Speaker 1: Is physical goal, physical property, physical treasure, land. Right, those
things are much easily had in warfare than something that
I can memorize a seed phrase and boops, I forgot
it right, So you know the voting accident example, if
you're familiar with that. Where can I sign up to
be Orthodox? Go to your local Orthodox church to become Orthodox?
It's not an online thing. Where can Let's see, he
says first seven Canadian? Can I play on my church?
Can I play on my phone in church?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: It would probably be better for you to go to
a Lutheran church if that's what you're suggesting, rather than
an Orthodox church playing on your phone. What's up, Warren?
You're raising in your hand and go ahead.
Speaker 3: I'm mute, Okay, So I just want to ask a question.
So you're going to also debate libertarians.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, sure, that's on the list.
Speaker 3: So I just want to ask you.
Speaker 4: So you're in the infu Wars and why someone like
Alex Jones opposing Israel. So that's the only family returning
perspective that they were saying, Oh, funding for this is
against like.
Speaker 1: Alex Jones and info Wars has nothing to do with
the topics. I don't know what you're talking about. Joel Davis.
What's up? Sharif ten dollars Canadian, Thank you so much,
sharef Cody s five dollars. Jay. Would you say that
Pentecostalism is just modern Montanism? Yes, sir Vane five dollars.
Do you believe in the miracle will Holy fire at
the suppulcher? I don't have any position on it. I
don't know. I've never been there, I haven't seen it,
so I just don't know. Tonio one one six, No,
he already read that. Excuse me. JD became a member
get Ganazia ten dollars. Will you speak to Joe Will's
theory on Caesar's Messiah. We already hit a debate with
this person on this this goofy topic, like eight ten
years ago. Let me I'll pull you up the debate
that I had with one of the proponents of this.
It's what is that guy's name, Alex Siicaris. So if
you go here, this guy argues, this guy argues the
Joe Atwill thing from it's actually eight years ago technically,
So there's my thoughts on that. You could also watch
my podcast that I did on the Beast and preterism.
Go ahead, what's up, Joe?
Speaker 3: Hey? Can you hear me? Hey?
Speaker 5: So, I'm a Protestant looking into Orthodoxy right now, and
my question is how is how do the ecumenical councils
not count as divine revelation. I've heard a lot of
Protestant rebukes of how they are divine revelation in the
sense that there's new information being conveyed that's binding to
the church, and I just wanted to know what your response.
Speaker 2: Was to that.
Speaker 1: Well, they're not revelation in the sense that, as Jude says,
the faith was once for all delivered to the Saints.
So there's a finality to what we call the Apostolic deposit,
which is everything written and oral from the Apostles. That
deposit does not have new information added to it. It
doesn't evolve, it doesn't change, doesn't develop like Roman Catholics think.
It's a single, unified body of teachings expressed in things
like the Niceno Constabaladan Creed, for example. So when we
come to acumenical councils, Athanasia says that the voice of
the Holy Spirit spoke through the Council of Nicea, So
you can have a sense in which it's a restatement
of but there's no new revelations. So and ICEA is
not a new revelation. It's a precise explication of what
came before. That is the apostolic deposit. Thus it is
in no sense a new revelation.
Speaker 5: Okay, something Yeah, I was just talking with my professor
about that.
Speaker 3: That's I didn't think of it that way. Another question
that I have is in regards to you know, how
can we know how can we know what.
Speaker 2: Is true tradition versus what is false tradition?
Speaker 5: If a lot of these things like, for example, the
the Council of Icia, the Second Council of Icia, where
there's like iconography is discussed, and there's not a ton
of information regarding iconography in the first three centuries, So
how can we know that that's not.
Speaker 1: Like an agression? Okay, but that's also an argument from silence,
and there is some information about iconography in the first
three centuries. So the idea that there's not any I'm
not saying that you said that, but a lot of process.
So there's no proof of that. There's not a lot
of proof for the Protestant Canada Scripture in the first
three centuries either. So there's a lot of things that
even Protestants believe that there's scent evidence for in the
first second third century. So the again that kind of
ends up being arguments from silence. Keep in mind, this
is the period when the church is persecuted, so the
church is underground, so they may not be as ostentatious
in terms of the you know, luxuriousness of the ornate
basilica when they're having to meet and do their services
in the catacombs. But I've been to the catacombs, and
when you go to the catacombs, guess what they have
in there. They have images and they have altars. That's
not Protestant. So the catacomb Church the first second third
century is not Protestant. Go to Rome and go look
at the imagery that's drawn on the walls and where
the altars are in the catacombs.
Speaker 3: Awesome, Thank you so much, Shao.
Speaker 1: And those are great questions. And also I think Michael
Garton has a new book out on imagery and icons
in the first three centuries. I do not have the
book yet, so I can't speak to it, but I've
seen a lot of Orthodox people are talking about it.
So that probably also addresses it. Also, I did a
video in response to Gavin Ortlund a while back. It
was a brief twenty minute video where I address from
the Protestant liturgy scholar Hugh Weybrew in his book Byzantine Liturgy.
In the first few chapters he actually addresses and robuts
most of Ortland's claims. So I'll let me pull that
up first. Here is the bt Sism and the System
and Resurrection podcast I did five years ago. This one
addresses a lot of those kind of early questions that
we had about Joe's witnesses. Do you need something it's
going to help you? Okay? And then could you make
me one more of these?
Speaker 3: Thank you?
Speaker 1: And on my clips channel is this twenty minute summation
of what's in the Hugh Weybrew book. So now I
have longer podcasts discussing icons. But this right here is
a brief response to Gavin Ortland, and it's citing the
Hugh Weybrew book. Christian Jade I refutes Protestant Gavin Oreland.
By the way, this might be the guy who has
the baptism video. Maybe not. He doesn't have many videos.
That's not him. But anyway, this this is a good
video right here or theyer and you'll notice right there,
like you have the dro Europos churches and synagogues how
they were structured.
Speaker 6: You have.
Speaker 1: What basically amounts to an altar rail in the west
or a what becomes iconostasis in the east. You have
an altar which is blocked off by the communion rail
or the iconostasis.
Speaker 2: You have.
Speaker 1: Baptismal fonts in the basilicas that are converted into churches.
So here's a easy twenty minute response to a lot
of the Gavin Ortland types of claims. And this is
from a Protestant scholar. That's why I always point out
Hugh Weybrew Book is not written by an Orthodox person.
It's written by a Protestant liturgical scholar. Fury, what's up, dude, Fury?
Are you there? Fury? You want to unmute? All right?
He dropped off. If you disagree, you go to the
head of line. So remember we're not really doing FAQ
catechumen question day. That's for you to be catechized by
your priest. I'm looking for Protestants, Catholics, Atheist Muslims, Mormons, Libertarians,
Marxist feminists who disagree Hebrew roots Arians, you go to
the head of line manny money like run Lula, run
over here with Manny so mkgs for six ninety nine.
If the forerunner is the last of the prophets bringing
divine revelation, no, no, last of the prophets in the sense
of an Old Testament prophet. The role of a prophet
like Isaiah or or Moses or you know, Hoseiah. Jesus
says in Luke sixteen the law and the prophets were
until John. Since that time the Kingdom has preached. Kingdom
has preached, which is the summation of all those things.
So in a sense, yes, Agabus in the Book of
access still a prophet, Paul is a prophet. Paul talks
about the gift of prophecy, right, and I'm not saying
that those aren't gifts. Those are gifts unique to particularly
the Intertestamental period to establish the church, but they're not
profits in the way that there's an office of the
prophet of the Old Testament. Pentecostals believe that they are
the office of prophets like Hoseiah or Isaiah. Okay, they
literally believe that to them do and they don't really
see any difference or any discontinuity between them and the
Old Testament prophets. I'm pointing out that Luke sixteen refutes Mormons,
it refutes Muslims and all these groups that believe in new,
ongoing public divine revelation. You see. So the Apostles message
is the finality of what all those profits of the
Old Testament were. They're all predicting this kingdom that's coming,
this era and this time of the Messiah. When the
Messiah comes, he says, Jesus says in Luke sixteen. Since
then the Kingdom is preached, meaning now that I'm here,
I'm the Kingdom, I'm the king My church is the Kingdom.
That's what's preached. Now, that's the finality. That's the Apostolic deposit.
It includes these Old Testament revelations because that's all presaging
and predicting the coming of this period. Rachel Wilson gives
five memberships. Thank you, Rachel, appreciate that ups this since
a couple more more podcasts, thank you so much. Excuse me,
excuse me, sends a couple more super chats for six
ninety nine. Do have to be rebaptized. I was baptized
by nutcase Pentecostals. A lot of times the Orthodox will
probably not rebaptize you, but baptize you because they don't
recognize anti Trinitarian baptisms, and a lot of Pentecostals are
anti Trinitarian their oneness. So if I don't attend church
every Sunday, do I go to Hell? I mean, these
are kinds of questions that you're you're gonna ask somebody
in your catechumen class. Peace out, Jay, maybe I won't
be saved. Have more money. I'm a slow boy. Don't
be mad. I'm a rich Christian or a rich Heretic.
Just go to the church and check it out at
a local level. Dog Ryan Tarross five dollars? What brand
of the Ginger Choose.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: The one that every Whole Foods and Sprouts has, I
don't know. I can't remember the name of the brand.
I don't have a sponsorship from Ginger Choose, so I'm
not gonna. I'm gonna promote them. But I only eat
the gender too. If I haven't had any, like if
my blood sugar is low and I'm getting angry at
people or something, so I feel fine today. I don't.
I don't need a gender to what's up? Money? Money?
Speaker 2: Hi you?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 7: So I'm a Protestant and I have a question. Uh so,
when a non Orthodox person praise for Christ, are they
praying to the same Christ. I'm author Orthodox person is
praying to you? Or is it someone different?
Speaker 1: Say that again?
Speaker 2: So when a on when.
Speaker 7: An Orthodox person praise for Christ.
Speaker 1: Like from it, you're cutting out man.
Speaker 3: Person.
Speaker 7: When a non Orthodox person praise to Christ, I think,
pray in the same Christ and all Us and it's
praise too.
Speaker 1: Well, they might intend the same reference, but that doesn't
mean that it's that it's hitting upon the same reference.
Speaker 2: And so is that prayer legitsmate?
Speaker 1: Well, God can hear people's prayers. That's up to God.
But it doesn't follow from that that. I mean, a Muslim, dude,
what are you doing in the background, man, dude, it's loud.
It doesn't follow from that that it's hitting upon the
same reference just because they intend it. And it's just
like a Mormon may mean the right Jesus, but the
Mormon Jesus is not the right Jesus. So but God
can hear and knows everyone's prayers and he knows their
heart whether they're sincere or not. War thunders ten dollars.
I'm not going to read that super chat, but I
thank you for the the support there. I'm just going
to say that I mean accusing me of teaching authority
worth it because I teach that the Theophanes are real.
When somebody who claimed to be this person claims that
they're a translator of Orthodox texts, they don't have any
degree in translation. They just joined the church, like not
even two years ago. So if they want to go
that route, that's they can do that. Christians for Trump, Hello, m.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So what do you have are you like against libertarians?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 8: What do you call libertarians to debate?
Speaker 1: I'm against a lot of the ideas of libertarianism. You
are you.
Speaker 8: Like, by libertarian do you mean like anarchists or do
you mean more.
Speaker 1: Like any of those any of those positions?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 9: So, so like if if I'm a libertarian, for example,
and I believe that government should be limited to boundaries
within just the constitution, like what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: If?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 9: So if if I'm a libertarian, I believe that we
have a government that is stepping over and traveling on
the boundaries that the Constitution said on it.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with that? Well, that's not what libertary. What
I disagree with libertarianism about. I disagree with the Enlightenment
ethos of libertarianism.
Speaker 8: Can you clarify it? With the Enlightenment ethos means, I.
Speaker 1: Mean the Enlightenment like libertarianism comes out of that whole
ethos of rights are natural, grounded in natural law. They
come from the bottom up. There's no divine authority, negative liberty.
I mean, I see all these is a problem. The
state only exists to promote pleasure utilitarianism, I mean, all
these things are a problem.
Speaker 9: Okay, I would agree with you on that. I believe
that rights come from God, so I would agree with
you on that. So I'm currently an RCIA to become
a Catholic. And one of the things that drew me
to Catholicism versus Orthodoxy was that the Bible says that
God would not allow the gates of Hell to basically
overcome the Church.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, how do you know that's the Roman Catholic
Church and not the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 8: Well, because they were one church before the skidom.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how does that but how does that not
Maybe it's still the Orthodox Church, So how's I say
it's the Roman Church?
Speaker 8: Well, so the Roman Catholic position is still.
Speaker 9: That the Orthodox Church as a valid priesthood in valid
Holy orders.
Speaker 1: But what does that have to do with it? Yeah,
but it's it's in schism according to traditional Calolque teaching,
So what does that have to do It's not the
true Church anymore. If it's not in union with the
Holy See, it's not the true Church. So how does
that tell you that it's the Roman Catholic Church that
is a fulfillment of Matthew sixteen's promise.
Speaker 9: Because even though that it's not in communion with the
with the Pope, it still has valid Holy orders in
a valid priesthood.
Speaker 1: It's not are you going to answer the question or
you don't understand the question.
Speaker 8: I don't understand the question.
Speaker 1: How does that tell you it's the true Church when
it's in schism, it's not in communion with the Roman Church.
So how do you know that Matthew sixteen is still
it's fulfilled in the Roman Church and not the Orthodox Church?
And just saying that, Well, the Roman Catholics believe that
Orthodox have absolute succession doesn't answer. Isn't an answer to
that question?
Speaker 9: Okay, so yeah, that's what I was going to say,
because they have apostholic succession.
Speaker 1: All right, well, I thank you for the question, but
you're not You're not getting it, So moving on business
orthodox category.
Speaker 3: Cool, yep.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to ask you real quick.
Speaker 3: I've heard Catholics making these statements.
Speaker 9: That the essence energy distinction is only conceptual and the
polem Moss disciple taught that.
Speaker 3: What would you say to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a whole article written by a UNI
eight scholar, Christian Copas. If you're talking about Scolarios, and
the whole point is that you can't say that it's
purely conceptual. It's prior to conception. Is the terminology that
they use, and the Polemite synods define them as distinct realities.
Speaker 3: Gotcha appreciate that.
Speaker 1: It's uh, the article is on the energies and I'm
not recommending this weirdo's website, but it's let me find it.
Hold on. You just read the Essence Inergy Distinction of
the Theology of Saint Canadius Scolarios by Father Christian Kapas,
who's one of the most famous Uni eight scholars, and
he admits that obviously these are they're not. It's the
essence intytinction is not concept purely conceptual. It's not the
tonistic position. And the Fourth Palamite Synod condemns the idea
that it's only conceptual. So if you have the Orange,
if you have the Orange book right here by Palomas
has a Cows controversy. The Fourth Palamite Synod is concerned
with that very position that it's purely conceptual, and it's
rejected in the Tomos of thirteen sixty eight. I wrote
a whole article on my substack on it. The toe
mistic view is explicitly rejected. So it's utterly idiotic to
think that you can combine these two positions, because.
Speaker 9: You know, I think they try to quote mine of
Palomas disciple.
Speaker 3: It seems like it does.
Speaker 1: What they do You mean Scolarios, Well, we have a
bunch of people in my discord who are translators, not
fake translators who claim that they are when they don't
have any degrees in anything, and they have actually translated
various texts from Scolarios. And now he does not teach
anything close to the tonistic position, so Copies is correct.
Scolarios explicitly says that Aquinas is completely wrong on the
Essen center distinction. Thomas denies it. Thomas thinks that the
attributes are only distinguished in the mind. Yeah, there you go.
I mean it's kind of a silly position, really. I mean,
if you just get into the literature, you don't have
to go very far before you find out. Oh that's
the case. Baki baki? Are you going on? Mute backy
b a k. I try again? Parabolic h h. I
don't know what's going on. People having a hard time. Sheriff, sheriff, Oh,
marsha reef.
Speaker 2: A j how are you?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: Question for you? Is human nature simple or composite?
Speaker 1: In your opinion, it's clearly composite. Multiple church fathers say
it's composite body and soul, and anything created is also composite.
Speaker 2: Right understood? Understood?
Speaker 10: Would it be correct to say that a human being
is consubstantial with the substance of the flesh and also
consubstantial with the substance of the soul.
Speaker 1: I mean, the word human being usually refers to a
whole human being, body and soul, So I don't know
what you mean?
Speaker 11: No, I understand.
Speaker 10: As in, for example, if we were to think of
them as two sets, right, the set of all you know,
human souls and the set of all human flesh, would
a single.
Speaker 2: Body be a member of both sets? Like? Would that
be okay to say consubstantial.
Speaker 10: With the substance of the soul and consubstantial with the
substance of the body.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't understand what the point of that is.
Why would you want to say that?
Speaker 10: Well, so, the only reason why I'm asking is again
with the you know, hypostatic union, the the act of
composition I guess of Christ?
Speaker 2: Like, is there a reason why.
Speaker 10: The Calcedonian position Isn't that Christ has three natures? Actually,
because there's the substance of the logos and the substance
of the flesh and the substance of the human soul.
Speaker 1: It's just distinguishing two different types of things. It doesn't
mean that it's a different, wholly different nature. Because the
body is solid and in space and time and has
spatial location. It doesn't mean that the soul is therefore
a totally different substance or nature. Because the term human
nature is supposed to encompass the two together. So no,
it's not three different natures. Just because the term nature
or the term substance is used in a different way.
Substance in the modern word, can you mute when you're
not talking, there's like a loud static. Oh sorry, So
after Descartes, substance takes on a different meaning. In Western philosophy,
substance typically means some kind of substrate or some kind
of physical collection of corpuscles or molecules or atoms. In
the ancient world, when that terminology is used, or in
the Middle Ages or whatever, they're just talking about a
term that encapsulates one type of thing or one kind
of thing. So angels and souls are non physical types
of things, and so they might be called, you know,
aerial substances, or the soul is a type of substance.
It doesn't mean it's a completely different type of quote
nature in the strict definition the way that it's used
in the terminology of the councils. So no, even though
body and soul are two different types of things, they're
not intended to be strictly speaking, different natures in the
same sense as divine nature and human nature. Nature just
encompasses the two together in that context.
Speaker 10: I guess I'm wondering, then, what to make of sin
Cyril's you know, pointing to the composition of body and
soul as.
Speaker 1: A model for It's an analogy. It's an analogy for
the two natures coming together in Christ. It doesn't mean
that there's three natures in Christ. It's just an analogy.
It's called the henautic union.
Speaker 3: No, I understand.
Speaker 10: I guess I'm wondering then, if saying that that single
nature that since Cyril talks about is actually just the
composite then of all three effectively, right, it's a composite
of the human and the divine, and the human itself
is a composite of soul and body, but used to
end up with one singular composition at the top level.
Speaker 1: Well, but even he says in the two letters Sysic census,
that is not a tertion quid. So it's it still
retains the properties of being created and being uncreated, which
means that there's two natures. So no, it's not a
triplicity that's blended into a tertion quid.
Speaker 10: I guess that tertia quid would be if any of
the constituent ingredients change their properties somehow, but the composition
does not necessarily require the change of properties.
Speaker 1: Right, Tersion quid means that it's a third new thing. Right,
So if it's a third new thing, then we don't
have any connection to it anymore in orders God. So
it doesn't bridge the gap between God and Man. That's
what urson quid is a reference to. So it can't
be a new nature. That's some whole. That's all the
three triplicity natures are blended into. That's what That's all
I'm trying to say. And the two letters to extens
to say that it continues to keep its properties proper
to those natures. So it never ceases to be created,
it never ceases to be uncreated, because it's a hypostatic
union for all eternity.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 10: So so let me ask you a question of kind
of like the Calcedonian, you know, teaching on the hypostatic union.
Because my understanding, I think you said this before, where
the logos exist in the mode of humanity, is that
is that the phrasing.
Speaker 1: That use yeah, in hymbostatize, right.
Speaker 10: Okay, So my question to you is, because you know
the incarnation can be measured in a moment in time, right,
Like we know, like there's a time some twenty and
twenty five years ago or whatnot where the incarnation takes place.
If the logos exist purely in the mode of his
divinity prior to some point, but then exists in another
mode or in hypocifizes something new starting in a moment
in time, doesn't that necessarily require a change in the
divine hypothesis.
Speaker 1: It's not a substantial change. It's a change in the
sense of adding something new, Like I put on a
coat and so I have something new on me. But
my substance does not change. My being does not change
in itself. That's why we sing in the liturgy. He
underwent no change.
Speaker 10: Yeah, And I was just trying to reconcile the two, right,
like how.
Speaker 1: The divinity is impossible. Divinity is impossible. He can't change, right.
Speaker 2: Oh, no, I agree, I agree hundred percent. I know
that that's like a bedrock, you know, foundation for everything.
Speaker 1: So what's meant by what's meant by the incarnation is
that he assumed a new nature, not that he underwent
substantial change. In that assumption, he's still the same divine person.
He's still the same divine person, that the same divine agent,
that the same divine subject, and now that he's added
a new nature, human nature to the previous divine nature
that he possesses.
Speaker 2: No, I totally understand that. I totally get it.
Speaker 10: I guess it's that that that that notion of and
hypostheesization that I'm asking about, right, because that is you
are giving existence to.
Speaker 2: Something new in the hypothesis of the locals.
Speaker 1: Again, so you guys misunderstand what that term means, right,
So they got that the Oriental dude that tried to
call into debate, when the all it means is that
he assumed a new a new thing, and the new
thing that he assumed exists in the mode of the
person that has it now. It doesn't mean that it
changed into something different. I don't know why or where you.
I'm not trying to be mean to you or him,
but I had no idea where you would get the
idea that the word in hypostatized means that it undergoes
some substantial change. If it changed its substance, it's no
longer the same substance. Ergo, it's no longer human nature.
All that changed. In that sense, maybe you're referring to
the idea of deification. So the uncreated energies do deify
the humanity that he assumed. That's the teaching of the
sixth Council. But it's still the human it's still a
human nature. It's not a human subject. It's a human
nature that has for its subject the divine person who
assumed it. So that's all in hypostatized means. It means
it refers to the mode, the mode of the nature
that he assumed, the human nature of Christ. The mode
of its existence is in is in the existence of
the divine person of the word. It's his. Now just
think again, Athanacious all the way up until Maximus uses
the analogy of a code. Okay, it's analogy. So I'm
a person, Jay, I have human nature. I put on
a coat. I've added something to what I have. That
coat now exists in the mode of Jay Dyer, who
possesses it and has it as his own. That's an
analogy that the church fathers use consistently for the human nature.
The coat is not a person. It becomes part of
my person, you could say, because it's now personalized. It's
Jay's coat. So the human nature that he assumed becomes
the human nature of the divine person of the word
who assumed it. It's not a subject. Does it undergo
a change, not substantially, but it's deified.
Speaker 2: No, I totally, I totally understand.
Speaker 10: I guess with the coat analogy, which which I like,
by the way, that's.
Speaker 1: That's used by Maximus and as nations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's it's great. I think.
Speaker 10: The question then becomes like the the that's a hyposthesis
of a coat that exists in reality.
Speaker 1: It's not a hypostasis. It's not a hypostasis. That's the
confusion that you guys. It's a nature, not a hypostasis.
So after the Cappadocians, after the Cappadocians, hypostasis is specified
to refer to the subject or our agent that has
the nature. It is not just a nature. That's the
confusion here. So Orientals think. Orientals think that hypostasis refers
to just a concrete nature or an individuated nature, and
we do not believe that anymore. That's the source of
the confusion. Do you understand why or not?
Speaker 2: So well?
Speaker 10: That helped me understand, right, So in terms of it
being a particular instantiation of a lusia, right, So like
a code analogy, it is a particular instantiation of that particularka.
Speaker 1: That's the older definition that's used at Nicea. That's no
longer used after Nicia and the Cappadocians, it's no longer
used that way. So no, it's not that, and that's
why we make the distinction between That's why we make
the distinction. But no, Cyril himself even makes this distinction
between nature and person. So no, a hypostasis is not
just an instantiated nature. And I mean I can prove
this to you very easily. How many hypostaces are there
in the Trinity?
Speaker 2: There are three hypostaces?
Speaker 1: Okay, So are there three instantiated natures in the trinity?
Well there are three answers, No, No, there's not. That's
the error of John Philipponis. There's not three natures in
the trinity. There's three hypostaces with one nature. That's why
you have to distinguish nature in person, because it reflects
back on the trinity.
Speaker 3: You see.
Speaker 11: No, no, I understand me.
Speaker 2: I did not mean to say that there's three different natures.
Speaker 1: Of course, not Okay, then you can't say that the
hypostatius is just an instantiated nature, because there's that would
be three natures, three gods in the trinity.
Speaker 2: No, sorry to use that.
Speaker 10: To use analogies again, right, if there is, I'm sorry.
I obviously divine mystery should not be compared to to
human things.
Speaker 2: But just for the sake of or for this.
Speaker 1: Is why the human nature cannot be called a hypostasis.
It's not because for us that means a subject or
an agent. That would be an historian. Okay, it's a
human nature, not a human person or subject or agent.
Speaker 2: No, no, I I totally understand that.
Speaker 10: Of course, I'm not accusing you of saying a second hypostasis.
That's not my point, right I am no.
Speaker 1: No, I know that you. I know that you weren't
saying that my position is a historian. But I'm saying
that there's a reason why we do not call what
he assumed a human hypostasis. It's not. It's explicitly rejected.
The human nature exists in the mode of the hypostasis
of the sun. The only hypostasis. The only person or
agent there is the Sun. There's no human hypostasis at all.
Period that's rejected of the six Council.
Speaker 10: But why does the third anathema says an athema to
those who did lie that two hypostaces after.
Speaker 1: The union you talk about ephesis or you you're talk
about emphasis or calcila apaths emphasis. Yeah, because at that
point that's using the word hypostasis in the older definition,
which I'm telling you that eventually, after the Cappadocians, eventually
this becomes specified to be agent and not nature. This
is why if you look at Nicea right, it talks
about God being what having one hypostasis. God is not
one hypostasis, but it means nature there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at the end of the original Niceeing Creed, I've
seen that. Yeah before.
Speaker 1: That's because at that time it meant nature, and the
example that you're using, it's referring to nature. It's not
talking about the agent or the subject that has the nature.
This has developed after this time, specifically at the Fifth Council.
The Fifth Council said this is why n hypostatize comes
into play, because that's intended to signify the mode of
the nature, which is in the subject of the person
that has it.
Speaker 10: Okay, I'm still trying to get a handle on the
on the mode, which is fine, it's no problem.
Speaker 2: I do have another question for you, which is related.
Speaker 1: Let me let me help you out. Let me help
you out. So sure nature for us, as this theology
gets specified after chlsenon into the fifth and sixth Council,
nature refers to what a thing is, okay. Person refers
to the who, the operator, the agent, the subject, the
who okay, and that for us is what hypostasis ultimately
comes to mean. We do not anymore use that older
definition that was used at Nicea and the example that
you're talking about with ephesis and sometimes Cyril uses that
older definition, which is part of the there's reason why
there's confusion between these to end orientals right to orthodox orientals.
Eventually it means subject or it means subject or agent,
and so the confusion results from people going back to
the older definition of hypostasis as a nature and that's
not how it's being used anymore. That's why Epistle letter
thirty eight of Basil says on the distinction between nature
and person. And again, the reason I went to the
trinity is that that's the easiest way to show you
that you can't use that older definition of hypostasis anymore
because when you when you refer back to the trinity,
it doesn't work. You can't say that there's three natures
in the Godhead. So how hypostasis can no longer mean
or refer to in the councils and in this theology
just an instantiated nature. It has to be more precise
to be the agent or the subject that has the nature,
hence the nature person distinction.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's thank you for that, Jay. I do have
a related question on that. So you know, the saying
goes from the fathers that.
Speaker 10: That is what is not assumed is not saved, which
of course makes sense. So we know that in the incarnation,
the only prosopa and the only divine side and the
only subject is the divine person of the logos. No
disagreement there, I guess, is God saving human flesh and
human souls or is he saving human persons? Because then
there's kind of like a dilemma, I think, And by
the way, this is a genuine question. I'm trying to
figure out how to square this because that which is
not assumed does not saved, and we know that he
did not assume a human person that's historianism.
Speaker 2: So then all he assumes is human flesh and even soul.
Speaker 10: Is God just saving souls and flesh or is he
saving persons?
Speaker 1: No, that's the person is the unique mode of the
individual's existence. So this is why you're not understanding differences
between the things and themselves and the mode of the thing.
So mode refers to how a thing exists or the
way that a thing exists. And this is important in
theology because, for example, when we distinguish in the trinity,
let's say nature in person, right, and we say that
there's three persons and there's one common nature in the trinity.
Mode helps us to explain how that nature exists in
what way, And it's not abstracted. You don't you don't
have this like universal nature that three hypostaces participate in,
and that would be platonic. The way that the divine
nature exists is in the mode of the persons that
have the nature, and so eventually unhyposthetized is also stated
of the divine nature. It exists in the mode of
the three hypostaces that possess it. Likewise, human nature exists
in the mode of the specific individual persons that possess it.
I'm the person Jay, You're the person Bob. We have
a common nature between us, but that nature exists in
the unique mode of a hypostasis Jay that possesses that nature.
It exists in the unique mode of the person Bob
that possesses that same nature. And so we're not clones
of atom because we have a unique hypostasis or hypostetic
mode of existence that instantiates human nature in a unique
way for each person. So that's the distinction between nature
and persons. So Christ assumes in the incarnation all human
nature from all eternity, all of it. And that's why
all the humans are resurrected, you see. But the role
of person here for individual person. That's how we accrue
individual responsibility for virtue or for vice. So even though
we're all going to be resurrected, if I don't recapitulate
the virtues and participate in Christ, that resurrection will be
an ever ill being for me, as Maximus says, versus
ever well being. So this is why mode is very important,
not just in Godhead or in Christology, but also in
anthropology to distinguish individual persons. So Christ assumed universal human nature,
but it's up to every individual person to willingly participate
in that in order to receive theosis, because everybody's going
to be resurrected in terms of recapitulation. Not everybody's going
to participate in theosis. That's why it requires your own
mode of willing, which is in hypostatic personal.
Speaker 2: It's okay.
Speaker 10: So you're saying that the teaching casider teaching is that
he assumed all human nature universal.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, that's why all people are erected. It's called recapitulation.
So go you read Saint Arnaeus and he says Christ
recapitulates everything that Adam lost. The totality of all human
nature is lost in Adam. And one grinty is fifteen,
which is what Urinas is citing. There is the recapitulation
of all the human nature that Adam destroyed all his descendants.
This is why the wicked are resurrected. It's called recapitulation.
It's not taught by Rome's not taught by Protestants. It's
taught by the Orthodox. And Saint Cyril teaches recapitulation, by
the way.
Speaker 10: So let me ask you, because I always thought that
there was a connection between the necessity of the eucharists
and the resurrection right the promise in John six that
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, you know,
will live forever and I will raise him on the
last day. I thought that that's how the resurrection, at
least for the righteousness, everybody's resurrected.
Speaker 1: That the scope is just as universal in fet grint
Is fifteen for everyone, as as it was universal that
what Adam lost. So everybody who fell in Adam will
be raised in Christ. But that doesn't mean everybody participates
in thiosis. You see. That's only for those who by
their own will and decision join the church and live
the life of the virtues, to participate in the uncredited
energies to be deified. You see. That's why Maximus says
we're all going to the same escaton. So Christ in
the death arone, resurrection and ascension purchased ever being an
immortality for all human beings, all of our natures are resurrected.
There's no other basis to be resurrected than Christ's work.
And this is why it sounds odd. I'm not calling
you out personally, but it sounds odd to people who've
grown up.
Speaker 2: Not you.
Speaker 1: But like in Western theology, when they hear that Christ
assume universal human nature, that's why all people are resurrected. What, well,
there's no other basis to be resurrected. God's not just
willing the wicked to have hell bodies, like Augustine says.
This is a thing that Augustine got wrong. He doesn't
teach recapitulation, even though all the Eastern fathers and the
people before him taught recapitulation.
Speaker 2: So what role does the Eucharist play then?
Speaker 10: Because I thought that teaching of the fathers is that,
you know, the tree of life in Genesis is the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: Then you're you're not understanding just because you're resurrect it
doesn't mean that you're having a good experience. So, as
Maximus says, in the recapitulation and the restoration, if you
are wicked, your body will be unable to endure the
divine energies in presence of God, and so it becomes
ever ill being for you. So the resurrection becomes a
bad thing for you. You see, So you're that's what
the damned are. They're in that that state of being.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm willing to know.
Speaker 10: That's fine, I'm willing to grant it that that's not Actually,
that's not what I'm questioning.
Speaker 12: I'm questioning.
Speaker 10: So given that, what role does the Eucharist then play
as the tree of life and the whole k story
of self?
Speaker 1: Again, what I just said that you don't participate in
theosis deification without participating in the life of the Church.
So the wicked are resurrected, but they're resurrected to the
resurrection of the unrighteous wickedness. It's on the basis of Christ, though,
but they didn't actualize the potentiality that they had to
become members of the church, and so their experience is
ever ill being. And those who participate in Theosis, in
the life of the Church and eating of His flesh
and blood participate in ever well being. That's theosis. So
the rey could are resurrected because they don't have theosis.
Speaker 2: Got it? Okay, very clear, Thank you so much for.
Speaker 1: The discussion, and this will Yeah, absolutely no, they're great questions.
And if in this alone, By the way, the point
about recapitulation is something that nobody in the West teaches anymore.
I think this if you really understand this. Let's see
if we can find Iaronaeus's comment on it. I don't
know who this is or what this website is.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 1: This is this is the quote here. It's against heresies
five twenty one point one. He therefore, in his work Recapitulation,
summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy
and crushing him who had at the beginning led us
away as captives in Adam and trampled upon his head.
As you can perceive in Genesis that God said to
the serpent, out the imity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed. And so he
goes on to say that the son of Man then
vanquishes death in our nature through his resurrection, which affects
the entire nature. You see, So adam sins and everything
that comes out of his progeny is subject to death, decay, immortality,
and the loss of thiosis. In Christ, the nature is
restored to be immortal. That's why it's resurrected. There's no
other basis for resurrection than Christ. God doesn't just like
arbitrarily will that all the wicked be resurrected, and they
have no connection to Christ. First Critan is fifteen is
teaching recapitulation, and it's comparing the scope to Christ. And
this is really hard for Protestants and Roman Calloics to understand.
So that's why we come over here. And Christ has
risen from the dead, has become the first fruits of
those who fallen asleep. For by man came death. So
also by man comes resurrection of the dead. For an
atom all die, So in Christ all will be made alive,
each one in his own order. Christ is the first
fruits and afterwards of those who come after him. At
his coming, then is the end when he delivers the
kingdom up to God right. So he must reign until
he has put all enemies under his feet. The last
time me to be destroy his death, and then he
will be all and end all. So you'll notice the
scope of what Atom brought right is to all human beings. Likewise,
all people are resurrected in the general resurrection only on
the basis of Christ. There's no other basis for resurrection.
And this is called recapitulation, which is taught by the
Eastern fathers, taught in Western Latin theology, and it's main
it's taught by Cyril. I don't so Let mean you
get I'm not dissing that previous guy, but we've got
like orientals coming in here trying to quote Cyril teaches recapitulation.
So it's like, do you not read you guys, don't
read your own dudes? Uh, I mean Cyril explicitly says,
Jesus assumes universal human nature. How else are all humans resurrected?
There's no other basis for it.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: There's a great article, by the way, by orthodox professor
that touches on this Jesus Christ the universal person. And
this is an article written by Uh, I'm trying to
remember this professor's name, Manzerites. He's the guy that wrote
the Palamas book, Georgios manser Rites And by the way,
his Palomas book says that that that the Theophanies are
actually seen by the visible eye as well. So this
is something that refutes the people who constantly try to
argue with me, people who are just sending in the
super chats who claim to be translators, who don't have
any degree in anything, even though manser Riti says that
they saw the Theophanies with their physical, physical eyes. RC.
I don't know this guy.
Speaker 3: Hello, yep, Hey, it's working today, thankfully.
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: So a clarifying question before I get to my actual question.
Speaker 13: Do you believe that Mary is the mother of God
in heaven?
Speaker 1: Yes, she never lost that status because it is always
the case that the person that came forth from her
is God.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 13: So, then, who was the mother of Jesus Before he
was on earth?
Speaker 1: He did not have a mother because he was not
yet born as a man.
Speaker 3: So why would that change in the heavenly rome.
Speaker 1: Because he stepped into time and space and took on
human nature and a human mother.
Speaker 3: Yeah, human mother.
Speaker 13: Well, he was human, but in his divine form in
heaven he's not.
Speaker 3: He doesn't have a mother.
Speaker 1: He's still in his human nature. He ascended in the
human nature that he assumed on earth, so he's still
a man.
Speaker 3: So Jesus' nature changed before he was on earth.
Speaker 1: To after didn't change. Is the same human nature that
we have, except that nature is deified. That's why they
touch him after the resurrection and he eats fish with
them to signify that he still has a human nature.
Didn't go away. We're not gnostics. He has the same nature,
it's just deified.
Speaker 3: He was always deified.
Speaker 1: The human nature was not always deified.
Speaker 13: But we believe he came down in human form even
before Mary conceived him.
Speaker 1: No, he did not have a human form before the incarnation.
Speaker 13: So then in the Old Testament, I think.
Speaker 3: It was was a David. Who is David wrestling with?
Speaker 1: No, it's not David, it's Jacob. So you're not even familiar.
You're not even familiar with the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: So I got I got one name wrong.
Speaker 1: No, you're completely mixed up, like two very different people.
So you're talking about a genesie.
Speaker 2: Lord because I got a name wrong.
Speaker 3: So I know nothing about the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: We're done. You're not familiar with basic theology at all,
so I don't know. We're trying to debate it. That
was the RC guy that wastes everyone's time. Terry, what's up.
I've already lectured on the Theophanes countless times. I'm not
going to go through all this all again. Go ahead, just.
Speaker 11: Have a quick question about what you have been saying
recently on many shows about how you are in support
of the Microsoft influence since certain somewhat what circumstances such
as your family members, We're Pudkinson's novel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have a guy at our church that has
the same thing. So what does I mean I'm a
support of micro chips?
Speaker 11: Well, my question is, since the Orthodox Church has historically
been opposed to that, how would you.
Speaker 1: Think then you can expose me as a supporter of Antichrist?
So go have fun with that. I'm on, what's up?
Speaker 14: Hey, j Thanks for having the impatience to deal with
these idiots. But quick question, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 14: Okay, I just got the Peter Scheff thirty volume church Father,
said Andy Rick, mendations.
Speaker 1: Because Philip chefs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Phi Chef, That's.
Speaker 11: What I mean.
Speaker 1: Any recommendation.
Speaker 14: Now I can go about reading it because I thought
maybe you would have some recommendations because you've done it before.
Speaker 1: I mean I read every all thirty eight volumes. I
read a lot of it. I mean I would start
with uh Afthenacious on the Incarnation. I would read Gregory
Nazianzus's theological orations. I would read Basils on the Holy Spirit.
Then I would say maybe something like Jerome against Telvidius,
Jerome against Vigilantius. That's how I would go about it.
And then I would then I would start reading like
maybe the Acumenical Councils and the basic Documents in the
because one of the volumes is the Seven Ecmenical Cultures.
Speaker 14: That's what I'm happy I'd call it too, because I
already started reading that and I was like.
Speaker 3: Just confused, So I'll start the other way around.
Speaker 1: You might also, uh, if you don't want to start
with that, because those are pretty heavy theology works. If
you want to start a little bit easier, you could
start with the post Apostolic Fathers and read like the
Letters of Clement, the Letters of Ignacious. That might be
an easier starting point than just starting with Athenacious, but
that's where I would recommend starting. Let's see, I thought
somebody who was a messaging me and not wanting to
come to debate. I don't know who this person is,
so I think I have a podcast up to go
do here in a little bit subs account.
Speaker 3: Hell yeah, Hi, I'm.
Speaker 15: Currently looking into orthodoxy. I've been passively observing different conversations
with Bates for about a year and a half now,
and I'm at the point where I'd like to convert.
But my issue right now is my husband. He's not
fully on board part of him is convinced that it's
kind of culty because he grew up Protestant and he's
in a or. Growing up, he was part of a
church where his mom has been able to get ordained
and everything. And though his faith isn't that strong right now,
he's been churched enough to be very wary of the
different things positive by the Orthodox faith.
Speaker 2: And his strongest thing that's.
Speaker 15: Creeping him out is dealing with relics, and I have
a hard time finding information about that. Do you have
any recommendations that would help broach the subject because we
have four children?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean read Jerome's essay on relics. It's a classic.
I always get against Vigilanteus and against Helvidius mixed up.
The one on relics is against Vigilantius, and Jerome will
go through a lot of proof texts and just show
kind of the tradition of the church from the earliest days.
Against Helvidius is about propetuonal virginity. But yeah, against Vigilantius,
we got some super jets MKG seven ninety nine. Do
you think Muslims would try to use that to say
that Mohammad is a correction of the true teaching of
the Kingdom, or they would go with something like what
Daniel said, that Mohammad is the new Moses continue in
the old office. Well, I mean, we've actually brought up
this point about the finality of divine revelation many times
to Muslims and what do you can you guess what
they say? Oh, it's all corrupted, right, that's that's usually
what they go to. Few became a member. What's up?
Few shout out to him. I think you just have
to point out, as I've done many times in many
live streams. I think we've even clipped it, like there's
no new revelations. Zachariah was at thirteen eight thirteen predicts
that in the Messianic era there's no more prophets. Luke sixteen,
sixteen sixteen is very clear that Jesus is explaining that
John is the last the Old Testament lineage of prophets.
That's why Joseph Smith changed that verse. Right. We've argued
this with countless Mormons. If you look at Luke sixteen
sixteen and the Joseph Smith translation, he changed it because
it's clearly says that there's no more Old Testament prophets.
And if that's the case, then out goes Muhammad, outgoes
Joseph Smith. You see, so he had to change it.
But also, you know, Jude says in Jude three, is
the faith ones we're all delivered to the saints. You
get in Tessalonians, or assume me in Galatians one. Paul
says that it's you know, his his teaching is the
judge of anything else that comes. And then providentially, you
could argue that in Revelation twenty two it talks about
not adding to or taken away because there's I think
an assumption of finality to the revelation the book of
the Apocalypse. Now, there could have been you know, in
John's day, when he was alive, he could still preach
the oral word of God, and it was the word
of God, and the apostles identified their oral preaching as
the word of God. But when the alas Apostle dies John,
there's no more divine revelations. There's no more public divine revelation.
Hence it's the faith once for all, delivered to the saints.
Now there can be miracles and there can be clairvoyance,
but that is not divine revelation. It's not the same
thing as what is the apostolic deposit And another way
we know this is that the Montanists are condemned for
this position, for saying that there's ongoing divine revelation, and
then there's ecstatic British utterance. And it should be obvious
why we want this to be the case is that
it cuts off all these all this nonsense. We're not
gonna fall prey to all the cults and the Muslims
and the Mormons, because there's a finality to this. So
I just don't I don't get where and why anybody
would even want this living water five dollars. Glad to
see you still doing your thing. I hope there's more
collabse with Sam Hid to come. I mean, I'm officially
a writer on the Sam Hid Show, so I don't.
I mean, I could theoretically not be asked to continue
to write, but as far as I know, I mean,
they're they're touring and doing stand up right now, but
I assume I'll be writing on episode three, So I
mean he Sam seemed to like and use a lot
of what I'd put into the first two episodes, so
I would guess I'm still I mean, I think there's
still gonna be collabs anonymous ten dollars. Calvinists often say
that God does things arbitraary. It's called theological voluntarism. Quote
according to his will is orthodoxical. We said that arbitrary
in us is something that only fallen creatures have a
is anomic will? Well don't. It's just really an idea
that they collapse God's will into his nature, into his essence,
and they kind of make these things the same because
they have a divine absolutely doing simplicity position. So I
condom Matt two dollars. How many natures does yacub have? Infinite? E?
Condom Matt two dollars. Jay start a funk go coin. Well,
I'm pretty much bitcoin supremacist, so I'm not going to
be starting any any cryptos because I tell people to
stack bitcoin. And I mean, I don't know why you
guys still haven't been listening. I mean, we're at almost
we're right next to all time highs. Again. All time
high was what last week one eight, and we're at
one oh five to two, So we're only a few
thousand dollars away from all time high. And people are like,
couldn't wait till the dip to forty K. I don't
think rids are going to be a dip to forty K.
I mean, you can wait all you want, you do
what you want. I can't tell you what to do.
But I don't play markets like people think, oh, you're
gonna play the market. Not really. I have in the past.
I've followed the cycles, and I've tried this and that trading,
and I did all I did all that for many years.
But it's a lot safer to just stack bitcoin and
you don't even you don't have to worry about anything.
So you know, I'm actually toying with the Jack Mallers
plan of like not even using Fiat at all, and
you can get strike app and literally live on bitcoin.
The only reason I haven't done that is that I'm
not sure that. I mean, we already almost kind of
do that. Pretty much all Fiat I get is automatically
converted into bitcoin. Anyway. I just have to pay taxes
with FIAT, so I don't know if it would actually
benefit me to pay taxes in bitcoin because you pay
capital gains tax, so to me that seems counterintuitive, but
also his his strategy might be because he has a business,
so maybe maybe his setup is a little bit different
having a business. So I don't know how his taxes work,
because I'm sure he has a multimillion dollar business that
probably pays a lot of tax I don't know his situation.
But where was the bitcoin question? Over right there? I
want to remind you got to do that. We have
a show sponsor which is chalk dot com cho q
dot com the best in supplementation. You can head on
over to chalk dot com. You use a probable go
J forty four life j A y four four l
I f E to get forty four percent off all
of those awesome, awesome products. My lamp got too heated
and it burned out over here. There's too much there's
too much much chalk energy radiating off of me. It
burned out my my little lamp here. So it's kind
of it's kind of a dark vibe in here. We
had a dark synth wave vibe in here. My favorite,
as you guys know, is that tongue catleie. I'm a
big thing of the tongue catalee and it's proven to
boost TESTOSM. So people are like when do you sell?
You guys don't understand. It's it's like that meme that
you see where it's Neo talking to Morpheus, and Morphius says,
when you understand bitcoin, Neo, you won't even ask about selling.
You won't sell, You never sell. That's the point. It's not.
It's not you've misunderstood what this is and what my
philosophy on this is. It's not playing a market. It's
stacking the future of the world reserve currency. And you
understand that.
Speaker 3: What for.
Speaker 1: States just said that they want to have a strategic
bitcoin reserve. You don't understand how bullish that is. Like
Trump just passed the Crypto bill or a Sumi executive order.
It's not perfect. I would rather it be bitcoin and
not just crypto, but you know, we'll take what I
can get if the Loomis Bill passes. Do you not?
I don't, Like, I know we're talking about theology day,
but I just don't understand why you guys don't get
bitcoin yet. Like I have a super smart audience. How
do you guys not get this? It's not that complicated.
It does take understanding a feller reserve FIAT system. So
I guess that's over most people's heads. But this is
an audience that already understands that. So is it just
the boomer mindset of it not being physical? Like boomers
just don't understand.
Speaker 2: I can't touch it, it ain't real.
Speaker 1: Well, Boomers, do you send emails? Okay? Or do you
write letters? You send emails? Okay? Boomers? Do you do
electronic banking? Every boomer I know has the banking app
on their phone and boomers are using Zel. Now okay,
you're using Zel, but you don't like anyway? Do you
suggest stacking bitcoin or eth? Eth has been a giant
mass lately. When I was doing trading when when Eth
popped off, we did pretty good. We made good on
the ethereum when it went from like remember when it
was like seven hundred and five seven hundred dollars and
then it went up to like four thousand. We did
pretty good with that, and then I just flipped everything
over into bitcoin. So I don't care anything about like
stacking now, I don't stack eth. Eth is pretty sucky, dude,
Like it's when it gets high traffic, every transaction is
hundreds of dollars. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So and uh,
eth is centralized. It's I don't know. I don't It's
that's why over time I just have more and more
been bitcoin supremacists. So anyway, head on over to chalk
dot com. You sprone called Jay forty four life, J
four four life, you to get forty four percent off
all those great products. It's like, I just like you
guys come in the chat and you say all the
same stupid fud that you heard some boomer say on MSNBC,
and you say it to sound smart, and you don't
sound smart, Like I know that you're just repeating fud
that you heard on boomer financial shows to sound smart,
and you don't know what you're talking about. Like Bitcoin
is a vast rabbit hole of lore, okay, and I
I don't know all the lore. Will it hit one million? Dude?
You don't understand if the Loomiss Bill passes, the government
is buying I don't care about whether you think it's
good or not. The government is buying a million bitcoin
in five years. That means bitcoin will be one million
dollars per coin in five years at least. Does this
not register with you? Guys? I'm trying to help you.
Don't waste my time and your time typing out boom
or fud that you heard Dave Ramsey say to sound smart.
You don't sound smart, and nobody in the chat cares
that you think you're sounding smart. No, I don't do XRP.
Why would I want some centralized CEO thing. Well, you
might make money in a short term. Maybe you can't go
for it. That's your thing. I don't want XRP. I
disagree with it philosophically. The only thing that has any
potential of taking over the world is bitcoin, and it's
starting to do that. Do you not see this? By
the way, so everybody I know everything that Whitney web says.
I've been listening to Whitney webin ring here for years.
I disagree with her on some of these points. She
has some good points, and somebody sent me some like
super bitcoin Architect dude, and I put it in the
community tab. He spent doing a one hour critique of
the pros and cons of Whitney Webb's take right here,
and I thought it was a very good balanced reply.
His name is bitcoin mechanic. This dude knows more than
I do about the technical side of this. Okay, I
don't know all the technics. I engage you with it
from an investment standpoint. And I like Catherine Austin Fitz.
We've done many interviews. I respect her, but I totally
disagree with her on bitcoin. And so Bitcoin University did
a response critique of her right here. So I think
that they are wrong on these points. And I've heard
these same points, by the way, since twenty seventeen when
I started, and who was right? Who was right? Since
twenty seventeen? What bitcoin was two thousand, eight hundred dollars
or whatever it was back then, Oh we were. It's
one hundred and five thousand dollars right now, three thousand
dollars to one hundred and five thousand dollars right now.
The market is all you libertarians. The market has decided
it is not unrealistic to say that bitcoin would be
one million dollars. It would be ten times all the gold.
No do you understand that, dude? You have no idea
what you're talking about. The market cap of gold will
be surpassed by bitcoin. Bitcoin already flipped silver a cool nick,
and when bitcoin flips gold, it will be what five hundred,
six hundred and seve hundred thousand. That's just flipping gold.
And the reason that the government buying one million will
send it to a million a coin is because the
other nation states will also then try to front run
and buy it as well. You see, don't you understand
that it's already it's not just the US government, the Feds,
it's the NATE, that's the States. This is all over
Twitter today. Nobody saw the news today, Guys. I just
don't I just don't get it. Like I was telling
Jamie this yesterday, I'm like, how come people don't understand this.
I don't understand why they can't grasp what is going
on with this. Let me show you how many states
is it? Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas are the ones I saw today.
Now the EU is idiotic because they're the ones still
pushing that there will never be anything like that, so
that they're sealing their own doom. I mean, I was
at the bitcoin conference when Trump said.
Speaker 6: This nose by hard never sell your bitcoin.
Speaker 3: Uh That's right, isn't it? Huh?
Speaker 1: Has Trump made good on the rest of these promises?
Speaker 2: How did I figure that way?
Speaker 6: So far he has to sell your midcoin and so
as the final part of my plan. Today, I am
announcing that if I am elected, it will be the
policy of my administration United States of America to keep
one hundred percent of all the bitcoin the US government
currently hals or acquires into the future. We'll keep one
hundred percent.
Speaker 16: I hope you do well.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 6: This will serve and effect as the core of the
strategic national Bitcoin stockpile.
Speaker 1: As you know, as you.
Speaker 6: Know, as you know, most of the bitcoin currently held
by the United States government.
Speaker 1: So the Loomis Bill is a proposal to buy one
million coins over five years. It's not just one million
coins over five years, it's also that that will then
trigger all of the states who want to do this
already four or five now to buy for each state
the reserve, and then the other nation states in the
world doing the same thing. That is why it pushes
up the price up to a million dollars because of
the supply shock. It's not just the purchase of the
one million by the US government, it's also the rest
of the nation states who don't want to be last.
It's called supply demand that forces it up even higher
because there's not enough bitcoin to go around. You see,
that's the point. Supply shock why do I not like XRP. Well,
let's listen to Jack Maler's.
Speaker 17: I have to start off with your viral post, your
impromptu press conference that you held, because we got some
news lately about this strategic reserve and it might not
just be bitcoins, So I just want to get your
take and your message for the community.
Speaker 18: Yeah, well, I think that a bitcoin strategic reserve. So firstly,
this concept, this idea that's been floated around and it
seems like we're making political progress. I think it would
be one of the most important economic announcements in US history.
Important meaning, I think on par was something like Nixon's
announcement in nineteen seventy one. However, I think the big
difference that no one's talking about enough is it would
be one of the first positive economic announcements. So important
doesn't bias positive or negative. It means it's meaningful to
the public. But meaningful to the public has usually been
negative with economic US announcements. Nineteen thirty three was a
really big one, and it was the confiscation of gold.
Seventy one Nixon, the one I keep referencing was a
really big one. It was divorcing ourselves from the gold Standard,
which the way I like to think about it is
divorcing our monetary policy from the immutable laws of mother
nature and the ability for the government to print currency,
debase currency, and inflate.
Speaker 3: The goods and services of the people in the public.
Speaker 18: And then two thousand and eight was another very important
I would say, economic announcement and string of decisions from
financial authorities.
Speaker 2: But was it positive.
Speaker 18: No, it was that financial authorities took the side of
Wall Street banks in private corporations and burdened the cost
of the mistakes on the people on the public. And
I think a Bitcoin strategic preserve would be as important
and the caliber of those type of financial announcements but positive,
And I think there's a lot of insights in that
idea because this is an asset that's owned only two
three four percent of the bitcoin network is owned by governments.
Who owns it, Natalie, the people, the public. This is
an asset where it's monetary policy cannot be changed, it
cannot be forced to seizeiture, it's global, it's inclusive. You
could buy a pennyworth of bitcoins. You're talking about a
financial instrument that can measure a grain of sand or
a professional sports team, right, and so this is in
the best interest of the people. It's in the best
interest of the public. And we're reaching an inflection point
where is the future of the money one of the
people or one of corporations. And so I think it's
as important but positive. And when I see something like
Ripple lobbying privately as a for profit corporation to undermine
this idea of a positive announcement that's in the best
interest as a people, in the best interestment.
Speaker 1: To understand, Ripple is a corporation, has a CEO. It's lobbying.
Bitcoin is not a corp, doesn't have a central office,
doesn't have CEO.
Speaker 18: Just to the public, it's changing the tide of the
last century of American economic announcements in monetary policy against
the public, against the people, and really changing the momentum
in our direction as a country and the leader of
the free world. Ripple is bringing us back to all
of the awful announcements that are against the best interest
of the public that I just walked us through. Right,
this is private lobbying acting as innovation, acting as a
public good in service.
Speaker 3: But what is it?
Speaker 18: Ripple printed one hundred billion x Orp tokens gave it
to themselves, and the distributions to people is by them
selling it.
Speaker 1: That's centralization, that's fiat. That is opposite of what bitcoin
is in principle. This was twenty one hours ago.
Speaker 19: Bitcoin reserve from the Trump administration. Everyone's waiting for that.
We got the study and the review, but the Bitcoin
Reserve Texas is going to move forward. It looks like
with legislation Dan Patrick announced today that's a big priority
for them in Texas. But how about the Trump administration, Well, there's.
Speaker 20: Also a bill in the center. I think Cynthia Lummis
from Wyoming has introduced a bill to create a national
Bitcoin Reserve. The President Trump has asked us to study
that issue. So we're just not ready to comment on
it yet, but it's one of the things our working
group's going to look at.
Speaker 1: Polymarket has that or has had that at seventy percent.
I don't know what it is today. Pass If that passes,
then I'll be retiring very soon in the next five years.
By retiring, I don't mean I won't be working. I
mean that I won't have to work. I'll be doing
whatever I want, which means i'll be doing what we
do already denise five dollars. Excuse my boomeriness. Where do
you buy bitcoin and get started with a couple hundred?
What I would do is treat it as and like,
I can't tell you what to do, but if I
only had a little bit, I would just start stacking
it and use it as a savings account. That's what
I would do. You can get started with Swan bitcoin
in the show description. Swan is right here anyway. So
we got Texas, We've got Illinois, We've got Pennsylvania, We've
got a couple other states. Oh wait, now South Dakota.
Look at the states introducing the idea of bitcoin strategic reserve.
Don't you understand fifteen? I didn't even know it was
that many. I thought it was like five. So this
is news to me. If this is accurate, I assume
it's pretty accurate. Maxkuiser was telling Russia that they should
introduce a bitcoin strategic reserve for Russia with no ship coins.
That's funny. And yes, as somebody in the chat pointed out,
we got a super chat this says about check. Yeah,
I did see this. The Czech Central is now the
first Bobby c five dollars saying they want to buy
billions of euros for a check strategic reserve for bitcoin exactly,
so very very bolish. Everything is super bowlish bitcoin wise,
Travis Phillips ten dollars. Is it worth pursing through the
BTC ETF or just simply holding it? Well, remember, part
of the point at bitcoin is to remove third party trust,
So I wouldn't buy black Rock Fidelity or whatever ETFs.
I mean that's for boomers who know nothing but one
exposure to it. I believe in self custody because that
means getting rid of banks and middlemen. I support that idea,
so I'm not going to destroy you. There may be
some situations where Grandpa's, Grandma's boomers want exposure to bitcoin
and they don't have the time or the energy to
keep up with person custody, you know, seed phrases, all
the difficulties that can come with this. I mean, dude,
boomers are still clicking on like you know, email links
with dancing babies at scam them, so they're probably not
going to be able to manage you know, seed phrases.
Let's be honest here, right, I mean it's a joke,
but not really. So there may be some cases where
people can get exposure that's not direct and it maybe
it's works for them Grandma's or something. I don't know.
Ideally it should be like younger people helping the older
people or something, you know what I mean. Like that's
probably better than trust.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 1: Would you trust Larry Fink and Boomer stonkmen to do
what they're saying?
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. That's the whole point of bitcoin is to
remove this trust of all these other people in these
failed institutions and scammers everywhere. So there may be some
cases where pragmatically you could justify the ETF. It's very
bullish bitcoint obviously when it passed last January. But no,
I think you're much better off in the long run
just learning how to self custody, getting uh you know, blockstream, Jade,
or getting a Ledger or whatever wallet you research and
decide you want. Denise, No, we already did, Denise. Uh
is that? Let me let me check make sure I
got super tests right here? Yes? Do we have any
more callers? What's going on over here? Read it?
Speaker 2: Or right?
Speaker 1: Let's try this?
Speaker 13: Oh?
Speaker 1: No, go here we go?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 13: Uh huh hey yeah, So I am a letter a Mormon, right,
and I've had a.
Speaker 3: Couple of questions for you.
Speaker 21: Some of them that i'd be interesting is if you're
the whole concept is built off of creation out of nothing, right, which.
Speaker 3: We believe in Christ makes materia, that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: So you have creat of nothing.
Speaker 1: God basically just creates.
Speaker 21: Would you say that God creates whatever he wants, however
he wants, is that would be.
Speaker 1: Your definition of well, so if eld on, So just
from the outset, like, if you believe in creation out
of material, you're already a polytheist because you have another
eternal thing alongside God. So how many eternal uncreateds do
you have?
Speaker 21: Well, I mean, if you want to define something eternal
as well.
Speaker 1: If God didn't create it, is it eternal?
Speaker 8: Well yeah, well, I mean that's it's literally in our.
Speaker 1: Right that there is you mean you mean, although, so
you're saying your script you don't want Book of Mormons.
Speaker 22: Right, So what ey three?
Speaker 21: That's where you can definement, right, So the seventy three
it says element is eternal.
Speaker 2: It says the spirited man was from the beginning with God.
Speaker 1: Right, So you're right, right though, So that's your position,
and I'm asking you, how are you not a polytheist
if there's two uncreated eternals, Well, I mean we.
Speaker 21: Wouldn't define that as politism because I mean you're coming
from that.
Speaker 2: There has to be this.
Speaker 21: One simple thing that and that is God writing that
simple thing is eternal, right, that's how you define it,
and we would just define God is so you.
Speaker 1: Know, so redefine the words. So just redefine the words
to right, So redefine the words to make the position work.
So there's an eternal, uncreated thing alongside God, but you
don't believe in two eternal principles.
Speaker 21: So eternal principles and it being God completely different rights
of God.
Speaker 1: I don't care whether you call it God, because it's
still polytheism. If there's two uncreated eternal principles, that's two
polytheism to God's.
Speaker 2: Well it's okay, So I mean it's not good.
Speaker 1: Well you're just calling it not God, but you're but
it has the attributes of God eternal and uncreated, but
it's not God, and there's two of them, hence polytheism.
Speaker 21: So God, I guess as we would, the final is
eternally created and has all powers didn't bring about his desire, right,
the element doesn't have power.
Speaker 2: To do anything.
Speaker 1: Well, he's not all powerful. If there's he's not all powerful.
If there's another uncreated eternal thing next to him he
has so that's not all. So he's not all powerful
because there's another eternal principle. You're a dualist, So I
mean sure, so now you're so you admit that it
is dualism. So sure, well, I mean, I.
Speaker 18: Guess I probably wouldn't have the exact definition of what
you mean.
Speaker 2: I have memorized.
Speaker 1: Well, you just said sure. I mean, so there's there's
two eternal uncreated principles, God and Premiam materia. Sure, so
you're a dualist, and so you're a dualist and then
neuropologist by admission. That's what dualism is defined as.
Speaker 2: So I mean you're right, I mean.
Speaker 1: Two Polly is two? At least is that more than
one Polly? Two eternal uncreated principles? You said, okay, dualism, Sure,
that's two, that's Polly.
Speaker 8: So the thing is that you're using in a.
Speaker 1: Way that it's like, now, that's colloquially and definitionally an
academic theology. That's literally what it means more than one
is polly, that's two. So no, it's not true. Say
it's just total bullshit.
Speaker 18: That's fine.
Speaker 2: I have a question for you, though, well.
Speaker 23: I have a question for you before you ask my question,
and my question for you is why do all of
the texts prior to the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis,
whether Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, none of them contained the additional
eleven or twelve verses of Genesis that Joseph Smith added
to predict himself.
Speaker 14: I think there's an initiated this, right because what he
adding that?
Speaker 1: Yes, he is adding it there. What are you talking about?
What do you mean?
Speaker 5: So they this is like a other people try to
make this.
Speaker 3: A thing where from the Bible?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: He did?
Speaker 2: He so jare Smith?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: So your answer is did just yap around it? You're
cutting out, We don't hear you? He uh huh oh right.
Speaker 21: So I'm planning where this comes from because if you.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 1: So, I'm looking into the scripture. Come on, man, don't
give me this crap about. If you actually look into it,
you'll see where it's coming from. I've got it pulled up.
I've got it pulled up yes, yeah, but how am
I going to follow the book? Bro, You're missing the point.
Why would I follow the Book of Mormon? No, you're
missing what the Book of Mormon is. Bullshit. I'm not
going to believe that because this is in the Book
of Mormon it should be added to the later chapters
of Genesis, when the entire revelation given to Jews, Christians,
Orthodox Protestants for every century prior to this, con Man
does not have added versus predicting himself.
Speaker 2: Again, that's the thing, right, that's just like people saying.
Speaker 21: Look, you know all people don't get the dead.
Speaker 1: That is not the same thing as No, it's not
It's not the same thing as the atheist objection. It
is absolutely not the same as the atheist subjection.
Speaker 2: Finished, and.
Speaker 1: Where I'm going because you're just gonna yap, You're not
going to give an answer. How is appealing to You're
appealing to the other fake thing. You're appealing to the
other fake thing to prove this. It is not the
same as the No, it's this total false analogy. No,
it is not the same. It is not the same
the same. So that's a fallacy to say that if
an atheist makes an argument about textual corruption. That that's
the same as the argument that I'm making. I am
not that, I'm not making that argument.
Speaker 21: Made my claim you're assumed a claim I'm making apartment right, So.
Speaker 8: Okay, so people dead therefore, well, look.
Speaker 1: That is not the argument being made here. That is
a totally dombinalogy every text that is all right, we're done,
you're done. This is so stupid. I don't understand how
anybody can believe. This is completely stupid nonsense. This is
not the same as when an atheist says that texts
are corrupted or people. The New Testament writers wrote themselves,
wrote Jesus into the New Testament, and they wrote and
created a prop that is not the same thing. The
difference is the New Testament cites countless times in the
Old Testament where Jesus fulfills those prophecies. This is totally
different where you have absolutely no textual evidence at all
for additional verses to the last chapter of Genesis that
predict Joseph Smith. So it is totally different, no similarity
at all to what the New Testament writers do. Remember
when we had another Mormon that debated the same thing
and needed the exact same move. He said, Oh, well,
the New Testament, the Apostles, they just craft these verses
to make Jesus be the fulfillment. No, they don't, total nonsense.
Jesus isn't just the fulfillment. He's the one that gave
the Old Testament prophecies. This is totally different where you
have absolutely no textual proof or evidence prior to Joseph
Smith of any of these extra verses in Genesis predicting him.
It's an obvious defeater for the entire religion improves hes
a con man. So their only answer is to say, well,
it's kind of like what the Apostles did, where they
crafted Old Testament verses to make it about Jesus. No,
they're not con men like Joseph Smith. They're actually proving
that Jesus fulfills the prophecies. This is so obviously a
fraudulent addition to Genesis to predict Joseph Smith. Why at
the end of the Book of Genesis about the death
of Joseph would there be suddenly a prediction of Joseph
Smith thousands of years in the future. I mean, it's
just so absurd on the face of it. It's so dumb,
and it's obvious that he stuck it in here because
it was talking about Joseph, and he's duping all of
these low iq ignorant prairie muffins into thinking that it's
Joseph Smith when it's talking about Joseph the patriarch. It's
so obvious. I mean, it's like comedy level stuff. And
this is what we're dealing with. Liam five bucks. Did
you say that the IMF got El Salvador to back
off of bitcoin? Back off? I don't know. I have
not seen that. What does that mean? Back off of it?
Its success will be down to what the international money
power wants. How the international money power cannot stop what
is already out there. Bearish looks like they're pushing to
get liquidity. Who who is I don't know what you're
talking about. The government is pushing bitcoin to get liquidity
to do what again, Everybody that argues this kind of
stuff is missing the whole point in idea behind bick one.
I don't see anybody else. Looks like we've had we
had a nice little yappy Mormon talking about how oh well,
he's like, you're not using the real definition of polytheism.
Two eternal uncreative principles literally Aristotle's definition of a diad.
That's two. That's polytheism. Well, but the other thing's not God.
It's an uncreated eternal us next to God. That's called dualism.
And if there's two eternal principles, that's polytheism. Oh well
it's not though, because I don't call the other thing God.
That's just changing words, dummy.
Speaker 3: Ash, Hello, can you read yep?
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 22: I was talking with a friend that I went with,
went to college with, about my conversion to go into
Eastern Orthodoxy, and I basically got to admit that the
canon that he has was given to him by fallible means.
Speaker 2: Like he would say the church was fallible, but that's where.
Speaker 22: He would he would go to them and go, yeah,
the church is the one that gave him a cannon.
Speaker 2: The church is the one who would tests Christ to
me even though it is fallible.
Speaker 22: And then he said, but God's providence is infallible and
doing that thing, and so the providence part is the
infallible part. And so that's kind of I guess this
weird way of getting to an infallible message through I
guess fallible means I mean, he he did say that.
Speaker 1: That's just that's just a bunch of talking around the
very thing. That's sure. I mean, he's admitting that the
it's the men that made the decision. Yeah, so you
can say, well, bet it was providence and God did it. Okay,
but God providentially directed the men to make the decision.
So was the decision fallible and infallible? He's just he's
just deflecting and saying, well, the providence was infallible. Well,
Providence is infallible and everything. That's what stupid objective. Everything
happens infallibly according to what divine Providence sees and forenos.
So that's begging because that means everything that is infallibly happening.
That's stupid.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 22: I thought a good critique to that was that, like,
oh well then that's kind of like a subjective amost
subjective argument because he but even him as a Protestant,
he would say, oh, well, my sixty six books are
providentially infallibly given to me.
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, how like the Orthodox can claim that stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, so let's see if he admits that the decision
back then was quote infallible, it's not his Protestant kenon.
Speaker 2: Well that's why. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 22: Yeah, and so I thought that a good The best
critique was like, well, you realize that that's what the
East claims and their canon is different than yours, So
what what do you have to stand on?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: The Church universally accepts the Diuderro canon for the first
several centuries and universally proclaims it at Trello and the
Seventh Ecumenical Council. So he's just being a judized Protestant
like they all are and saying that now I'm gonna
follow what the Jews said.
Speaker 2: Sure, and do you have a ton for one more question?
Uhuh so uh he uh.
Speaker 22: Another critique that he gave was that he does not
see the system of like what the Orthodox believed when
it comes to the uh collecting of the canonical text.
Speaker 2: He does not see that in the New Testament.
Speaker 22: He he he was saying that Jesus when he refers
to the Old Testament books that they were that Jesus
assumes that they're infallible and that they are.
Speaker 2: And they are without error.
Speaker 22: And he said that's not a showing of the system
of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, the ecumenical councils are patterned
on what happens in Acts fifteen, the Jerusalem Council. So
if he wants to have Bible examples of how the
church should function, Acts fifteen is sonodal church government. And
when they talk about the presence of the Holy Spirit there,
that's the spirit amongst the synod or collegiality. So I
don't understand what. So, Jesus cites the scriptures. Every ecumenical
council cites the scriptures, So how does that prove that
there's no oral tradition or that the church doesn't have
normative authority. So I don't understand what that argument is
supposed to prove. That Jesus cites the scriptures, every church father,
every council cites the scriptures. They're missing the point that
it's not a question of citing the scriptures or whether
the scriptures have authority. The Protestants are not understanding that
you can't get in a time machine and go back
to getting Poll's AUTOGRAPHA the books that you have in
your hand, this collection here, you're assuming that the church preserved, maintained, copied,
and transmitted over centuries. And then it really is the
things that Paul wrote, and it really is the things
that Matthew the Disciple wrote. You're trusting. It's not just
a matter of oh, orthodox think that you got to
have an authority say that this is the infallible collection
of the Bible, and if you don't have an authority,
then it's up to everybody's opinion. No, No, it's more
than that. It's also the very texts themselves were preserved
by a community of people. That tells you who the
authors were. You see, it's much stronger than just some
authority claim. Yeah, I agreed, agreed, And the people that
preserved it are not Protestants, they're not Baptist, they're not Calvinists,
they're not Episcopalians, they're Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Yeah, agreeance with all that. And like I said, yeah, thought,
I just thought.
Speaker 22: The biggest critiques of that is that he still has
to answer. And I got him to admit that all
of the stuff that he believes in affirms first of all,
come from to the Church, so he affirms at least
some type of authority, but he won't make the jump
to call it an infallible or normative authority, and.
Speaker 2: I basically just said, that's basically just picking and choosing.
I mean that that that's just picking and choosing.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, a lot of times it sounds like
he's also confusing you know, normati authority, meaning that there's
people who have the ability to bind people's consciences. That's
different than existential certitude.
Speaker 22: Yeah, And I think he kind of missed that part too,
because he said he told me that I, as an
Orthodox believer, wouldn't have uh, I wouldn't have a greater
amount of a certainty.
Speaker 2: That he would. And I said, no, that's that's the
whole point, man.
Speaker 22: I was like, the certainty that I have as an
individual going through all these church documents, going through all
these councils and these cannons, Like we're on the same
plane field. It's not like I can claim something that
I have and you don't. But it's just the recognizing
of philosophical justice vacation. And I said, I don't think
you have that. You've already admitted like Ortland and all
these other Protestants will admit that the canon that they
received is fallible, that the message the Gospel they received
is fallible. And I said, you don't see that as
like being any troublesome to you, right he and he
just said, well no, He's like, I can have justifiable
belief and it don't have to have certainty in it.
And I was like, I think you're still confusing the categories,
Like I don't care what you have certainty of it?
Speaker 1: Now, how is it gonna tell me? If I I mean,
I've studied, I prayed a lot, and I've come up
with my own canon, because I mean, you can't bind
me by your Protestant canon. You admitted it, you have
admitted as fallible. So on what basis of am I wrong?
If I've come up with my own canon. This is
how stupid Protestantism is. It has to admit that literally
every church can come up with denomination or individual gathering
of strip mall people can come up with their own canon,
and you can't. You literally can't tell them that they're
wrong with any authority. You can say, well, I don't
think it's a rat canon, but hey, I mean it's
it's a free for all because it's fallible. There's nothing
that's binding within church history.
Speaker 2: Correct? Correct? All right? Sweet man? I just he's a
dear friend of mine.
Speaker 22: You know, I just wanted to make sure that my
critiques were were I guess good critiques, you know.
Speaker 1: I think so much. I think they're good points Genus
one dollar. Your recommendation is that good resources or Orthodox
doctrine or recapitulation Cosmic Mystery of Christ by Saint Maximus MKG.
Do you think that the Theophany of Joshua five? Would
you debate it? What's to debate? It's clearly like he
falls in his face to quote worship, and it says,
take off your sandals for the place where you stand
as holy. So that's telling us it's just like an
Exodus when Moses falls down in his face and and
God says, take off your shoes for the place where
you're standing as holy. So it's the same Angel of
the Lord Theophany as what Moses saw. So yes, I
think that is Christ. And I don't know what is
there to debate about that passage, jimkg. Angel just means
a messenger, So I'm not sure why what there is
to debate. I mean, the only thing I could see
somebody saying is that maybe it's Michael, because it's the
commander of the army of the Lord. But I mean
Jesus outranks Michael. So yes, Michael is the commander of
the host of the Lord. But Jesus is above the
commander of the host the Lord, so he's also the
commander of the hostly Lord. So I don't understand what
the argument would be on this passage. I'm trying to
think of any other way to say that this is
not a Theophany coal. This is another point I want
to say too, and this bears on the previous question
about Theophanes. Theophanes are in Orthodox theology and mystery, and
I don't have an answer exactly to tell you the
logarithmic technological silicon valley account of how they happen. We
are told, and it is revealed that Theophanes are energetic
manifestations in time and space. They are called divine, they
are worshiped, they are called Yahweh. They're called the face
of Yahweh. I don't know how Christ does that, and
I do not believe that divinity changes, or that it
undergoes change or whatever. I don't know how, but somehow
it happens. Because all the Israelites see a fire. Theophony
in Leviticus nine. It's not a physical body of crime
that's manifesting the burning bush is a theophany. I don't
know how. We don't know how. So at a certain
point there is mystery. There's no rational, academic explanation of
every single element of Orthodox theology and Trinitarian theology. This
is why it's called communicatio idiomatum. This is why Saint
Cyril says God died for us, God became a baby. Okay,
they're not contradictions, but they are mysteries, and so to
I have this attitude of like, oh, you're in Athori
because you said that there's a face of the Lord.
The scriptures say that the Son is the face of
the Lord and that his glory appears in time and space.
I don't know how that is. But I'm not a Muslim,
I'm not an Athari. I'm not an anthromomorphic heretic. Because
I say, what is in the scriptures and what is
in divine revelation. It's what Saint Maximus and it's what
Saint Gregor Palma say. Palma says that the physical eye
can see the theophanes how. I don't know how, But
this is precisely why they saw Isaiah in two because
Isaiah said he saw the logos on the throne. How
he wasn't incarnate yet. I don't know how. God doesn't
tell us all the hows. It's the same as creation.
How did God create xnay low. Give me the formula?
Speaker 2: How?
Speaker 1: How I'm a sperg. Tell me how, or you're a heretic.
I don't know. I don't know the how. Nobody knows
the hows. We're told that it happened. Tell me how.
There's a difference between procession and generation. Tell me how.
Speaker 3: Tell me how.
Speaker 1: I'm a sperg. I need everything it's filled out like
a giant algorithm or else. I don't believe it, and
you're misleading me. I need the algorithm. But he met
chicken ten needs and he met chucky milk, misperg. I
don't know. There's not an answer to everything. Grow up, Cole,
what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey? Jay? Former Mormon?
Speaker 16: Here it was a few times Mormons get on and
just just try to be nuts hearing about it, just
knowing I was in it for way too long, but.
Speaker 2: Grew up in it and didn't realize it was what
it was.
Speaker 16: And I liked your arguments with about justice Smith puttnay
in his own spirit sures and Genesis and all that craziness.
Speaker 2: But some of the things.
Speaker 16: That I found the most intriguing about Mormonism itself is
more of the argument of.
Speaker 2: The evidences that we have. Like right now, I'm actually
in the increase stage.
Speaker 3: I've been going to a worthadoxy for.
Speaker 16: A few months now, but I'm working on katechisis.
Speaker 2: But it's been fascinating just to see, like the I
guess the scholarly side. I know what doos doesn't like.
They don't like hanging their hats scholarly stuff.
Speaker 3: But just the fact that we.
Speaker 16: Actually have physical evidences of the translations to the Bibles
and all that stuff, and then most stuff within Mormon
as it is. Trust me, bro, just.
Speaker 1: You got to have faith, you got to have a
warm feeling, you have a question or anything.
Speaker 2: Just I didn't know if you knew.
Speaker 12: Of like some of the physical deals that came with
the only time that there has been any physical evidence
of Joseph Smith's translations have been like clearly been frauds
in regards.
Speaker 2: To like the Book of Abraham, mainly like the pull
up Great.
Speaker 1: Price I don't know. I don't have any physical evidences
about the history of the fraudulent translations, but I know,
I know they're frauds. But I can tell you that
there are absolutely no texts of Genesis prior to Joseph
Smith that have anything close to twelve eleven verses added
to Genesis that predict Joseph Smith. And nobody in the
history of the world has ever believed or thought of
anything so stupid. And if you can't recognize that, if
no text had Joseph Smith in thirteen verses to Genesis
fifty and Joseph Smith adds himself, if you think that's
a real prophecy, I don't know what I can There's
nothing I can tell you. I can't help you. Sorry,
Silas five Bucks. I'd love to see you debate rabbis
like miss Rock or Singer. They're crazy and brag about
debating goofy evangelical professors. I don't know. I mean, we've
had maybe five Jews come in debate in open forms.
Gooner squad. Five Bucks is nationalism at odds with Chris
in theology. No, I never said that, so I don't
know where you would get that. I would say that
many Christians quote unquote believe in liberal views of open borders.
I've never argued that. All of the same autome pastors,
by the way, everybody sent them the links as usual,
and of course none of them have come. Jay Chase Davis,
that guy. We've asked him multiple times, I've DMed him
multiple times, and every time I DM me say I
can't do it, can't do it. So it was like
weeks of not being able to do it. So none
of these Protestant people are going to I'm gonna come
do this. Do you have any thoughts about the book
thinking Orthodox two dollars? I've not read that, sorry, so
I don't. I can't speak to that. I feel like
I'm missing some super jets anyway, I don't know. Thank
you guys, a lot of fun tonight. Thank you father
Deacon for joining me. If you would hit like and share,
And I think I'm on a podcaster in a little
bit in an hour, so maybe two hours. I don't
know if that'll go. I don't know if that's live
or what, but if it is, I'll share it on
the community tab and uh you can join by the
penned link