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