Speaker 1: All right, what's up? We're live now. This is an
Speaker 1: odd time. I don't know. Maybe it's too early. People
Speaker 1: don't have their debate testicles dropping yet too early in
Speaker 1: the morning. They're too childlike they just came out of
Speaker 1: the womb at the dawn of the morning. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that means, but welcome everybody. It's an open debate,
Speaker 1: and as you guys know, that means that nobody will
Speaker 1: ever ask questions on the topic or stick to the topic.
Speaker 2: They will talk about.
Speaker 1: The dumbest stuff you've ever heard of, and they will
Speaker 1: not know how to unmute themselves because that's always what happens.
Speaker 1: So there's no point in even talking about it. We
Speaker 1: got one person already. The topics, as you guys can see,
Speaker 1: are Catholics, Muslims, Protestant, Atheist, Arian, Hebrew Roots, Joe's Witnesses, Mormons,
Speaker 1: cult sex, black, Hebrew Israelites, whatever we can get our
Speaker 1: hands on today. It's all on the table.
Speaker 3: I have.
Speaker 1: There's a black man, atheist, black science atheist man who's
Speaker 1: talking smack. Hopefully he'll come. Usually when I put sneak
Speaker 1: O and Tate in the title, it brings Muslims, but
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know what we're gonna get today.
Speaker 1: We've got row row dig.
Speaker 4: What's up, dude, gotta I'm mute, man, Come on, I'm mute.
Speaker 1: Roe dig Do you want to all? You have to
Speaker 1: unmute yourself? Okay, whatever, better than you. Here's the guy
Speaker 1: talking smack. Here we go. What's up? He's gonna set
Speaker 1: it straight?
Speaker 3: Man? You just you just predict that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's up? What's up?
Speaker 3: Doll? You doing?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: Yeah? What how's it going?
Speaker 2: God?
Speaker 1: You're gonna set as straight to disprove the existence of God?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 6: I'm I'm I'm from the Church of Letter the Saints,
Speaker 6: So I'm a Mormon.
Speaker 2: Are you trolling? You're joking?
Speaker 3: No, I'm like, I'm dead ass, I'm like a Mormon.
Speaker 1: So like you sound like a black dude though they
Speaker 1: don't really like black dudes and Mormonism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but like you know, I just try to be different.
Speaker 3: I'm just trying to be Like.
Speaker 1: You're trolling. You said that, you said follow the you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Uh huh, Yeah, you're troulling. You
Speaker 1: said that you didn't believe in gods, and now you're
Speaker 1: a Mormon.
Speaker 2: You're joking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, So how can you prove God's.
Speaker 1: Existence the transcendental argument?
Speaker 3: Okay, so can you elaborate on it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Without God's existence, it would be impossible to give a
Speaker 1: philosophical justification for one's worldview. That's how tag goes.
Speaker 3: Aren't worldview subjective?
Speaker 1: No, I mean that would be a self defeating position
Speaker 1: if you believe that worldviews were all subjective.
Speaker 3: So you don't think we would have different worlds.
Speaker 1: Having different worldview doesn't. That doesn't entail that they're all subjective.
Speaker 1: That's a non secutor.
Speaker 3: So do you think all world views are the same?
Speaker 1: No, at route, everybody has a worldview, but not everybody
Speaker 1: has the same worldview. But that doesn't mean that everybody's
Speaker 1: worldviews are the same.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so they're not the same.
Speaker 1: Right, But that doesn't entail relativism. So you understand that
Speaker 1: relativism will be a false conclusion from the fact that
Speaker 1: we have our own world views because there are things
Speaker 1: that we all share in common. Right, So, for example,
Speaker 1: you've got to have you got to have some account
Speaker 1: of knowledge or ethics in your worldview. So the question is, well,
Speaker 1: who has a consistent, coherent account of knowledge and ethics.
Speaker 1: Let me give another example of why would be impossible
Speaker 1: to say that worldviews are all subjective. If worldviews were
Speaker 1: all subjective, you couldn't say all worldviews are subjective because
Speaker 1: that would be a non subjective truth claim. That would
Speaker 1: be an objective truth claim. Okay, so it would be
Speaker 1: self defeating.
Speaker 3: But how does that link to God?
Speaker 1: Well, because if we're going to I have to give
Speaker 1: an account for our worldview, and that what I believe
Speaker 1: a worldview is is some basic commitments within the domains
Speaker 1: of epistemology, which is the doctrine of knowledge, ethics are
Speaker 1: right and wrong, and metaphysics what exists and what doesn't.
Speaker 1: So those three things make up a worldview, and we
Speaker 1: either have an account for that worldview or we don't.
Speaker 1: If God exists in the Christian worldview, then there's a
Speaker 1: reason and a basis for believing in the basic principles
Speaker 1: of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. If there's no God, there
Speaker 1: is no basis for having knowledge at all. You could
Speaker 1: justify your knowledge claims.
Speaker 6: Okay, but well, I could go into all of that,
Speaker 6: But how do you link it to God? You could
Speaker 6: link it to anything. How do you specifically just link.
Speaker 3: It to God.
Speaker 1: Well, not anything can give a justification. So there's all
Speaker 1: kinds of things I could say therefore potato chips, right,
Speaker 1: But potato chips doesn't provide any justification for the principles
Speaker 1: that I'm utilizing, like logic, like reasoning, like mathematical principles,
Speaker 1: et cetera. All those things that are necessary to have
Speaker 1: a coherent worldview. They're not justified by me just saying anything.
Speaker 1: There's some kind of being that gives an account for
Speaker 1: them and grounds them, and that's precisely what God does.
Speaker 1: God is the type of being who would ground and
Speaker 1: give an account for those types of things.
Speaker 6: But again, you're just assuming that there's a being that's
Speaker 6: accounting for that.
Speaker 1: I'm not just assuming it. I'm making the argument. It's
Speaker 1: a transcendental argument, has an actual form to the argument.
Speaker 3: It's a circular argument, because how do.
Speaker 2: You prove that that's circular?
Speaker 1: The circular the argument is proven by the impossibility of
Speaker 1: the of the contrary. That's a reductio argument.
Speaker 6: No, it's not, because there could be other possibilities. You
Speaker 6: just don't know of any and you just assume it's God.
Speaker 6: There could be other possibilities could there.
Speaker 1: Be there can't be other possibilities because it's set up
Speaker 1: in a disjunct of it in an either or you.
Speaker 3: Said they can't or can't there.
Speaker 1: Cannot be because the argument that because because there's a
Speaker 1: limited number of options whereas to where you can go
Speaker 1: in terms of a worldview, for example, No, there's not that.
Speaker 3: So you wouldn't be able to tell me if.
Speaker 1: You It doesn't require omniscience to make that statement. I
Speaker 1: can make that statement because there's a limited number of
Speaker 1: places that you can go to begin any worldview. Any
Speaker 1: there's not an infinite number of.
Speaker 6: Story There is not an infinite to what you could
Speaker 6: link it to. And that's what I'm I'm saying. There's
Speaker 6: not not a limit to where you could link it to.
Speaker 6: You could link it, but there is being a god.
Speaker 6: You could link it to being anything else, but.
Speaker 1: Then linked to anything else will not do the work
Speaker 1: of justification, because you need a certain type of being
Speaker 1: to ground the things that we're talking about.
Speaker 3: What's that justificating?
Speaker 1: What justification is a principle in epistemology. It's giving an
Speaker 1: account justified true belief for the knowledge you know.
Speaker 6: Nothing else could justify justify what you just said.
Speaker 1: Because there's a limited number of starting points for any
Speaker 1: possible worldview. There's not an infinite number of worldviews in
Speaker 1: terms of starting points.
Speaker 3: What define worldview already did?
Speaker 1: It's the basic commitments to the principles that we have
Speaker 1: in terms of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
Speaker 2: That's a worldview.
Speaker 1: So for example, let me let me give you an example.
Speaker 1: Let me give you an example. Let's say, let's take ethics.
Speaker 1: Since you mentioned that there's not an infinite number of
Speaker 1: possibilities between knowledge, for example, ethics either being objective or subjective. Right, Okay,
Speaker 1: so there's not an infinite that's in either or that's
Speaker 1: a disjunctive. So there's not an infinite number of possibilities
Speaker 1: in that question. So therefore, the way you answer that
Speaker 1: question will determine a large portion of your worldview after that.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't have to refute every single worldview.
Speaker 6: But you can justify your worldview by not defuting the
Speaker 6: other ones, because you're you're just assuming your.
Speaker 3: Worlds view is right without knowing all of the other
Speaker 3: world views.
Speaker 1: Again, I don't have to refute every single worldview because
Speaker 1: there's a limited number of worldviews from the vantage point
Speaker 1: of starting points.
Speaker 3: So how do you know your worldview is correct.
Speaker 1: Because that's the only one that gives an account for
Speaker 1: the basic principles that are listed.
Speaker 3: Of pistemology, what else, metaphysics and ethics?
Speaker 1: Right, So you need all three of those things to
Speaker 1: have a worldview. They're all they all kind of go together.
Speaker 1: So if I can argue that, for example, that universal concepts,
Speaker 1: mathematical principles, et cetera, those things can't be reduced to matter,
Speaker 1: and if God exists, then it makes sense why there
Speaker 1: would be those things, why the would be immaterial things
Speaker 1: like laws or laws of logic, laws of nature, et cetera. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, it's two different peeding world views. And
Speaker 1: the worldview where God exists those things make sense. The
Speaker 1: worldview where God doesn't exist. Ultimately, knowledge doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: It's not coherent at all. There is no possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 6: There couldn't be any other possibilities where this could still be.
Speaker 1: I think, well, I mean, you're welcome to argue something
Speaker 1: to what's your position agnosticism? You're not a Mormon.
Speaker 2: I knew you were judged.
Speaker 3: No, But how do you prove that it's a personal being.
Speaker 1: Right. So, for example, this was the other question I
Speaker 1: was going to ask, if you were to talk about metaphysics, like,
Speaker 1: there's only a certain number of options that you could
Speaker 1: choose for say, the universe being intentional or non intentional,
Speaker 1: or to use the philosophy terms teleological or disteleological. If
Speaker 1: it's disteleological, then the universe has no purpose, it's purpose less.
Speaker 1: If God exists and God is personal, then the universe
Speaker 1: has purposiveness, It has an intentionality because the God who
Speaker 1: created it and is directing it to some end is personal.
Speaker 1: So that's another example of how if you choose a
Speaker 1: non personal absolute metaphysical principle or if you choose a
Speaker 1: personal one, that will have a huge impact on the
Speaker 1: kind of worldview that you have and whether knowledge is possible.
Speaker 6: So what you just said was there should be a purpose,
Speaker 6: otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: I would frame it this way. If there's no purpose
Speaker 1: in the purpose, right, So if God is not personal,
Speaker 1: then there's no intentionality and purpose in the universe. And
Speaker 1: if there's no intentionality purpose in the universe, then knowledge
Speaker 1: is not possible.
Speaker 3: Right. How is knowledge not possible if there's no.
Speaker 1: Purpose because everything would be a purpose less and so
Speaker 1: what you think has meaning or has directed doesn't really
Speaker 1: have that.
Speaker 2: It's all just purely subjective.
Speaker 3: Well that that works fine with my worldview.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, if everything is subjective, then knowledge is not
Speaker 1: possible and you can't even say that all knowledge is subjective,
Speaker 1: as we talked about earlier.
Speaker 6: Well, we can look at subjective's truths in the community.
Speaker 6: We don't have to look at it as drastically as
Speaker 6: you're looking at it in the whole universe.
Speaker 1: Well, but again, it doesn't matter whether it's the universe
Speaker 1: or whether it's the community. Like, there's nothing that makes
Speaker 1: something true because the community says so or think so.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make things true. Can't the community be wrong
Speaker 1: about stuff?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I would because he see that truth is subjective.
Speaker 1: But no, but I'm arguing it's not subjective. It's impossible
Speaker 1: to actually believe the truth is subjective because do you
Speaker 1: understand that if you say truth is subjective, that proposition
Speaker 1: itself is self refuting.
Speaker 3: No, it's not fine.
Speaker 1: It is because you're saying you're making a universal truth
Speaker 1: claim that all truth is subjective. You can't make a
Speaker 1: universal claim if everything is subjective.
Speaker 6: But but you can't make But if I'm saying everything
Speaker 6: is subjective, it's still subjective.
Speaker 1: Every you're not justified in making the claim because you're
Speaker 1: limited as a finite being. That's a what in logic,
Speaker 1: it's called a universal quantifier when you say.
Speaker 6: Everything, Well, we can make claims without.
Speaker 1: Well, you can make claims all day long, but they're
Speaker 1: not justified claims. They're contradictory claims just.
Speaker 6: Because we're not certain about something.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with certain it's not about certitude.
Speaker 1: It's about a flat out contradiction. You can't say everything
Speaker 1: is subjective because everything is a universal quantifier about all
Speaker 1: states of affairs at all times. It's a universal claim,
Speaker 1: and that's not possible if everything is subjective.
Speaker 3: Okay, well you're right, you're one.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Well see I'll see you at the
Speaker 1: Mormon temple ceremony next week. Good job, dude, light World,
Speaker 1: what's up, man? We'll get married in space and have
Speaker 1: some space babies. Light World, what's up? Gotta unmute dude?
Speaker 5: Hey Jay, how's it going. I'm in I'm in the
Speaker 5: car right now, So I apologize. If there's a little
Speaker 5: bit of background noise, but I wanted to hop up
Speaker 5: here and just comment on a few things I don't
Speaker 5: want you guys were talking about. I found it pretty interesting.
Speaker 5: Little disclaimer. I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm cradle Catholic, was
Speaker 5: born and raised in the faith, and so I have
Speaker 5: my idea about God and what I believe. And there
Speaker 5: were a few things that you mentioned that I kind
Speaker 5: of want to want to just you know, I touch
Speaker 5: on a little bit extra right. So you mentioned that
Speaker 5: if God has like a personal opinion as to whether
Speaker 5: or not the direction of which, you know, the way
Speaker 5: the universe is going.
Speaker 1: I didn't say personal opinion, I said intentionality. Sure, God
Speaker 1: doesn't have a God doesn't have opinion.
Speaker 5: Sure, yeah, I agree exactly. So my point is is
Speaker 5: really where we seem to like anthromorphosized in God quite
Speaker 5: a bit by giving him human characteristics, saying that he
Speaker 5: needs this or he needs that in order for some
Speaker 5: there to be relevancy. My God, the Roman Catholic God,
Speaker 5: he deviates from all of that. He is not a thing.
Speaker 5: He's not part of this world at all. So to
Speaker 5: try to comprehend him or wrap him around in a box, uh,
Speaker 5: with that reason is you know.
Speaker 2: Just I mean, your your own worldview.
Speaker 1: Your own worldview believes in anthropomorphic terminology.
Speaker 5: So what do you mean, what do you mean my
Speaker 5: own worldview believes.
Speaker 1: In Roman Catholicism teaches anthropomorphic terminology can be used for God.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, so we have the Son of God and
Speaker 5: we have different.
Speaker 1: Ways for us to understand that's not an anthropomorphic term.
Speaker 1: That's a person. The Son of God's not an anthropomorphic term.
Speaker 5: I appreciate that. So let me let me, let me
Speaker 5: try to say this because I'm I'm really not trying to,
Speaker 5: I guess, debate on as much things to just kind
Speaker 5: of share my ideas. You know, if you disagree with
Speaker 5: my ideas, that's fine. I'm not really here to debate,
Speaker 5: just kind of.
Speaker 1: But I mean, do you actually know the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: position or you just stating what you think is the case?
Speaker 7: No, I do, I do, and so I.
Speaker 1: Don't think you do. I mean you think you do,
Speaker 1: but I don't think you do.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, I think I do, and you might think
Speaker 5: that I don't. That's fine.
Speaker 1: I mean I can already tell you don't by the
Speaker 1: missu incorrect terminology you're using. So what's your what's your point.
Speaker 7: Go ahead, I'm gonna say.
Speaker 5: You just speak very eloquently, you know, and and and
Speaker 5: you know you use a vocabulary very very well. So
Speaker 5: I'll give you that much. But I don't know if
Speaker 5: that means I know anything less about the Catholic Church.
Speaker 5: So God is not of this world, like I was saying,
Speaker 5: and Jesus Christ, you know we we we as the
Speaker 5: son of God. He came down to earth, you know,
Speaker 5: his representation, his physical body. Nonetheless, he was still God.
Speaker 5: That's the only physical manifestation we've ever had of God
Speaker 5: here on earth. You're in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's not even truer, that's not right.
Speaker 5: Well, and I believe that to be true.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, have you read the Old Testament?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: Did God ever appear in the Old test Did God
Speaker 1: ever appear in the Old Testament prior to Christ becoming incarnate?
Speaker 5: Fair enough? Okay, fair enough. I give you that he
Speaker 5: walked with he spoke to Moses, Noah, multiple people.
Speaker 2: I'll give you that, okay.
Speaker 1: So it's not true that He only appeared in the
Speaker 1: person of Christ at the incarnation.
Speaker 5: Right, none in these physical forms as a burning bush,
Speaker 5: maybe anything you know, camp morphosized in in which way
Speaker 5: that he communicated with Noah.
Speaker 1: I don't think that did he wrestle with did he
Speaker 1: wrestle with Jacob?
Speaker 5: So a lot of these questions, So.
Speaker 1: I mean, did he wrestle with Genesis thirty?
Speaker 2: Have you read this?
Speaker 5: I can't literally, I can't tell you yes or no. Historically,
Speaker 5: I can't tell you yes or no.
Speaker 2: I have I have my I mean, what does Jenesis say?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 8: I want?
Speaker 5: I want to give you I want you can I
Speaker 5: want to answer something. I want to answer something if
Speaker 5: I can, because you're you're You're asking me a lot
Speaker 5: of questions and I don't feel like I've been able
Speaker 5: to answer or finish any thoughts yet, and it's really
Speaker 5: making it hard for me to gather my thoughts.
Speaker 1: Uh huh, Yeah, it's my fault. I'm sure.
Speaker 5: No, it's not your fault at all.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 5: Like I said, I've already given you, you know, credit
Speaker 5: for being a very good speaker and all those things.
Speaker 5: So I'm trying to keep up with you. So in
Speaker 5: the Bible, Jesus see, I I'm getting sidetracked. I apologize,
Speaker 5: But in the Bible, uh, you know it says how
Speaker 5: Jesus spoke, and he he preached, and then he brought
Speaker 5: the disciples back, and then he explained differently to the disciples.
Speaker 5: So a lot of the Bible is written in allegory.
Speaker 5: It's written, there's a lot of historical accuracies, there's lots
Speaker 5: of literal accuracies.
Speaker 1: Those thoughts of Okay, does Jesus take the wrestling with
Speaker 1: Jacob to be an allegory or does he identify himself
Speaker 1: as the one that was wrestling?
Speaker 5: So all of it's through God. All power is through God.
Speaker 5: Anything that's done is through God. All of it that's
Speaker 5: all through God.
Speaker 3: There is no man.
Speaker 1: Do you hear anything that I said?
Speaker 5: You asked me, who's through Jesus? I said, yes, through God? Correct?
Speaker 2: Can you not even hear the questions?
Speaker 1: Or like, does it not registering in your head what
Speaker 1: I said? Does Jesus identify himself as the one wrestling
Speaker 1: with Jacob in Genesis thirty two?
Speaker 5: I don't overbaate him with it, but I can tell you.
Speaker 1: That, okay, But you don't know what You wanted to
Speaker 1: get on and dispout a bunch of stuff. But I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to me. I'm not trying to mean to you,
Speaker 1: but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Okay,
Speaker 1: So in John two, Jesus identifies himself as the one
Speaker 1: who was wrestling with Jacob in genals.
Speaker 2: So you're just gonna talk over me.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is the problem with Roman Catholics is
Speaker 1: that you guys don't have any clue what you're talking about,
Speaker 1: and you think you know what you're talking about.
Speaker 5: Power comes from God. I don't need to know.
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
Speaker 5: All power comes from God. You cannot wrestle any adversary
Speaker 5: without God. Period.
Speaker 1: You don't even understand it's Jacob isn't an adversary when
Speaker 1: he with Jesus.
Speaker 2: Okay, what are you talking about?
Speaker 7: So what is symbol?
Speaker 1: Because I this is idiotic, man. I'm sorry, you have
Speaker 1: no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand why
Speaker 1: you guys love to get on as if you are
Speaker 1: these super intelligent, know it all people and you have
Speaker 1: no clue what you're talking about. Ads exactly. Roman Catholics
Speaker 1: are insane, That's what I mean. It's like the only
Speaker 1: people left in Romanism are people that are literally just
Speaker 1: nuts except for except for tim what's up?
Speaker 9: I have a question what arguments that can use against
Speaker 9: the being modern day profets, because I remember those. What
Speaker 9: arguments can I like I can bring forth for the
Speaker 9: moderns being a falsed thing.
Speaker 1: Well, Zachariah prophesies. I think it's Zakaria thirteen or fourteen
Speaker 1: that in the last which means the time of the
Speaker 1: coming of the Messiah, there won't be prophets anymore. If
Speaker 1: you claim that you're a prophet, you will be stoned
Speaker 1: because there's no such thing as people continue to prophesy
Speaker 1: after the last prophet. So Jesus says, for example, that
Speaker 1: John was the last of the prophets. So this idea
Speaker 1: of Old Testament prophets is no longer necessary, because, as
Speaker 1: Hebrew says in Hebrews One, we have the fullness of
Speaker 1: revelation in the person of the Messiah, so there's no
Speaker 1: need for continuing revelation. Secondly, the Canada Scripture itself is closed,
Speaker 1: so there's no need to have ongoing revelations. When, as
Speaker 1: Jude says, the deposit of the faith was once for
Speaker 1: all delivered to the saints and Jude three. So if
Speaker 1: that's the case, then there's no need to have these things,
Speaker 1: and that immediately cuts off anything like Mormonism, Islam. They're
Speaker 1: automatically cut off by the fact that the revelation has
Speaker 1: a finality to it, public revelation.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. I also have a question.
Speaker 9: I've like, I've read on some saints, but and like,
Speaker 9: what's with the saints being given like information like or
Speaker 9: revelation by good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's true.
Speaker 1: There's clairvoyance, but that's not public divine revelation. That's part
Speaker 1: of the apostolic deposit right. That's why Jude says that
Speaker 1: the faith was once we're all delivered to the saints.
Speaker 1: That's the dog the dogmas and the fullness of the
Speaker 1: of the faith.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: But that that doesn't mean that you can't go see
Speaker 1: an elder and he, you know, has a clairvoyance about
Speaker 1: you know, what your issues are, what your problems are,
Speaker 1: He knows something about about you. But we don't take
Speaker 1: those things and say, oh, that's part of the you know,
Speaker 1: the dogmas of divine revelation.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 9: So essentially what you're saying is the like the way
Speaker 9: that we distinguished this is because we've already been given
Speaker 9: the fullness of like information. However, a clayfuloice is different
Speaker 9: because it's information that we've has already been revealed to us.
Speaker 1: Right, It's not part of the deposit of the faith.
Speaker 1: I mean, it could be a miraculous thing, like an
Speaker 1: elder knows miraculously that you know something about you or
Speaker 1: something like that, or he knows the future about what's
Speaker 1: going to happen to you, or something like that, but
Speaker 1: that's not part of the dogmas and the apostolic deposit
Speaker 1: the full Like Jude says, the faith, as in the
Speaker 1: doctrines and the teachings, were once for all delivered. So
Speaker 1: how could it be once for all delivered if it's
Speaker 1: an ongoing, endless thing.
Speaker 9: Okay, yeah, I do, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: So it's if you look at zachari At thirteen when
Speaker 1: it describes the Messianic era, it describes it as one
Speaker 1: where there's not really a need for the office of
Speaker 1: an Old Testament prophet. In that day, every prophet will
Speaker 1: be ashamed of his vision. If he prophesies, they will
Speaker 1: not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. He
Speaker 1: will say, I'm not a prophet. I am a farmer,
Speaker 1: and it's talking about specifically I'm a Messianic prophecy because
Speaker 1: it talks about I was wounded in the House of
Speaker 1: my friends, which is a reference to Christ being pierced
Speaker 1: and crucified. So in the Messianic era, there's not a
Speaker 1: need for that that office of Old Testament prophet. That's
Speaker 1: why Jesus says John was the last of the prophets.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean there can't be like you know, Clava
Speaker 1: Wayans or something like that. Thank you guys for the
Speaker 1: couple super chestess. I want to support the stream.
Speaker 2: You can leave with.
Speaker 1: Super chat through stream labs. There is the link to
Speaker 1: stream labs right there, and thank you guys so much.
Speaker 1: Orthodox Mario, Do Do Do do?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 3: Hello, what's up? Oh right, sorry, I didn't know my life.
Speaker 3: I have a question. I'm a Greek Orthodox. I got
Speaker 3: by the Greek Orthodox Church and I yeah, I saw
Speaker 3: one of your videos.
Speaker 10: I think you posted it a few years ago and
Speaker 10: you were talking about how the Greek Orthodox has something.
Speaker 5: To do with I forgot what it's called.
Speaker 10: You basically were telling people to attend to the Russian
Speaker 10: Orthodox because of what's happening in the Greek a sort
Speaker 10: of church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go arc.
Speaker 1: So not every Greek church, not churches in Greece, but
Speaker 1: the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is what I meant.
Speaker 3: Oh you're talking about American.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not in Greece, dude.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you was talking what was it called?
Speaker 2: It was?
Speaker 5: Sorry I forgot man talk about?
Speaker 3: Do you know what I was talking about?
Speaker 1: I mean you're maybe talking about the ecumenical patriarchy and
Speaker 1: the CIA and all that. That's like a six year
Speaker 1: old podcast.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: Also that's nothing to do with the the because I.
Speaker 3: Mean England in England and the Greek Orthodose Church in England.
Speaker 2: I don't know who.
Speaker 1: I mean. I imagine you're under your own bishop in England,
Speaker 1: so I don't know who the Greeks in England are under.
Speaker 7: Oh you were just talking about the ones in America.
Speaker 1: Is an American American jurisdiction, correct.
Speaker 3: Because I think we're all under bottle and you want me.
Speaker 1: Maybe, I don't. I don't know how that all works.
Speaker 1: And alongst the Greek because I've never been amongst Greek Orthodox.
Speaker 1: I've always been either Antiochian or ro Corps.
Speaker 10: So would you would you say that whole CIA thing
Speaker 10: would be in the Greek Orthodox, where I am as well?
Speaker 1: Is it just in the American Well, I mean the
Speaker 1: intelligence services have an interest in infiltrating and spying on
Speaker 1: and influencing every church everywhere, So I'm sure that that
Speaker 1: goes on in the UK. I mean it's probably British
Speaker 1: intelligence is probably not the CIA. But I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about Greeks in the UK honestly.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, because I've been watching you for a few
Speaker 10: months now.
Speaker 3: You actually I'm Greek myself, and.
Speaker 5: I ended up going to a Baptist church and then.
Speaker 2: Well, how did I help you if you went to
Speaker 2: a Baudi church?
Speaker 10: No, no, no, no, I was attended about Yeah.
Speaker 3: I didn't know about Christianity.
Speaker 1: And then I started I got you. Well, I think
Speaker 1: I think I think Bartholomew is very sus and I
Speaker 1: would avoid Bartholomew. But that doesn't mean that every Greek
Speaker 1: church or person is bad.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that at all.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I heard what he said about I don't want
Speaker 10: to look bad why the patriarch, But he said that
Speaker 10: we worship the same God to Muslims and Jewish people
Speaker 10: and we're all into the same god or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he teaches all the same stuff that Francis and
Speaker 1: Vatican too teaches. So yeah, he's pretty pretty sketchy for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Yeah, So you're the Russian or Phodos are not on
Speaker 10: the hidden So what you're.
Speaker 1: Saying now, Russians are under uh uh the.
Speaker 3: MP Okay, thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good questions man. Glad you're back out of Baptist world. Uh, Marty,
Speaker 1: Marty the juice man. What's up? The super super chats
Speaker 1: are pinned if you guys want to leave the super
Speaker 1: chat there, appreciate that. Gott I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 11: Hello, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey, what's on your mind?
Speaker 11: Thank you? I want to hear more about that. Your
Speaker 11: metaphysical kind of view. Uh you said something about the
Speaker 11: transcendental argument.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 11: I honestly like don't truly see the merit, but probably
Speaker 11: you know, I can just don't understand. So are you
Speaker 11: saying that you need that? What is knowledge like in
Speaker 11: your definition?
Speaker 1: Well, I would say there's different types of knowledge, you know,
Speaker 1: the Greeks even had a lot of different Greek terms
Speaker 1: for different types of knowledge. But if you mean justified,
Speaker 1: I think justified true belief and gettier problem and all
Speaker 1: that in terms of modern philosophy, is a valid question
Speaker 1: to ask any worldview can they give an account for
Speaker 1: knowledge claims? And you know, why ought we to believe
Speaker 1: something rather than you know just what knowledge claims are?
Speaker 1: So I think there's an element of aught involved in
Speaker 1: all this. That's that's a big part of the argumentation
Speaker 1: that I make ought we believe what is true, and
Speaker 1: so you can't really divorce point there is just that
Speaker 1: you can't divorce epistemology from ethics.
Speaker 11: Question. Okay, sorry, do you think that like a thought
Speaker 11: can capture reality? Fully? Can any thought be like one?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that because we're made in the
Speaker 1: image of God, we have the ability to reason about
Speaker 1: the world and accurately understand the world. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that we have exhaustive knowledge or omniscience. That's why
Speaker 1: God functions in the worldview to do that for us.
Speaker 11: Yes, So what is it that you can know if
Speaker 11: any thought is like no thought actually describes the world
Speaker 11: as it is?
Speaker 1: I didn't say that.
Speaker 2: I didn't say that said.
Speaker 1: How do you know that no thought doesn't describe the
Speaker 1: world as it is?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 11: Because I can deconstruct like any thought and see that
Speaker 11: it's partial.
Speaker 1: Well, how but just because something is partial doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it has no relation to the world.
Speaker 11: I'm not saying no relation.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that you said, you said, you said
Speaker 1: it bears no similarity to the world.
Speaker 11: I don't think that there's like no similarity, but I don't.
Speaker 11: I don't think it describes the world. Actually, it's like
Speaker 11: it is. I think it does describe partially.
Speaker 2: How do you know it does that partially?
Speaker 3: Then let me.
Speaker 11: Let me just one second, Like, how do I know
Speaker 11: they describe it partially? I think it's like a deduction thing. Like, honestly,
Speaker 11: I don't believe that we actually know.
Speaker 1: How would deduction tell you about inductive's knowledge?
Speaker 11: Maybe I'm confused in the terms.
Speaker 3: But like.
Speaker 1: Deduction is reasoning from the general to the particular.
Speaker 11: From the past to the future. Like, like you know,
Speaker 11: I know that let the ball.
Speaker 1: Drop, that's inductive reason.
Speaker 11: Inductive However, yeah, sorry, so I'm saying, like, you know,
Speaker 11: from uh, let's say, partial worldview, I call it conventional worldview.
Speaker 11: I know that the ball will fall like a million times,
Speaker 11: it will probably fall a million and one time. If
Speaker 11: I you know, pick it up.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, how do you know that? So you think it? Well,
Speaker 1: but how do you know that?
Speaker 11: I'm saying it's like inductive or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's like okay, but.
Speaker 1: David Hume, well, I'm making the human argument. That human said,
Speaker 1: you can't demonstrate or prove induction, so.
Speaker 11: I can't prove it. That's I think that's part of
Speaker 11: my I can't prove it.
Speaker 2: You can't.
Speaker 1: So you're a human skeptic.
Speaker 11: I would say that I don't know. I'm not in
Speaker 11: I'm more likey into Buddhism, like I understand it more,
Speaker 11: I don't follow like completely Western.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, So if you're a skeptic and you don't
Speaker 1: know that there's the you know, the future will be
Speaker 1: like the past, then there's no basis or justification for knowledge.
Speaker 3: So your your.
Speaker 1: Position is self defeating. Why because there's no justification for knowledge?
Speaker 11: Claims there's no justification for knowledge? What does justification mean?
Speaker 1: Justify true belief and the gettier problem?
Speaker 11: Justify true beliefs, and what.
Speaker 1: The get to your problem?
Speaker 11: Get here?
Speaker 1: Get to your problem?
Speaker 11: Can you say?
Speaker 5: What is that?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It's an addition to the classic notion of JTB. Which
Speaker 1: is justified true belief, the traditional idea of what it
Speaker 1: means to justify or ground your knowledge claims. Somebody pointed
Speaker 1: out that you could actually also get something right accidentally,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't be just to fighting your knowledge. This
Speaker 1: is why it's called the Ghettier problem. So it's just
Speaker 1: an additional fourth criteria.
Speaker 11: Okay. So basically, okay, so basically just you know, in
Speaker 11: Layman's terms, why would you say that your self defeating.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you if well, you said you
Speaker 1: haven't read human, but I mean you're making a human argument,
Speaker 1: and human skepticism is premised on the idea that knowledge
Speaker 1: is not ultimately justifiable. You can't justify it. That's the point.
Speaker 11: Yeah I can't.
Speaker 1: Okay, then you don't have it then okay, then then
Speaker 1: debate is not possible, thank you exactly?
Speaker 11: Okay, so we can agree.
Speaker 1: No, that's a reputation of your position. It's not an
Speaker 1: agreement of yours. All right, So this is like low
Speaker 1: tiered day O. L W, what's up man? Yeah, argumentation
Speaker 1: is not possible. How is that a reputation of my
Speaker 1: poss I was like argue against you?
Speaker 2: Ol W? What's up?
Speaker 12: Can you hear me, man, So can ask a question
Speaker 12: about the essence energ.
Speaker 3: Distinction within God with what so?
Speaker 12: So if you consider God in and of himself, that
Speaker 12: means that he's deficient with all the energies.
Speaker 3: So the energy is not deficient.
Speaker 1: He's not deficient. He never lacked energy.
Speaker 12: So that's ridiculous, right, just because the energies are if
Speaker 12: you're considering gods in and of himself, he's still deficient
Speaker 12: with all the energy.
Speaker 1: It's not deficient. There's no deficiency in God. That's that's
Speaker 1: you have a presupposition about perfection, which is a medieval
Speaker 1: metaphysical assumption which you can't justify. So this argument hinges
Speaker 1: on stupid medieval arguments about perfection.
Speaker 11: So, like, consider the energy of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Let me show you how stupid this.
Speaker 1: Let me show you how about dumbest argument is, Uh,
Speaker 1: God only created one universe and that's less perfect than
Speaker 1: if he created two, three, four, ten universes. So this
Speaker 1: is a dumb medieval argument based on metaphysical assumptions about
Speaker 1: what perfection is. So I'm going to ask you to
Speaker 1: justify the assumption of the argument. How do you know
Speaker 1: that that's what perfection is? And a divine being.
Speaker 12: Right, So for being to be perfect, he has to
Speaker 12: be omniscient, which which is that is?
Speaker 1: So what about all the other attributes? So is he
Speaker 1: is he not perfect until he creates a world because
Speaker 1: he hasn't become a creator.
Speaker 12: No, because he is transiently eternally created.
Speaker 3: He just hasn't actually done it yet.
Speaker 1: No, that's not an If he hasn't actualized it, then
Speaker 1: he didn't eternally create it.
Speaker 12: That doesn't make any sense, right, But transiently created it?
Speaker 2: What is that? That is?
Speaker 1: And there's no such thing as transiently created it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: So you're making up terms exactly.
Speaker 12: So I can will to build a house, but I
Speaker 12: don't actually build the house now, I build it two
Speaker 12: years for now that trans yet metaphysics book.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's we're not Aristotelian. That's why the aessence
Speaker 1: introducing which comes from Arisa, Well, good for you.
Speaker 2: But are you are you Catholic?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I'm Roman exactly, So I'm not asking.
Speaker 2: Are you really are you really inquiring?
Speaker 1: You're not inquiring into orthodoxy. You're playing you're playing word games.
Speaker 2: Well I don't know, I yeah exactly, So.
Speaker 1: You're a liar.
Speaker 13: Goodbye.
Speaker 1: Next up, I'm your dude, Greek name. I can't pronounce
Speaker 1: your Greek name. I'm mute.
Speaker 2: What's up? Okay? Don't low quality?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: You able to hear me? Killer?
Speaker 11: Okay?
Speaker 14: Quick question raised Roman Catholic I think goes on here
Speaker 14: a while ago. I appreciate you answering the last question,
Speaker 14: which was about, Hey, I can't really impact change on
Speaker 14: a wild scale.
Speaker 3: But anyway, back to the question, Uh, the.
Speaker 14: Catholic position on the death penalty seemed.
Speaker 3: To have been inconsistent.
Speaker 14: Yeah, following kind of the trajectory of every other Catholic position.
Speaker 14: Seems like a lot of the current writings appeal to
Speaker 14: either the un position or some sort of I don't know,
Speaker 14: some some modern secular considerations. But just trying to get
Speaker 14: an idea of what the Orthodox position on the death
Speaker 14: penalty is, I'm not able to find anything specific.
Speaker 1: Read the ro Corps statement at the ro Corps website
Speaker 1: on war and you'll find also that the Russian Orthodox Church,
Speaker 1: the MP still upholds the death penalty mospat dot ru.
Speaker 1: Their website has a teacher the social teaching, So we
Speaker 1: still uphold the death penalty, at least in the Russian
Speaker 1: Church and probably the Serbs and others, but you will
Speaker 1: find some liberalized Greeks and Oca that do not believe
Speaker 1: in the death penalty, which is dumb.
Speaker 2: What's up, dude? You got.
Speaker 1: Dude, I don't know why you keep coming on here
Speaker 1: if you don't want to talk. That's no nonsense day today, Matthew.
Speaker 11: Yeah, a jay.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to get your opinion on Sam Simon
Speaker 3: and God Logic.
Speaker 11: I mean, I like him, but they put I know
Speaker 11: San Simon, he's he's him, but Sam Stramone.
Speaker 3: I just want to know if they're well.
Speaker 5: I know Sam Sermon is very knowledgeable and he's I
Speaker 5: believe he is Eastern Orthodox, right at one.
Speaker 2: Time he would know he's not Orthodox?
Speaker 3: What what?
Speaker 5: What is he?
Speaker 1: Because I feel like he's attending a Catholic church. He
Speaker 1: is a Syrian, He's of Syrian origin, so he was
Speaker 1: a Syrian Church of the East, and now he favors
Speaker 1: Catholicism as I understand.
Speaker 3: Okay, And what about I don't know if you know
Speaker 3: God Logic, I know of him.
Speaker 5: Him Jilly, what what what are his bully?
Speaker 3: Because I really can't know.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I see, I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean somebody said he wanted to do a podcast together,
Speaker 1: and I said I was down for that, but I
Speaker 1: don't know what his uh what what church he attends
Speaker 1: or what his views are. Hm, it's your last chance
Speaker 1: to do.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: I'm mute?
Speaker 2: Okay, well uh huh.
Speaker 8: Hear me y uh from Greeks, from Greece. I just
Speaker 8: came back from Mount Athos. Uh so I have a
Speaker 8: message for the Europeans may be listening. Mounts was very clear.
Speaker 8: I wish I didn't take the new digital ladies, the European ladies.
Speaker 3: Uh. I spoke to spiritual children. No thin patios.
Speaker 8: Uh Oh, there are famous is the one and a
Speaker 8: there are sinis and both of them.
Speaker 3: We're very clear about.
Speaker 8: It because from September selling from September, there will be
Speaker 8: one one serio number for everything, so for example, the idea,
Speaker 8: the bank accounts, everything will be in one number. And
Speaker 8: that is essentially the last states before the markets the beast.
Speaker 1: That's what I want to say, all right, appreciate that,
Speaker 1: so avoid the US tracking tracing crap that they want
Speaker 1: to push. Ricardo, what's up? Appreciate that? Hello, hell you,
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 3: What's up? Jay? There's like a huge delay on my Twitter.
Speaker 15: But I just want to ask you two questions regarding
Speaker 15: the transcendal argument. I was into the debate with Trent Horne,
Speaker 15: and he was claiming that the form that you the
Speaker 15: way that you elaborate on the transcendental argument is a
Speaker 15: form of natural theology.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, because in the course of that debate, Trent
Speaker 1: mistakenly used about three different ideas for what he thinks
Speaker 1: natural theology is. So he thinks doing apologetics is natural theology.
Speaker 1: He thinks using reason and logic is natural theology. But
Speaker 1: when I send him the terms of debate, I defined
Speaker 1: it according to his own church. Natural theology is defined
Speaker 1: and not just by John Paul and his few does
Speaker 1: at ratio and cyclical. It's defined in everybody's theology as
Speaker 1: reasoning about God apart from divine revelation. That's it. That's
Speaker 1: the definition of what natural theology is in his own system.
Speaker 1: So using reasoning is not natural theology. So that was
Speaker 1: really a stupid mistake on his point.
Speaker 3: Okay, I understand that now.
Speaker 15: But also the second thing, how do you jump from
Speaker 15: the transcendental argument, which I agree with, to a Abrahamic
Speaker 15: Orthodox God.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've done that a lot of podcasts on that,
Speaker 1: So you can find the one that I did critiquing
Speaker 1: doctor Ed Faser on universals. You can find another two
Speaker 1: podcasts I did on answering objections to the transcendent argument,
Speaker 1: and I show in those videos how you get to
Speaker 1: Trinity from tag. So it's too much to rehearse right now,
Speaker 1: but you can go watch those videos how Martello no
Speaker 1: wa it will.
Speaker 3: Did all right?
Speaker 16: So I I grew up like a pre standard Vatican
Speaker 16: two Roman Catholic, and obviously I didn't take it seriously. Recently,
Speaker 16: I've been flirting with set of a contism. However, I
Speaker 16: have been kind of ping pong back and forth East
Speaker 16: and West, and I've come to the conclusion that Eastern
Speaker 16: Orthodoxy is better in theory Roman Catholicism is better in practice.
Speaker 16: I say that because, like maybe it's just geographically. I
Speaker 16: am like, I'm probably like the best place, like where
Speaker 16: I live on the best place to like be said
Speaker 16: of a contest in like the worst place to be Orthodox.
Speaker 16: I just feel like most Orthodox churches are pretty liberal.
Speaker 1: As I mean, I don't know where you're going to
Speaker 1: where where like not in my experience, but I don't
Speaker 1: I mean I only typically end up in uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Russian Orthodox Serbian churches.
Speaker 16: So well, it seems like even in those churches, like
Speaker 16: the priests still seem like pretty like pro birth control.
Speaker 16: And like that's the thing about Roman Catholicism is like
Speaker 16: with like Copley with the thirteenth, we have like a
Speaker 16: magisterium of moral theology we cannot kind of lean back on.
Speaker 1: You don't like orthodoxy, No, you don't have that in
Speaker 1: Rome Falsism either, So you understand. I mean, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: surprised you haven't realized that. You know, state of a
Speaker 1: contism is a totally dead end position, right, because you
Speaker 1: love that it's a dead end position.
Speaker 16: No, No, I love it because it's very simple and
Speaker 16: it's very fun.
Speaker 1: A set of a contism is fun.
Speaker 16: Yeah, Like the idea of like you're like a small
Speaker 16: group of people and like the like is like apostased.
Speaker 1: So it's a false elitism, is what that is?
Speaker 16: Well, I mean it's like when you read scripture, like
Speaker 16: this is like the pattern, like the vast majority will
Speaker 16: fall away and it's kind of like this small remnant
Speaker 16: will kind.
Speaker 1: Of okay, but let's cut to the chase here, because
Speaker 1: if you read Vatican one, it's very clear that the
Speaker 1: Roman Sea will not apostatize and fall away. So that's
Speaker 1: why Vatican that's why I said acusism is impossible, and
Speaker 1: it's really it's really a sact. So you're in a
Speaker 1: cult basically, no, because the.
Speaker 16: Argument set of a concism is essentially like Vatican two
Speaker 16: was not the.
Speaker 1: Roman See And you didn't hear what I said? Did
Speaker 1: you not hear what I said?
Speaker 7: You said that the Roman Sea cannot apostas.
Speaker 1: That when I said, I said, Vatican one teaches that
Speaker 1: clear as day, that the Roman See can never apostatize
Speaker 1: and it will always have successors until the return of Christ.
Speaker 16: Well, so on the perpetuitious successors thing, that's that's.
Speaker 7: Kind of easy to debunk because.
Speaker 16: That's what you mean, Like if you mean the sheriff
Speaker 16: Peter is going to be continually like constantly occupied.
Speaker 7: Yeah, obviously that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's no, it says successors until the end of the world.
Speaker 1: You can't have a hundred year gap where there's no pope, dude,
Speaker 1: and you understand you can never have a pope again
Speaker 1: in your system.
Speaker 16: Well, I think, well, so the guys who say that
Speaker 16: you can't have a pope again, are the ones who
Speaker 16: say that the new right of ordination are invalid? I'm
Speaker 16: kind of split on that. I think they're ambiguous at best.
Speaker 16: But I mean most said of a concerts will still
Speaker 16: say that you could, like, there could be a new pope.
Speaker 1: And how is that going to happen?
Speaker 7: I don't know?
Speaker 1: Right, So this is a total bullshit position. It's not
Speaker 1: a real position. It doesn't exist. And that's why although
Speaker 1: said of a contests all fight and hit each other
Speaker 1: and to destruct each other's Have you read the book
Speaker 1: Set of a Concious Delusion?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I've heard you talk about it a lot, but
Speaker 7: you haven't read read that. I've not read that book yet, but.
Speaker 2: So you don't.
Speaker 1: So you don't think Vatican One teaches that there will
Speaker 1: be successors until the end of the world. In the
Speaker 1: Roman Sea, it doesn't teach that.
Speaker 7: I mean it does say perpetuity of successors.
Speaker 1: Uh huh? And so how were so there's not been
Speaker 1: a successor in the last seventy years, when when is
Speaker 1: there going to be another one?
Speaker 7: I mean, there could be.
Speaker 16: How so one of the theories is like, like when
Speaker 16: we keep making the joke about Pius at thirteenth and
Speaker 16: the Third Vatican Council.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you don't see that this is totally divorced
Speaker 1: from reality. I mean, I feel sorry for you guys,
Speaker 1: But if that's what you if that's what you want,
Speaker 1: go for it. Man, have fun.
Speaker 13: It's going to ruin your life, atheists.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: I'm mute?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 11: Hello?
Speaker 3: Hi? Are you able to hear me? Great? Thank you?
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 17: I want to ask you something. It's European for European
Speaker 17: about this thing. I used to be an atheist, atheist.
Speaker 3: I'm Catholic now, but this.
Speaker 1: Is so you're still an atheist?
Speaker 2: Hey, Jamie, could you bring me a coffee?
Speaker 3: No, this is what I wanted to ask, Like.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. So you're still an atheist because you're
Speaker 1: a Catholic.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got it, I got it.
Speaker 17: I want to ask you if you think that we should,
Speaker 17: which is the way, we should, try to convert atheists
Speaker 17: to God as well?
Speaker 1: Why convert them? I mean Francis said that atheists have
Speaker 1: a path to God as well, and I mean your
Speaker 1: own Vatican two documents teach that we all worship the
Speaker 1: same God anyway, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus. So why
Speaker 1: do you why are you trying to convert people?
Speaker 17: Well, for me, the most important fight we got to
Speaker 17: give is against atheism for starters.
Speaker 1: Did you hear what I said?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I heard.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus all
Speaker 1: worship God?
Speaker 17: I will say, they have a misguided understanding of what
Speaker 17: God is.
Speaker 1: So I mean it says that the plan of Salvation
Speaker 1: includes Muslims. So I mean you can you can still
Speaker 1: be saying what's the point?
Speaker 5: You know, I understand what you mean.
Speaker 17: But what I wanted to ask you is do you
Speaker 17: think we should convert them from God?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: But you're missing what I'm saying is that you haven't
Speaker 1: actually converted. That's my point because the God that you're
Speaker 1: worshiping in Roman Catholicism is the same God as the
Speaker 1: Muslim and the Jew and the Hindu, and if you
Speaker 1: read the Bible, that's not God. Does Jesus say that
Speaker 1: we all worship the same God? Or does he say
Speaker 1: no one comes to Father but through me.
Speaker 3: The latter, the latter? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, So how is Vatican two in Nostratate and Lemgentium
Speaker 1: sixteen correct?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 17: For the moment, I wasn't talking about religion. I wanted
Speaker 17: to know your opinion about religions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're not talking about religion.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 17: No, I mean because I'm for the moment, I'm talking
Speaker 17: about leading the conversion of someone to believing in God.
Speaker 1: Like you, there's no such thing as generic God. There
Speaker 1: is no generic God that doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: I know, I know.
Speaker 17: But don't you think that some people need like a
Speaker 17: pathway to follow in order to reach to the proper
Speaker 17: understanding of God?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 1: I mean, uh, you could say, yeah, there's like steps
Speaker 1: in the right direction, but I mean that's It's like,
Speaker 1: if the thesis of Vatican two is that we're all
Speaker 1: worshiping the same deity, then it's not getting you anywhere.
Speaker 2: Terrence. Yeah, I agree, Like.
Speaker 1: Why are we You're trying to fix the world. I
Speaker 1: think you need to fix your views.
Speaker 2: Terrence. I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Hello, how are you good?
Speaker 2: What's up? Hey, Jamie?
Speaker 1: Terrence Howard, Terrence trend Darby, what's up?
Speaker 18: And so I identify as a Hebrew Israelite. I don't follow
Speaker 18: these practices of those that you see dressed in those
Speaker 18: funny uniforms yelling at people in the street.
Speaker 3: Corners.
Speaker 18: However, I do identify as a Hebrew. I do believe
Speaker 18: and know that the Bible is a historical book and
Speaker 18: a covenant unto the children of Israel aka b Biblical Hebrews.
Speaker 18: And so this this topic is certainly interested.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a great Why would you believe any
Speaker 1: of that? It's it's a ridiculous cult. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: totally nonsensical. There's literally no reason to believe in this
Speaker 1: stupid thing. Why would you believe it?
Speaker 3: What do you say?
Speaker 18: Excuse me, I'm just confused when you say a ridiculous cult.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Black Keeper Israelie is the stupidest modern cult of
Speaker 1: all time. Like it's worse than even Mormons or anything.
Speaker 1: It's the dumbest of all. Why would you believe that?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 18: Okay, Well that's your that is your theory that I
Speaker 18: would certainly, uh, I would ask you to prove that.
Speaker 5: First of all, it's a cult, because it's not a cult.
Speaker 18: There are several different organizations who are congregations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're all cults.
Speaker 1: How's that all of them? They're all culled?
Speaker 18: Okay, Okay, So you're just going to just say you're right,
Speaker 18: and because you make a statement and because you're.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not. I'm saying it based on the debates
Speaker 1: I've had with all the BHI debated, So.
Speaker 18: Based upon what How is it a cult? How is
Speaker 18: it a cult? Not just because you say so, but
Speaker 18: how is it a cult?
Speaker 1: Well, because it's premised on a ridiculous interpretation of certain
Speaker 1: verses to try to prove that Jesus was black. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you agree with those interpretations?
Speaker 5: How was he not black? How historically?
Speaker 3: How how of Jesus Christ white?
Speaker 1: I didn't say he was well, that's a non sequord.
Speaker 1: I didn't say he was white because I said he's
Speaker 1: not black.
Speaker 18: Okay, so wait, so let's just deal with a couple
Speaker 18: of things.
Speaker 1: Do you think those verses that talks about him with
Speaker 1: hair like wool and all that proves that he was black?
Speaker 18: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: But that's what I'm saying is super That's what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is super domb and low to your low IQ bullshit.
Speaker 18: Oh well you know so, so again this is like
Speaker 18: one of those I'm white because I'm white and I'm
Speaker 18: right because I say so.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that it's it's all based on ignorance.
Speaker 1: You you brought in all the racial stuff, not me.
Speaker 5: I didn't anything.
Speaker 2: You just said, you think you're white. Do you think
Speaker 2: you're right because you're white?
Speaker 1: I didn't say because you brought that in. That's because
Speaker 1: you got your emotional and you can't argue the facts.
Speaker 5: I'm not emotional.
Speaker 2: You started with all this race stuff. I didn't say
Speaker 2: anything about race.
Speaker 18: I didn't start with anything race.
Speaker 2: You just did.
Speaker 3: You said you think you're right because you because you No.
Speaker 18: Okay, No, here's the funny thing. Now, let's just let's
Speaker 18: let's calm down, all right, because I'm not I'm not
Speaker 18: angry or anything like that.
Speaker 5: I didn't start with any race.
Speaker 1: So those verses have nothing to deal with Jesus being black.
Speaker 1: Why do you think Why would you believe Jesus is black?
Speaker 18: Okay, So if you will allow me to answer those questions,
Speaker 18: and I could most scrutinly do that, all right. So
Speaker 18: the person who started out with racial stuff, because you.
Speaker 1: Be right, all right, that's just stupid.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Speaker 3: blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: S breaking out long.
Speaker 1: Right, Jesus is black because it says he was. When
Speaker 1: it shows him glorified, it says his hair was like wool,
Speaker 1: because we all know wol means a black person.
Speaker 19: Yeahs, yes, So when you're like running tag into an atheists,
Speaker 19: how would you refuse someone who.
Speaker 3: Denies like the ontology of logic, like anti realism.
Speaker 1: Well, they could go that route, but I think I
Speaker 1: would just bring up the problems with that position, which
Speaker 1: I mean, or so, are do you think logic is
Speaker 1: in some way physical?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 1: If you think logic is purely a token, then we
Speaker 1: don't know that it actually applies to anything in the world,
Speaker 1: if there's no real relation between the symbols and the
Speaker 1: actual external world. And usually those people just say, well,
Speaker 1: we just can't know, we don't know. Well, okay, but
Speaker 1: that's not a very good argument, just to say, well
Speaker 1: we just don't know. We can't know. So you can
Speaker 1: posit an anti realist position, But well, how does mathematics
Speaker 1: work in the world? Then to build bridges and to
Speaker 1: do all this stuff? How do we discover things like
Speaker 1: Mandelbrot sets, but which are obviously not uh, social constructs,
Speaker 1: they're actually discoveries. So I would say something like a
Speaker 1: mandel brought set refute that idea.
Speaker 3: All right, cool, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look up Jason Lyles lecture on Mandelbrot sets, and
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good response to that.
Speaker 2: The type of a position.
Speaker 13: Kenobi, Hey, Jenny, I need a coffee bat and she
Speaker 13: can't hear me?
Speaker 2: Obi wan kenobi, I'm mute.
Speaker 1: You don't need to see identavigation. These are the arguments
Speaker 1: you're looking for.
Speaker 2: Move along, Move along.
Speaker 20: I'm an inquirer into orthodoxy, and there's I mean this.
Speaker 20: I think you've probably answered this before, but I couldn't
Speaker 20: find anything on it. It's a question regarding the church,
Speaker 20: what was the explanation for like, obviously during the Only
Speaker 20: Church there were plenty of heretics and schismatics, and I
Speaker 20: think at some points they made up the lay person majority.
Speaker 20: But what is the explanation for why the counsels and
Speaker 20: the bishops have, like, for example, the better position of
Speaker 20: the spirit in discerning that when like the majority are
Speaker 20: heretical or schismatic, for.
Speaker 1: Example, the majority of the laity or the bishops or
Speaker 1: what do you mean majority of.
Speaker 3: The laity for example?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's the argument that bishops have more discernment than ladies?
Speaker 2: I was asking, I don't understand the question.
Speaker 20: Yeah, because like for example, I think when during the
Speaker 20: airing crisis, I think it was the majority of them
Speaker 20: that were going towards that.
Speaker 1: Was the majority of the bishops that were not laity.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how many of the laid
Speaker 1: you were Aran, but the majority of the bishops were semiarian.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why truth is not determined by the majority.
Speaker 1: Truth is determined by the truth. So you can have
Speaker 1: a majority of the church be an error. Correct.
Speaker 20: Then if if the Spirit is guiding the church, what
Speaker 20: is an extension of that situation as basic contract.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean there's still human free will, there's still
Speaker 1: the reality of apostasy. And there's other cases where the
Speaker 1: majority or a large portion of the empire fell into
Speaker 1: heresy too, like the Iconic class controversy. So the promise
Speaker 1: of the Spirit is not that all of the bishops
Speaker 1: in any era will be orthodox or will persevere. You
Speaker 1: can always apostatize. In fact, if you read Revelation one
Speaker 1: in two and three, there's warnings to those seven churches,
Speaker 1: for example, that they'll have their lamp stand ripped away
Speaker 1: and God will say I'm done with you. We believe
Speaker 1: that the same thing happened to the Roman Church. God
Speaker 1: warned the Roman Church in Romans eleven through Paul that
Speaker 1: if you get haughty, you'll be cut out of the Covenant.
Speaker 1: We think they were cut out of the Covenant a
Speaker 1: thousand years ago, and that's why they teach such ridiculous,
Speaker 1: retarded apostasy today, which all these lunatics still think is Christianity. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can have a majority. The promise of the Spirit
Speaker 1: was not that there would always be a majority. It's
Speaker 1: just simply that there will always be faithful bishops.
Speaker 3: Glad, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Truth is not determined by a majority, and that's precisely
Speaker 1: why all the idiotic Roman Catholic arguments about numbers doesn't
Speaker 1: prove anything numbers.
Speaker 2: Bro Steger curlts unmute, unmute yeoh uh huh.
Speaker 3: I I just wanted to ask you a quick question.
Speaker 21: So I heard a lot of times about this, this
Speaker 21: saying about if God can break the laws of logic.
Speaker 21: I need to understand that, and I don't know if
Speaker 21: that can be a contradiction itself as an argument. I
Speaker 21: don't think it's an argument itself. So I just wanted
Speaker 21: to ask about it.
Speaker 1: I think the laws of logic are features that describe
Speaker 1: the created order. So logic is something that pertains to
Speaker 1: the created order, kind of like math. So there are
Speaker 1: reflections of principles in the divine mind. They're not things
Speaker 1: that determine God's essence or nature. So we don't sit
Speaker 1: there and say God is you know, subservient to or
Speaker 1: under the laws of logic. Rather it's the other way around.
Speaker 1: That God exists that becomes the grounding for the laws
Speaker 1: of logic. So a lot of people want to put
Speaker 1: the before the horse, and they put the thing that
Speaker 1: is grounded in God before God and make God submit
Speaker 1: to that. That's what you see in a lot of
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic argumentation about the divine simplicity or the energies
Speaker 1: or any of that kind of stuff. So we just
Speaker 1: we have it's the other way around.
Speaker 21: So you'd like view it as basically a part of
Speaker 21: the nature of God or something like.
Speaker 1: That, or no, it's a reflection.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: So logic is a feature of the created order that
Speaker 1: is based on the uncreated logi in the mind of God.
Speaker 1: So there's a logie for every principle of logic or
Speaker 1: number or whatever that exists in the mind of God,
Speaker 1: but they're not identical. The low gi are uncreated, but
Speaker 1: logic and these kinds of things are creatures and they're created.
Speaker 1: That's what Maximus says, that universals can perish. That's not
Speaker 1: the platonic position played us as universals are the monad,
Speaker 1: they are the one. So it's a different it's a
Speaker 1: non platonic position impossibility.
Speaker 3: It doesn't actually.
Speaker 21: So itself asking that's just self contradict itself, right.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it's kind of a nonsense question. Like, for example,
Speaker 1: if you know what Aristotilians argue or Roman Catholics and
Speaker 1: Thomas argue, if you think about the the LPT, the
Speaker 1: logical problem of the Trinity. When Muslims and Jake and
Speaker 1: people like that use the LPT, they're trying to take
Speaker 1: a principled analytic philosophy or logic or predication and then
Speaker 1: say that the Christian view violates logic and therefore it's
Speaker 1: not true. But it's not understanding that you can't smash
Speaker 1: God into one type of naming or one type of
Speaker 1: descriptor or one type of modern analytical philosophy, because that's
Speaker 1: not the type of being that God is.
Speaker 3: So itself.
Speaker 21: He will have a like another divine level that we
Speaker 21: can encumbrehend him.
Speaker 3: We're trying to bound at the well.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like, Uh, logic and math are like
Speaker 1: one of the divine rays that comes from the divine
Speaker 1: mind to us. God has many other things about him
Speaker 1: right that they don't exhaust him and they don't define him.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like if if you saw me over
Speaker 1: here working out math problems, would you think that math
Speaker 1: problems are my essence? No, they would be something that
Speaker 1: is sort of coming out of me or coming from me,
Speaker 1: proceeding from me. So in the same way, God shows
Speaker 1: us things about himself through principles of math and geometry
Speaker 1: and order and all that we learn about the harmony
Speaker 1: of the divine mind and the beauty of the divine
Speaker 1: mind and order and all that. But they don't exhaust
Speaker 1: him or define him. Okay, So if you read Dionysius,
Speaker 1: this is the way he speaks of the things that
Speaker 1: come from God, the raised, the emanations, the process. I
Speaker 1: should say not emanations, Okay.
Speaker 21: From when I'm getting from Muslis, is that the question itself.
Speaker 3: Is wrong just to ask it? Is that what you're
Speaker 3: trying to.
Speaker 1: Say, Yeah, I mean you could argue that the question
Speaker 1: is premised on the idea that God is somehow definable
Speaker 1: or exhaustible by created principles.
Speaker 21: Yeah, since they said the mind being, he cannot be
Speaker 21: defined by limited minds, and he's unlimited, so he's not
Speaker 21: bound by by logic itself he.
Speaker 1: Is, it would be violating the apathetic theology of Orthodoxy. Right, So,
Speaker 1: Apathatic theology holds that God in himself, in his essence,
Speaker 1: is unapproachable, unknowable, undefinable, and inexhaustible. It's the via negativa.
Speaker 1: But the way that we know him is by the
Speaker 1: energies that come down to us, as Basil says in
Speaker 1: two thirty four.
Speaker 21: Okay, so I mean, could he manipulate itself? I mean,
Speaker 21: he's an all powerful being.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna move on. No, he doesn't manipulate
Speaker 1: himself because he is a being with free will and
Speaker 1: in nature that defines who he is and how he acts.
Speaker 1: So God can't change his nature because that would be
Speaker 1: ultimately going against who he himself is. So, for example,
Speaker 1: when Paul says it's impossible for God to lie, Paul
Speaker 1: says that because God's nature and character is holy. He
Speaker 1: can't do evil or bad things, and so what we
Speaker 1: consider possible or impossible is going to be determined by
Speaker 1: our worldview. So a lot of times low tier atheists
Speaker 1: will say, well, to be omnipotent means you can literally
Speaker 1: do anything, and if you can't make yourself not exist,
Speaker 1: then you're not omnipotent. Well, that's not what omnipotent means
Speaker 1: in the Christian paradigm. And all of these words and
Speaker 1: terms are going to be determined by the paradigm from
Speaker 1: which they're situated. Vertical view. Hey, Jamie, she's always far
Speaker 1: into the house. You can hear me, I mean, yes.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 22: Man?
Speaker 1: Are you calling me from World War two battlefield?
Speaker 2: What's up the Allies? Allies of it?
Speaker 1: I can't hear anything you're saying. Call back again, Try again, David.
Speaker 2: Do call me from D Day?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Another dude calling me from D Day? What's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Have the Allies landed? What's up here?
Speaker 7: We know what's up?
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 22: So I had a question about the nature of the
Speaker 22: Orthodox normatic authority that I curious speak about a lot, Okay,
Speaker 22: I just wanted to ask how you ended up at
Speaker 22: the conclusion that Eastern the Eastern Orthodox Church is the
Speaker 22: historic ordattorial that we should all be bound to, and.
Speaker 1: By looking at the first thousand years, by looking at
Speaker 1: the first thousand years of Christianity and seeing which church
Speaker 1: matches up to the Church of the first thousand years.
Speaker 22: But doesn't that just end up at being your personal
Speaker 22: interpretation of how that?
Speaker 1: No, that's a that's a category error. So the fact
Speaker 1: that I came to this conclusion does not mean that
Speaker 1: the conclusion is purely subjective. So that's the mistake that
Speaker 1: the first guy they called inmate.
Speaker 2: The fact that we have.
Speaker 1: Interpretations does not mean that everything is a subjective interpretation.
Speaker 1: That's a non sequitor.
Speaker 5: Okay, So yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 22: Then I found figured out the mistake of the first guy.
Speaker 22: But that's not longer trying to say, hold, I'm trying to.
Speaker 1: Well, that is what you're saying, though you said that,
Speaker 1: you said that if I come to the conclusion that
Speaker 1: the Church of the first thousand years is the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 1: then that's just my interpretation. Everybody has their interpretation, But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that the interpretations are purely subjective.
Speaker 22: I mean, no, I'm not saying that I'm just saying that,
Speaker 22: is it there a chance that you could be wrong?
Speaker 1: There is a chance, but that's not what normative authority is.
Speaker 1: So you're confusing normative authority with existential certitude. Those are
Speaker 1: two different things. Normative authority means is there any body
Speaker 1: of people who have the authority to bind people to
Speaker 1: an interpretation. That's not the same thing as how do
Speaker 1: we have individual epistemic certitude about a question? Those are
Speaker 1: two different things, and that's why I'm always making this point.
Speaker 1: I'm not fussing at you, but a lot of times
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics, for example, confuse these two things and they
Speaker 1: act like the papacy functions somehow as an epistemic principle
Speaker 1: when it doesn't.
Speaker 22: No, I would say that the same objection that I'm
Speaker 22: trying to make would apply to a Roman Catholic as well.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well, but that's not an objection. That's just
Speaker 1: a statement of what the boat that everybody's in. Everybody's
Speaker 1: in the boat of You're gonna have to figure this
Speaker 1: out at an individual level. There's no way out of
Speaker 1: that boat. Even a Roman Catholic has to try to
Speaker 1: figure out, well, which papal documents do I follow which
Speaker 1: ones are the ones that are infallible?
Speaker 2: Which?
Speaker 1: What do I do with Vatican two? What do I
Speaker 1: do with Francis changing the death penalty? I mean, you
Speaker 1: don't escape this in any of these systems.
Speaker 22: Yeah, I am aware that, but I'm not a Roman Catholic.
Speaker 22: I'm a Lutheran, if that makes any difference. But I'm
Speaker 22: just saying that because I've heard you say on debate
Speaker 22: with more evangelical for the stunts that it owens up
Speaker 22: at once personal interpretational discription.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. That's that's the normative question.
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with So your your argument
Speaker 1: is confusing existential certitude with normative authority. They're two totally
Speaker 1: different things. Okay, do you understand why they're two different questions?
Speaker 1: The argument against the Protestant is that Jesus didn't provide
Speaker 1: the Church a historical body of people that can bind
Speaker 1: anyone to an interpretation that's normative authority. Why wouldn't Jesus
Speaker 1: provide that?
Speaker 11: Okay, so I got the confusion.
Speaker 22: I'm going to look into them more.
Speaker 1: That's fine, that's okay, But that's the question that I
Speaker 1: would say to a Lutheran or to a Protestant is
Speaker 1: did Jesus not foresee that there would.
Speaker 2: Be squabbles and disputes in the church?
Speaker 1: And he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anybody
Speaker 1: to an interpretation. So it's just up to everybody. It's
Speaker 1: you know, di y, good luck, dude, And then every
Speaker 1: generation has to reinvent the wheel and rehash and restudy
Speaker 1: and prove every controversy, even though like obviously the controversy
Speaker 1: of the Trinity is already settled, right, but if you're
Speaker 1: a Protestant, maybe not. Let's just let's start all over.
Speaker 1: Let's do it all over, because all the councils are wrong.
Speaker 1: They can all be wrong, Tudor. The QR code is
Speaker 1: to uh support me via bit coin, So this is
Speaker 1: a bitcoin while at QR code. For those that are asking, well, hello,
Speaker 1: Christi's reason indeed, what's up?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 11: I have a small question.
Speaker 23: Basically I read them and I watched most of the
Speaker 23: stuff in the videos from YouTube and also on your
Speaker 23: website about the translation argument, it's a very orthodox and
Speaker 23: traditional way of basically presenting the arguments for the existence
Speaker 23: of God. I would be curious about basically, like when
Speaker 23: you have a tresidential argument, we reach the point where
Speaker 23: it basically we can prove that there's no logic outside
Speaker 23: of basically like also of God and outside of revelation.
Speaker 23: Now you still have like those old arguments that do
Speaker 23: not work that well, like the like the contingency argument.
Speaker 23: It's pretty much like it's a bunch of arguments from
Speaker 23: the old philosophy that will not really work that well
Speaker 23: because it will generally prove like a generic god essen
Speaker 23: or like energies.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: They also they also don't address modern philosophical critiques, posts
Speaker 1: and Lightenment. So if you were to go debate any
Speaker 1: you know, smart atheist like Graham Api or somebody like that,
Speaker 1: and you start arguing from contingency and all these metaphysical
Speaker 1: baggage principles, they're just going to say, well, how do
Speaker 1: you know any of those metaphysical principles or the are
Speaker 1: the case? So they are not addressing the last five
Speaker 1: hundred years of philosophical argumentation. That's another reason why they're
Speaker 1: not very good.
Speaker 23: Yes, and indeed I'm not basically thinking about all that.
Speaker 23: This is like the main question I wanted to ask,
Speaker 23: Can there be basically be like a new transcendental version
Speaker 23: of like the contingency argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you probably could.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could probably make a transcendental argument for any
Speaker 1: of those classical because the things that classical apologetics uses
Speaker 1: are usually necessary metaphysical principles. So you can take that
Speaker 1: metaphysical principle that's pretty much necessary to a worldview and
Speaker 1: make it a kind of transcendental argument. I'm not I
Speaker 1: haven't thought about the contingency one specifically, but you could
Speaker 1: do it with the causal argument or the teleological argument
Speaker 1: for sure, But I'm sure you could probably come up
Speaker 1: with some way to make necessity and contingency somehow part
Speaker 1: of a tag argument.
Speaker 23: Yeah, so that will be a lot more interesting because
Speaker 23: now that this will be basically not to rely on.
Speaker 11: Like self evidence and things like that.
Speaker 23: That basically are nonsense in modern.
Speaker 3: Philosophy, right because anything is still related.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, yeah exactly.
Speaker 23: Oh yeah, so that will be like a good word
Speaker 23: for like modern philosophy and for us sorts of excretions
Speaker 23: to basically like I think we if we can even
Speaker 23: like recycle these arguments for a more like a complete
Speaker 23: description or should we not really do that?
Speaker 1: No, I think there's all kinds of open avenues for
Speaker 1: people to do work in transient arguments.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, thanks a lot for Christi's reason.
Speaker 13: Indeed, thank you good questions. Appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I haven't thought about the contingency necessity principles. But I
Speaker 1: imagine you could somehow argue that you know there must
Speaker 1: be some necessary things, and that if you deny that
Speaker 1: there are some necessary existent things, you would be led
Speaker 1: into some kind of reductio and knowledge will become impossible.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's some way to construct that kind of
Speaker 1: an argument vertical view.
Speaker 5: Yes, can you hear me?
Speaker 24: So I'm currently trying to convert to Orthodoxy, and I
Speaker 24: have a family of four and we're all Protestant, and
Speaker 24: I'm kind of fully invested at the moment in helping
Speaker 24: build a church. It's a reforming Baptist church, and I
Speaker 24: really this is more like personal advice. I really don't
Speaker 24: know how to like pull all of them out of
Speaker 24: that and then put them into an Orthodox church, at
Speaker 24: least not in a way that's not harmful.
Speaker 2: Well, how would it be harmful?
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 24: Well, I mean, because I had, I would have to
Speaker 24: convince them in the same way that I've been convinced,
Speaker 24: and I think it would be a very uh I
Speaker 24: don't want it to be abrupt, you know what I mean, like, Okay.
Speaker 1: We're well maybe yeah, maybe the right thing to do
Speaker 1: is to ease them into it. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: your family obviously better than anyone else, so you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe you need to try to ease them into it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know what the wise course
Speaker 1: of action is there. I mean, is your is your wife,
Speaker 1: Like I mean, I would first of all worry about her,
Speaker 1: because she's going to have a lot of influence, you know,
Speaker 1: over your kids and you so would you do you
Speaker 1: do you think she would be receptive or do you
Speaker 1: think she's like very antithetical to something like that.
Speaker 24: Well, I think, well we've already kind of talked about it.
Speaker 24: In her main question, which I really didn't have an
Speaker 24: answer to, is she was like, well, don't aren't we
Speaker 24: already and dwelt with the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 3: Haven't we been baptized?
Speaker 24: And you know, I don't really have an answer to
Speaker 24: tell her like well, look, yeah, no, well.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean God, in his grace works in people everywhere,
Speaker 1: and the Holy Spirit is everywhere. But you know, if
Speaker 1: we're faced with these questions of what the true church is.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't rest my decision on, you know, some subjective
Speaker 1: event in the past, like well, you know I did,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, it'd be like thinking, well, I
Speaker 1: said the Sinner's Prayer when I was ten and I
Speaker 1: felt good about it, so you know, I don't need
Speaker 1: to become a reform Baptist. But I mean, imagine I'm
Speaker 1: applying that logic to going from Baptist to reform Baptists. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, why do I need to go to reform
Speaker 1: Batist church because you know, I prayed and I felt
Speaker 1: the center, you know, the Holy Spirit when I prayed
Speaker 1: the Center's prayer when I was ten. Well, you would
Speaker 1: argue that, well, but that doesn't mean that, you know,
Speaker 1: God's not calling you to you know, something more consistent
Speaker 1: or to a closer, you know, level of relationship. And
Speaker 1: so just apply that same argument now, well you know
Speaker 1: what I mean?
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I yeah, I get what you're saying.
Speaker 24: I'm good, I guess from I guess her advantage points,
Speaker 24: she's going to be she's going to be turned that
Speaker 24: I'm that I'm losing my mind or something. But I've
Speaker 24: I've been really fully convinced in the last you know,
Speaker 24: six months or so, and I've kind of warmed her
Speaker 24: up to the idea. But I think that she in
Speaker 24: her mind, she's like she thinking, well, I've seen the
Speaker 24: fruit in our lives and our children's lives. Why does
Speaker 24: why is something need to change?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's a tough, tough point because on
Speaker 1: the one hand, we can't definitively say well, you never
Speaker 1: had the Holy Spirit. But at the same time, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: how do you could phrase it like this, Well, maybe
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit's leading you to orthodoxy, Like you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, Like, maybe maybe that's the next phase
Speaker 1: of your relationship with God. He wants them more intimate relationship,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's where orthodoxy is. So, I know, it's
Speaker 1: difficult with women because they're usually based it's usually based
Speaker 1: on feelings, and it's based on subjective experience, and it's
Speaker 1: not typically based on objective facts and argumentation and reason
Speaker 1: and logic and history. But I think ultimately the only
Speaker 1: way to be sure of these things is to get
Speaker 1: people into the actual history and the actual teaching. So,
Speaker 1: you know, can you get her into you know, looking
Speaker 1: at the issues.
Speaker 5: I think that I can't.
Speaker 24: And I've already already kind of got her to accept
Speaker 24: the fact that the argument you were just making a
Speaker 24: previous conversation about how you know Christ would Christ would
Speaker 24: preemptively know that these types of squabbles and disputes would happen,
Speaker 24: and that he would want some authority, and she but
Speaker 24: she believes that.
Speaker 3: I think. Think of the point now, it's just like.
Speaker 5: We're like, because we were currently playing the church.
Speaker 1: I understand. I mean, you know, you just maybe God's
Speaker 1: testing you about whether this church planning thing is an idol,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like maybe maybe if it's
Speaker 1: not the right church, you don't want to plant that.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you want to plant a bunch of
Speaker 1: weeds in the garden or do you want to plant, like,
Speaker 1: you know, real tomatoes in the garden. Yeah, I would agree,
Speaker 1: Yeah you could also I would say too, like, you know,
Speaker 1: you're the head of your household. You know your family's
Speaker 1: gonna follow your decision, So I would say, go ahead
Speaker 1: and do that. You could also talk to your Orthodox
Speaker 1: priests and you know, get his take on it, because
Speaker 1: he's probably deal He's dealt with this a lot more
Speaker 1: than I have.
Speaker 13: I'm sure Garrett.
Speaker 2: Are you there?
Speaker 1: DC would working three dollars. Thank you so much. You
Speaker 1: failed three dollars. Oh, I failed so much. He sent
Speaker 1: me three dollars. Kamala goom gang five dollars, thank you,
Speaker 1: ball Cap, Jay is back, Mercedes Benz gag yeah baby, Anonymous,
Speaker 1: three dollars. I just want to Actually, the reason I
Speaker 1: have this hat on is because I was supposed to
Speaker 1: wake up early for a Burmus interview and I didn't
Speaker 1: have time to comb my Harris, so I just do
Speaker 1: this hat on.
Speaker 2: But then we didn't end up having an interview.
Speaker 1: Anonymous, thank you for helping me through a lot of
Speaker 1: my doubts about orthodoxy.
Speaker 13: I feel a lot more confident, glorid God.
Speaker 2: That's great man, glad to hear that.
Speaker 1: Are you there man?
Speaker 2: What's up.
Speaker 13: Anthony?
Speaker 1: Anthony or either yeah right here?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't I'm doing well. So yeah.
Speaker 25: So I've been part of the Church of Christ probably
Speaker 25: since it's been twenty fifteen, and I've always had a
Speaker 25: little bit of I don't know, things are qualms with
Speaker 25: with the church, but not like it. It was like
Speaker 25: little things that just popped up recently where I was
Speaker 25: I had, like a good friend as a Lutheran, and
Speaker 25: he started talking about infant baptism with me, and and
Speaker 25: Church of Christ is not you know, they don't believe
Speaker 25: that or anything like that. So I didn't like the
Speaker 25: way I reacted towards him about it, right, and uh
Speaker 25: so it got me. So I was asking him and
Speaker 25: questioning about it. And then he says that, you know,
Speaker 25: he couldn't find it in the Bible or something like that,
Speaker 25: because in my mind, I'm jumping right to you know,
Speaker 25: Bible alone, and that's what we believe there. And so
Speaker 25: so I went in and I asked him questions like,
Speaker 25: you know, how how early you know, did infant baptism
Speaker 25: happen and all that kind of stuff. But so I
Speaker 25: went looking into it and that just kind of just
Speaker 25: took me down a road where I did not expect
Speaker 25: a lot of things because.
Speaker 3: What what what what I used to what we used
Speaker 3: to do?
Speaker 25: I mean, like whenever anything was brought up about baptism,
Speaker 25: because I think that that's pretty much what the Church
Speaker 25: of Christ kind.
Speaker 2: Of yeah, separate themselves, right.
Speaker 25: He's like that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Okay, Well,
Speaker 25: let's just go to the church fathers, let's go to
Speaker 25: the early church. Let's go what did they say? What
Speaker 25: did they do? And so I had to look at
Speaker 25: that and I had to see where I went to
Speaker 25: him and I said, you're right, like there is evidence
Speaker 25: about this. And then that took me down a whole
Speaker 25: other rabbit hole about sol the scripture. And I didn't
Speaker 25: even really kind of think about that.
Speaker 1: And they also all believe in the real presence in
Speaker 1: the Eucharist too, which you don't.
Speaker 2: Church christ don't believe.
Speaker 25: So, right, So so I know that, you know, you
Speaker 25: know Lutheran's I think about Martin Luther, and I've always
Speaker 25: had a problem. I mean, we Church of Christ, they
Speaker 25: have problems with Martin Luther. Okay, so this is the
Speaker 25: long story. Short is that I again, so looking into
Speaker 25: infant baptism. Looking into that kind of led me into
Speaker 25: what else the it was the intercession of the saints.
Speaker 25: It led me into uh, yeah, the communion. I remember
Speaker 25: I was I someone asked me to, well, the minister
Speaker 25: or whatever we call them in Church Christ I still
Speaker 25: don't know, asked me to do communion. And I went
Speaker 25: into this like weak, long deep dive into it. And
Speaker 25: then I just found all these other little things that
Speaker 25: I wanted to discussed or something like that about it.
Speaker 25: So I just got this really deep understanding about communion
Speaker 25: and and studying about it and then studying about more
Speaker 25: about prayer just because a lot of different things happening
Speaker 25: in my life. And so now I've just gone down
Speaker 25: this complete different road where I'm completely open now to you.
Speaker 1: Know, I have the same thing, the same thing happened
Speaker 1: to me in two thousand and three.
Speaker 2: I totally understand.
Speaker 25: So yeah, so where I'm at right now is I'm
Speaker 25: going to the people in the church. And uh, we
Speaker 25: just we just my wife and I. I have wife
Speaker 25: and two kids, and we just moved here to Arkansas.
Speaker 25: It's been about two years or so, and I've been
Speaker 25: a part of the Church of Christ here and and
Speaker 25: uh and uh.
Speaker 7: Sorry, I'm just.
Speaker 3: What is it.
Speaker 25: Been looking into this? And I didn't like that it
Speaker 25: started out. I didn't like the way I reacted, like
Speaker 25: I'm like, why why am I so like it's it
Speaker 25: seems to be like that reaction you're kind of given,
Speaker 25: like you're you're sort of taught that to be so
Speaker 25: anti Catholic or so anti Orthodox, you're so not even
Speaker 25: wanting to hear anything out and like they just you know,
Speaker 25: we have like certain writers in the Church of Christ
Speaker 25: where you know, they look up you know, it's Bible alone,
Speaker 25: like that's the whole thing.
Speaker 11: But then I remember, I remember.
Speaker 25: In the last couple of years, like when my one
Speaker 25: of my friends was going through a divorce and they
Speaker 25: kind of went outside the Bible to explain certain things.
Speaker 25: Because there's no definite position that any Protestant Evangelical, they
Speaker 25: don't take a position on it or anything.
Speaker 3: It's kind of all over the place.
Speaker 25: So that was kind of strange to me that I
Speaker 25: that we weren't like I thought it was Bible alone,
Speaker 25: you know, so and that was always strange to me
Speaker 25: about that. So anyways, all these other things that just
Speaker 25: came up are now are now I'm questioning and I'm
Speaker 25: bringing it to people, and no one could give me
Speaker 25: an answer for it.
Speaker 7: And and so.
Speaker 25: One of the things that just came up was I
Speaker 25: guess just like suggestions about things to kind of get
Speaker 25: me started. I'm very I'm like, in the beginning of this,
Speaker 25: I had a my wife had a yard sale, and
Speaker 25: a guy from an Orthodox church that's nearby.
Speaker 7: We talked a little bit.
Speaker 25: And this was kind of before I was just like
Speaker 25: right at the beginning where I was just being open
Speaker 25: to it.
Speaker 7: And uh and uh.
Speaker 25: Then he he came like he left an icon of
Speaker 25: a Jesus on my car window or my mailbox and
Speaker 25: he wrote down his number and you know said, you know,
Speaker 25: thought that he had to he felt compelled to like
Speaker 25: reach out to me. And now I've been it's been
Speaker 25: about a few months, and I hadn't really kind of
Speaker 25: get together with him. And now since I've deep dive
Speaker 25: into all this stuff, reading all these different things, all
Speaker 25: my arguments about whether or not we have a normative
Speaker 25: authority you know in the church, like where you know,
Speaker 25: like we have things like that, all these different things
Speaker 25: are just breaking down. Now now I'm just completely I'm unsettled,
Speaker 25: That's what I'm trying to say, and I don't know
Speaker 25: what to kind of like I'm trying to get like
Speaker 25: a really good structure of the church history. I'm going
Speaker 25: to be bringing this to people just to because it
Speaker 25: seems like I'm gonna easing out of the Church Christ
Speaker 25: and taking my family like the guy in the Last
Speaker 25: Caller where he didn't know what.
Speaker 2: To do right, Well, yeah, so I would say start with.
Speaker 1: Something like John Mayandor's book The Orthodox Church. Then I
Speaker 1: would read something like Yaroslav Pelicon's volume one of his
Speaker 1: five volume series, the first one about the emergence of
Speaker 1: the Catholic tradition, because it's just written as an overview
Speaker 1: of the first five centuries of the Church. So those
Speaker 1: two books, they're not too hard to read, would be
Speaker 1: good for you as a Protestant to give you an
Speaker 1: idea of the ideological trek of the early Church and
Speaker 1: the history of the Church and the basic theology. And
Speaker 1: I would move on to something a little more, you know,
Speaker 1: something like athanacious Is on the Incarnation or something like that.
Speaker 1: Those are good places to go. Also, doctor Clark Carlton,
Speaker 1: you could look up his book about Protestant Positions versus
Speaker 1: Orthodox if you want something that's a little more polemical
Speaker 1: and apologetic. So those are places to start. And then yeah,
Speaker 1: continue talking to your Orthodox friend, all right, actully, thank
Speaker 1: you man, Yeah, thank you. Glad to hear your you're
Speaker 1: on that quest. I had this similar thing happened to
Speaker 1: me when I was twenty one or two, and I
Speaker 1: started reading The Church Fathers and realizing Oh, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: they're not Calvinists.
Speaker 13: Uh oh, I started freaking out.
Speaker 1: So good news is, though, you can avoid the ten
Speaker 1: years of Roman Catholic madness that I went into, and
Speaker 1: you can bypass all that nonsense and just go straight
Speaker 1: to orthodox g what's up, ge Glad and reputing one dollar?
Speaker 1: What do you think about the fourth position political theory
Speaker 1: or third position? No, I don't really accept any quasi
Speaker 1: fascist position, so I don't I'm not into fascism. Fourth
Speaker 1: political theory of Dugan is a little too much gnosticism.
Speaker 1: If you read the last chapter in his Fourth Political
Speaker 1: Theory book, it's very influenced by gnostic stuff. I do
Speaker 1: agree with the rejection of capitalism in the sense of
Speaker 1: monopoly capitalism and communism and evolution, so I agree with
Speaker 1: those critiques in the book. I don't know about I
Speaker 1: don't think a fourth position is going to do anything.
Speaker 1: William Die ten dollars, I don't have any answers. So
Speaker 1: it's like, what's your position and solution to the political
Speaker 1: problems with today?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know William Dye ten dollars.
Speaker 2: Sam Shimun is.
Speaker 1: The one that led me to orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 1: Traditional Catholics blood will be boiling because they should know
Speaker 1: that a Catholic told people to go to the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church for something.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I wasn't saying that Sam Chimun had definitively converted
Speaker 1: to Catholicism. I was saying he was attending a Catholic church.
Speaker 1: That's what he says. So the last time I asked him,
Speaker 1: he said he's still in between, but he believes that
Speaker 1: because the Catholic Church will give him sacraments, he'll go
Speaker 1: there before Orthodox. So that's that's his reasoning. I hope
Speaker 1: he doesn't go Catholic. I think if Sam goes Catholic,
Speaker 1: he'll have a hard time with a lot of these
Speaker 1: years of apologetics against Muslims that he's done, given the
Speaker 1: fact that Vatican two says in two places that Christians, Jews,
Speaker 1: and Muslims all worship the same God. So I don't
Speaker 1: know why anybody would want to go to that. I
Speaker 1: can't fathom why people want. I think people think they're
Speaker 1: going to get something in Catholicism that is just not there.
Speaker 1: It's so they think that Roman Catholicism is this thing
Speaker 1: on paper, and they think it's this glorious thing from
Speaker 1: the Middle Ages. And then when you actually join it
Speaker 1: and you find out that it's Skittle's priests and ecumenical
Speaker 1: service with Muslims and Jews and Hindus. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the reality. It's not the medieval church. Dude, Wake up,
Speaker 1: stop being dumb.
Speaker 2: Christian.
Speaker 1: They're Adrian one dollar high. Hey, what's up Adrian Christian
Speaker 1: twenty dollars?
Speaker 2: Jay?
Speaker 1: What's the most compelling argument to help a Protestant consider orthodoxy?
Speaker 1: The very thing that we just discussed with this guy
Speaker 1: that the Church of the first thousand years believes in
Speaker 1: apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ, and the Eucharist, vouchism, regeneration, tradition,
Speaker 1: oral tradition, liturgy. I mean, so therefore anything that's not
Speaker 1: that is not authentic. Orkers Entery, It's not that difficult.
Speaker 1: What would you do if you wanted to help convert
Speaker 1: a know it all friend? Well, if I know it all,
Speaker 1: I would cut to the root of the issue and
Speaker 1: just say like, well, how do you know you have
Speaker 1: the right canon? Like, if I'm a Protestant and no
Speaker 1: decisions after the of the Apostles are binding, authoritative, or infallible,
Speaker 1: then it's open season. We can all just come up
Speaker 1: with our own canons, can't. We just study really hard,
Speaker 1: pray really hard, and my canon like Marcian did, right,
Speaker 1: My canon is just gonna be the Book of Jude. Oh,
Speaker 1: trust me, though I prayed about it really hard.
Speaker 2: I study a lot.
Speaker 1: I even learned Greek and Hebrew, and just just trust me, bro,
Speaker 1: Jude is the only legitimate book of the New Testament
Speaker 1: Cannon period.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Now as a Protestant, how are you gonna tell me
Speaker 1: I'm wrong?
Speaker 2: The church has received all these books of the church.
Speaker 1: What church? There's no such thing as the church, which
Speaker 1: is all the churches and some generic collective. That's a
Speaker 1: fiction that doesn't actually exist. Patricia, five dollars, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Jub. Shout up to our time stamp master,
Speaker 1: our buddy, Jub. He says, one hundred dollars. Wow, dude,
Speaker 1: you don't have to send that much. Appreciate that, though.
Speaker 1: When is the next TikTok debate stream? I gotta build
Speaker 1: up the energy for that because it's so intense and crazy.
Speaker 2: Also, are all four.
Speaker 1: Of the Palomite synods considered ecumenical?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think they've attained the status of being authoritative, so
Speaker 1: they're not ecumenical in this sense of like, because there
Speaker 1: was no empire per se anymore. I guess there was.
Speaker 1: Technically it was in Byzantium, but you know, the West
Speaker 1: wasn't really accepting Byzantine synods. So in the classical sense
Speaker 1: of the ocumena, it wouldn't be an ecumenical council. But
Speaker 1: the Palomite Synods are for us the ninth Ecumenical Council.
Speaker 1: So yes, even though it doesn't technically have the term
Speaker 1: ecumenical council, sometimes you will see applied to all of
Speaker 1: the Palomite Synods the term a ninth Ecumenical Council. I'm
Speaker 1: asking because a friend is captivated by scholasticism, Well, your
Speaker 1: friend needs to understand that scholasticism is not a thing
Speaker 1: in Rome anymore. They don't care about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Romancalloay Church quit caring about that even before Vatican two.
Speaker 1: So this is something that nerdy twenty year olds are
Speaker 1: spurging out about and having mental master you know what
Speaker 1: session's over, which has nothing to do with reality. So
Speaker 1: maybe tell your friend that he's just LARPing in a circle.
Speaker 1: J r K to the Medieval to the Middle Ages,
Speaker 1: which doesn't exist. Michael Jarron five dollars. Why aren't you
Speaker 1: an Orthodox priest? Why would I be an Orthodox priest.
Speaker 1: I've never had any interest in being a priest or
Speaker 1: any kind of minister. I quite content being an Internet goofball,
Speaker 1: so I will forever be an Internet goall goofball hopefully.
Speaker 2: Nathan three dollars.
Speaker 1: Hey man, what are what are the teaps for the
Speaker 1: fat raassis to do the prostrations?
Speaker 2: I'm so fat I can't see me tolds.
Speaker 1: Instead of doing prostrations, roll down a hill and every
Speaker 1: time you roll over, do some different prayer. Armani Joones
Speaker 1: three dollars. Black people go to heaven if the Ethiopian
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church isn't schis them. I've never even seen a
Speaker 1: minority at a Russian Orthodox church. We have black people
Speaker 1: come to our church. So but also, I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't damn the entire collective group of people because I
Speaker 1: don't know people's destinies. No, we're not told this, so
Speaker 1: that's a bizarre question.
Speaker 2: G Are you there?
Speaker 3: Did you want to go?
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta interview, so I gotta go soon.
Speaker 2: But I'll try to do as me as I can.
Speaker 5: Hello, he look, can you hear me?
Speaker 11: All right? Okay, yeah, quick question.
Speaker 26: Just trying to wrap my mind around the trinity stuff
Speaker 26: in the co equal part.
Speaker 11: What is it that that's getting at?
Speaker 7: What is it that that means?
Speaker 1: It means they all three share the same nature. They're
Speaker 1: equal in nature.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, that clears up all out.
Speaker 3: Actually, so they're.
Speaker 1: They're distinct in person, but equal in nature, because I mean.
Speaker 7: At first, I mean just coequal.
Speaker 26: I thought it uh ontologically first, and I mean.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean ontologically meaning that they have the
Speaker 1: same nature.
Speaker 5: Yes, okay, but.
Speaker 26: Not in terms of like like Jesus, let's say the
Speaker 26: son and the Father are not the same thing per se, right,
Speaker 26: ontologically saying like, now.
Speaker 1: They're distinct persons, but they're united in nature essence. All right,
Speaker 1: So like two different human beings, they're two different persons,
Speaker 1: but they share the same human nature. Okay, that's an analogy.
Speaker 26: And would you say, like what it is that Off
Speaker 26: the top of my head, I think John seventeen, I
Speaker 26: think twenty through verse twenty through twenty three, where it
Speaker 26: says like well this paraphrasing obviously that you whoever he's
Speaker 26: speaking to can become one with God. Like I have
Speaker 26: paraphrasing very hard. What is that because when I think
Speaker 26: about the coequal part, this is kind.
Speaker 11: Of the birth.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, we become sons of God by grace, not
Speaker 1: by nature. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead,
Speaker 1: so he is the son of God eternally generated from
Speaker 1: the Father, from the Father's nature. So we never become
Speaker 1: the nature of God, but we do participate in the
Speaker 1: grace of God or the uncreated energy of God. That's
Speaker 1: what that means.
Speaker 26: Okay, man, I got a couple other questions.
Speaker 5: Man, but I mean, it's raining over here pretty bad.
Speaker 5: But I appreciate you. I understand a little bit more now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good questions. Appreciate that. I got a couple of
Speaker 1: minutes for the last Nicholas, last couple questions. I want
Speaker 1: to remind you guys too, to head on over to
Speaker 1: chalk dot com show sponsor. Chalk dot com the best
Speaker 1: in supplements online.
Speaker 2: If you want to up.
Speaker 1: Your toxic masculinity, you want some focus, you want some energy,
Speaker 1: heading over to chalk dot com h o Q use
Speaker 1: the promo code j fifty to get fifty percent excuse me,
Speaker 1: don't use that promo. Cod use j forty four life
Speaker 1: to get forty four percent off all those great products.
Speaker 2: What's up, man, hey man?
Speaker 19: I was wondering if you could recommend the two books
Speaker 19: one for the on the First Council of Constantople and
Speaker 19: the Seventh Council.
Speaker 1: I don't know if a specific book just on Constantinople one.
Speaker 1: I mean, there could be some academic text out on
Speaker 1: that that I'm not aware of. I mean, usually, you know,
Speaker 1: any book that kind of covers the seven ecumenical councils
Speaker 1: will touch on the emphasis in each of them. So
Speaker 1: like Pelican's book, Volume one is going to cover all
Speaker 1: of those general ideas. But I think only recently. I
Speaker 1: don't know if Price has done Richard Price has done
Speaker 1: Constantinople one or not. Maybe he did, But I would
Speaker 1: just read like a general overview of it, like what
Speaker 1: specifically are you looking for?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 11: More like how the Trinity came in?
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 1: I would say, well, you could read doctor go go
Speaker 1: listen to uh doctor Branson's lectures on the Cappa doceans
Speaker 1: because a lot of his lectures deal with conceptinoble one.
Speaker 1: So doctor bo Branson has a five lectures. I think
Speaker 1: at his website plenty of interviews on YouTube, that would
Speaker 1: be a good place to go to. His dissertation is
Speaker 1: on the cap of Doceans, but uh, I don't know.
Speaker 1: That might be a little too technical.
Speaker 3: I don't know, all right. And then on the seventh
Speaker 3: Community for the Icons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would read, uh, the Alspinsky Lost Key book
Speaker 1: Theology Icon Volume one, and then Theodore the Studit's book
Speaker 1: on the Holy Icons, and John Demascus is. These are
Speaker 1: fairly short books. John Demascus is Defense of the Holy Images.
Speaker 1: All right, yeah, man, thank you? Xander. What's up?
Speaker 13: We've got people from Buffy the Vampire Slayer joining us today.
Speaker 1: What's up, Xander?
Speaker 3: Jay?
Speaker 2: What's going on the what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Well, dude, my.
Speaker 19: Voice was shot, so if it's annoying, I was torn
Speaker 19: between coming up here, So sorry about that.
Speaker 5: I was talking throughout.
Speaker 19: I think I know the answer now having listened to you.
Speaker 5: But e Michael.
Speaker 3: Jones and his writings on the logos, what are your
Speaker 3: thoughts on that?
Speaker 19: And I was curious too, like Greek philosophy and how
Speaker 19: operative you think that is in Christianity?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wrote.
Speaker 1: I wrote an essay on this called logos and wisdom,
Speaker 1: and I ever since I heard him first talk about this,
Speaker 1: I've always thought he was wrong, so I never read
Speaker 1: his stuff on it because logos is not a pagan
Speaker 1: philosophical principle. John is pulling from the wisdom texts of
Speaker 1: Solomon and Proverbs, so it's not coming from Plato. He's
Speaker 1: probably trying to appeal to people in the Greek and
Speaker 1: Roman world by but it's not Logos is the second
Speaker 1: person of the Godhead, and John one, it's not the
Speaker 1: same thing as Marcus Aurelius as Logos.
Speaker 3: I think. Gotcha?
Speaker 19: And then what what are your thoughts on gnocissism and kabala?
Speaker 19: And I'm curious about Eastern religions.
Speaker 1: Have I mean, I just did multiple lectures on kabbala
Speaker 1: and narcissism the last two weeks, so you could find
Speaker 1: uh several of those. And I'm not being a dickhead.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like literally just covered that like multiple
Speaker 1: times in the last few weeks.
Speaker 3: Gotcha. And then like Christian Europe, like the kids.
Speaker 19: Would call it base like throughout its history, like it
Speaker 19: was patriarchal, it was a warring, you know, it was
Speaker 19: it was a masculine ethic compared to now, like modern
Speaker 19: Christianity is pretty defanged and neutered.
Speaker 1: What would you at, Well, most of what you're talking
Speaker 1: about is just not even Christianity. It's all a bunch
Speaker 1: of sex and cults and heretics. So I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't wait, we don't recognize any of that stuff as
Speaker 1: even Christianity. It's a bunch of clown clown church clown show.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well that brings me.
Speaker 19: I posted in the comments that do you know brother
Speaker 19: Peter Diamond.
Speaker 1: I don't know them, but I know of that could Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're they're wild guys.
Speaker 1: But I posted so, yeah, people should read the set
Speaker 1: of a Conscious Delusion by John Pontrello because he is
Speaker 1: somebody that we helped to become orthodox out of the
Speaker 1: set of a Conscius world.
Speaker 19: Okay, well, that he's a sharp chat like. I mean,
Speaker 19: I'm pretty new to you. I've only been following you for.
Speaker 3: Like a month. But he put a really good argument together.
Speaker 3: Obviously I don't know so much, but.
Speaker 19: Is there a good argument to like? Actually, he made
Speaker 19: seven points. He said canon law states that manifest and
Speaker 19: notorious heresy facto exchange.
Speaker 1: So John John Pontrello's book is written against all of
Speaker 1: those arguments, and I did a three hour live stream
Speaker 1: addressing all of those arguments, so you can look up
Speaker 1: how set of a contess improves orthodox theology if you're
Speaker 1: interested in in my response that suff.
Speaker 3: Ert sees.
Speaker 1: J forty four Life J forty four l f E.
Speaker 1: All right, I think we're gonna have to end it
Speaker 1: because I gotta go do somebody's podcast. But remember to
Speaker 1: get my books over at Jasonelsis dot com in the
Speaker 1: shop signed copies as the Trek Hollywood three will be
Speaker 1: out hopefully in the next few months. I'm up to
Speaker 1: about two hundred and sixty pages. Now I wish it
Speaker 1: was just it just takes forever to write a book.
Speaker 2: Oh man, it's a lot of work. But be patient.
Speaker 1: That's why I haven't done a whole lot of part
Speaker 1: twos and talks for subscribers and all that. I'll try
Speaker 1: to get some of that material up in the next
Speaker 1: couple of days. I'm just really trying to hammer away
Speaker 1: at the book. But thank you guys so much and
Speaker 1: fun talks today and appreciate the superchats. I think we
Speaker 1: got a couple more here Stefan DV eleven dollars fifty
Speaker 1: more cents. Your wife is making more in super chats. Uh, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if it happens, it happens. I'm proud for her to do.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Send some super tats for Jay tuition is due. Also,
Speaker 1: Andrew Wilson, historian debate courses would be involved in that.
Speaker 1: He asked me to help with that, and I said
Speaker 1: I would be able to, but the initial day that
Speaker 1: he asked, I wasn't able to go do it. But
Speaker 1: maybe down the road, I think we'll be trying to
Speaker 1: do some more stuff like that. But yeah, I'm always
Speaker 1: down to help out with something like that. Everybody have
Speaker 1: a good day.