Speaker 1: Welcome. All of you guys are here and you can
come and smash me. Calvinists making a big fuss. James
White can't stop talking about me, and I did. I
posted my thirty minute roast. Forty minute roast, so you
can go watch the roast. Indiana, what's up, man? Come,
let's chat about our exchange. You got on mute yo?
Hey are you there?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I can hear you.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I was perfectly cordial to you. When I
asked you if you wanted to debate. You said, I'm
not interested in representing a position in a debate for him,
but you're open to a conversation. And I asked you
a couple of times if you'd like to chat. So
where did I do anything like what you accuse me of?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I came on here to publicly apologize, humbly admitting
that I was wrong. I misrepresented our conversation. I deleted
the tweet, not as a I'm trying to hide what
I did, but I did. I misrepresented and I exaggerated
our conversation.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't have done that fair enough.
Speaker 1: I will take it down because you were well, I mean.
Speaker 2: You have to do that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean I didn't come here to be
like to try to cover my ass or anything, but
I I you know, there comes a point where you
do make a mistake online and you gotta come.
Speaker 2: Up and you gotta admit that you that you overstepped
your bounds. I was a little agitated.
Speaker 4: Because and you know, secondarily, you know, uh, I don't know.
I get a lot of d ms from people who
I don't know if they're affiliated with you at all,
and I'm not going to assume that they are, but
a lot of just horrible dms, and they're all telling
me to debate you. Uh, and that just the horrible
things I hear come coming in my dms. So and
I apologize for allowing that to bleed over into you know,
me talking about you on a public forum.
Speaker 1: That's all good. It's forgiven and forgotten. You can if
you anytime you'd like to have a conversation about the
topics the issues. It's an open forum. It's there's an
open door there. I would also say that if you post,
you know, the Instagram stuff calling out orthodoxy, you have
to expect pushback. I can't speak for all the people
that DM you or what the comments are. My comment
on your post, you know, going after Relics was just
would you like to have a debate about this? And
that's just my default modus offerandi for everybody.
Speaker 2: Gotcha? Gotcha? No?
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I respect that I don't know, I'm not
super familiar with a lot of your content. So again,
another apology, you know, just like making a blatant, you
know statement about you know, questioning your Christianity because I
really don't. I haven't taken the time to go over
everything that you post. So yeah, I'll take some time
to look over you know, your position and more in depth.
And yeah, i'd definitely be down to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah we can. We can. It can be friendly. We
don't have to be adversarial. It can be exchanged back
and forth. It's fine. We do that often. So it's
entirely up to the guest or the people that come on.
If they want to have a heated exchange, I'll do that.
If they just want to have a conversational exchange, we
can do that as well.
Speaker 5: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: Again, I know I already apologize, you already forget me,
but I just want to say so sorry, Like I
really like embarrassed because honest, and I'm not gonna lie.
Like when I was typing that, I actually was thinking.
I was like, I think I might be exaggerating a
little bit, and I still posted in any way, So
that should just you know that I feel I definitely
feel shame in that. But yeah, all right, everybody, I'm
not going to take up much of this you know,
space or anytime if you want me to stay up
here and you want to hear my opinion on whatever
we're going to talk about, but if.
Speaker 1: Not, I'll just it's up to you. Like so we
can talk about the principle behind relics, we can talk
about what your issues are with Orthodoxy, or we can
say it for another time. It's balls in your court.
Speaker 4: Well again, you know, I'm not super familiar with the
major distinctions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Speaker 2: I mainly I don't know if y'all people focus see
what I post, I.
Speaker 4: Mainly focus on Catholicism because that's where I'm what I'm
more familiar with.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 4: You know, half my family's Catholic grew up in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: You know, Catholicism is all over the place.
Speaker 4: Orthodoxy I've just it's like that's just within the past
year and a half, I've really even understood that there
was a distinction between the two. So, and as far
as I'm concerned, is there a distinction between you know,
what Catholics believe about relics versus what Orthodox believe about relics.
Speaker 2: You know, there is there something different there.
Speaker 1: Well, we would believe, I mean, there would be some
level of distinction between what we would say about relics
and what a Roman Catholic would say. We do not
disagree about the reverencing. Yeah, somebody was calling you. We
don't disagree about the reverencing of the relic, but we
do disagree about what's going on there and how that happens.
We believe in the doctrine of the energies, which is
that God's uncreated energies permeate his creation, and in particular
in a special way. The uncreated energies and power of
God are present in his physical spatial dimensions and locations
that are sanctified, so churches are still holy. In the
New Testament, Peter talks about the Holy Mountain where the
Lord was transfigured. That lets us know that places can
still be sanctified. There was the pool where people would
go in in the Gospel John to be healed, where
an angel would stir the waters. There can be you know,
holy pools even and in the Book of Actual, notice
that when Paul, they take clothes from Paul's body and
they heal people and it drives out demons. And this
is on the principle of Elijah's bones that resurrect the
person who falls into the tomb and the body touches
his relics and he's resurrected. So we believe that the
bodies of the saints are endued with the power of
God because we become little arcs of God, and they
do have that power. Roman Catholics do believe in these things,
but they believe in a created grace, which is very
different from uncreated grace in the Orthodox Church. But yeah,
we do believe that the relics have power to do
these things.
Speaker 4: Interesting, no, yeah, and that's something that is undeniable. You know,
when you read the scriptures, reading acts, it's like, oh,
handkerchief is taken away to heal people. Where my concern
is is is when you are presented with these you know,
vague stories, you know, that there's not like a distinctive teaching.
You know, there isn't a formula that's presented to us
from apostolic.
Speaker 2: Witness on uh the on the activity of.
Speaker 4: The spirit through physical objects. We just hear that, you know,
like for example, the woman who who just touched Jesus's
uh clothes, right, Like, what.
Speaker 2: Would I like?
Speaker 6: Is that like.
Speaker 2: Is that something I would formulate doctrine off of?
Speaker 4: Or is that like like was it because she actually
touched his wealth?
Speaker 1: It's a great example. That's actually a great example because or.
Speaker 2: Was it faith? You know it?
Speaker 4: So is it like like for example, when Jesus talks
to Nicodemus says, the activity of the spirit is.
Speaker 2: Like the wind. You know, it goes just like the wind.
Speaker 4: You can't see it, but it you know, it's powerful
and you can effects in the same way. It's like,
how can we formulate like solid, concrete doctrine on these
vague you know, spiritual experiences that we're seeing, you know,
in the first century church and acts. You know, the
spirit is extremely active. People are being filled with the spirit.
So I guess my concern is, like, are we making
like false correlations?
Speaker 1: There?
Speaker 2: Was it the faith of the people.
Speaker 4: Bringing the handkerchief, that was where the power was or
was it the actual handkerchief because it was you know,
touched by Peter or Paul or whoever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me address that. So it's not in our
view it wouldn't be an either. Or there's a relationship
of synergy that goes on there, because for example, in
the Gospels, you know, there's a place where it says
and he Christ could not work many miracles there because
of their lack of faith. It's not that Christ didn't
have the power. It's that God has determined and decided
to have a reciprocal relationship with human beings and creatures
such that he won't if they don't have faith. So
the power would not have gone out of him had
the woman not had faith. You're right about that. But
we can know some of the doctrines because if I
recall and I'm going for memory, but I think the
word there is dunamis, which is the Greek word that
Paul uses when he talks about the energy and power.
Dunamis innergaya that's at work in him, and he says
it is the power of God at work in him
to do according to God's purpose. So what is that
power of God? I mean, is it an actual essence
of God? Is it the divine persons? Or is it
a divine energy? Well, thankfully we know because in Corinthians,
Paul says in the chapter thirteen, where he's talking about
the spiritual gifts, he says that the twelve and thirteen
he says that the spirit apportions the gifts as he wills,
according to his inner gaia. So these are energetic gifts.
So this is a New Testament doctrine of the uncreated energies,
and no church teaches us except the Orthodox Church. There
are no churches that teach the uncredited energy doctrine. So
Relics themselves points to this principle of divine dunamus and
inner gaia. And it's not just scant examples we have.
For example, in Hebrews thirteen, Paul says that the New
Testament Church has an altar from which we eat, that
those who serve in the tabernacle have no right to
eat from. So Paul calls the New Testament alter a
altar that we eat from. And in the earliest records
of the Christian Church, after the death of the apostles.
You can read something like the Martyrdom of Polycarp where
they are collecting his relics, where they are reverencing the cross,
even from that early of the day. If you go
to Rome, you can go into the catacombs and you
can see images of Christian iconography. You can see altars
underneath the city of Rome in the catacombs. So the
early Church had all of these things on this sacramental principle,
which is why, for example, Jesus spits in the dirt
and he makes clay to guy's eyes. I mean, Jesus
could have just thought and willed the guy's eyes to
be healed, but he chose to use stuff physical matter.
That's what Paul says. The cross is the instrument of
our salvation. That's why in the Orthodox Church we honor
and revere the cross.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: Now, again, where my concern lies is how do you
set up an objective formula for use for putting this
into practice, like because like like we've already established like
there isn't necessarily an exact consistency with you know, divine objects,
right like Jesus heals without dirt, Jesus heels with dirt.
Speaker 7: Jesus heals the nobleman's son.
Speaker 4: Without even being there, but then he could physically to Lazarus,
so that there's you know, there's.
Speaker 5: Obviously not.
Speaker 4: A lot of consistency there, But I would argue that
this is like Jesus using context, or like there's context
is key in these in these scenarios, and it's not
so much the actual physical objects, it's you know, well, let's.
Speaker 1: Let's think about in John three, right, Jesus says that
the bronze serpent was put up on a pole in
the Book of Numbers to heal the Israelites when they
were being bitten by the snakes, and he likens the
cross to that very thing. So there's a continuity here
of objects having the ability to be endued with sacramental grace, energetic,
dunamous power. And that's not a principle that goes away
in the New Testament. And I've already listed several examples,
but there's many more. There's oil is used in the
New Testament, bread and wine are used in the New Testament.
These are physical means of grace that are premised on
the incarnation itself. Jesus took on a human body which
is the image of God, even in a in a
created sense. So God doesn't have a problem with created things,
but Protestants tend to.
Speaker 2: Hey, can I add real quick this was brought up.
Speaker 8: I thought that Russell At made the point I never
thought about this, that if you notice Christ's miracles in
the order of time, they become more and more incarnational.
Speaker 2: That it starts sort of like just you know, uh,
proclaiming that you know, you're you're.
Speaker 8: You are healed, and then it each miracle that happens
gets more and more incarnational.
Speaker 2: It's the touching, it's going, it's.
Speaker 8: Putting the there's a chronological order of thens, spitting into
the mud and putting into the deaf man's ear, which
itself is a pedagogical lesson.
Speaker 2: So he's taking people, you know.
Speaker 8: From the power of God's commands to then teach them
that it's by touching and becoming one physically with my
body that actually heals.
Speaker 2: And of course it's a both.
Speaker 8: And it's not simply your faith that saves you, for example,
or vice versa, simply the power of Christ that saves you. It's,
for example, in the confession, if you don't have faith
and you're receiving the divine energy of Christ forgiveness. He's
not going to force it on you that your lack
of faith can prevent you from receiving the healing graces
of Christ. So I would say it's a both, and
it's not simply well, the person just had faith or
Christ just said something. It's incarnational, it's tangible, it's sacramental,
and it requires one's faith to receive that.
Speaker 2: Mm hm.
Speaker 1: Another brief point while you're thinking, is that you mentioned,
you know, the guide into the Holy Spirit kind of
leading us and letting us know the parameters of where
this is and is inappropriate. You know, Jesus says that
he promised the Holy Spirit to the church, right, So
he says that in John when he sends the Spirit
and acts to a Pentecost, there's the assumption, I believe
that the Spirit really will lead and guide the church
into all truth. I will not leave you as orphans,
I will not forsake you. I will be with you
until the end of the age. That promise didn't go away.
Right with the first and second century church fathers like Clement,
polycarp Ignacious, et cetera. They express the same faith as
what was handed down from those apostles, and in those
writings we already see the acceptance of relics and the
veneration of the bodies of holy men.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, ritings, what were you talking about.
Speaker 1: Martyred him a polycarp okay?
Speaker 2: And then also did you mention Martyred?
Speaker 1: So these are people that were taught by John the Apostle,
for example polycarp.
Speaker 8: Ei.
Speaker 1: There anything else you want to discuss, I'm okay, that's fine.
I mean, there's a here's another classic. If you look
at Joshua seven in the Masoretic text, it points out
that when Joshua in verse six, it says, Joshua tore
his clothes and he fell to the earth on his
fake face before the ark of the Lord until evening
he and all the elders of Israel, and they put
dust on their heads. And most Protestants who are sort
of iconoclastic would have a tremendous problem with Orthodox you know,
prostrating before the cross or bowing and venerating icons and
this kind of stuff. And yet it's a very principle
from the Old Testament itself, as Joshua prostrates before the arc.
Speaker 4: Well, so so yeah, I've heard that argument plenty of times.
Speaker 2: And the context of that is not venerating the arc.
It is it is he's lamenting.
Speaker 1: Well, then why is he falling down towards the arc?
Speaker 2: Because the arc was.
Speaker 4: The where the presence of God was made manifest.
Speaker 1: But it isn't in a physical object with images.
Speaker 2: On it, exactly and who and so.
Speaker 1: They were bowing down to images?
Speaker 4: And in the New Covenant, what is the image of
the living God.
Speaker 1: It's the person of the logos.
Speaker 2: Jesus, Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: And so would you vow before his physical body?
Speaker 2: I would?
Speaker 7: I would bow before Jesus in the.
Speaker 2: Flesh, yes, okay, which you know, not a picture of him.
Speaker 1: Well wait a minute, is his body created.
Speaker 4: His Yes, his body was formed in the wound marries wound.
Speaker 1: So you're bowing before a created thing.
Speaker 2: So okay.
Speaker 4: So are we saying that Jesus is the created.
Speaker 2: Being the body of absolutely okay. Well yeah, so I'm
bowing before Jesus. So okay, Wait, are we separating Jesus
flesh from his deities?
Speaker 7: That we're doing is.
Speaker 1: Not at all. In fact, if you read the Council
of Ephesus, this is the very argument that cyril uses
against Nestorius to prove the deity of Christ and the
real presence in the Eucharist, that there's only one divine subject,
because he says in the in the Canons of Ephesus, you,
if Jesus was a mere man, you would be eating
the flesh of a mere man, and that would be cannibalism.
But he argues that you're the flesh of the god
Man and that's what deifies you. So it's the Protestants
that would reject Ephesus on this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, No, I do reject real physical presence. I
do believe in real presence. The spirit is real, and
that's a that's a whole other topic in and of itself,
but which I don't know if you guys.
Speaker 1: Did Jesus deify the human body that he took on, Yeah.
Speaker 2: His resurrection body was his glorified.
Speaker 1: Body, right, So so God can make matter dea form
and transfigured.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean at the transfiguration he was appearing in
his glorified state, you know, after the resurrection, he was
in his resurrected So.
Speaker 1: He only does that too Jesus's actual body, or does
he do it to our bodies too?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I believe our resurrection body is going to be
you know, renewed in a you know, something that is
distinct from what it is now.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, So when John six talks about you must eat
my flesh and drink my blood to have life in you,
is that not talking about the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist.
Speaker 4: So I believe John six does not point us to
the Lord's table. It points us to the cross, and
the Lord's table subsequently points us to the cross. So
I'm actually I just finished a script. I'm gonna post
a video soon. A lot of people have been like
in my DMS. I don't know if y'all know the YouTuber.
His name's how to Be Christian. He posted a video
like a long time ago, and I made the mistake
of arrogantly, you know, you know, saying like, oh, I'm
gonna make this reply whatever whatever. And you know, he
quote tweeted me for months and months and months, and
me being a procrastinator and you know whatever, Long story short,
I put it off.
Speaker 2: But I finally finished the script. I'm gonna make a
video on this.
Speaker 4: So I've been studying through John and if you take
the Gospel of John and you read it as from
the perspective of John. Jesus preaches the gospel with a
specific formula. Right, John six is not this separate chapter
that's unrelated to John two or John three, or John
four or five. You know, Jesus is very consistent in
his in his preaching.
Speaker 1: What does any of that have to do with the
presence in the Eucharist.
Speaker 4: It has to except we're talking about John six, are we.
Speaker 1: Well you're talking about the logical sequence of the Gospel
of John in this formula, But what does that have
to do with the real presence in chapter six?
Speaker 2: So well, you're saying that John six is like proof that.
Speaker 1: I'm saying it's one example because when he talks about it,
it offends a lot of people who walk away, and
he says, is this a hard teaching? Now, if he's
just teaching a spiritual presence that's identical to the Old
Testament conception of the sacrament, So there would be nothing
offensive or weird about that. Why didn't he stop them
from walking away?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 4: So, so never in scripture do we see people understanding
correctly and then walking away from Jesus.
Speaker 1: It's always, but it wouldn't be a hard teaching, is
what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 7: They they did not understand the spiritual truth.
Speaker 1: But he says this is a hard teaching. If it's
a it's the if it's the Old Testament understanding of
the sacramental presence, which is largely symbolic in John Heart,
it's not a hard saying.
Speaker 2: In John six, what was the first statement that made
them quote.
Speaker 1: Grumble, I don't have it pulled up?
Speaker 2: What when he told them this brand offers his flesh.
Speaker 4: No, when he said that he came down from heaven.
That was the first thing that made them grumble.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: So when he's saying this is a.
Speaker 4: Hard saying, they were confused about the entire him coming
down from heaven.
Speaker 2: How are you the bread? How are we going to
eat your flesh? Like?
Speaker 4: None of this makes sense because they were thinking, and
let's look at the words of Augustine, for example, they
were thinking carnally.
Speaker 1: Augustine taught the real presence. When he talks about carnally,
let me finish. I've read thousands of pages of Augustin,
so let me explain what he's talking about. He's saying
that by eating carnally, it's not that there's no physical eating.
They thought they were going to get a free meal.
John six. The grumblers are thinking, you've been feeding people
with bread and with loaves and fish. Where's our free meal,
Jesus saying, I'm not talking about a free meal of
loaves and fishes. I'm talking about eating the true bread
that comes down from Heaven. Guess what. That's the passover
the Pasca. And if you look at Hebrews thirteen, the
passives that I mentioned earlier, when Paul, we believe Paul
wrote this. When Paul talks about the animals that are
sacrificed by Israel at the tabernacle on the Temple, he
says that those animals do not have the grace to
profit those that eat of it. But we have an
altar that we eat from, and our High priest offering
is what does sanctify us. And verse twelve says that
it is his blood that you're partaking of. So Paul
calls it an altar with a sacrifice, and it's the
blood of the high Priest, contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices
of the animals. And you're telling me that, no, Jesus
is just teaching the symbolic view of the Old Testament,
which is a contradiction from what Paul's saying in Hebrews thirteen.
Speaker 4: No, I believe in a real body and real blood,
that really blood, really died on a real cross at
a real point in time.
Speaker 1: What is Paul talking about what happened on the cross?
Or is he talking about the altar that we eat from.
Speaker 4: When he's talking about the blood of Christ, He's talking
about what happened on the cross, because that's where Jesus is.
Speaker 1: I just read to you the passage where he's contrasting
what we eat from what the Jews eat.
Speaker 2: All right, well, let's read it then.
Speaker 1: I just read it to you Hebrews thirteen. Do you
want me to read it again.
Speaker 2: Let me pull it up. Let me pull it up.
Hebrews thirteen. Where are we at?
Speaker 1: Verse nine?
Speaker 2: Alrighty, all right.
Speaker 5: Hold on.
Speaker 2: Yesterday today do so? Verse nine?
Speaker 4: He said, yeah, do not then, do not be led
away by diverse and strange teachings. But it is good
for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by
foods which have not benefited those devoted to them. We
have an altar from which those who serve the tent
have no right to eat.
Speaker 1: Okay, down to verse thirteen.
Speaker 4: All right, therefore, let us go to him outside the
camp and bear the reproach, he endured.
Speaker 1: Thirteen. Now two thirteen, you're skipping the verses that are
the most important.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Speaker 4: For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought
into the holy places by the high priest as a
sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus
also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the
people through his own blood. Therefore, let us go to
him outside the camp and bear reproach, bear their approach.
Speaker 2: He endured.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then the next verse, okay.
Speaker 4: For here we have no lasting city, but we seek
the city that is to.
Speaker 2: Come through him.
Speaker 4: Then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise
to God.
Speaker 1: That is do you know what that word is there?
What is the word eucharistia? Do you know what most
Protestant scholars admit about.
Speaker 2: This passage that means thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: It means offering, which could be thanksgiving, or it could
be a rich will service or ceremony. The entire passage
is about the superiority of our eucharistic offering and meal
that we eat versus what the Jews eat at the
tabernacle the animals. Okay, so you're removing the contrast and
you're literally you're literally saying that it's equivalent to the
Old Testament symbolism.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not. So how does this.
Speaker 4: When you take Jesus's words into consideration when he says
God is seeking such people to worship Him in spirit
and in truth, and then the New Covenant, the law
is going to be written on our hearts.
Speaker 2: We're transitioning to the truths of the spirit here.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what you think that means. Because
God gave the church a liturgical worship service that's not
recorded in the New Testament, and all the Apostolic churches
have it. So I don't know what you mean by
worshiping in spirit and truth because we think that means liturgy,
because that's how God always was worshiped throughout the Old Testament.
Speaker 4: Okay, So I mean right here he says, you know,
sacrifice of praise to God. That is so he defines
it the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.
Speaker 1: It's in the context now, it's in the context, you're
doing a false.
Speaker 2: Either orger it means hold on, no, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: It's a false either or the whole context is eating
and you're saying, no, it's really just about spiritual praising.
Is this that the megachurch in the first century? Did
Paul go to the megachurch where they were praising with
their lips and I didn't have the Eucharist?
Speaker 8: And by the way, spiritual truth doesn't mean not a
visible there church. It means the Holy Spirit, okay, the
Spirit of truth.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, which is.
Speaker 8: In a visible manifest visibly in a visible body.
Speaker 2: And like.
Speaker 4: When Jesus says God is seeking such people to worship him,
what's the context?
Speaker 1: You just keep assuming the evangelical spiritual load, low church
interpretation of all these passages, which you've not demonstrated. I'm
giving you counter evidence to that low church symbolic interpretation,
and you're just restating the symbolism.
Speaker 2: All right, but you're not letting me talk so.
Speaker 1: Because you just keep restating that it's a symbolic thing.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've used the word symbol once.
Speaker 1: Okay, you called it quote spiritual, which in your mind,
as an evangelical is contrasted to the physical or the flesh.
But that's why I keep making the point that that's
what well, that's what Paul is contrasting to the Jews
who eat at the temple the Tabernacle in a carnal way.
He's not saying that the way to eat non carnally
is not with your mouth, because he says we eat
at an altar. You don't have an alter.
Speaker 5: Okay, So.
Speaker 4: When Jesus says in John six, he says, come to me,
and you will never hunger. Believe in me, and you
will never thirst. So when Jesus says that, he says,
you will know never hunger and you will never thirst
when you come to him and believe, believe in him.
Why then, so I know why I continually partake of
the elements of the bread and the wine.
Speaker 2: I know why I continually do that.
Speaker 4: But why do you continually partake If Jesus says you
will never hunger and you will never thirst, why then,
in your tradition do.
Speaker 2: You have to continually because time bro hold on?
Speaker 4: Because in your theology that sacrifice does not perfect you,
because sin can still make you fall away from grace,
and therefore you need to come back to the throne
of grace and re obtain what has been lost. And
so when Jesus says, come to me, and you will
never hunger, and believe in me, and you will never thirst, Right,
you're negating those words.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not. I have a different interpretation.
Speaker 4: Look then jumping down. Look he says, gnaw on my flesh.
That must mean that he's going to start this whole
liturgical process of calling him down from heaven into a
wafer and his blood is made present.
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics we don't have wafers.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, whatever he is.
Speaker 1: I mean, you say whatever I mean. Roman Catholics use
a judaized bread, So it's that matters.
Speaker 4: All, right, point being, I don't know. I mean, we're
jumping all over the place here.
Speaker 8: Well this was great because I remember this was brought
up once. I think it hormly.
Speaker 2: Why went to church once I read some of the Bible.
Speaker 8: Isn't that enough? You go get him Jesus, You go
get him, Jesus. Why do I need to go to
church again? Why do I need to know?
Speaker 1: This is just like an overly simple reading.
Speaker 2: Of Catholics a life source.
Speaker 8: From him in different way, like, so, yes, of course,
you will never first, when you're with me, do all
kinds of things that separate us from God's powers.
Speaker 4: Okay, So when Paul says that nothing will separate him
from the love of Christ, I mean that nothing.
Speaker 1: You know, you have to balance passages with other passages.
You can't take one verse and squeeze every verse into that.
Speaker 7: Verse, because exactly I agree.
Speaker 1: But let me let me I agree. Listen.
Speaker 2: Six in a vacuum, you can't read John.
Speaker 1: I didn't take it. I went immediately to a eucharistic passage,
and he was thirteen to help explain it. I didn't
take it in a vacuum, and I argue that it
was only John six the first.
Speaker 2: Let's read from John's perspective.
Speaker 1: I don't know that you have John's perspective.
Speaker 4: Consistently in John's gospel. Jesus is very consistent. In John
chapter two, he uses the earthly metaphor of a temple
being destroyed to represent the spiritual truth of the resurrection
of his body. The people who were there were confused
because they were thinking physically.
Speaker 2: But the disciples, yeah, you just keep it.
Speaker 1: Listen, you're making an assumption. Listen, I know what you're doing.
You're contrasting spirit. Listen, it's a false dilemma. You're contrasting
spirits of flesh.
Speaker 2: Number let me talk.
Speaker 1: I already know what you're doing. It's not a good
argument you're contrasting. No, it's not. It's a gnostic view.
I'm trying to tell you. That's why you're out of
a chord with what the Church always taught about this.
Speaker 2: What is gnostic about my view?
Speaker 4: Mike, I see you laughing out there, bro, I'll block you, bruh.
Speaker 1: What's gnostic is that the passages about spirit are not
contrasted to body or physicality. It's Holy Spirit. And every
Protestant does this gnostic anti matter reading into these texts.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 1: I used to be a Protestant. When I read Romans,
Paul talks about the body of the flesh fighting the Spirit.
I assumed that that was physical body fighting the Holy
Spirit because somehow quote immaterial things are better than physical things.
And that's a gnostic heresy.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: No one is saying that immaterial things are better. What
we're saying is that that is fallen and needs renewal.
The first coming of Christ, Why is there a second
coming of Rice.
Speaker 2: The first coming of Christ is to deal with our sin.
And what did sin do?
Speaker 4: According to Ezekiel, the soul dies from sin, So the
first body and the soul dies.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, through Adam, all flesh dies, because because all sin.
Speaker 7: So yes, the flesh and the soul die.
Speaker 2: But jesus first coming.
Speaker 4: Was to make us born again in the spirit.
Speaker 1: And this and that happens through baptism, water.
Speaker 2: Baptism physical.
Speaker 1: Okay, sure, Now wait a minute, So you're saying sure,
now there's water that's used as a medium of regeneration.
You're saying sure to that you agree with that?
Speaker 5: No, I don't.
Speaker 4: But you're I mean, you're just shifting or what argument
do you want to focus on you want to jump in?
Speaker 1: No, I'm making another point that physical things like water
are mediums of grace. That's why an acts two. It says,
repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins,
and then it says that thousands of them were actually
physically water baptized.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Cornelius receive the spirit without water.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that God can't send his Holy Spirit
and do it in that way. But in Acts two
thirty eight as well as Titus three, it specifies that
the labor of baptism is the labor of regeneration. Does
Titust three not say that?
Speaker 2: Repeat yourself?
Speaker 1: Does Titus three not call the labor of baptism the
labor of regeneration.
Speaker 2: I'll have to go study that. I'm not gonna talk.
Speaker 1: And that's the same thing Peter's talking about in Acts two.
I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit can't move outside
of the presence of water, but the normative means by
which regeneration occurs is through physical water. So throughout all
of this, your war is against physical objects, and all
of your interpretations are that somehow quote spirit is antimatter.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, got it.
Speaker 4: That's your interpretation of what my position is.
Speaker 1: Is that not your position?
Speaker 2: Back to what I was saying, John three.
Speaker 1: So you're not gonna address any verses. You're just gonna
do a walk through of what I already addressed.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, yes, because you're you're shifting the you're shifting
the goal posts.
Speaker 1: No, bringing up further examples is not moving the goal posts.
That's a different fallacy.
Speaker 2: You gotta let me were I told.
Speaker 1: You you're a you're walking through So when you say, okay,
Jesus's body is the true temple and you destroy the
other temple, that doesn't help your case. Jesus body is physical, No.
Speaker 2: I yes, I agree.
Speaker 4: The physical body of Christ was necessary, was absolutely necessary,
because just as sin came into the world through the flesh,
it had to be destroyed in the flesh.
Speaker 1: How does this prove your low view of sacraments.
Speaker 2: I don't have a low view of sacrament.
Speaker 1: Yes, you do. By definition, you literally do.
Speaker 7: I believe that communion is worship.
Speaker 1: Is water, baptism regeneration.
Speaker 2: I believe that.
Speaker 4: I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to water baptists.
Speaker 1: Then you have a low view of the sacraments.
Speaker 2: By definition, baptism is worship and it is except.
Speaker 1: Is it the labor of regeneration according to Titus three five,
not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but
according to his mercy, He saved us through the washing
of the labor regeneration.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the and he Peter describes the waters as
what's not doing the washing there?
Speaker 2: It's the spirit.
Speaker 1: Now he says that it's not washing your body. He
doesn't say it's not water.
Speaker 2: He says, yeah, not by a washing of dirt off.
Speaker 1: Your body, So not taking a bath. Water baptism is
not a bath.
Speaker 7: So he's making a distinction that, no, he's not.
Speaker 1: It's not a bath, it's water baptism. Do you think
when you're taking a bath at night that that's the
same thing as a baptism. So that's what Peter's talking about.
He's not saying that there's not a presence of the
Holy Spirit to regenerate you at water baptism.
Speaker 4: I didn't say that the Holy Spirit was not present
in baptism.
Speaker 1: You said that it's not regeneration.
Speaker 4: You just said that I believe that. I believe that
the Christian is regenerated by the Holy Spirit through faith
prior to baptism.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, But the Bible doesn't say that. It
continually links it to the celebration of the sacrament.
Speaker 7: It doesn't use that exact wording, but it should.
Speaker 1: No, it doesn't. My examples that you won't talk about
literally link it to baptism.
Speaker 4: Cornelius, I mean, dude, I mean you're saying, oh, but
that's just an exception, like that.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. The Holy Spirit can move, the Holy
Spirit can remove.
Speaker 2: You're taking the work of God is saying, no, that's
an exception.
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm dealing with all of the passages, and
that's that's prior. The thief on the cross is prior
to the institution of water baptism and Acts two as
the normative means. I already said normative. I didn't deny
the possibility the Holy Spirit doing and moving.
Speaker 2: People.
Speaker 1: Stop interrupting me. You're new to all this, man interrupting, Make.
Speaker 2: The distinction of normative means of grace?
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're done.
Speaker 2: When does that? When does it make that distinction?
Speaker 1: So you okay, you literally think that using terminology that
helps to clarify is not in the Bible itself. Is
the word trinity in the Bible. No, but so that's
a double standard. You're using the double standard.
Speaker 2: It's perfectly laid out.
Speaker 4: No, I'm just saying, like, where are you establishing that?
Speaker 1: You said that there's no example. All the examples I'm
giving you acts too, where it says repent and be
baptized for their mission of sins and then they're water
baptized in next two.
Speaker 4: Right, and then but and then it says John baptized
with water.
Speaker 1: But that's the Old Testament. They did it there. What
do you know? When is when is Jesus's baptism instituted?
Speaker 2: When he sends the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: No, at the end of the gospel, when he says,
go forth and baptize all the nations, that's when he
institutes it. Before he stopped interrupting me, he shut up.
He says it is a trinitarian ritual action, and that's
what they do in Acts. Matthew twenty eight is talking
about water baptism. You didn't even know that.
Speaker 2: No, I know what Matthew eight.
Speaker 1: You know you said baptism was instituted at Pentecost. You
said Acts two. It's Matthew twenty eight, not Acts too.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, yeah, all right. I was confused by.
Speaker 1: Your question, the obvious question that everyone should know, when
was baptism instituted? You were confused by that? How would
you confuse why a basic question?
Speaker 4: All right, I'm sorry to ask a question about normative means.
Speaker 8: It's established that so you can't appeal to cases prior
to the institution of baptism. Is possibly Norman means. Now,
as Dave pointed out, that can God send the Holy
Spirit and save somebody apart from the normative means?
Speaker 2: Sure, but Protestants always take an exception of the rule
to be the example, to be the example, then I
can do that.
Speaker 8: It's exactly the same analogy of saying, well, could I
say there a terminal cancer without going to a specialist
in the hospital. It's like, yeah, but okay, maybe there
was a case or two where that happened. Like, why
in the world would you build a whole therapy on
not going to get healed because you could be healed
apart from the normative means?
Speaker 2: That's probatism for you. It's crazy.
Speaker 8: It's like, well, even if you found those cases, do
we're exception to the rules after the institution of baptism,
You're going to base a rule on the exception to
the rule and put yourself in that sort of danger.
Speaker 2: That's just seems crazy to me. Call me crazy, Okay,
we will, Oh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I and I I understand that, like we're
in agreement that we disagree with each other, and I'm
just trying to, you know, have.
Speaker 1: A well, no, it's been a great conversation and yeah.
Speaker 2: And I apologize that we're getting a little right.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can shift a little bit because we're going
to disagree there. Maybe a more fundamental question would be,
how do you know what the word of God is
in terms of the canon of scripture and what is
your basis for it?
Speaker 4: The cannon conundrum Protestant nightmare.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, I mean.
Speaker 4: I would say that the recognition of infallibility does not
require the possession of infallibility. The simple historical fact, and
this is a historical fact that I think we should
all agree on, is that neither Jewish reception of the
Old Testament nor early Christian reception of the Scriptures happened
through means of infallibility.
Speaker 2: Period.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just contradict yourself within like three sentences.
Speaker 2: You just said that you take apart in my statement.
Speaker 1: Please, it's the first thing you said which was confused.
I don't know what you mean by infallibility can happen
through What did you say? How did you phrase it?
Speaker 4: Recognition of infallibility meaning recognizing God's word does not require
possession of infallibility, meaning that I.
Speaker 1: Have so Mathew, So Mouthew might not have written Matthew's gospel.
Speaker 2: If I'm not answering, that's.
Speaker 1: You're not going to answer it.
Speaker 7: It's like like I don't understand.
Speaker 2: I don't understand how to answer that question.
Speaker 1: Well, it's an important question because it underdoes the assumptions
of your argument. So why would I don't understand why
you wouldn't at least attempt to answer it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a topic that I'm not well studied on.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, Apostolic authorship is very important for inclusion into
the canon. And Matthew's Gospel doesn't tell you that Matthew
the Disciple wrote it. So guess where you get that
knowledge from?
Speaker 2: Tell me tradition, got it?
Speaker 1: So you're relying on tradition? Is that also perhaps wrong?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 7: Well Acts seventeen eleven.
Speaker 1: You're not so your two quote way fallacy. You're asking
me a question when I ask you a question. Yeah,
that's two quote way fallacy.
Speaker 2: All right, whatever, all right, whatever, Okay.
Speaker 1: So you don't think fallaousy is matter. I don't understand
why you just blow past this. I asked you a
question and you say I'm not going to answer it,
and then I'm gonna You're gonna ask me a question
that's called a two quote quay fallacy. And then you
say whatever.
Speaker 4: Okay, Uh, well, ask the question again, what are we
saying here? I told you I'm not an expert on
how we have determined how math that Matthew wrote the
Gospel of Matthew.
Speaker 1: The only way is through tradition.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to speak on something i'm not an
expert in because I will make myself out to be
a fool. And I don't intend on I don't intend
on doing that. And I see all you guys laughing
in the and you know out there, why don't you
come up here and you know, tell me why we
have every single book of the Bible, you know?
Speaker 1: All right, So look, let's just stop there, because I
don't want us to go in a bad direction. We
can go and study and read and you can look
into the question if you want, and maybe we can
come back, and we don't. I don't want this to
go in like a sour direction, because well, you apologize,
you're you're a good dude.
Speaker 2: I want to say. I want to say one thing. Sure,
all right, guys, come on, like y'all are he don't.
Speaker 1: Worry about the change.
Speaker 2: You can look at you can't look at the chance,
just don't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right, well, so how do we determine what
scripture is? And my simple answer, and I know this
isn't going to satisfy the people who are listening, but
proposed say, okay, say you have something, you're proposing something to.
Speaker 2: Be the word of God.
Speaker 4: Say, look, I have this is I'm calling this the
Gospel of Matthew. Matthew wrote it. It's the Word of God.
And i've you know, I've never seen it before. I
haven't studied or anything. What's my first, you know, line
of action. That's why I was pointing to Acts seventeen eleven.
Speaker 1: So you have proposed, So you're begging the question because
we don't know yet that Acts is actually part of
the scriptures.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm just using what happened in Acts as an
example of what could be done to determine what is
the Word of God.
Speaker 1: But that example is assuming the thing in question, because
we don't know yet that that's even allowed in the canon.
Maybe Acts, maybe, Luke, you know about like the pseudonymous
Gospels and the you know, gnostic Gospels, the false Gospels.
Speaker 4: Right, there are objective ways in which we have found
them to be unreliable.
Speaker 1: And I'm not I understand that, but I'm just pointing
out that just because there's a name mentioned like Luke,
or even if it said Matthew, like, it doesn't tell
you that that's authentically the disciple of Jesus. It might be.
Speaker 2: You know, we're getting off topic.
Speaker 1: So no, it's not on topic. It's perfectly on topic.
Speaker 4: Okay, we have proposed, we have proposed word of God.
This is proposed to be the speech of God. You
take what you know to be the speech of God
and measure it against what is proposed to be the
speech of God. Yeah, you have the apostles coming to
the church in Berea, and it's preaching the Gospel to that.
Speaker 1: And then this doesn't work as an example because acts.
You don't know that acts is the word of God.
So you're using a thing in question. So it's begging
the question. Can I give you an example of what
I'm talking about? If you scroll down on my wall,
you'll see an old tweet that I retweeted called Protestantism
and solicriture refuted. And what I do there is I
use the Baptist textual scholar Lee McDonald's list of the
debates about the canon and the different church father lists
into fourth, fifth, sixth century, and you'll notice that whether
it's the New Testament or the Old Testament, there's variation
amongst all of these different lists. So what I want
to know is whether it's origin, or whether it's Chrysostum,
or whether it's Athanasius's list or Serial of Jerusalem's lists.
How do you, as a Protestant know, or what do
we do to determine amongst these church fathers who are
not Protestant, which one is the right list?
Speaker 4: Exactly what I was saying, you know, the what we
know to be the speech of God.
Speaker 1: Which you're using the Book of Acts, and the Book
of Acts is not known yet to be the word
of God. That's the thing in question.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, okay, so how how do we know,
I mean, what the earliest.
Speaker 2: Testimony of the church?
Speaker 4: I mean, the the apostles themselves handed these letters letters
off to someone, right.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, so but you know we don't have onographa.
Speaker 2: Right no, yes, yes, I know, I know.
Speaker 1: Okay, So how do we know the authentic from the
non authentic ones? Do you know what the earliest list
of canon of the canon is.
Speaker 4: The earliest, not necessarily, but I do know that there
are lists prior to you know, the Council that everybody
loves to reference in like what three eighty three eighty
three or something like that.
Speaker 2: There were plenty of lists prior to that.
Speaker 1: I don't know about plenty of it, but they're from.
Speaker 4: A handful a handful, and funny enough, most of them
were closer to the Protestant canon.
Speaker 1: And no, that is completely false. You're totally wrong. I mean,
I've got them pulled up. Do you want to look,
you want to walk through them and see that that's false.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't say they were exactly.
Speaker 1: But no, they're not even close to the Protestant canon. Okay,
that's just simply not sure. I've got Canon eighty five
of the Apostolic Canons pulled up right here. This is
one of the earliest. The other earliest is the Canons
of Laodicea and the canon that's listed in the Apostolic
Canons from the three hundreds. It includes uh oh, the
Deutero canon that is not the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you got one.
Speaker 1: No, this is not one. This is canon law, Church law.
For the church in general having a normative canon.
Speaker 2: Where is this originating from? This is just church.
Speaker 7: Everyone in general is agreeing on it.
Speaker 1: Much of the church that follows the Apostolic canons. Correct,
it's the earliest, it's the Let me finish, it's the earliest.
Let me finish. It's the earliest collection of canon law
in the churches in the three hundreds.
Speaker 4: Okay, and then you have plenty of testimony after that
saying that the canon is second tier canon, a distinct
good for edification but not for faith.
Speaker 1: And no, that's not true. What does Athenians say that
the deer canon is for?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: He says it's for the Catecumans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I haven't I have said that. So I
can't speak on that.
Speaker 1: Because so, well, that refutes what you just said. Athenasian
is not just one guy. What is the What ist Augustine?
What does Augustine say about the Duro.
Speaker 2: Can He affirmed the exactly right.
Speaker 1: So is that now, two guys?
Speaker 2: What about Jerome?
Speaker 1: What about Wait a minute, no, serial eralism, serial Jruism
does not have the Protestant cannon. He doesn't help your case.
You have one. No, he doesn't you have one church
father Jerome. Why are we supposed to follow Jerome Jersalem. No,
he doesn't. He doesn't have your canon. He does not
have the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, he included Baru.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's not the Protestant canon and he I don't
think he has revelation if I recall. So, how does
how does Cyril Jerusalem help your case?
Speaker 2: Old Testament that's no, no, no, it's.
Speaker 1: Not just the Old Testament. It's both the New Testament
and the Old Testament. It's the canon.
Speaker 2: That's what that's what where we differ here, But that
you're wrong.
Speaker 7: No, the Old Testament that's I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about the canon. That's not just the
Old Testament. There's differing New Testament lists. Athanatius goes to
Rome to convince Rome of Hebrews and Revelation because they
didn't think it was canonical. Cyril of Jerusalem does not
have revelation in his canon. Okay, so that doesn't help
your case.
Speaker 2: Aware that there was debate.
Speaker 1: On Okay, so how do we know which one's right?
Who we followed? That's my question.
Speaker 4: Again, back to what I said earlier. You test what
is proposed to be the speech of God with what
is known to be the speech of God.
Speaker 1: And you're referring to the Book of Acts, which is
in question.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, well, I feel like I'm not really
getting myself anywhere. But let me ask you, how do
you determine what is the candidates scripture?
Speaker 1: Well, for the Orthodox Church, the highest authority is an
ecumenical council.
Speaker 2: Okay, so a bunch of dudes that just decide.
Speaker 1: No, not a bunch of dudes. It's the church fathers
with apostolic succession, who have the gift of the Holy
Spirit given to them. Does Paul say that the Holy
Spirit's transferred to the Lanyon of Hands to Timothy?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely?
Speaker 1: Oh but you think that that's not true because you
don't believe in absolute.
Speaker 2: Succession, not in the way you defind it.
Speaker 1: Now, I just said what happens in the in the
in Timothy, So what do you mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Paul also says that after he leaves the church, false
Christians will infiltrate the church successfully.
Speaker 1: And no he doesn't say successfully the church, No, no,
he does not. He says that they will enter.
Speaker 2: The church, will draw away the disciples draw away.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that destroy the church. The gates of
Hell cannot pail against the church.
Speaker 2: Never said that, Never said the gates of Hell prevailed.
Speaker 1: But if they infiltrate and subvert the Church, then the
gates of Hell prevailed.
Speaker 7: You have this line.
Speaker 1: Now you're changing, so you don't want to address. You'll
throw stuff out.
Speaker 2: Is this line of succession that you have? Is this
list of men? Is that an infallible list?
Speaker 1: It's it's not a question of infallibility list. It's not
a question of infallibility. If I know that the Testament
stop interrupting me. Athanasius says, for example, that at the
Council of Nicea, the Holy Spirit spoke through those fathers. Right,
So I don't have to accord to the councils when
they state something about the scriptures the same status of
divine revelation. I would say, divine relation is infallible. But
I don't believe that divine revelation is restricted to written texts.
And you do. But when when Peter and Paul preach,
they call it the Word of God, do you believe
that it's only written or believe that the preaching is
also I.
Speaker 4: Believe yeah, the apostolic testimony oral written.
Speaker 1: The Okay, So is there an oral thing that's passed on?
Speaker 2: No, we're not.
Speaker 4: Told that oral tradition would be passed on infallibly.
Speaker 1: Now no, is it whether you think it's infallible or not,
is that it passed on at all?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, the oral tradition has always passed on.
Speaker 1: Okay, And was what about one of those things being
the authorship of.
Speaker 7: Matthew Like I said, that's not something I'm.
Speaker 1: Because it refused you because it refused the point you
just made?
Speaker 2: What point? And how does it refeet the point?
Speaker 1: It's apostolic tradition that Matthew the disciple wrote the Gospel
of Matthew. Okay, that refutes the point you just made?
Speaker 2: What and what point? What did I say? That's being
repeated here.
Speaker 1: If you can deny the oral tradition and that we don't,
we're not bound by that, then I'm not bound by
the claim of the church that Matthew disciple wrote Matthew's Gospel.
And I can throw out Matthew on your position that
all right? That yeah, well there we go. Good job.
That's where Protestant leads to chopping up the Protestants and leads.
That's what Luther did. By the way, when Luther and they.
Speaker 8: Noticed to the confusion, as we always see the two
categories between normative what's binding and uh an epistemic category
of infallibility. So uh St Paul says, you're too old.
He's speaking about normative, right. So it's a separate question.
And we can answer that whether the oral teachings and
the written teachings are infallible or not. But that's a
separate question. Is binding on you? Do you have to
hold it? And Saint Paul obviously says you do.
Speaker 7: I have to be bound to a line of succession.
Speaker 1: Yes you do. Yeah, Teacher Paul just said, and I
gave you one example of this oral teaching, which was
that Matthew the Disciple wrote the Gospel of Matthew. And
you said, no, I don't have to believe that, and fine,
throw it out.
Speaker 2: Okay, see you cut me off.
Speaker 1: That's what you said.
Speaker 2: That's not what I said.
Speaker 1: That what you said? What are you talking about? People
just heard you say it. Fine, I don't accept that.
Speaker 2: That's not what what did you say?
Speaker 4: Okay you said, oh so yeah, you know, so you
can just throw out the idea that that Matthew wrote
the Gospel.
Speaker 2: And I was like, yeah, that's what you just and
then you cut me off.
Speaker 4: You're like Lucie. He said, yeah, you cut me off.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Speaker 1: No, no, I'm stating that.
Speaker 2: You say, oh, just like Martin Luther cut books out
of the Bible.
Speaker 7: Martin Luther actually never took books out.
Speaker 1: Of No, he actually did. He removed the no in
the German New Testament. He changed words, and then when
he translated his Bible it does not have the duderal canon.
I've read six of Luther's books.
Speaker 7: He's the first edition of Who.
Speaker 1: Cares about his first edition? If the tradition later on
is that he says, I want to punch Moses' teeth out,
and I don't care about the law, and he doesn't believe.
He says that Maccabe's is not scripture because it doesn't
preach the Word of God and includes prayers for the dead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree on what basis that?
Speaker 4: Well, first off, that it doesn't it doesn't align with
the testimony of scripture.
Speaker 1: Again begging the question, the question is, how do you
know what's in scripture? And you're saying that Matcwbees isn't
scripture because it doesn't align with scripture.
Speaker 2: Okay, well scripture isn't one book, so okay.
Speaker 1: That's totally totally dishonest. Get out of here with that nonsense, Mike, Mike,
I mute, Hey, Jay, what's up? Yes, sir?
Speaker 6: Oh wait? Did did Indiana get booted?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 6: Oh? Man? Okay, Well I was I was just gonna say.
Speaker 9: I mean, I don't know how you came to, you know,
get him in his face because he agreed to a
debate with myself being moderated by Jake growth Nak about
you know, solo Scriptura's hatred of Mary. So I was
just gonna, you know, warn you about the type of
guy that he is.
Speaker 6: And I came in a little late.
Speaker 9: So I guess you guys are having a good discussion
that it morphed into something.
Speaker 1: Well we've already gone for an hour, so it's I
gave him one out, I give another out.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's he's a total dishonest actor.
Speaker 9: If he doesn't have chat, GPT or his notes in
front of him, he can't talk.
Speaker 2: Ye.
Speaker 9: The dude is a total snake in the grass. But
you know, kudos to you for having him on. He
he literally blocks or you know, runs away from any
other debate.
Speaker 6: So I'm glad to see.
Speaker 2: That at least he spoke on Well.
Speaker 1: He also says that I'm not in a position to debate,
but he's right to debate.
Speaker 9: So no, he's he's I don't even understand how anyone
who could hold full of scripture can give an interpretation
of what he believes a passage from a scripture means.
Doesn't make any sense to me. But you know, I
enjoyed your talk with him, as I enjoy pretty much
a lot of the things that you do.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 6: So I just wanted to say that, and I wish
he was on here because I did.
Speaker 9: I did challenge him to a boxing match, and I
said that if he won, I would leave the Catholic
Church and go to whatever church he worships.
Speaker 1: That quote whip. I actually was thinking too, because he
initially before he apologized, had lied about what I said,
and then he apologized. So I'm not gonna go that route,
but I wanted to offer a boxing match as well.
Speaker 2: I'm not kidding, No, the dude.
Speaker 6: The dude says that he finally, Oh, I finally.
Speaker 9: You know, have a script to debate how to be
Christian that's been easily six months in the works.
Speaker 6: I don't I don't.
Speaker 9: Know of anybody who needs six months to prepare for
a simple debate on either a space or you. He's
full of He's full of bs. I mean, he posts
pictures of you know, the Virgin Mary on the shoe,
you know, of people with with the title saying, oh
look at this ship that I stepped in.
Speaker 6: I just I can't stand him, and I wish you
would have been here so I can confront him.
Speaker 2: Lord of Mercy.
Speaker 8: I can't imagine on judgment Day what Christ is going
to be, what Christ is.
Speaker 2: Actually going to say to people who.
Speaker 8: I mean, if you dissed somebody's mother, that's worse than dissing.
We'll come on in. Anyways, I thought that was.
Speaker 2: All work out there.
Speaker 6: But again, thank you for doing what you do.
Speaker 1: And well, I appreciate that. What I mean, you're welcome
to stay and we can have a conversation about Rome
if you want.
Speaker 9: I I defer to someone better than me. Obviously I'm
not going to get into that, but yeah, but always again,
appreciate you, and uh, I'll see you know, I'll keep
listening a stay for only about.
Speaker 6: Five more minutes.
Speaker 1: Okay, welcome everybody. We had a good conversation there for
over an hour. If you would like to support the stream,
you can do so via the superchet function there. Superchets
are also pinned there. You can do it also natively
with YouTube. If you would like to call in, you
can call in through the x space right here. Here
is the x space link to call in. And let's
do a little brief look at this before we go
to the next person in line. Looks like we got
quite a few people in line. So this is Lee
McDonald's book where he lists the cannon from various Old
and New Testament lists from various church fathers. I recommend
every Protestant who's interested in this question to read Lee
McDonald's book because it's one of the best, as well
as F. F. Bruce's book Kennels Scripture that admits, from
the evangelical perspective, the absolutely indispensable aspect of church tradition
in determining not just the canon, but the authenticity and
authorship of the various manuscript copies. This is so key
because so many Protestants when they hear this argument, they think, oh,
you're just saying that I need infamiable decisions to know
what the miibile is. No, no, no, it's not just
a question of normative authority about a binding canon. It's
also a question about the authenticity and authorship of disputed
texts versus pseudopographa and varying lists amongst the church fathers.
So here we have leemacdal This won't take a butt
a second. Here we have Lee McDonald listing the Old
Testament books in the Eastern Church in the fourth and
fifth century. And you'll notice there is some variation with Athanasius,
basically including elements of the Dudro canon. And Athanasius says
that the Dudo canon is for catech humans to read.
So even if we we don't have a problem in
the worth our church with the phrase doujuo canon, you say,
but it's not just a question of the Duro canon,
as we'll see, it's also a question of the authenticity
of the Book of Revelation, which Athanasius has a key
role in determining as canonical by convincing Rome. So the
East convinces the West of the canonicity of the Catholic
Epistles and Revelation. According to Lee McDonald, you'll notice that
Barrack is included in most of these lists. And by
the way, I think it's Melito's list that James White
tried to refer to in the trent Horn debate, and
Sam Schimun pointed out that James White was dishonest and
wrong about Malito's list. It's also I'm pretty sure it's Malito.
It's either the Vincentian or Milito's Alito's kN I'm not sure,
but there's a video that Shimune has on that. By
the way, Epiphanius, you'll notice that it's pretty much as
dress Barrack as well. You'll notice that Ruth is in
judges are sometimes also not included, So for example, some
of these lists will have Ruth, some of these lists won't,
so you can see they're quite different in their inclusion
and exclusion. Now, yes, I admit that these aren't the
most essential verses you see, but none of that really
are books. But none of that matters in regard to
the Protestant idea of the final, completed, fixed Word of
God as the only soul authority or final authority for
the church. You see, if we come over here to
other lists. Here we have pseudo crystalistom pseudocrystalism, including Sirih
Tobit over here included. And some of these are just ancient,
varying ancient lists. Okay, we're gonna We're gonna do several
of these. This is still Old Testament. If we come
over here to Hillary, this is the book of the
Old Testament in the Western Church in the fourth of
fifth century. So Hillary, one of his u textual lists
has also Tobit first and second asdres and the Epistle
of Jeremiah. If you come over to Jerome, Jerme is
the only church father that lists explicitly the Protestant canon
and then the next list. There's some other This is
Augustine's list of the Old Testament cannon. It of course
includes the Duro cannon. And why did Augustine have this list? Well,
Augustine agreed with Pope Damas's list at the Council of Rome.
Council of Rome is a regional council around mid you know,
mid three hundreds, late three hundreds, and it's maybe around
four hundred. I for get the exact day, but it's
very similar to kind of what you see in the
Apostolic Canons, except the Apostolic Canons also have a differing list,
as we'll see in a second. Here's Augustine's list, and
then next to it is the Council of Rome that
we're talking about, which is very important in the West.
There's another Council of Hippo that includes the duoconomical books,
and then the Codex about Ecanus includes the decononical texts.
Codex Sinidicus has Wisdom cyric as well. Codex Alexandrinas also
includes duoconomical texts. So let's look at New Testament books.
Eusebius's list. It's unclear if Eusebius included Book of Revelation,
and it includes the Diddiky and the Epistle Barnabas. Clement's
list includes texts that no one else included as canonical,
such as Pistol Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul,
revelation of Peter Cyril of Jerusalem, who I mentioned to
that guy does not include the Book of Revelation. So
this is this does not afford Protestants any evidence or help.
And you can see it right there. He has the
correct New Testament, but he does not include the Book
of Revelation. We have Athanasius's New Testament canon and it
is the full accurate New Testament canon that again he
helps convince Rome to accept. When it comes to the
Book of Revelation, and I think the Book of Hebrews
and the Catholic Epistles, there is the Momson list, and
it looks pretty acrobat doesn't have the Book of James Epiphanius.
I don't know why Epiphanius would include Wisdom of Syric,
Wisdom and Syric in the New Testament. That's pretty odd.
But it looks like the Apostolic Canons, which is what
we're looking at right here. They do not have the
Book of Hebrews or the Book of Revelation. But the
Apostolic Canons, which had a wider acceptance, especially in the East,
did include the dudocononical text. And that's why it even
trump's an individual church father's opinion. But it's not even
final because we don't include the Letters of Clement, and
we do not include and it does not include the
Book of Revelation. So you understand, we're walking through the
actual historical process of the lists and how much variation
of differentiation there is. Now, there's not a whole lot
of differentiation or variation on the Gospels. Okay, it's almost
always the Catholic epistles, Pauline epistles to a degree. And
I mean if paul wrote Hebrews, I'm saying in the
Book of Revelation, and the inclusion of books that no
one ends up really accepting, like clement and so forth.
The Apostolic canons include two Clementine letters in the Epistolic
constitutions apparently, which is odd. Gregor of Nazian Zeus's list
does not include Revelation or Hebrews, and the African canons
include the Acts of the Martyrs, which I don't think
anybody includes. So then you have again Canon eighty five
over here. Now, when Trollo meets, Trollo says, we affirm
the canons of the previous councils, and we affirm explicitly
the Carthaginian list of the canon. The Carthaginian list, going
from memory is pretty much the Council of Rome list.
So essentially, by the time of Trollo and Trollo is
affirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. You have an affirmation
of what is pretty much the identical canon to the
West in terms of the Council of Rome and Augustine
and Pope Demasis. So there's not a whole lot of differentiation.
I think some people, even John Damascus for example, still
includes in his canon list Clement the Letters of Clement.
So the Orthodox view, because we don't believe in soul scriptura,
it's not as rigid as this Protestant idea of you
have to have this like completely you know, walled off
cannon that is not in any way sort of flexible.
And the Orthodox shirts there's more flexibility here because we're
not proponents of soul scriptura, so we don't believe that
all these they're all heretics. They didn't get the infallible
word of God. Right. Well, I've noticed Protestants take Revelation
twenty two and they say, if you take away from
the Word of God, or if you had to it,
you'd a part of the like of fire. Oh so
all the church fathers who were debating and trying to
figure out the canon, I guess they're all on the
lake of fire unless they got the canon right, it's
just silly and it's totally divorced from history. Last thing
I'll say on this is the one of the key
things that surprised me. I don't remember if it was.
I think it was in the FF. Bruce book, but
I'm going from memory, is the admission that liturgy played
a really important role in the formation of the Biblical canon.
And a lot of Protestants have never heard that. When
I was Protestant and debating and studying these issues, I'd
never heard this that was new what liturgy. Yes, In fact,
the daily readings or electionaries in the ancient sees and
churches had a very important role in figuring out the
tradition of the Church in regard to authenticity and authorship
of many of these texts. For example, if an ancient
apostolic see say Rome, say Jerusalem, if they had cited
a text, or I had been if a text had been read,
and it went back as far as anyone could remember,
and as far as other church fathers had given witness
to say you're an as say Clement, say Ignatius, say
they cited a text. Those were good pieces of evidence
that that's probably authentic. But it's also the liturgical cycle
and the liturgical readings that help the church determine from
the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh centuries what the normative
canon would be. And if you understand that, and that's
why I brought them out the example of that guy
and the authorship, it's not just episodic authorship. There's other
things that go into it, like liturgy that devastates the
Protestant solid criture position snack. What's up man, you gotta
unused neck?
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I just wanted to you had.
Speaker 10: This is one important thing that the president rejects the canon, namely,
ninety percent of the time the rejects the longer canon
because they disagree with prayer to the Saints, and they
will usually target Marcabas or top it when they appeal
to Jerome, to a gregory of Nazianses, they appeal to
the authority of people who did not believe it was
part of the primary canon granted, but also prayers to
the Saint Gregory of Naziensis. Actually he wrote an entire
panegeric prayers and really a logious work specifically for the Maccabase.
So they will in order to defend their position, they
will appeal to authorities that reject their position.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like Jerome talking about Relex, Jerome talking about per
perpetual virginity, Mary against Alvidio's against Gelantius. But who cares
about all those heresies Jerome had the Protestant Jewish Old Testament.
Another point Snack is that oftentimes the Protestants are also
defaulting to the Judaic position that Jews somehow determine the
canon for the church.
Speaker 5: Yeah, of course, and that that doesn't work.
Speaker 10: And there even was a debate between Jerome and Augustine
on whether we should go to the septu engine specifically
or because the things that went through the Jews. Actually
Augustine was on the site of using the septu agent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, because Jerome was
convinced that the Hebrew tax and Hebrew Revelation should be
what we look to and should be, you know, the
the primary source for Old Testament, and he Jrome. Part
of the reason Jerome believed that is because he went
and learned Hebrew under rabbis. So he went studied under
the Jews famously, and he became convinced of their canonical approach.
While the problem is that in the Western Church and Protestants, ironically,
they don't like especially if you're like a reform Protestant,
you're supposed to default to the synodyal mindset. In the West,
the sonodal mindset did not go with the individual ideas
of Jerome. The West went with Damasis, the African canon,
the Carthaginian canon, the Rome, the canon of Rome, and
not the ideas of an individual like Saint Jerome. And
so ironically Protestants default to picking and choosing their pet dude,
when the very God, the very principles of Protestantism like sonodal,
you know, the Presbyterian Church government for those that don't
know reform people, their church governance is snodal. And yet
here we are, we're supposed to follow their own.
Speaker 2: M Yeah.
Speaker 10: And in the East, and that's that's part of the
creator issue with Jerome is that he went to the East,
he studied on a rabbis, and he did not necessarily
agree or was agreeable with the local churches. It wasn't
so for example, he will have work saying, of course
he believes in relics, but the local church there that
he doubts that that they are real also critiques of
some forms of monasticism. He left pretty bad, pretty bad mark,
you know. Also in terms of the militian controversy that
he would he would he would go back to to
Rome's position to know, to sort it out.
Speaker 5: So saying that his view was authoritative in the East
is also a stretch. And if you read if you
read for example.
Speaker 10: Seraphim Rosy, he says that the Russians for example, mentioned
him as blessed similarly to to Augustine, because there was
some controversy tied to him. If you read fortresssle Litter accounts,
it talks about someone who's called I think Amram, who
translated the Bible in a in a new way that
was controversial, and some other doctrinal issues.
Speaker 5: And there's a debate whether it's Jerome or.
Speaker 10: More more precisely the memory he left in the in
the East.
Speaker 5: But yeah, never mind.
Speaker 10: And when it comes to the canon, I would agree
that I think prestants are used to debating the Catholic position,
which is really rigid, some latinises of it as well
in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: But if if you.
Speaker 10: I would agree that you cannot takes a Richard Longkanan
position with the losing of shoefezs in the historical inquiry.
But having the jutorycaninic view is perfectly fine, and you
can reconciliate it pretty easily.
Speaker 1: I'd say, yeah, agreed. For those that are interested. I'm
trying to scroll back to fifteen years ago. I wrote
two articles responding to a lot of the very common
Protestant claims about the Septuagint and the Jewish the Protomasoretic Text.
And I took a couple of different Protestants like doctor
Ian Paisley and some other people I don't remember who's
in it, and I just went to Protestant scholars to
point out all the places where our position is essentially admitted.
So here's the first one right here. It's called Reputation
of the Protestant Canon of Scripture. And I go through.
I mentioned McDonald, I cite J and D. F. Bruce,
I cite Falsest Bible Dictionary, just a lot of very normal,
well known Protestant Nelson New Christian Dictionary, even stuff that
you've heard me talking about more recently, like the Canons
of Laodicea. None of those things afford Protestants any proof
for evidence. And in fact, this goes even so far
into talking about that the let's see, I even go
into the fact that, let me quote New Testaments called
Craig Blomberg. He says, the conviction that the Apostles or
the associated apostles pinned the Four Gospels in the first
century led Christians throughout the Church to believe that they
recorded historically reliable as well as theologically authoritative material. Thus
tradition is not mutually exclusive because you're not told who
those are. The authorship is part of the belief of
the the Christians in later centuries. You see, because there's
nothing that tells you about Matthew that Matthew wrote it,
or that it's the disciple of Jesus. But I go
through a Papius, I go through Irenaeus, I go through
a bunch of historical texts as well, and in responding
to common Protestant objections, but there was something specific I
was looking for regard to the Alexa. Here you go.
Ian Paisley claims, for example, that there's not that the
Apocrypha is not in the septuagent, and that's false. If
you look this up. The writings that are added in
the subtuagent under apocrypha are first and Second Esdras, Tobit Judith,
the additions to Esther Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus Barrick, song of There's
Three Children, Susanna Bell, and the Dragon. The Subtuagent incorporates
all of these, with the exception of Second Esdras. Even F. F.
Bruce agrees with all this. So what is the point
of that The majority of the New Testament citations of
the Old Testament texts are from the Subtuasion. So the
Apostles almost entirely exclusively are using the subtusin so they're
using a Bible that has the deutero canonical text. That's
why the New Testament in many many places alludes to
and even cites explicitly douter canonical texts and stories. In
this very article, I list about six of them. Hebrews
eleven thirty five refers to the women and children who
refuse to be delivered from death that they might receive
a better resurrection than's Macabe's. Jesus' statement about the eye
making the whole body dark is a reference to Ecclesiasticas
fourteen eight through eleven. Ecclesiasticus eleven thirty one parallels to
Second John ten. Jesus statement about the excuse me Wisdom
twelve and thirteen is almost exactly parallel to Romans one.
If you've read Wisdom, you know that. Wait a minute,
this sounds like Paul and Romans one. Well, yeah, Paul
read the douter canonical text and sites from it, so
of course he was familiar with Wisdom. Wisdom too, is
a lengthy prophecy of Christ. Why would you want to
throw out books that are further prophetic witnesses to Christ.
Now I'm not saying that just because it's a sight
or alluded to this necessary canonical but it's important to
refuting the claims of the Protestants that you know, this
is not the New Testament doesn't cite any of these things.
It does cite them. And then when you point that
out those out, well just be inside. It doesn't mean
it's part of the canon. Well, there's not a reliable
principle in Protestantism as to know what the canon is
outside of just defaulting to rabbinic temutic nonsense. So there's
part one of this if you want to read that one.
And then I went through and did also a sequel
Part two and then we'll open it up. I Paul,
just for this long winded thing here. Part two also
goes into additional things that I didn't get into about
oral tradition apostolic authorship. So here's part two, all right.
Next up, by the way, feel free, Father de can snack.
Anybody wants to, they can. They can chime in. We
got a huge Xander. What's up, man, Buffy the vampire
slayer in the house, got it? Unmute, dude, what's up?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I have two questions.
Speaker 3: Well for that, I just wanted to say that I
went to my first time to.
Speaker 2: Antiochian Church Justice too. Yeah. It was.
Speaker 3: It was a beautiful experience, and I wish and I
hope I can go back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, I wish you well on your journey. Keep
keep going and uh, you know, look into you know,
being catechized. If you're interested, you continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. It was. It was actually really beautiful.
It was.
Speaker 3: It was much more biblical than the churches I've been
in the past, to be honest, like it was.
Speaker 1: Okay, have two questions.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have two questions here.
Speaker 3: The first one is about the controversy between the Angel
of the Lord and the and the Catholic.
Speaker 1: You read my mind because I got you read my
mind because I got it pulled up perfect. Oh yeah,
I just pulled up. I just pulled that up. So
that's exactly.
Speaker 5: This was a crazy one.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, this is exactly you're at. This is where
I was going to go. So go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have no idea, but I correct me if
I'm wrong. But it doesn't the Catholic Church like have
it as official doctrine that the Angel is Jesus.
Speaker 1: No, or am I no he doesn't? No? Oh wow,
no in fact, so so uh now I want to
talk a little bit about this, just because Shamoon was
messaging me about this question, and so we have to
be can you can you mute just for a second
because it's loud background. I promise I'll try to make
I'll try to make this quick. So Sam was messing
with me about this other night because he was like,
why is athanacious referring in some of these passages about
the Angel the Lord calling it an angel? The Orthodox
study bubble does the same thing in some of the
passages too, So first of all, it's not wrong to
point out that anytime the Lord Sabboth is present his hosts,
and his angels are also present with him. Okay, so
think back to Genesis, what is it sixteen, where there's
the meal with Abraham, and then the two angels with
the Lord right are walking away getting ready to go
destroy Sodom. Excuse me, Genesis eighteen. Excuse me. And so
we know in Genesis nineteen one that when the Angel
of the Lord was present, there were two created angels
also with him Genesis nineteen one, right, So it's explained
a little bit later what's going on there. But if
you look at say Ezekiel one to Ezekiel ten, the
same principle is there that this Lord of Hosts, this
Glory of God, this Son of God, this one like
the Son of God that's riding this angel chariot, the angels,
the Cherubim in that case, are there with him in
his presence. So when he appears to Ezekiel, he is
not without his angels. You see. This is why in
the theophony at in Exodus, when he's on the mountain
of Mount Sinai, Paul says in one place that the
law was given through angels, but in other places we
know that Jesus himself identifies himself as the one there
speaking face to face with Moses. Is this a contradiction, No,
the Israelites were afraid of a face to face confrontation
with Christ himself. They in the text say you, Moses,
go up there and talk to him. So Paul is
not contradicting. But the majority of the Israelites did not
want a direct face to face confrontation with Jesus. And
in two Corinthians three, Paul makes it very clear that
Moses went up on the mountain and saw Jesus face
to face because it's the glory of Christ, as he
says in that passage, that reflected onto the face of Moses.
So when Moses came back down from the mountain, the
Israelites couldn't look at Moses's face because he was deified.
The uncreated light was shining out of the face of Moses.
Paul calls this and said Grinthians three glorification. It's not
postponed to the Escaton like Roman Catholics think it's existing
in the in Moses. Moses was transfigured and deified there.
And Paul used the allegory that just as the Jews
did not want to go up on the mountain, and
their hearts were hardened, and they had to put a
veil over Moses's face. So likewise, as he says in Galatians,
the Jews would not directly interact face to face with God.
Moses was their representative. Paul is contrasting that situation to
our situation, where now it's not mediated by angels and
only directly to Moses. All Christians have the direct experience
potentiality like Moses had. That's the new thing of the
New Testament. That's Moses being the image of the New
Testament Christian face to face meal with God. How did
the elders of Israel go up on the mountain and
have a meal with Michael Gabriel, No, with the Lord.
So it's this is actually providentially amazing, because if you
guys recall in the last few months, when Uniates and
Roman Catholics and Thomas called in, I started shifting the
debate and the argumentation with them to just going to
the Theophanes and the dozens and dozens of examples in
the Old Testament and pointing out that their tonistic theology
and Roman cathy theology defaults typically almost always to not
admitting that the Angel of the Lord and the Theophanes
are uncreated or real because it goes against their divine
implicity dogma and their denial of God's ability for one
hypostasis to self limit kenosis Philippians two in time and space.
They just don't conceive of it. Now, how do I
know that? Well, guess what. Not only have I read
Aquinas on it, there's actually scholars who have helped us
do this. Let me refresh it right here. So if
you recall in the Muslim debates, we made quite a
bit of use of why is that crashing? I just
had it pulled up Benjamin Sommer's book Bodies of God. Okay,
and this helpful man here has contrasted Aquinas's view in
the Suma. Going to show the exact passages so that
you can see that Thomas Aquinas does not believe. Oh
my gosh, why is it taken down? So the past?
This paper is right here. I've been sharing it all
over Twitter. I don't know why it's not there. So
it's called Aquinas and Sohmer on God's Body. Let's try that.
And uh, this guy compares Aquinas's statement on the Angel
of the Lord with the Hebrew theophany model of Benjamin Sohmer. Now,
I'm not saying that Benjamin Sohmer is a Christian, he's
a Rabbinic Jewish commentator. But he's admitting he's great, just
like Siegel and all these other people with the two
Powers in Heaven and Schaeffer and Bojarren. Because modern Rabbinic
theology is admitting a lot of the Christian principles and arguments.
That's why it's useful. And the paper admits, why is this?
Why is this collapsed? I don't understand. Oh, maybe academia
do eedu is down? Okay, well I'll give you guys
the link, because I don't think this is going away.
It should be accessible later anyway. He cites in the
Suma of the Very Places where a Quinas says that
the Angel Lord has to be a vision or some
kind of created phenomenon because well, divine simplicity, it's not
possible for one hypostasis or for God, who is absolute simplicity, uh,
and who is a pure act to be in time
and space, changing spatial location, going over here, leaving and
doing this and that. Now, so see that this is
why it's nuanced, so affinacious can say at times that
perhaps he thinks that it's the Angel of the Lord
in the in the furnace with shadowick Meshack and of Beenago. Okay,
for they could be, but it also could be the
Son of God as well, because anytime that the Son
of God is present, also his Sabba oath his hosts
are also present with him, as Ezekiel shows. Now one
last point before I know I've been brambling a long time,
but I did also want to point out that in
Jimmy Aikin's article on this, he's actually making Muslim arguments.
Can you believe this? This is how bad the Roman
Catholic apologies are. So when Aiken is addressing this, he says,
it's true that the aims of the Lord often seems
to speak with the voice of the Lord, and this
has led some in Protestant circles. So Jimmy aikan is
not even aware that the traditional Eastern Patristics Exedjesus of
the Church fathers, like justin Martyr against Trifo. The Jew says, no,
this is Jesus. Jesus says, it's Jesus. We've lectured through
all of the theophonies in the Torah, all of them.
It took about three hours, and I think I missed
one Leviticus. You can go watch my video where we
go through all of them outside of the Torah into
the historical books. It says in Judges, Yahweh turned his
face to get in. Angels are not the face of Yahweh.
The face of Yahweh is identified in Ezekiel one to
ten as the guy that's on the chariot throne, one
like a son, a man who's also the glory of God,
the face of God, the voice of God. It's Jesus.
What does Jimmy Aikin say. Catholics have not gone for
this quote speculation, speculation. Have you ever heard me or
Sam Chamun debate Muslims and Jews. It's like the number
one way to prove our position. The Old Testament is
not Unitarian, but the Roman Catholics because they're not just theology,
because they're ignorance of all this stuff. Trent Horne, doubling
down the Old Testament teaches the Unitarian det he No,
it doesn't. Trent Horn says, the word triad is a
anti Trinitarian term. What your own Eastern Catholic Church uses
it for the Trinity. What are you talking about? You
don't even know that you never heard this? Do you
even go to your Eastern Catholic services. A significant problem
is the fact that the term angel is used to
describe this being, and the preincarnate crist is not an angel.
Jimmy Aikin doesn't know that the word angel is a
generic