos comes and praise and says the Lord, please don't
do this, and God says, because you prayed, I'm not
going to destroy Israel. That does not mean that God
can't excuse me that God undergoes change. It means that
he is willingly condescended to engage in a creaturely reciprocity.
That means that God is first and foremost a divine person,
in particularly the person of the Father or the monarchea
of the Father, which is a crucial Orthodox doction upon
which all of this is built, whether it's the essence center, yourstinction,
or these other distinctions. So, no, it is not the
case that creatures cause it divine essence to change or
anything like that. In fact, I said that there's two
ways that we can name God. I guess he didn't
hear that, or he just wanted to do the quote
mind from the Eastern Fathers, ignoring, by the way, all
the places in those Eastern Fathers where they actually make
the arguments against his position. For example, a specifically cited
Maximus pointing out that the same energies that God possesses
are the same energies that deify the saints. He says
in at the Lascios, which thus means that Trent is
wrong when the Council, Trent says that we are justified
in baptism by the righteousness, not that God has himself,
but by the righteousness by which He.
Speaker 2: Makes us just.
Speaker 3: And again, to cite Nissa, again, common nature is identified
by common energy. If you read on the Holy Spirit
by Saint Basil, you'll notice that the way that Basil
proves the Holy Spirit is fully divine with the Father
and the Son is because he possesses the exact same
energy or operation, because energy and operations signify nature. Now
interesting in the scripture is when we read about the
gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the Book of Corinthians,
when Paul talks about the spiritually gifts, he calls them
the gifts of the inner gaya of the Spirit, the
energies of the Spirit. Tim could look at Strong's seventeen
fifty three and he would see all the multiple uses
throughout the New Testament, even places in the septuagen where
inner gaia is used many times over, and that leads
me to the other issue he doesn't seem to be
well aware of in scholarship, which is if he could
read Michael Renee Barnes's book Dunamis in Gregor Nissa, where
there's this idea of the discussion of the power of God.
And this is the Cappadocian dictum to utilize first and
second actuality to help explain how it's possible for God
to create and yet to be perfect and to not
undergo change. So to say that God possesses first and
second act and that he doesn't always actualize all of
his powers does not imply any imperfection and deity, and
rather it implies God has free will. If I was
a Toast or a Roman Catholic, and I identified the
act of creating with the divine essence as they do
and with divine providence, then there's a necessary creation and
a necessary providence, and a necessary world that occurs because
those things are isomorphically identical. This is called the modal
collapse argument. So that also refutes Tim's reductionist position. People
can look at Radigalwitz's famous Oxford thesis on simplicity in
the Cappadocians. Moving on, he noted that as he went
through his quote Mind of the Eastern Church Fathers, he
sort of tried to fit this into an aristotomist scheme. Well,
if he was able to look into the scholarship on
the Cappadocians, the transition from the Cappadocians into Cyril and
Maximus and John Damascus in a very very recent, very
well known text by yan Zach Kuber called the Rise
of Christian Theology Naction Metaphysics, he would know that the
Cappadocians were not working with a two tiered cause effect
Aristotelian scheme. They're working more so with a neoplatonic scheme.
I'm not advocating for neoplatonism. I'm saying that when the
neoplatonic philosophy is used by the Cabo Doocians, and thus
that model and that tendency to speak that way is
accept a particularly a Constantinople, one which by the way
is called close and had out of communion with Rome,
which is the council that defines the Trinity. It has
nothing to do with aristotomism, and so this is a
kind of a revisionist anachronistic approach where they will take
things and reread the tonistic positions into quote minds from
the Church fathers. Because as I noted, as Gregor of
Nissa says, the invisible God becomes visible by his energies.
He is not seen or known in his essence, but
in his operations. And that's from on the Beata Toudes
section four. So divine energies are what come down to us.
It is not the mere created effects, but the actual
participation in the attributes, energies and life of God. That's
not a created thing. Jesus says in John seventeen, he
came to give us a share in the glory that
he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.
Saus it is a real participation in uncreated glory. God's
glory is not a creature. The glory and the grace
itself is what we partake of. So he says that
I engage in unifical predication. I never made an argument
that human terms or conceptions aren't unifical to the attributes.
Speaker 2: In fact, I would agree with analogical predication.
Speaker 3: It's just that the analogies do not match up to
divine essence, they match up.
Speaker 2: To the energies.
Speaker 3: Hence Basil says in Letter two thirty four, what God's
essence says, we do not know, but rather it is
his energies, his operations that come down to us. Exactly
what Innessa says Jay Dyer. That was the rebuttal.
Speaker 1: Now, obviously you can both rebuttal his opening statement and
his rebuttal here a few of his points. You are
going to have five minutes on the clock. Please with
the rebuttal, try to keep it within the direct timing.
If we're in halftime, you have an extra thirty seconds. Bleed,
Go ahead, Timothy in Strong's since Jay cited it. Energeia
in Paul means God's activity and grace, not specifically, not
a metaphysical part of God.
Speaker 2: Distinct from his essence. This would this would repeat the
entire position. The Catholic theology captures this through uncreated grace.
That's our position, God himself at work in us and
without it, does all of this without dividing him into
essence versus energies. So it's sounded by that quote as
if it was essence energies, nothing of the sort. The
Orthodox move from a biblical usage of energeia, which again
I warned you there would be this equivocation time and
time and time again, because entergaya is a word in
the Greek that's frequent here to metaphysics, and ergay it
means something very very different in the in the distinction
between essence and energies. It's a strong extrapolation, in strong
I think the most important question that Jay frequently asks sincerely,
I've heard him ask it sincerely many times. I'm not
being facetious here is he'll ask, And this is really
at the heart of the matter. Why if there's a
real distinction between If Catholics allow a real distinction between
the three persons, why can't they abide a real distinction
between the divine essence and the energies? Which is a
it's a fair question. The answer is usiological, which means
when we're looking at the single essence of God, the
one thing which absolutely must be worshiped. This has been
affirmed at I see it too. Worship is latria worship
proper to the divine essence alone. We are talking about
God's one uzia. Real distinctions within that Uzia can be
made by what we've called relations of opposition between the
three persons. That because in proper theology, the three persons
are inside that divine essence, that Uziah. This does not
enable or rehabilitate or allow extra usiological distinctions between God's
essence and energies, because the entire point of the essence
energies distinction is that there is a real distinction, and
they don't have what we call virtual distinctions anyway. There's
a real distinction between God's Uziah and his energies, his
operations that and they're uncreated, both whether you're talking philosophy
or classical theology. Anything that's uncreated is God. Anything that
is on the other side of creation as God. So
if you have an uzir that is the divine essence
of God and something else that's uncreated you're talking about,
you must be talking about two gods anyway. This is
why we don't allow that distinction, any distinctions within the
single divine essence. The relations of opposition between fatherhood and filiality, filiation,
these are fine. These make sense. Relations of opposition makes
sense from within what we know to be the Trinity,
within the uziah of God. The Father is not the Son,
is not the Holy Spirit. But they're all the same
substance of God. But you can't make you can't distinguish
between two uncreated realities outside of space and time without
positing a new essence. So it's an usiological answer. It's
very basic, and hopefully you see that the former is
possible because monotheism requires one uzia of God, whereas the
latter would require seemingly two divine uzias. They won't say it,
they won't say that the position is too divine uzias
because it's one divine essence and then something else uncreated.
But it's required, it's necessarily follows incredible.
Speaker 1: So you know, in the midst of this you actually
are under time by forty five seconds?
Speaker 2: Can I? So if you want to keep going, yeah,
I would just say there's there's scriptural evidence against the
essence energies distinction too. I'll jump into the Theophanes that
Jay has been talking about in Exodus three one to six.
At the burning bush, God himself speaks. It's not that
God some energies of God speak. God himself speaks. It's
a direct quote. But pillar of cloud and fire the
Lord went before them, not a separate energy. Is a fact.
The Lord himself, the substance of God, went before them.
So direct quote in Isaiah chapter six one to five.
In the vision Isaiah saw the Lord did not see
some likeness of the Lord. In John chapter twelve, verse
forty one, this is applied to Christ. At the transfiguration,
the apostles beheld Christ's glory participation. So this is important
because when we're talking about the divine essence, we're talking
about the divine essence. When we're talking about some work
of God, we're talking about something that's distinct.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, Jay, I don't know if you were laughing
at him or you're laughing in his argument, I showed
you're chuckling a little bit over there, and I couldn't
help but notice.
Speaker 2: And so you know, as you.
Speaker 1: Cross examine and you go into this, you'll have exactly
five minutes to respond.
Speaker 2: Here the clock starts.
Speaker 3: Now go ahead, No but wait a minute, oh yes,
stop hold on, so I can cross the exam and interrupt,
right uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. I just I just
wanted you to do a little bit, if you is
that how you would like to that is that how
you'd like to do that that section, like to what
were you going to say? Oh? No, I was gonna say.
Speaker 1: I didn't know if you wanted to go back over
what he was just saying right now and then jump
in there a little bit.
Speaker 3: But uh, well, what we'd agreed to was cross exam
where we can where I cross exam him and I
can abrupt him correct yea.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally within reason. Yeah yeah, I mean yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Potentially just gonna interrupt every five seconds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's funny.
Speaker 3: I'm glad that you mentioned Exodus three because it was
actually next to my notes, because I don't know if
you're familiar with Exdus twenty three, because God goes on
to describe who that being is. You said, the substance
of God went before them. Do you think that the
substance of God is the angel messenger?
Speaker 2: No, I think I think that God entered into I
believe that the Theophanes represent a creation of God. Are
they the substance of God or they represent they're not
the substance of God. You said the substance of God
went before them. Yeah, No, I didn't mean it that way.
Speaker 3: Okay, But in Leviticus nine, it's said to be the
glory of God that comes down.
Speaker 2: It was an equivocation. Yeah, I'm just saying in God himself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it's God himself for a representation, because that's
a big deal.
Speaker 2: We believe it's a representation. Okay.
Speaker 3: In Leviticus nine, what comes down in that so often
he is called the glory of God is God's glory
of creature? Yes, God's glory is a creature. Yes, you're
a polytheist.
Speaker 2: No, you called the divice that glory is a creature
because it's created. Yes, God's glorious creator, like I said,
like I said at the beginning, well this is the
Catholic position, and you know it's the laughing at it
to pretend that this isn't a one thousand year old dispute.
Speaker 3: Are you about what you're saying? God's glory is created?
God's glory is? Is it eternal?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: So there's eternal. So you're a polytheist. God's glory is
eternally created. And this is a game.
Speaker 2: It's not a game.
Speaker 3: Okay, this is why it's let me know poetry, let's
do fifteen second blocks. It's not a game. No, it's
you said that God's glory is eternal and it's a creature,
that the angels are eternal, and no they're not. They're created.
Speaker 2: No, they can be eternal with God like a footprint
in sand, to use Augustin's term.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, are they created axt nilo? Well, of course, yeah,
they're not eternal, they're not uncreated. But with regard to glory,
it can't since it's uncreated. Since it is created. Which
one is it? Since it's created?
Speaker 2: Jay, No, it's not to God because I'm created, separate
from the divine, as you to gods.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that that the glory is a creature.
You may you messed up by saying that you belielory
is eternal. It's uncreated. It's the glory that.
Speaker 2: Is it separate from the divine. Up to me, it's
my time because i'm because I'm asking you back questions
in my cross examination. All right, he's.
Speaker 1: Correct on that, Yeah, sure, all right, Yeah, so let's
let's leave the question.
Speaker 2: Seventeen. Can I clarify my answer quickly if he allows you? Okay,
so we say it's not polytheism because it's created. It's
that simple. God's glory is a creature. God's glory is
a creature.
Speaker 3: Wow, you understand that in Ezekiel, the son is identified
as the glory.
Speaker 2: Is the son a creature? No, this is an equivocal definition,
because yeah, woman is the glory of man. That doesn't
mean that she's Uh. The unifical predication is the glory
of the father. The son in this analogical sense can
be the glory of the Father. That doesn't mean so
when is that God's glory as such is uncreated? Okay?
Speaker 3: And Judge's six it says that Yahweh turned his face
to get in. Is that Yahweh really in time of space?
Speaker 2: Or you don't know? Yeah, I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe you should have looked into the theophanies if
you wanted to talk. Well, you've already admitted that God's
glory is a creature. Right, that's polytheism, an analogy. I mean,
I never disagree with anal analogical predication.
Speaker 2: But you no, No, I don't mean analogic. I mean when
God turns his face. You think that a theophany means
requires logical body? Did Jacob rustle with Jesus it's a theophany?
Did he wrestle with Jesus. We say this is a
created participation. So the son prior to the incarnation was created. No,
this is what you said. It was a creature.
Speaker 3: It's less than a So now you're a polytheist again,
and there's multiple gods less than the creature.
Speaker 2: I can't be a polytheist, Jay, if I keep saying
that these are creations, I'm only a god. I separate
from the divine essence you're calling that is God, and
that they're called that means they're not creatures.
Speaker 3: You always uncreated. His glory is uncreated because he had
it forever in the triad in a triadic relationship. You
said God's glory is a creature. You just messed up
big time. That's idolatry.
Speaker 1: That's I'm done all right six the time, And yeah,
I was gonna add another thirty seconds out of the clock.
Then anyways, you still have thirty seconds here for him
interrupting you with the questions. So you have an additional
minute on a future category if you'd like to, especially
in the closing or on a separate topic.
Speaker 2: We'll go ahead and we will switch Outay, hold on,
I have more time or.
Speaker 1: No, I'll give you an extra minute because of him
interrupting the questions. You have thirty seconds left, and I'm
give you additional thirty seconds onto either to the closing
or on the section of the next topic. Let's go
over to Timothy. Go ahead, you have five minutes on
the clock. You can be in your questioning.
Speaker 2: Okay. If the energies are not the divine essence, there's
a real distinction between them, but they're still uncreated. How
many such uncreated realities are there in God? Butzel says,
there's infinite energies, So they're infinite uncreated existences. Are they
essences of their own? Their energies? Hence they're not essences? Oh,
so what are they? But they're uncreated?
Speaker 3: So the operations, the attributes, and the thought, wills or
ideas of God.
Speaker 2: So they're infinite. There are uncreated things? Well, I'm asking you. Yeah,
God is one in many. But except so when we
go to worship God, we worship infinite things. Yes, God's infinite.
I don't know if you know that. No, do you
worship an infinite number of properties?
Speaker 3: When we say God is infinite, infinity is an infinite number?
Speaker 2: Can I worship the energies alone without worshiping the divine essence.
Speaker 3: No, because every person who acts in the every every
act of God is triadic and thus includes all of God.
Speaker 2: But then, how are they really distinct because God does
different things? What does that mean? Creating isn't walking on water? No,
if I can't worship them separately, in other words, if
there's not a passive potency in them that is receptive
of my worship God's divine essence, his energies, I can't
worship them separately. So why call them really distinct? Because
if you guys had virtual distinctions the way you should hear,
this wouldn't be a problem. But because you say it's
a real distinction in God, that's a problem. Modal collapse
is why we don't. This is not modal collapse. Why
I'm telling you why we don't have that? No? No,
But but then they're not really distinct. You just said they're.
Speaker 3: Distinct, because it can't be they are really distinct because
the Father and the son are really distinct, and you
don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with that because that's all
within one Uziah. Do you have a problem with constant
standardizes are the operations from that one? You see, they
might be the operations from but they're different from the uzia.
Distinction applies to the substance. You're with me, right, So
like when we make a distinction about a thing, we're
making a distinction about the substance itself. Philosophy one on one. Yeah, yeah, sure, okay,
So that's what I That's why I asked, why can
we call them really distinct when they're they're somehow outside
the uzia. They're different from it. They're really distinct, they're
not virtually distinct. But I mean, do you want to end?
You want answer? I want your answer?
Speaker 3: Right, Well, I'm going to say what they say because
I agree with them. They say that just as a
person works, he's not identical to the work, and persons
do different works.
Speaker 2: Okay, but that's a nonsense term. You can't say it's
really distinct. That's fine. I'm just saying it doesn't work
out because when something is distinct. No not, because when
something is distinct usiologically, that means that we would have
to act upon it. It would it would receive passive potency.
Is that the persons, because they're the same. Do you
think the persons aren't consubstantial they're really distinct? No, they're
really distinct within an uzia. Oh, I don't believe that.
You don't believe the person of the trinity are within
the same us. I don't start with the essence. I'll
start with the fathers, the monarchical dark. Wait, you don't
believe that the three persons are consubstantart. I'm not asking
where you started. I asked, do you think that the
persons are consubstantial? Yes? Or now? Of course they're consubstantial. Okay,
I don't So they're not ziologically distinct. That's all I'm saying.
I don't have your metaphysics. No, I don't have your metaphysics.
But the point is they can't be distinct if we're
talking about two separate things. The persons are not too separate.
The three persons are not too separate.
Speaker 3: The relations of opposition the energy is a separate not Okay,
they're not separate, is my if I work?
Speaker 2: Is it separate? No? You screwed up there. No I didn't.
You're just saying I screwed up the energy did I
never said separate? Is it consubstantial or not? I said,
the persons are consubstantially. Yes, the energies aren't consubstantial with
the essence, though for very distinct Okay, but then I
can't worship them separately. Then the same here's here's another one,
that the essence is eternally unknowable. Do we fulfill our
final end in the Beatific vision. We don't believe in
the Bitua vision because we believe in the purpose of life. Okay,
when we look at you believe we see God in
the end. We don't see God.
Speaker 3: That's not our union, the uncreated energies, and we have
a body. So I don't believe in a uh neoplatonic
satiating of the intellect.
Speaker 2: You're a platonist. I'm not a platonist on the Beato vision. No,
you know it's from origin. Yes, So you don't believe
that we can fulfill the purpose of life and see
the divine essence ever?
Speaker 3: Right, Nissa says, no one sees the divine essence ever,
even in theton.
Speaker 2: Even in the sketon.
Speaker 3: Okay, I said, we see the divine energies, as the
Cappadocians say, we see the things around God, not his essence.
Speaker 2: What do you think the things around God are. If
God has passive potency, explain to me how he can
be immutable, eternal, perfect thirty second bleed.
Speaker 3: Right now, divine essence is unchanging, unalterable. But I don't
reduce the persons and their actions to the essence, and
so it's not a problem for me. Yes, I answered,
with reciprocity.
Speaker 2: You're just saying there is a circular object, this planer
that can be orthogonal. I mean, explain divine revelation then yeah,
So if God can be I never I said that
he condescends to have their identity with creatures. That doesn't
make sense. I'm sorry you don't believe that prayer, right,
God answers prayer? No, I believe acted upon which you've
said several times in your podcast. I never said that
passive potency. How could he still be immutable? The divine
essence doesn't change.
Speaker 3: God condescends to have reciprole relationships with our prayers.
Speaker 2: That's what I said. That's time there.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you don't think God answers prayers. So again
you have a pagan metaphysical system.
Speaker 2: All right, that's the time question.
Speaker 1: Now, what I want to know from you guys in
the chat right now if you heard the cross examination.
One's in the chat if you think that Jay is
cooking and that you think that he's winning right now
in terms of just truth, and I don't want to
hear just the Orthodox pros.
Speaker 2: I know how you guys, are you guys will just
be like jaywins.
Speaker 1: So One's in the chat if you think theologically is
arguments and more sound. Two in the chat if you
think that Timothy's arguments and cross examination was more sound.
Speaker 2: That means even if you're Orthodox or you're Catholic, you
don't have to vote for your home team. One's in
the chat for j Two's in the chats.
Speaker 1: Before we do the closing statement, I do want to
just read a couple of super chats here reminding you
guys that Humphluru one said tim is based, Jay is based.
We should be Catholic republic and the Authos should build
the churches. We also had from Daniel Ward seventy nine said,
thank you Tim Gordon for defending the one true Church
that Jesus founded on the Prince of the Apostle, Saint Peter.
May all least an Orthodox become Catholics, so we may
be in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church. We also
read the ones here from Maximus Decimus said keep my
name out of your mouth, little boy, shout out for
our supreme leader, Jay Dyer, Christ is King. All right,
we're gonna give a one more minute here to read
a couple super chats before we get to the closing statements.
Servant Necros is thirty three cent, huge respect for Jay.
Keep it up my brother now the Aldohyan and also
said Tim makes you sleep in Elijah is using groc
This is the most rigorous debate I have ever seen.
Speaker 2: It's truth.
Speaker 1: I don't use I don't use AI, but I had
to use ad a lookup some of the stuff you
were saying in real time. Also, we have missed a
fist and said I'm too subtarted to understand any of this.
But Orthodox have better hats, which settles it. A tree
will be known by its fruit. Come home, Papists. So
it looks like we got a pretty good split in
between there. Right, let's move into the closing statement. Just
so you guys know watching at home, we will be
taking a five minute break between each of our topics.
So you can use the restroom, you can breathe, and
it might be a couple of minutes, so don't go anywhere.
We're gonna start with our closing statement. If you guys
are John, are you prepared and are you prepared to go?
All right, Jay, you're gonna have ten minutes on the clock.
You do have an extra minut would you want to
use it here on a future topic?
Speaker 2: We'll say that. Okay, soat we're doing closing statements for
each topic. Well, that's the forumt that I was handed here,
unless you like to do a closing statement overall. I
thought we were doing overall. But what I defer to
you if you want to do, that's your figure. That's
gonna be really.
Speaker 1: What about brief? Yeah, why we just want we'll just
do a three minute wrap up because I think that's
for a lot of us. Just a reminder, because this
is an internet debate. While there are a lot of theologians,
some people may have gotten lost in there. So maybe
we'll keep to understanding to help us understand what your
final statement was. You have three minutes on the clock.
Will make it brief and we'll have a complete one
at the end. Go ahead, Jay, your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I want to remind everybody that again, I think if
you are familiar with Biblical theology, the Patristic teaching, nobody
believes that the glory of God is in any sense
a creature or created. In fact, it is the uncreated
immortality and light that Paul talks about at the end
of Timothy, in which God eternally dwells that uncreated light
in glory was manifested in Matthew seventeen on the mount
of transfiguration through the human nature of Christ.
Speaker 2: And so it is precisely this crucial.
Speaker 3: Mistake that's made amongst the Catholic friends of ours that
they think that this in some way will violate these
basic metaphysical principles. But in fact we have a reverse
system that we derive our theology first, in our metaphysics second.
Speaker 2: This is what allowed the Church Fathers to be.
Speaker 3: Pretty fluid with the way that they appropriated the philosophy
of their day.
Speaker 2: As the zach Kuber.
Speaker 3: Book notes, the Church Fathers are able to in some
places pull from Arisothean logic text, but for the most
part they utilize a lot of neoplatonic argumentation. At least
up until John Damascus, who then does use a lot
more Aristotilian argumentation.
Speaker 2: So what that shows is that for us, it's not.
Speaker 3: A question of Aristotle versus Plato, but rather divine revelation,
as Father Fluorowsky says, which comes first and foremost. And
that's why, for example, when Aquinas in on a de vertate,
when he talks about the section on divine simplicity, when
he rejects John Damascus's essence energy argument, which shows by
the way that John Damascus is actually making the same
essence energy arguments that I'm making, which is precisely why
they were present in all the cab Dootionans, why I
was present in Saint Cyril, and it's even present in St.
Speaker 2: Anthonasius himself.
Speaker 3: If you read Fluorowsky's essay on Creation and Creaturehood about
the essenceentary distinction in sant Athenasius even you'll notice that
Aquandas's rejection has nothing to do with what the actual
Patristic teaching is. In fact, he says in on the contrary. Moreover,
Rabbi my Minides notes that the names of God do
not signify intentions added to the substance of God, because
every accident signifies an intention added to the substance of
its subject. Therefore, the foregoing names do not signify an accident.
Speaker 2: In God.
Speaker 3: We simply don't have the two tiered metaphysical collapse structure
that He has, which nobody in the first seven hundred
years of the Patristic teaching has either.
Speaker 2: So the attempt to categorize.
Speaker 3: The energies as accidental or in some way hearts or
something like that was never an argument that I made,
nor did any of the Eastern trust Fathers make it.
And in fact, if you the dissutation with Piis which
is the theology of Saint Maximus that goes into the
Confession of Saint Sophronius, which is accepted at the six
Ecumenical Council, that whole treatise, it's about one hundred pages,
is a treatise utilizing all the same essence energy arguments
that I make against the monothelite monophysite position that is
accepted in the Confession of Saint Sophronius at the sixth
Econminical Council, and even Pope Agatho in his letter admits
two wills and two energies in Christ and so when
when Tim said that inner gaia means something very different
in the Bible, it's not metaphysical. He then goes on
to give this elaborate ussiological story about what it's all
really meaning, doing the very opposite of what I'm doing,
which is looking at the text when it says that
Moses walked up on the mountain and God's glory was
shown to him, his goodnesses, and by the way, it's
plural there the goodnesses of God are shown. And yet
Jesus says in John five, no one saw the Father
at any time. Well, it's not the energies that are
manifesting in time and space. It is the person of
the Son, who is the face of the Father in
time and space, and.
Speaker 2: It is his energies that are manifest sacing.
Speaker 3: So he misunderstood, especially when he was talking about the
Angel of the Lord, who is obviously the person of
Christ in time and space in the Theophany. So I
think that that Theophanees really clenches the whole argument.
Speaker 2: All right, it was forty seconds over, but we'll give
you the minute bleed. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put the same amount of time then that
he had let me reset the clock. You'll have four
minutes since he had four. Go ahead, Timothy, give us
your closing statement on the topic.
Speaker 2: Here on the simplicity, you see the devastation to the
EO position when you look at scripture on the beatific vision.
In First John, it says we shall see Him as
he is. That would mean the divine essence at the
end of time. Blessed are the pure in heart. Or
they shall see God. This is Matthew chapter five, verse eight.
They shall see God, not the works of God or
the energeias of God. They will not see his energies.
They will see God himself. This is the problem. This
is the teleology of the good life. This is what
we're promised. And they say otherwise, they say we will
never see God in his essence. All we can ever
see are the energaias of God's same as what we
see on earth. It's absurd. If we never see God's essence,
we never reach full union with him. Also, so this
is really really important to draw. It's it's absolutely theologically
and teleologically devastating, and it's a fatalistic worldview. Very very important. Now, Glory.
When Jay was asking me about glory, and he's spit
firing questions at me. Glory is a created reality. The
way we experience it, the way we're talking about it,
the way it's predicated. Analogically, it's glory in our soul,
in our intellects, and our participation in it is created
and therefore the way we interact with God's glory. Again,
this is a virtual distinction because it involves the way
that we receive it in interact with it in the
mode of the receiver us creatures. It's of course has
to be created. A created glory has to interact with
creatures as it exists in God, it is uncreated. But
we don't know glory from the side of God because
glory from the side of God remains uncreated until the
be a typic vision. The most important thing he was
asking about the Theophanes and Jay's claim. He'll say, the
Theophanes are this easy, easy proof that passive potency can
exist in God, which is a non sequitur. It's absurd,
says there's a distinction between the inner, unrevealed aspect of God,
his essence, and what he reveals and manifests us his
divine personal energies. A Theophany. Like I said before, it's
a it's a created sign or instrument of uncreated presence.
The change is in the medium, not in God himself.
So this does not even begin to prove that God
is not pure actor, that God can change. Particularly, I
thought Jay was going to come on this first segment
and distinguish, well, God can change because he has active power,
active potensia. Well that's true, but he's the unmoved mover.
He can he can act on things without them being
acted on him. But he he came on and defended
God as passive potency. And this just doesn't begin to
be shown by the fact that the Theophanes have taken
place as signs and instruments that are created. Worship is
something funny. Worship belongs to the divine nature alone. This
is from Second Constantinople. But not if we take Jay
at his word, worship Second Constantinople belongs to the divine
nature alone. So that that's really important, I mean the most.
The heart of this issue is whether or not passive
potencies can be allowed within God. And this would simply
destroy all of classical theism. God would change, He wouldn't
be immutable. He wouldn't be eternal. This is anathematized it,
and I see it. If God had passive potency, he
wouldn't be simply wouldn't be perfect. I mean, I'm restating
what I said in opening because it's so very basic
and it's so devastating to what we believe about God.
If we believe that God, if we were to allow
ourselves to believe that God had passive post I still
have a minute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you want to want to have the minute
on the clock right now, all right, give me one moment.
Speaker 2: Let me reset the clock. Give you a minute and
go ahead and take that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just want to address in this minute the
fact that I mean, he doesn't seem to be aware
that the Theophanes are called God, they're given the name Yahweh,
they're worshiped, and they're pre signifiers of the incarnation. So
he's literally saying that these signs and symbols can be worshiped.
So he believes that you can worship creatures. Then he
turns around and contradicts himself because he says that only
divine nature can be worshiped.
Speaker 2: The triad is worshiped.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't say only the divine nature is worshiped,
but we worship God in Triad. That's the actual definition
of the council doesn't say only divine nature. So I
think it's just kind of insane to me that that,
like how far removed from divine revelation that position actually is.
Speaker 2: And again, as I said in.
Speaker 3: Philippians too, if God is a being that is reducible
to pure act, then it's not possible for the self
emptying or the limiting to occur in the incarnation when
the Sun, according to Filippians to in the Canosis passage
willfully limits himself. A being that is pure act according
to definition reducibly would undergo change via Philippians too, And
we don't believe.
Speaker 2: That can have a minitary respondent. No where you're you're
over on that one.
Speaker 1: You can't actually still in the other topics if you'd
like to, you can always address technically if you like
to take a little bit of time to bring back
some points, I do want to mind you, guys, we're
gonna take a break here in a second, so that
if you're dis joining right now in the live stream,
we are in the middle of debating some of the
core dogmas theological concepts, depending on where you come from
and what wording you like to use. Of Orthodoxy and
Catholicism in terms of the Church itself, not the Orthodoxy
of religion, Orthodoxy of faith, or the Gospel, but of
the approach and of the Church. That being said, if
you guys are sending super chats, I just want to
remind you guys a couple of things. We have a
few more people in here. Mista also said that it's
a little bit too much beyond him. We also have
some win Titus, win Hadrian. We also have a l
chemist said, depending on Gordon's performance, tonight might be Jay's
third conversion to Catholicism and second denunciation of the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Curious to know which way the wind swayed him tonight.
Speaker 1: Uh, Sigilists said Orthodox equals divine person, Catholic equals divine robot.
We also have a servant, said Hard passed on trusting
a church founded on forgeries. I'm not sure that's in Australia,
and shout out to my Aussies. I just got banned
from Australia. Unfortunately, I don't even know what the currency
AARs is, but uh, buddy, Pep nine seven three said
tim has been forsake and everyone got to donate to
the stream where y'all are Yukubians.
Speaker 2: Really, we're all did you cube made us?
Speaker 1: I remember you said that, right, Yeah, you're all creating
the image of a cube.
Speaker 2: You're learning the right religion now, yeah, finally yeah, And.
Speaker 1: And a grand canon is a portal, that's what they say. Uh,
Techno Ox said, let's go, not one step back.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: We also have a few more that we'll read in
a moment, but let's join and let's jump into a
quick break. We're taking a couple of minute break here,
just a reset. They're gonna reset their books, their notes,
and we're gonna come back just to make sure I
have it correct by the from you so that we
don't make them no mistake.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 1: For the next topic that you wanted to cover, we
are able to get into the Christ did not establish
the papacy? Or did you want to go to the
Holy Spirit? Does not have a do you want to
go to the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 2: Question? Was it Philly? What do you want? He went first?
You can pick the next topic. We'll be going first.
I'm fine with either, but but Philly oquay would be
would have more of them.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go there, all right, So we'll be
back talking about that just a moment, and we'll be
starting opening statements with Timothy Gordon representing Catholicism. We'll see
just a few moments, take a break, and we'll be
right back in the Rumble section. That justays imagine Allied
to trying to process all this when he couldn't even
get the sound started to start his live stream.
Speaker 2: Absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 1: We got a great debate going on today directly between
Jay Dyer and Timothy Gordon. If you're just joining Live today,
we are live on rumble x, Facebook and on YouTube.
We can also find us on Instagram and Elijah Schaeffer
dot locals dot com makes it if you want to
know where we've been.
Speaker 2: I've been very sick.
Speaker 1: I was in El Salvador shooting content and then I
end up picking up a stomach bug from a taco stand.
I love the country, but don't eat pork from strangers
in developing countries.
Speaker 2: That's just a little a little tip for tat there.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be jumping into our next topic today on
the overarching discussion of orthodox is in the Church itself
and Catholicism as in the church and the dogma. If
you're joining me today on YouTube, make sure that you
like the video right now and subscribe to We are
a brand news show, still working out the kinks, just
a couple months old, and absolutely fantastic and excited because
we are a network riftv dot com not influenced by
outside countries like Israel, and that's our claim to fame
here and so we really appreciate that.
Speaker 2: All right, We're gonna jump into the topic here, specifically
about the Holy Spirit, and you know, we are asking ourselves,
does it or does it not hyposthetically proceed from the sun.
So this is a very complex topic.
Speaker 1: It's going to get intricate, it is going to get
absolutely incredibly in many ways incredibly technical, and so again
I encourage you guys to please have your your notes
out and be ready to discuss. Our guests are of
agreed to doing ten minute opening statements and they will
have a minute bleed if they so choose. We're going
to start with Timothy Gordon. The time is on the clock.
You have ten minutes. You can start now.
Speaker 2: So the second question tonight is nothing less than the
unity of the Trinity. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from
the Father alone or from both the Father and the
Son together is one eternal source. This is called the philioquay.
It means and the Son. The Catholic position is that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the person of the Father
through the person of the Son. Brief historical note, there's
a semantic dodge that happens with Orthodox The narrative proves
how absurdly reactive the Orthodox position is against the Catholic position.
Or early on, there are a couple of thinkers. One
is named Photius. The other is Michael Ceriularius, who was
the patriarch during the Schism, who mistakenly thought that the
Catholic philioque meant a polyarchic generation of the divine essence,
meaning that both the Father and the Son like generate
the essence as it comes to the Spirit, which has
never been the Catholic position. It's the Catholic position has
always been monarchic. The Father alone generates it through the
Son it comes to the Holy Spirit. So so together
these thinkers, who are separated by about two hundred and
fifty years, Photius and Cerularius together reduced the Orthodox position
to the view for for a time that the Spirit
proceeded from the Sun only economically or temporarily. By the
time they realized their error in interpretation in the late
thirteenth century, the Eastern Orthodox, they're already committed to schism,
and so even though they became willing to admit that
the Spirit proceeded from the Sun eternally and this is
an eternal relationship, they maintained some linguistic distance from the
Catholic position, which is called hypostatic procession. It means a
procession from the person by use of nonsensical language like
eternal manifestation, which is either a distinction without a difference
from the Roman Catholic view and we're the same all along,
or else it's nonsensical here. I'm on this one topic
of three. I'm very willing to be persuaded, but it
seems just like a semantic dodge. They don't want to
have the Catholic view. By the time the Eastern Orthodox
realized that, Photius in around eight hundred and Ceriularius around
two hundred and fifty years later, badly misunderstood the philioque
and created this whole stink they decide. It seems they
decided to employ the semantic dodge rather than admit the
air of these two thinkers. So it depends what's being said.
If the Father alone truly spirates, truly spirates the Spirit,
then it becomes nonsensical. It would deny that all the
Father has belongs to the Son, which is a quote
directly from scripture. From John's Gospel, it severs the eternal
relation of the Spirit to the Son, which again Jesus says,
all that the Father has I have. In this sense,
Scripture strongly supports philioka, which is, the Father gives the
divine essence to the Holy Spirit through the Son. The
spirit is called the spirit of the Son in Galatians
chapter four, verse six. In Romans chapter eight, verse nine,
Christ breathes the spirit. In John chapter twenty, verse twenty two,
this is an image of external procession. I think they'll
say it's strictly economic. But he's breathing the spirit, and
it's an eternal relation. When Jesus says all that the
Father has is mine. John chapter sixteen, verse fifteen, nothing
is excluded from the sun the river of life. In
the final Book of the Bible Revelation twenty two, verse one,
the river of life flows from the throne of the
Father and the Lamb. This has only one possible meaning
that I can construe most condemningly, and there is a
lot of equivocal language here. And again I think there's
the least difference between our two positions of all these
three topics by far. I would say that the Eastern
Orthodox thinkers, or Eastern thinkers of the first millennium, many
of them largely support it. Cyril of Alexandria says spirit
is from God in the Sun and through the Son.
That's an Eastern thinker. Saint Maximus the Confessor says, outright,
the Latins are correct. They mean from the Father through
the Son. Saint Basil and Gregory of Nissa both say
almost identically, all God's works are from the Father through
the Son in the spirit. Saint John Damascene gives an
amazing image for all of it, for anybody out there
that's trying to think about it. This is an amazing
image and it captures both the medium and the substance
of the way that I believe the philioque works. He says,
the Father is the source the Sun is a river,
the Holy Spirit is a lake. The spirit quote proceeds
from the Father and rests in the Sun. Saint Gregory
of Nissa writes, every operation which extend from God to
creation has its origin from the Father, proceeds through the Son,
and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. This is very
very close, very close to our view. None of these views,
because of the abstrusity of the topic, are going to
be identical, particularly in the Early Church, but it's very
close to what we're saying. A hypostatic procession, a procession
of the Father through the person of the Son to
the Spirit. But still only the Spirit only gets the
divine essence from one source. That source is the Father
alone through through Jesus. As a reminder, Avenatia says, the
Holy Spirit has to the Son the same proper relation
as we have known the Son to have to the Father.
So a nice relation of proportion. The Holy Spirit is
to the Son as the Son is to the Father.
Gregory and Azienzas said, if there ever was a time
that the Father was not the Son was not. If
ever there was a time when the Sun was not,
then the Holy Spirit was not showing eternality through temporality,
and Saint Epiphanius of Salamus says, the Spirit is from
the Father indeed, but he is not without the Son.
For if the spirit is of the Father, he is
also of the Son. For the Son says he will
receive from me. Ecumenical councils support this. It was not
crystal clear until the fourth latter in council. The Spirit
receives equally from both leons two, which takes place supposed
to be the Reunion Council, the first Reunion Council in
twelve seventy four, from the Father and the Son, as
from one principle one spiration. There's equivocation on whether or
not there's one principle at times there's just one principle,
one spiration through the Son. Florence in fourteen thirty nine,
which actually was the Reunion Council. The Catholic Church and
the Orthodox Church did unify at the Florence Council, where
the Orthodox position thirty one the thirty three delegates said,
you are right on phillyoquay and on the papacy says
spirit eternally from both one principal one spiration. Now scripturally,
the spirit is sent by both the Father and the
Son in John chapter fourteen, verse twenty six and in
John chapter sixteen, verse seven. Logically speaking, this holds if
the son cannot spirate, he is less than the Father,
which is a semi arianist error. Unity requires it as well.
Phillioquay preserves the Trinity's unity, denying it divides the Father
and the Son. So I'd say this that you have
to take this historical look at the Phillyoquay one because
it's so dense, but also because the historical account is
really really important. It seems that by the time the
Orthodox real we weren't we Catholics did not the Latins
didn't have the position on the filioqua that they were
attributing to us. They did not want to admit that
the position had being correct all along. So until this
misunderstanding about what Western fathers meant began, the Eastern fathers
were comfortable with eternal relations between the Spirit and the Sun.
It's called the Athenation model, after all, and Athenacious is
an Eastern father. This is the Eastern formulation of the
hypostatic procession, though they don't use the term hypostatic. In
the sixth century, the formulation begins getting put into the Western,
non Roman creeds, which makes the I guess East feel threatened.
There's a lot of natural tension at the time. In
eight oh three, Charlemagne enthusiastically adds it to the creed.
Frankish priests at the time say the creed this way
in the Holy Land. And then in eight sixty nine,
this important date, Photius of Constantinople says the creed is heretical.
He thinks that it means the Holy Spirit's essence in
the Creed comes from two sources. This is just wrong.
It's an embarrassment. He thought that the Catholic position was
one of Polyarchia. And it's probably why we're disagreeing about
this today is because there's an error mate and a
misinterpretation of the Catholic position that's factual, with no account
ever given for it by Photius or his people. He
thinks it means the Holy Spirit's essence in the creed
comes from two sources. To repeat for people out there,
for those whom this is new, Photius says, the spirit
has no eternal relation with the Son, which is not
I believe the Orthodox position today even only a historical
temporal economic relation is what Photius was willing to say
because he knew he didn't want that Catholic view. Fifty four,
Michael Cerularius revitalizes Photius is overreacting misunderstanding of the Philly. Okay,
are we at time? You know we're at time? Okay,
And I would say that this is a history of
a misunderstanding without account ever taken.
Speaker 1: All right, going over in the chat you know, remember
you guys, at any point if you think someone's cooking,
it's always one in the chat for ja two in
the chat for ten. We're gonna go over to Jay
Dier at the Orthodox position on the Philly. Okay, if
I'm even pronouncing that right, iings to pronounce that differently,
So sorry for that.
Speaker 2: But go ahead and give us your opening statement. Yeah,
thank you. Give you a second to set up your
notes here, and do you wanna do you want to
a couple of seconds here? Uh? No, I got it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll start your timer whenever you're ready. Let me
know when you're ready to begin or so.
Speaker 3: The Orthodox doctrine is again going to flow out of
the teaching of the Cappadocians, and particularly Constantinople one, which
is the second Ecumenical Council. Keep that in mind, because
second Ecamenical Council was called closed and confirmed outside.
Speaker 2: Of communion with Rome.
Speaker 3: At the time Saint Melidias of Antioch was the presiding bishop.
He died outside of commune with Rome, and a few
years later Rome eventually accepts that council as the dogmatic
definition of the Church, supposedly. I want to before we
get into this, well, I'll just start here. In the
Orthodox view, following the Cappadocians, there's a famous dictim of
Gregor Nazianzus.
Speaker 2: Everything that the Father.
Speaker 3: Has, the son has likewise accept the causality. You'll notice
that nowhere in that discussion did you hear a clear discussion,
a clear explanation of what the Father is as the
sole archade. The Father is the principal fount, the source,
and the unorigin at beginning point of the triad. Thus,
his hyposthetic property in Orthodox theology is is precisely to
be picked out as cause. That's why, if you heard
in the first part he made the huge mistake of
calling the Divine Essence a say or autotheos or of
himself or of itself. It is the Father alone, according
to the Capitoian and constantin one teaching, that is God
of himself.
Speaker 2: Why because the Son and the Spirit have.
Speaker 3: Their origin in the Father, in particularly the Father's essence.
The Son and the Spirit thus do not possess and
cannot possess, the Father's hypostatic property. And so Tim doesn't
seem to be aware of what the Creed teaches. When
the Creed says, I believe in one God, the Divine Essence,
Oh no, it's actually one God, the Father. Tim appealed
to monotheism, apparently not being aware of the fact that
the word monotheism is a sixteen hundreds term. Maybe he's
not aware of the term that was used explicitly in
the Creed and amongst all the Church fathers east and
West for many years, and that is the monarchea in
the Greek. The monarchia of the Father is the beginning
point of Orthodox Trinitarian theology, particularly Exodus three fourteen, when
God says, I am from fourteen fifteen, I am that
I am as Saint Maximus, Saint Grey Palamas says he
did not say I am essence.
Speaker 2: He said I am as an I am he.
Speaker 3: Thus, the Father is the beginning point of all Trinitarian theology,
and contrary to Latin metaphysical essentialism, we don't begin our
Trinitarian theology with the divine essence the Father's hypostatic property,
since it's what picks him out as the one God,
as the cause of the source the RK.
Speaker 2: This is the cappadoc in one on one teaching.
Speaker 3: Cannot be shared as the cappuditions noted, whatever is a
hypostatic property is unique to and individuates that person. Whatever
is not is common to all three. Otherwise there would
be some form of subordinationism in the triad if there
were to be a power and attribute a property that
two persons have that one lacks. You'll notice when Tim
gave his explanations, he explicitly affirmed the very thing that
Photius pointed out. He says, he's a red Photius. It
doesn't sound like he's actually read it.
Speaker 2: To me.
Speaker 3: I think he's read some Roman Catholic websites that cite it.
I've read it actually multiple times through us, so I
know the Mystagaji very well. He actually talks about the
manifestation of the spirit in the Mystagaji, which Tim says
they don't talk about They missed this and had to
make it up later. But wait a minute, Tim said,
if one cannot spiate or if the he said that,
if one of them does not spiate, they're less. Thus
the son has to be able to spirate. Tim, maybe
you didn't realize that in the In the Mysticgogy, that's
actually an argument that Photius makes that the spirit doesn't
aspirate or generate.
Speaker 2: So, by your own argumentation, if the son is not
equal to the Father because he doesn't spirrate, then the
spirit has to also spirrate.
Speaker 3: But nobody teaches this. The spirit spir rates or generates
a person. So by your own argument, you subordinated the spirit,
which is the very argument this made in the Mystic God,
which tells me that you didn't actually read the Mystagogy.
Speaker 2: I'm going to quote you again. If one does not
inspire it, then they're less. That's what you said. I
hope the son does inspire at east less? Sorry?
Speaker 3: Uhuh so the spirit does he do? No, he doesn't,
does he? So by that same John's Gospel, he says,
I have everything the Father has.
Speaker 2: Yeah, except the causality as the Cappadotions and constantin Noble
One teach. So quoting the scripture, you're quoting the Cappadocians.
Uh scripture.
Speaker 3: Oh wait a minute, So the concetpt Noble one is
the dog of the Roman Kelly Church or not, because
it says you have to follow the Cappadocian teaching all.
Speaker 2: The Father is the sole cause, sole cause.
Speaker 3: Now isn't it interesting that Roman Catholic scholars themselves have discussed,
by the way, Basil talking about eternal manifestation in Edward
Kishenski's famous book The Philioka, which is one of the
more recent historical academic texts on that. Oh but wait
a minute, did you know it turns out that Sishansky
actually went from Unionism to Orthodoxy. Why is that, Well,
he wrote this book about the philio Oka and he
realized that. Turns out Basil teaches eternal manifestation on page
thirty nine, which oh you thought that was made up
in the Middle Ages, even though it's in Saint Basil.
Speaker 2: Oh, but it's also in the Mystagogy in book two.
So you're acclaiming all.
Speaker 3: Of these things about what the Orthodox position is and
where it made all these mistakes. You don't have any
knowledge or familiarity with constantinumble one. And it's mandate that
you have to follow the capitotion. Teaching on the Father
is the sole cause. And in fact you give to
the son the very thing that picks out the Father,
which thus creates a diad, as Photius.
Speaker 2: Argued in the mystagogy originally.
Speaker 3: Now to come back to this notion of the monarchia again,
in John fifteen twenty six, Jesus illustrates our position when
he says, when the helper comes, who I will send
to you from the Father. That's Economia, the spirit of truth,
who proceeds from the Father. Procession is explicitly said by
Jesus to be from the Father. Now Tim likes to say, ah,
but I can go to Romans, and I can go
to Galatians four, and I can find Economia. Passage is
where Jesus sends the Holy Spirit or it's called the
spirit of the Sun. And I can read that back
into the eternal trinitarian relations. No, you cannot, And I'll
give an example. In Isaiah forty eight, we're told that
the Spirit sends the Son. Is that going to be
read back into the eternal relations in Isaiah forty eight.
Speaker 2: No, and this is a classic passage that Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Church fathers have cited for centuries to show that you
cannot arbitrarily say that the economic relations and passages can
be read into the eternal triad. That's only it only
takes one example to show why you can't do that.
Thomas Aquinas said persons are relations or persona at relatio. No,
a person is not a relation. A person is a subject.
And this is precisely why his essentialist trinitarian theology goes wrong.
You don't begin our trinitarian theology with the divine essence,
but rather with the person of the Father. And that's
what the Orthodox Church fathers teach. That's why we continue
to uphold the Father as the soul arcade.
Speaker 2: Now beyond that, how much, how to have you have?
Three minutes?
Speaker 3: Okay, beyond that, I want to talk about his quotation
which surprised me.
Speaker 2: He cited to Gregor of Nissa, and I don't think.
Speaker 3: He even understood what he was citing, because again he's
pulling from Quote Minds, where he said that every operation
is from the Father through the Son and in the
Holy spirit. He is apparently not aware that this is
the Basilian dictum that every Orthodox person knows very clearly
from the liturgy, which is about the movement of the energies.
If you'd actually read Nissa in that section, you would
know that he's talking about the energetic procession, which is
the same thing as energetic manifestation.
Speaker 2: But you didn't know that. You just saw a quote
mind that.
Speaker 3: You thought would help to prove philioak way, when it's
actually the opposite of philiokuay. So I'm glad that you
cited this, because energetic manifestation or energetic procession is very
crucial to our doctrine.
Speaker 2: The reason that we don't.
Speaker 3: Believe in the Latin definition is precisely because they don't
understand that the movement of the energies is necessarily connected
to rejecting the person of the son as a spirator
of the spirit.
Speaker 2: So no, he's only.
Speaker 3: Shown that he didn't understand any of what he read,
if he even read it. Furthermore, the letter to Marhinus
that he quoted doesn't say the Latins are correct what
Maximus says, and the letter to Marhus is that at
this point it's unclear what they mean. We ought to
just leave it up to an open question, and it's
not solved until twelve to seventy four of the Council Lions.
So this happens many centuries later, and we would agree
that at that time it was not exactly clear because
if you read Saint Hilary Portier, guess what he doesn't
teach philioque, as Sushenski admits, he teaches that the father
is the soul monarchia in the godhead. All that the
father has belongs to the son is correct, except not
paternity or causality. So it is not the case exclusively
that all that the father has belongs to the son.
And anybody who knows orthoxiology would know that there's no
semantic dodge. As we said, Toodius doesn't teach anything different.
In fact, in eternal manifestation, if you'd read some of
this from people on our side, is found in the Cappadocians. Yeah,
I'll go ahead and just stop.
Speaker 1: With that, all right, You have an additional forty five seconds.
You can add it to any one of your positions.
As we're talking about. Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Okay,
you want to have this second.
Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead, you have forty five seconds left. Okay.
Speaker 3: So where do we get the idea that this both
essence energy teaching which is directly connected to the person
of the Father as the sole monarchia in the Godhead. Notice,
the Cappadocians don't teach monotheism. They never talk about monotheism,
if in anyone and by the way I sent all
this information to him, I told him to listen to
doctor bro Bo Brandtson's lectures on the monarchy of the Father,
because he would have been able to see that in
on the Holy Spirit of Saint Basil, Letter thirty eight
to Saint Basil and Nissa against Eunomius, by both Basil
and against Unomius Nisa theological orations, particularly Ration twenty five,
we have in those statements and as well as the
decree of Constantinople one, that you must follow the Cappadocian
view that the One God is the Father. There is
no identification of the One God as the Essence as
is taught in Augustinian theology. It just so happens that
in Tim's mind, in the Roman Catholic mind, all the
world accepted Augustinian theology is trinitarian, but they're totally ignorant
of constantinople One's Cappadocian theology. And guess what, Augustine's not
taught theology is not taught a constantineble one.
Speaker 1: All right, I would like to hear one's in the chat.
If you think for the opening statement one's the chat,
do you feel like there was a stronger or I
shouldn't say feel Do you confidently know before your family
and God that Jay Dire had a stronger argument? And
two do you confidently know between your family and God
that Timothy Gordon had a stronger argument? As you're writing
that down, let's go ahead and we will jump in
to our rebuttals. Are you prepared and ready to uh
to rebuttal? All right, Timothy, I'm gonna go ahead and
reset the clock. You're going to have five minutes. Give
me one moment here to adjust and set the clock.
All right, If you're ready, your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Okay, Uh. Constantinople One wasn't outside of communion. Jay misspoke there.
Malicius was in communion, so it was an in communion
council unless I misheard Je you said it was outside
of communion a source on that. The father. Also, the
father is the only auto theos. Well, malicious was in communion.
It's a communion council. Uh, people check, I don't want
to waste my time. The father is the only auto theos.
The ark is the father. Now this is this is
my my soul time here, check it, google it. Uh.
The father is the only auto theos is basic constantinople
one was before before out of communion. Have you read Basil.
We're talking about Malaysia. Jay, let's ask some questions during
during during this first sex faults. So the father, the
father is the only auto theos. This is absolutely affirmed
by Catholic theology. One of Jay's tricks that everyone everyone
has to look out for is he'll just say, well,
this is Cappadocia. Have you read Cappadocian theology. That well,
according to Catholic theology, the father is the only auto theos.
According to Phillyoquay, father is the only auto theos. The
ark is the fathers according to Catholic theology. According to
the Phillyoquay the ark is the father's Let me say that,
and it's not subordination to say Philly Oquay because they're
all the essence, and because of the relations of opposition
between the three persons of the Trinity, they're all the essence,
and because of passive spiration of the Holy Spirit. Now,
you can quibble with scripture if you want. When Jesus
says in Gone John's Gospel that all the Father has
I have as well, evidently Jay didn't read that all
the Father has I have as well, and he's saying
that it's subordinationism for me to read that scripture and
to say, Okay, two of the persons can have active
spiration and one of the persons, the Holy Spirit, can
have something called passive spiration. But that's the fact. The
Father is the Autotheos, that's the ARKA. Retards in Chad
are probably saying something like, oh this is this is Orthodox. No,
this is Catholic. This is Catholic as well. Of course
the ark is the Father's. For the retards out there,
only the divine, the Divine Essence only comes in an
ungenerated way to the Father. Now, the Son is the
only begotten. He gets it from the Father. So we'll
say it again, the Holy Spirit gets it from the source,
from the ark of the fathers through the Son. This
is not subordinationism. There's spiration happening actively from the Father
and the Son and the Spirit. Now I wouldn't be
making this bold claim, and neither would the Roman Catholic
Church via filioque, if not for passages where Jesus affirms
explicitly over against Jadier and any what else he wants
to sight that everything he has comes from the Father explicitly.
And so this is Saint Hilary of Poitier concerning the
Holy Spirit. He is of the Father and the Son
his sources. I'll say that again. He is of the
Father and the Son his sources. Or he is not
without origin. He is from the Father and the Son.
This is about as explicit as you can be. And
Jay's saying just because I don't know, he's accuse me
of quote mining. Let me read it again. The Holy
Spirit is from the Father and the Son his sources.
Not to say that the Father is not the only autotheos,
but the sources still can be the Father with the son.
Where he's not without origin. He is from the Father
and the Son. If ever there was a time the
Father was not, then the son was not. If ever
there was a time when the Son was not, then
the Holy Spirit was not. I don't know how this
is merely an economic relation. This is Gregory Nazianzas, and
it seems really strange to be talking about nazianzas As
if this is not some sort of eternal relation drawn
between the Father and the Son. Tell me where I'm wrong,
Tell me where I'm wrong, if this is eternal or not.
When the Helper this is John fifteen, verse twenty six.
I just want to get this out. When the Helper comes,
whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit
of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear
witness about me. I don't know with regard to Orthodox
theology what this means, but this is scripture, and it
is utterly clear. It is the Father, the source, the
direct spirator, through the Son, another direct spirator sending the
Holy Spirit. This does not contradict the ark being solely gods,
the moan arcade of gods. All right, time, all.
Speaker 1: Right, So as we have the rebuttal there, we're gonna
go ahead and we're gonna move over to Uh, We're
gonna move over to Jay.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have five minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: Let's try to keep it tight for the sake of
the length of the of the debate and.
Speaker 2: Make sure people are able to watch the whole thing.
So you have five minutes. Are you ready? Just to
make sure you have your notes in front of you.
All right, great, all right, Jane, you can begin now. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think Tim understands half of what
he's talking about, because if he wanted to pull out
the Hillary quote. First of all, Shansky admits on that
section on Hillary that this isn't really a good argue
for anything to do with the philioquid. For one, Tim
may not have heard or may not be aware what
the lions in Florence definition actually is. But he tried
to pull Hillary to say his sources. Are you aware
that lions and Florence teach that the father together are
a single source of spiration? In your view, there's no
dual sources. It's not the father and the son. So
either Hillary got it wrong or that's not a text
that proves eternal hypostatic double procession. The tacks in scripture,
as I pointed out, don't necessarily prove what he thinks
they prove. Again, because I pointed out in Isaiah forty eight,
the text says that the Spirit sent the Son, and
that's a messianic prophecy.
Speaker 2: Section.
Speaker 3: Nobody believes that the Holy Spirit is the center of
the Son. If you read that economia back into the
eternal relations. Again, he didn't address the argument I made
about the power of generating inspirating. He said that the
son must have this because because it shows also that
he's equal to the Father, because he has everything that
the Father has. Again, he's not realizing that when I'm
citing the Cappadocians, I'm not just citing church fathers because
I'm citing them as random opinions. I'm citing what the
decree of constantinople One says, which is that you must
follow the Cappadocian dictum and the Cappadocian interpretation of the
Niceno constant of the Politan creed. When the creed from
that council, which was an edited version of nicea One's creed,
says I believe in one God, the Father. It is
identifying it as the Cappadocians all teach the sole source
or rka or monarchia of the Father. It is not
the Latin essentialist definitions of Thomas Aquinas and later Roman
Catholic councils, which, by the way, refutes what he said
the first time around when he tried to make the
Church Fathers into aristotomists.
Speaker 2: Again, they're not.
Speaker 3: Furthermore, he said in his opening statement that a sayety
God is when he was cashing out his divine simplicity
act as Purist doctrine, a sayety a sayty means self
existence or of oneself.
Speaker 2: That's what autotheos is.
Speaker 3: So now he's attributing the very thing that he argued
in his opening statement about the divine essence to the
person of the Father, showing that he confuses essential properties
with hyposthetic properties. But what do we expect from people
who think that relations of opposition is a way to
cash out something in the triad? Nobody in the Church
and the Church Fathers teaches a relation of oppositions, Because,
as east Congar says in his famous essay on sant
Agustin and the Kappadocians, that's an Augustinian idea that's developed
in Thomas Aquinas. It doesn't exist in the first thousand
years of the Church. And again because he actually thinks
that relations are persons, because that's the tonistic teaching, when no,
a relation is something that a subject has, right, a
subject has a relation, A relation is a predicate. Subjects persons.
He the father, so he doesn't underst and these basic
distinctions that the Eastern Church fathers make, which he would
have done a lot better to actually have read these
Eastern Church fathers or to actually read maybe some of
the academic texts from his own theologians about the Philioquay,
admitting that a lot of these quote minds don't actually
work to prove anything and actually work against his case
because again he wants to downplay his own church's dogmatic definition,
and he's patently totally false. I've got scholars here right
next to me for years have been talking about the
fact that Constantinople one closed outside of communion with Rome.
Saint Melidius of Antioch was in schism with Rome. He
doesn't even know that, and so he just says google it,
which again shows he's deficient, totally deficient in this area.
It's the Malician schism is famous. Basil writes about it
in his letters, and in fact Basil says Rome is
absolutely worthless. They can contribute nothing to helping the church
in the East. They're a waste of time. Doesn't sound
like papal supremacy to me. But what do you expect
from people who don't know what the Cappadocian's taught.
Speaker 2: They just think that they do, because well, I can
read it all through Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas when.
Speaker 3: He argues against the Phillyoque in contra against the errors
of the Greeks.
Speaker 2: I've got the recently printed book here. Guess what it's like,
sixty seventy forgeries.
Speaker 3: So shout out to George, our good buddy, and he
just published the two volume Errors of the Latins text.
The second volume is all about forgeries, and one of
those key forgeries is against the errors of the Greeks
Thomas Aquinas. And it's entirely possible that Aquinas legitimately believe
that all the sources he was reading were authentic. But
now we know, and it's now admitted in the scholarship.
The Vatican admits it as well. I've got the Alexandria document, which,
by the way, I don't know if Tim ever had
the time to read his own Vatican statement about the East,
both in she eighty and here it admits most of
the positions that I'm arguing for.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, like I said, let's get some ones in
two's in the chats. I want to read a couple
of the super chats that we have here as we
get into the cross examination game, just a second to
get their question in line of what they want to
talk about. Reminding you that you know, Buddy pp All
said Tim has been forsaken. Everyone got to donate to
the stream, or y'all are Yacubians? Like I mentioned. After that,
tego Ocho said, let's go. I also have a couple
of critics late night tweakers. A critic of Tim said
two dollars said, I feel embarrassed for Tim.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: However, however, let's talk. God said, fy all polytheists idols
are created. Tim might be a polytheist, but others are
saying Jay Dyer ain't no Yukubian. You're not Yucubian.
Speaker 2: Okay. Servant Nectoria said, Jake, keep it up.
Speaker 1: R CC is a joke. I'm sure that's a Roman
Catholic church. Maximus said, what I say has nothing to
do with Jay. Also, we have let's talk. God said
question for Tim, heaven has created? How can you see
the divine essence in heaven in the beatific vision aka Creationean.
Speaker 2: I don't think we're gonna answer those questions right now.
Speaker 1: Don Visiu said, this is all retarded, splitting hairs over
divine theosophy leads no one to Christ.
Speaker 2: We also have real Carlism.
Speaker 1: No matter what you think, who you think is winning,
We're all better off knowing this conversation is drowning out
James White's gay lisp. Also, we have machine Santo for
two dollars, and they said, Jay looking twenty years older,
but he's defined cooking.
Speaker 2: Okay, Hey is he gay? Ass? Hey it's you know what? Yeah?
Do trust me, man, I've aged so much. I see myself.
Speaker 1: I've only been doing this for like about a decade now.
When I first started, I looked like a teenager, like
you know, look like a nice little kid.
Speaker 2: And now I'm like nearly look dead. Warth thunder Us
sent thirty dollars.
Speaker 1: Said Tom was talking about potential equivocations in the start,
yet his arguments hinges on them. He sneaks in quote
denying actus purists passive potency as well sneaking in ortho
real distinction scholastic major real distinction.
Speaker 2: We also had a dork.
Speaker 1: Jansen said, please ask mobs to ban anyone in the
chat who says that we should act more civil in chat.
Speaker 2: Fine, you guys can, guys go to war. And then
true for once seesaid.
Speaker 1: Tim said, we can't experience any uncreatedness of God as creatures,
so how does the incarnation work? I'll read two more
here before we'll move on to the cross examination. Cult
of Modernism said and quote, we deny the son is
either a cause or a father, but although we do
not say that the spirit is from the Sun, we
call him the spirit of the son. And he quotes there,
and I think that's perhaps probably Latin, and I'm not
going to try to read it. Machine Santo also, I
wonder if he believes the son is begotten by the son,
because the son does what he sees the father doing.
And one more quote from the same Culto as the
second party said, the holy spirit is a spirit of
the Father as proceeding from the Father, and is the
Son's spirit not as originating from him, but as proceeding
through him from the Father the Father alone. It is cause.
All right, you guys, keep sending your super chaps. We'll
be reading some more after this. We're gonna jump into
the cross examination. If you're just joining the stream here,
it's where they can ask questions and then interrupt. This
is a very strict format that they've agreed to, and
a lot of you are enjoying it. With that few
thousand of you watching across the platforms, I appreciate you
guys watching. Don't for you to like, share and subscribe
to this video. Let's begin here with Timothy Gordon representing
the Catholic position. I'm going to reset the clock to
be one moment. I've got to get out of the
super chats. Your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Jay, you think triadic relations of opposition don't exist. Triad
is three, opposition is two, precisely, so there's no opposition
a triad. So within a triad, there cannot be individual
relations of opposition. It's relations of origin in our view, now,
not in your view. As a matter of nature. Have
you ever played paper scissors rock? Yeah? Do you understand
that paper scissors rock is at heart triadic relations of opposition,
which you just said don't exist. The triad does not
like paper rock scissors. No an, no, no, you said
that that can't exit because two is indivisible within three
relations of opposition we have, so as the trinity scissor
paper rock, paper, these can exist, Bill, reality can exist
with fatherhood. You said this to Christian Wagner. Do you
care to amend your statement. It's a major logical I.
Speaker 3: Think that relations of opposition described the thing as relations
of origin.
Speaker 2: That's what I disagreed with. You said, there's a mathematical
problem that two doesn't go into because the diad is
not a triad. But you understand that there can be
relations of opposition within a triad.
Speaker 3: Speaking naturally, there's not not in the divine triad.
Speaker 2: No, no, we'll explain why. I just demonstrated the relation. Okay,
so you're going to play the game. Demonstrated paper scissors
rocks doesn't exist. That's not the triad. That is a triad.
That's three there. Do you how many positions are there
with just three? And how many how many oppositions and
relations triad is so you have a different triadology, and
that's why this doesn't explain why it's different in the trinity,
because we works perfect because we You say that, but
you don't know our position relationship.
Speaker 3: I'm asking within the position of the trinity. Shut up
and let me answer that question. Your position relations of
origin is our position, not relation of opposition.
Speaker 2: This is just equivocation. Wait, no, I've heard enough. That's
equivocation on a turn. Equivocation. You said the orthodox position
is a quick quote. You're not even familiar with opposition,
Christian are I'm talking to one dude. Triadic relations of
opposition cannot exist because two doesn't go into three. That's
what I said. I said, I diead is what opposition is.
I didn't say two doesn't go in I th that's
you're mistaking contrariety and opposition. You don't know you can
have an opposition with a relations position. How do you
don't know how? Patrician?
Speaker 3: So you haven't played number theory is not your you're
ever an now specialty the way that paper argues for
a did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say he's asking he's asking you to
cut your response. He wants to continue on this questioning
within a triod. Within a triad, you can have oppositions
and it doesn't contradict the triad. I showed the trinity
show that I created. You didn't show that. You just
said it it's an analogy. Well, how do you know,
How do you know what matches up to the triad?
You don't. No, I didn't say it matches up to
the triad. You're you're not cross examining.
Speaker 3: Your analogy doesn't work. I thought, that's the thing is
it works perfectly.
Speaker 2: Reality, filiality in fatherhood, those are opposed within a trinity.
Speaker 3: You're saying they're not opposed. That's not what relations of opposition.
Speaker 2: Forget my analogy oppress This is the most important distinction
within the entire philio O. Wait, hold on, So you're
saying that affiliation and fatherhood are not opposed in the
traditional ways of a couple.
Speaker 3: Will you let me answer this please? Are they opposed?
There are real relations?
Speaker 2: Are they opposed? Let me finish.
Speaker 3: We do not believe in cashing out who the persons
are by relations of opposition, because it's relative.
Speaker 2: So filiation and fatherhood are not opposed. It's relative because
you because there's the third part. They're not a posed.
Speaker 3: You can talk about relations in the triad, but they
don't ground the persons. That's Lostky's critique of this. You
could have just read the things.
Speaker 2: I sent you, and then you want to be asking no, no,
no no, because you didn't read anything I asked you.
Speaker 3: I asked you very specifically. Can there be oppositional terms
that I'm telling you from ourselves? You don't understand? Is
the way that dichotomies work. We can have we can dichotomies.
Speaker 2: All I was showing mathematically is that we can conceive
of a triad that has three parts and three relations
that are all diadic. But there's there's no part. It's
just parts, and it doesn't work there. No, of course,
not right. So that's what doesn't work. But there are
relations of opposition, No, there's not. Yeah, there's relations of origin.
Speaker 3: Well, why don't you just understand our position before trying
to trap me on your position?
Speaker 2: I don't hold to your position? Can you? Is there
a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blacker? Okay, so
we got that. So there there can be relations of
opposition between some trinities. Uh, I never granted any of this.
Is there a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blackeranne
who embraces the eternal procession? Or they all just believers
in economic procession for those four hundred years. Can you
name a single thinker between eight hundred and twelve fifty
who says that there is an eternal procession from the
Sun to the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 3: Energetic procession is taught in the telmost against John Becos,
it's in our council. Okay, Wait, so you think you
don't know what our councils teach. I'm asking you, right,
but is there a single person and you're not you're
not aware of the temost against John Becko's You guys
have thirty seconds, son, but so so, can you explain
to me what that is? It's a document from the
Palamite sonods in use against John Becko's Palamite sentence.
Speaker 2: What year they're in? The thirteen hundreds? Okay? No, I said,
I wore between eight hundred and twelve fifty. I picked
the dates for specific reason. What if, because it's very
important to my case. The Catholic cases that between serial
between Photius and serial areas, they completely botched the understanding
of what Philly o'quay is, and then for the next
four hundred and fifty years they reduced all the relations
between the Sun and the Holy Spirit to economic ones.
And then when they came back around the time of
the council, you're citing that they came back in parsed language.
It's eternal, but it's not hypostatic.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna have to cut that there, and
if you want to continue to respond to that, we're
gonna have to move over to Jay Dyer. Let me
go ahead and reset this, and you have five minutes
on the clock. I gave him a minute bleed because
it was interesting. I'll give you an extra minute bleed
if you need to as well. The time starts now.
Speaker 3: It's a stupid argument because I showed you from Sishensky
that he says Basil talks about eternal manifestation. The very
quote that you gave from Nissa about the movement of
the energies. You didn't even know that it's energetic procession.
So you read things and you quote things, no idea
what the context is, or that it's actually disproving.
Speaker 2: You not true. You're begging the question, begging the question
energetic procession, what does that even mean? You cided Nissa,
every operation moves from the Father through the son in
the spirit precisely, what do you think operation is there?
What do you mean? What is that? What's the word?
What is what's the word of the means hypostatic? What's
the word for operating? Begging the question because you're begging
the question because what's energetic procession? What's the word is? Right?
You use to avoid saying that it moves? To you, goober,
what's the word when you're talking about the word in
the Greek for operation? There, I don't, I don't know erga. Yeah,
I just said so the movement energy in your quote,
but except energeia has three definitions that are that are
susceptible of meaning there you would you know? This is
what I warned people that your own Yeah you don't, No,
you don't, which can mean either operation, It can mean action,
it can mean work, it can mean product.
Speaker 3: You just admitted you didn't know what the word was.
Now what I said is that the did you requires?
So if it's energy, if it's a word, show that
it's not hypostatic. That has nothing to do with the
fact that you misunderstood the quote. No, I didn't misunderstand
it at all.
Speaker 2: I didn't miss about energetic procession. You didn't know that
because you didn't know what it was. Yes, I did.
I said it. You're just lied because you said you
didn't know what it was energy. But the point is
you didn't know. You're begging the question, you know as
you knows, versus you have to lie the question, isn't.
You're changing the subject because you just got caught lying.
I didn't get caught lying. I said before you did.
Why why does it matter? Here's how Jay proved because
that energetic.
Speaker 1: Because look, we're going we're going in circles right now,
and we're gonna have to agree to disagreeable. On the
next section, you said, if one, uh, you have three minutes,
if one spire, if one cannot spirate, there less does
the spirit produce?
Speaker 2: A Person's ridiculous. I don't care if you think it's ridiculous.
Answer it. Repeat the question. You said, if one cannot spirrate,
they're less talking about the sun, right, m H, Well,
I was talking about all three persons. Oh so the
spirit spirates, yeah, passively, the past spirit spir rates. The
spirit spirates passively. He produced, Well, who does he produce?
Does he produce? He rates passively? You've never heard the distinction, No,
who does the Spirit produce. The Spirit produces passively himself.
Hit the spirit act the spirit. If you never heard
the distinction between active and passive spiration is the have
you is the essence of the source, according to see
all you do. You could come in here and you say,
according to my theology, it's this. According to campus theology,
our theologian is passive the spirit. You got to answer
the question. We're not going to run the clock. The
Holy Spirit proceed inspirates passively, which means it's done to him. Yes,
he receives it active versus passive. So yes, he himself aspirted.
We call that active aspiration.
Speaker 3: Did you even know that? You know it's the Son?
Are you familiar? Are you familiar who the Holy Spirit?
You're saying the Holy Spirit produces himself?
Speaker 2: No, I said, that receives spiration from and this is
a passive spiration. Who does hespirate? He doesn't actively spired?
Who does thespirate? You said he has to he has
to spirate to have the same part. You're just playing
games again because you don't know the Father son actively spirate.
You think it's the Father only in Roman Catholic the
tell me what I think the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 3: He's answering the question claimed that the Holy I'm just
telling you how a theology has You're just talking and
you're insisting because I've got you on this. You have
not you said that if you don't produce a person,
you're supporting it.
Speaker 2: Who does the Holy Spirit produce? No? I said, spir eight,
you have to spy if you don't back up the rest.
Does son have the same power as the father? Yes?
Does the spirit have that power? The Spirit has a
different power, which is to what wishable to produce who? No,
it's a passive spirit who, which is not the same
thing it's actively produced. So he does I thought the
language cause? So the spirit is not a cause. You've
never heard this distinction in Roman Catholic theology. Spirit a cause?
Have you ever heard this distinction in Roman? Not answer you?
Speaker 3: He won't answer the questions because he doesn't. Is the
spirit of causes?
Speaker 2: A cause? Is the spirit of thirty seconds on the
clock to get an answer? Or do you want to
end the question? Is the Holy Spirit? There's also a cause?
He is the cause in so far as he's passively spied?
Who or what?
Speaker 1: Of?
Speaker 2: Who? Are what? Exactly? He just lost. No, wh you
asked me, do you know what theology? Had you ever
heard the distinction? You're here to tell me what your
theology is? No? No, not okay. Every time I ask
you said do you know what theology? Do you know
a theology? Answer? No, you don't know. Answer you claim
your spirit. You're just making it at home? No, at homes?
And who does? By the way, the reason he won't answer, no,
you open who does produce? You opened up? He's saying,
why won't you answer? No? You just said who? Yeah exactly,
I said you our term is passive spression. No, you won't.
You won't accept these people have different that. He produced
terminological bases for making the claim. We don't accept subordinationism.
I know you don't accept it, but I'm telling you
how you have it orthodolosity. Say it's subordination, if it's
if it's the sun and the spirit together. All you're
doing is insisting on your upside. You have answer, You
just have silence.
Speaker 3: I said, answer is an answer your father and son.
No I'm not, you said the son. Who does the
spirit produces?
Speaker 2: Who? He passively spirates? Who? Who? What it's? Who does he?
Do you understand the difference between an active forms and
a passive verb. He is the cause of Do you
understand the difference between an active verb and a passive
before me?
Speaker 3: Who's he called active verb? Has is transit is the
spirit of the cause. Do you not understand called him
a cause? He's not transitive?
Speaker 2: You called him a cause? Do you understand transitivity? You're
not going to answer it. He won't answer. He's a
passive cause. I answer according to Roman Catholic, he is
a pastor who were on time. Let's do this.
Speaker 1: Here's I'm gonna I want to leave it with two questions.
He's asking you a question.
Speaker 2: Nothing that you ask asked the question clearly, and I
want to hear just a simple answer. We'll leave it
at that. What is the question? Repeat it? What is
the one question the cause of who? Go ahead? What
is the cause of him? Exactly? Can you act?
Speaker 1: Asking questions to questions which, to be fair, said of
the moderator, You know that's saying that's It's the point
to where I feel like we've gone in a complete circle.
I'm going to take completely unbiased here and say we
can't come to a conclusion when we're asking questions to questions.
Speaker 2: So we will just leave it there. We will move here.
I think, can I make a response? Yeah, you can.
You can make a response or ask one question, but
it's got to be as simple to the point, not
a paragraph. Just what's the statement. So in Roman Catholic
theology we say active spiration by the father and the son,
passive spiration by the spirit. Passive means that one is
not acting but is acted upon. It is a passive potency.
I asked you if he's a cause, and you said
he was. Yes, there's one soul. Cause are you talking
to K I thought you were talking one soul causes
the I just add you said I don't know. I
didn't know.
Speaker 3: I sincerely didn't know what you I the term that
the spirits are cause the.
Speaker 2: Spirit is a passive spirator of who? And I said,
this doesn't make sense in the context of active and passive.
So he doesn't. He's not a cause. You're making it
like there's a flaw. There's not. This is just how
we call you're not. This is how we explain. So
he won't the monarchy, you don't explain it. And John
chapter sixteen, you're dodging the basic question. I'm not dodging
twenty things. I'm not dodging Jay. All I'm seeking to
do is exitgy John sixteen. The fact that that Jesus said,
Jesus says everything the Father has, I have as well.
And you said, well, the cause that subordination. That the
cause you're trying to drive the position into subordinationism. And
I'm saying, no, there's such a thing as passive spies.
I sure stand you're saying that. But what you're showing
a cause you didn't show anything. You just say, are you?
Are you? Are you? Are you satisfied with the answer?
Do you feel like he answered no, he's not about dodging.
But okay, And do you believe that you're answering or
do you think do you agree with me you're dodging.
I'm answering on behalf of Roman Catholic theology that we have.
Speaker 1: What are you dodg because you're also you're dodging my question?
Do you think you dodged him? Or do you think
you give an absolute answer?
Speaker 2: I gave an absolute answer. What is your absolute answer?
I just I just want to know. For the absolute
answer is when we say active spiration we mean that
the Father causes the Holy Spirit through the hypostasies of
the hypostasis of the sun. These are active because the
sun aids Uh. The view of John Damascene is literally source, Father, River, Sun, lake, Spirit.
So he's saying, well, well, what does the spirit do?
I'm saying, well, in Roman Catholic theology, which is perfectly
uh philly Okuwa is perfectly square with this analogy, With
this analogy that we would say that that is what's
called a passive spiration. He receives it.
Speaker 3: And it's a difficult question, as he asked many times,
as he was asked many times, was when you said
that the spirit is a cause, which you affirmed multiple times.
Speaker 2: I asked you cause of who are what? And you
had no answer. No, I didn't have no answer. I
was saying that the spirit is caused. And this is
this is why you say it's subordinate. You said he's
a call I said, he's a passive spirator of who
or what? So he's saying he's he's a spy ray
to or of who are what does the passive voice
as a verb have Does it mean cause or does
it assert a cause has been done? He's a cause
grammatical you said he's a cause. I feel like I
feel like we're arguing semantics. I feel like this is
semantics because you're saying one thing, he's saying another, and
I feel like we're getting We're not getting nowhere. I'm
just giving the answer. According to our theology, we the
Holy Spirit is a passive spirator. That's the whore that
can be who are what? The Holy Spirit receives spiration
from God through the sun, and he receives it. Okay,
Is that clear generation produces the sun? Right? Yes, generation produces.
Speaker 1: So let me go to this because because of the
statements here, we're not going to go very long on
the closing. I want to give it it basically like
a well basic called a second rebuttal bit of closing
because there's a miscommunication or an intentional dodging. But I
am going to stay completely unbiased in the moderation. Say,
I will leave the chat up. I want to know
from you guys in the chat. We'll switch it up
the ones in the chat. If you think that uh,
Timothy answered the question and that he answered it according
to what he said, two's in the chat. If you
think he's lying slash dodging. I guess you could use
different words upending what you think and agree with Jay
and someone's like, I've seen the chat you accusing me
of agree with both of them. I am neither orthodox
nor Catholics. You guys can all hate me because I'm
neither and I don't have a.
Speaker 2: I just articulated what the view is. Articulated you. You've
given that answer four times in acting. All right, so
let me let me go to this.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna don't you know what aspiration means because you
said he cause he's a cause I said you said that.
Speaker 2: If I said that when you're sputtering out sentence fragments
in the cross X, I never said that. I never
intended to say the spirits.
Speaker 3: Cause that's why you got silent and had to think
about how to talk your way out of it.
Speaker 2: I got silent because I'm trying to talk over because no,
that's not true.
Speaker 3: The Holy Spirit doesn't have the power of the son, right,
so he's subordinated, so he's lacking a power.
Speaker 2: No, no, we say he's not subordinated because he is
a passive. But he doesn't produce a person. Right on
your view, you are the Son to the Father.
Speaker 3: There is subordination in the trinity, yeah, role subordination, not
ontological subordination.
Speaker 2: That's called monarchia. Yeah yeah, except no, that's not true.
You're picking who's subordinated, either the Holy Smell or the
Son together. No, no, that's a logical.
Speaker 3: Does Jesus say that he worships the Father and he
does the Father's will?
Speaker 2: Does the role of subordination role? No, No, you don't know. Basically,
he says that the Father has is mine as well.
Does he says, let me come here, let.
Speaker 1: Me come here and ask you a question, Because from
somebody who's not as well versed in the news of
this debate between Catholics and Orthodox it would just, in
a structural sense, seem like perhaps you're avoiding answering something
directly to avoid being seen as crazy or to like
not be seen as in Saint colag If somebody you
know asked someone like, oh, are you a good question,
like are you a white supremacist or something, and you know,
it's sort of like a question. If you answer it,
you're kind of screwed either way. If you say no,
people are gonna get mad because you don't like your race.
If you say yes, they're going to call you an
extremists and try to disqualify you.
Speaker 2: So it comes across like there's a little bit of
that moving around. Understand, you're saying I'm lying because he's
questions I'm saying. I'm saying I'm saying to me, I'm
saying I'm getting the dancing. I'm not saying it's lying.
I'm singing that. Like, maybe there's a more direct way
you want to answer it that you're not saying. He's saying.
I don't know what he's saying you're lying about because
I don't. I don't understand because I don't know if
you talking about I haven't said it across examination in
a cross examination, though, you're harassing the witness. When I said,
here's our two active spirators, one passive spira, you're like, well,
what is that? I was like, that's our theology. And
then you're like, that's a dodge. That's not a dodge.
Two active spirators. We have the father the son.
Speaker 3: I thought the father generated, not spirated the spirit the
fun Wait, the father general generate right then he spirates, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what I was what I was trying to get
out is the passivity of the spirit. And then you said,
you said that's a cause. I said, that's not a cause.
So how many causes are there? I think there's one
and that's who the father. Okay, but he gives cause
alary to the son, right, he gives the ability through
the son.
Speaker 3: So many causes? Is that it's one, but he gives
it to the son. Yes, this is this is hypostatic.
This is hypostatic.
Speaker 2: What does the son contribute that the father doesn't to
the to the spiration? Well, I mean, are we just
going on an extra cross examination? Oh so he doesn't
want to answer that.
Speaker 1: I know, so I don't want And we could take
this conclusions as a little extension to see where if
you guys, could further explain your position only because of
someone who's trying to position.
Speaker 2: Let's just go ahead with it as trying to understand
the position. I'm thinking about the audience. And if you were,
let's say, a prop sitting here and you're not familiar
with the you know, consequential dogma from from Catholics or
from Orthodox I'm sitting here like trying to actually understand
what you're saying. And I am not accusing you of lying.
I'm actual accusing you of doing nothing.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying to me, I'm like, okay, I know,
I wouldn't know if you were jumping around from what
he's saying, or.
Speaker 2: You can understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity from
what he said. That's a good question. So let's let's
do a question, because if you're being object no, no,
you're lying something, I wouldn't know if you're lying, right,
I wouldn't know if you're dodging him, or if you're lying,
I wouldn't know.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying he's lying about the Catholic position, that
he's representing the Catholic position. I'm saying that in the
course of that discourse, he's lying about what he previously
he said saying no, I never said that when he
did say the cause part, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay, because that's how I thought. Okay, Then I got confused.
I thought he was saying that you were not right.
I said it was unintentional. And if you said, is
it a cause, and I've said yeah, yeah, yeah, So
half the time I'm brushing you off. That's not the
That's what this was all about. I was saying a
Roman Catholic point of view. Well, it's not a misunderstanding
the Roman Catholic point of view. I said, all along,
we have these two. I mean, it's an upside down triangle.
And all I was saying is it's subordination. Uh, he's
accusing us of subordination just because I cited John chapter
sixteen where Jesus says, all the Father has I have
as well, And he's saying, well, then he cannot the Essence,
the Divine Essence cannot come to the Holy Spirit through
the sun.
Speaker 3: That's not what I said. You don't even understand the argument,
making a very clear argument. You're in it seems to
be not understanding that because it's basic and it's very simple.
Speaker 2: Read it's very simple. Did you read the mistagogees, it's
very're gonna cut that. We're gonna cut that there. And
by the way, to the people saying I'm trying to understand,
because if you don't know, I'm just saying in a
very basic sense, I'm like you, guys.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason why we're hosting this debate, and
I think it's very important, is personally, I'm very interested
in understanding what church I should go to. Whether Catholic
is a church to join and to become a part of,
whether Orthodox.
Speaker 2: And a lot of you guys are searching this too.
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of you guys who are
Catholic or Orthodox may be wanting to uh, you know,
revert or convert whatever you want to call it in
your language into the other uh uh you know order.
But for myself, you know, because just because I started
attending a Catholic church, I've been to an Orthodox church
before too. For a while, I've gone to a Catholic church,
and sometimes they aren't always very open about exactly what
they believe.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of disagreements.
Speaker 1: So kind of the point of this is, is someone like
myself to sit here and try to make sure if
he's saying he's lying. I'm just asking what he's saying
he' lying about. Is he saying about what he said
previously or about the Catholic's position, because I'm interested to
find out to make sure I'm getting the correct position,
and if if that's a correct position, I appreciate it
and your position. However, I do think in a quick
in a quick summary, like if you could do in
like one paragraph, just what is the official Orthodox position
on this on this topic, because.
Speaker 2: It was a lot of this back and forth and
then you you go, is this the closing statements correct? Correct?
For the section I stated succinctly what the Catholic position is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying, but inside with an end
summary and make sure you restate it just for people
who were new to the stream or who got lost
in the argument and the tit for tat what what
was it? And if you could finish, and then we'll
have you, we'll have you closed as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So essentially what I'm taking issue with is the idea
that he said if the son does not spi rate,
he's subordinated because he's not having all that the father has.
Speaker 2: So I ask, does the spirit spi rate? And or
excuse me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then he says he's a passive he passively
spir rates.
Speaker 2: I say, who does the spir rate?
Speaker 3: He says, he aspirated passively because he receives spiration.
Speaker 2: That's what passive means.
Speaker 3: Because he thinks that being spy rated is spiration, which
is a basic blunder. No, moving on, I'm doing my talk,
so you hush please, moving on, he says, I mean,
I'm sorry that you just dizz bad in this section.
Speaker 2: Dude. It would have helped if you'd read the Mystagajy,
but you didn't. Passive spiration, you didn't. You said you did.
Stop stop, let's keep it. You go here and then
we'll switch. You can make fun of me all you want,
and you're let's.
Speaker 1: Keep let's keep the personal tax out and let's go
and just explain the facts, and then we'll go over
to Tim.
Speaker 2: He'll explain the facts as well. So I understand. You know,
he's got a lot going on, he's busy.
Speaker 3: I don't fault him for not reading the stuff that
I send, but it's been multiple years where I've linked
and sent him these texts which he hasn't read. If
you had read the Mystagogy, he would know that. One
of the first arguments in the mystagaji Uh, and it's
stated it multiple times over. It's also repeated in the
appredicted Treatise of Sant Gregory Palmis by the Way centuries later.
The same argument that to say that there's sport nation
because the son doesn't have the power of causality becomes
a problem because the Holy Spirit now lacks that causality.
To talk about passive spiration and to equate that with
to to equate being spirrated with spiration is just so silly.
I don't even know how to respond to it. It's
it's fundamentally stupid.
Speaker 2: Because spiration is what picks out the Holy Spirit. Generation
is what picks out the Son.
Speaker 3: They're called hypostetic properties, and for Orthodox we relate them
to the Father in relations of origin. That's the Orthodox teaching.
The Cabadocians, it's restated. You want to read Loski's paper
called the Procession of the Holy Spirit Orthodox Doctrine. You can
also read a Roman Catholic that talks about this and
admits all my points by Eaves Kongar. He wrote an
essay about Augustine relations of opposition and the Cappadocians, which
also makes all of my arguments. So again, our position
is that the Father is the one true God. He
is the sole archae, the monarchia. It is the teaching
of Constantinople One. The Cappadocians don't teach the Philly oquaper,
so I said, because causality is the hyposthetic.
Speaker 2: Property that is not communicable.
Speaker 3: And again the argument that the son becomes the cause,
imbalances the trinity and creates a diad because no one
teaches that the spirit is a cause, and so he
lacks causality in both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox model.
But we're consistent because we don't give the father's unique
hypostatic marker and property of being cause to the son.
Speaker 1: And just to ask you simply, do you feel like
he he dictated correctly or at least to what you
know to be the actual position of the Orthodox Church
on this issue. Yeah, okay, you do. So I just
want to make sure that that's so we're clear because
the chat, you know, was a little bit all over
the place, not not knowing what was going on.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So then going over to Timothy, also to Jay, please
don't interrupt. We're gonna just keep this a straight, a
straight uh diatribe here. So if you want to go
ahead and give your position, one.
Speaker 2: Off Jay's tricks is he'll laugh at the Roman Catholic position,
which which he knows what it is, and then he'll
ask for a term to be identified, like passive spiration,
as if it's being made up ex nilo or something,
and he'll say, well, how does that relate to Orthodox theology?
And I was saying, well, it doesn't. That's the tension
that exists between the Orthodox and the Catholic position. And
he laughs, and then all of the Bots in Chat say, oh, okay,
a good score. I would go back to the heart
of Trinitarian theology for Roman Catholics, which really has to
do with actus purus, the fact that the consubstantial Father Son,
Holy Spirit relate to one another oppositionally. And this is
within the substance. He was making fun of the term usiological.
That just means they all relate within one substance. There's
nothing uncreated outside the substance of God, the Divine Essence,
Father Son, hohold Spirit. They relate to each other with
a distinction, a distinction of operation. Jay had this infamous
debate with Christian Wagner where Christian Wagner was getting him
to admit, essentially that he didn't understand what a relation
of opposition was. I brought this up today and I
was saying, Okay, have you ever played paper scissors rock?
The reason I did that is because paper Scissors Rock
proves that conceptually, at least at the very least conceptually
if you're trying to win paper scissors rock Triadic relations
of opposition do exist. Just because there are three couplets
doesn't mean that there is not individual tension or opposition
or a dichotomy between ab BC and c A. This
is absolutely nonsensical. It was an embarrassment that Jay said this,
and I was saying, Okay, that's fine. When I brought
this up with him earlier, he said, we'll prove that
that exists for the Trinity. I'm just proving that it's
conceptually possible. So it's an embarrassment to say that, to
deny that the relations of opposition which characterized the Catholic
view of the Trinity, which work very very well, because
then we don't end up having deposit in uncreated energy
outside of God that is not created, not a creature,
but is really distinct from God, which is a nonsense term.
It means to gods are more or infinite gods. As
Jay said earlier, infinite divine energies. He said, infinite divine energies.
You're going to say, I'm that's not a lie. That's
what I said. That's what I'm saying. That's an absurdity.
We avoid this problem by saying we allow distinctions within
the substance of God, we don't allow distinctions within God
that would be concerning or about another other essence, an
essence and energy's distinction. And this all boils down to
relations of opposition, which jay I still am not clear
on his position whether or not whether or not relations
of opposition can exist within a threesome within a triad?
Can they that you think the trendy is a threesome?
It's it's three? Do they? Do they exist? What exists?
Can a B and C oppose one another? Within the
triad of holy.
Speaker 3: Spiatistic number theory diad relates to two, not a triad?
Speaker 2: Well, diet is always two. That's not what I'm asking.
There's no opposition in a triad because opposition is a diet. No,
there can be opposition within individual constituents of a tria. Okay,
so for for all time, I want this on records.
I mean again, how much time do I have left?
Technically here on the clock you have you have ten seconds?
When can give you extra thirty seconds if you need? All? Right?
So within a triad, so people know when we're talking
mathematically here, individual can can maintain their opposition, their contrariety.
This is a matter of simple fact. And Jay said,
as a matter of simple fact, that can't even happen.
When I pressed him on this, he said, oh, that's
only within the trinity. You lose. That's wrong. No, yep,
I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Wrong.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, it's very very simple, you thought, because don't
into three the opposition. This is central understanding correctly what
I said, that's what What did you say? Then?
Speaker 3: I said that diad in Patristic numbering example, right, it's
it's counting by division. Do you know what that is?
Of course, versus what counting by identity? You don't know
those things.
Speaker 2: But that's not what it was. My question explaining to
you that you don't know that Tristan within theology counts triads.
If you had debated the Muslims, you would know, because
I have to do this. You said no, and you're
like a Muslim because you don't know how there's two
different ways. You said, no, there's two different ways to count.
You told you told Christian counting debate because you don't
you nor him understand this point. If you'd read Kogar
on this point, he says what I'm saying. I don't
have to have read Coongar right, because you know these
economies want dichotomy is not a relation of opposition, Elijah,
do you understand economy is not a relation of opposition?
Speaker 1: Yes, it is.
Speaker 2: It's all right, I'm you Dichotomy is not a relation
of opposition.
Speaker 3: We're going to be paper because it talks about can
economy is not a relation of opposition.
Speaker 2: That's the most absurd thing. For a second, you have
you have, you have a choice. I'm gonna give us
a choice here.
Speaker 1: Either A we can continue arguing this, but then we're
gonna have to skip the third topic altogether.
Speaker 2: Do the timing of the debate. Uh, and what's what's
going on here? I want the paper?
Speaker 1: Okay, So then so then if that's then we're gonna
agree to disagree on what that is and we can
talk about things later. But I think we're gonna leave
it there. Okay, We're gonna take a couple minute break here.
Before we do that, I want to read a couple
more of the superchats. Remember, if you guys are leaving superchats,
we'll read them as we go along. We appreciate you
guys doing so. We have Jay Betteley or said Tim,
I'm sure you're a decent guy.