Speaker 1: The Church.
Speaker 2: So there's probably about thirty things that we don't believe
the Roman Calviolcs officially believe.
Speaker 3: Okay, that that makes a lot of sense, I guess.
One of my last question is is regarding idol worship.
So in Islam, idol worship is prohibited, meaning that for example,
for Prophet Muhammad, or or for.
Speaker 4: Any prophets like Prophet Jesus.
Speaker 3: Prophet Noah at all the ways starting from Adam, we're
not you know, we're not allowed.
Speaker 5: To depict them in images.
Speaker 6: Or or or things of that nature.
Speaker 5: Are like movies and now in the modern.
Speaker 3: Era, So what does what is the Orthodox Christians position
regarding seeing the visual depiction of Jesus Christ and other
you know, prophets like Prophet Adam or Noah or is
there any like strict prohibitions against that or uh, yeah,
that was gonna be my last question.
Speaker 2: So the Orthodox Church does not believe in iconoclasm. Iconoclasm
is the Protestant and Islamic view that all imagery is idolatry.
We do agree that idols are wrong, but we do
not believe that all images are idols. Is it possible
to irreverently give honor to a image, a holy image. Yes,
theoretically that's possible. But we do not out of hand
believe that all imagery is idolatry. But we do believe
that idolatry is a sin. It's part of the Ten
Commandments and it's forbidden. But we believe, along with ancient
Hebrew religion, that God has always been able to manifest
in some form or in some way. If you read
the Torah, which was the first five books of Moses,
there are countless explications in that revelation about how God
did want to be worshiped through legitimate imagery. The Orthodox
Church inherited that tradition of out of the synagogue and
temple system of the Jews having legitimate imagery. So we
do believe in icons, and we do revere them, and
we think that they're an implication of the incarnation of Christ,
who we believe is the son of God. So we
do believe in icons and images. If you want a documentary,
my friend made a documentary on the Jewish Old Testament
continuity with Orthodox Christian worship. It's called Christian Worship and
the Old Testament, and it actually deals with as you
can see here, synagogues in the first and second century
that have imagery all over the walls. They look just
like Orthodox churches. So we believe that Orthodox Christianity is
the fulfillment of Judaism. So we do not believe in iconoclasm.
Speaker 1: Perfect, thank you. Sure.
Speaker 2: Also, idolatry, to be clear, is not just an external
action of imaging something, although it may manifest in that way.
And so, for example, in the Orthodox tradition, there's a
lot of strictures on what icons can depict, and how
they can depict, and what they can't depict. And this
is actually another area where we disagree with Roman Catholics.
We have very strict rules about how you can't make
up icons or doing them anyway you want. There's a
lot of traditional rules that bind you. You're not really
supposed to technically do images of God. The Father Christ
is the only legitimate icon or image of the Father.
There's one exclusion to that, which is the Ancient of
Days from Daniel seven. But even the Ancient of Days
is an image of the Father pictured as Christ, and
so he has Christic imagery. And that's because Jesus is
No one has seen the Father at any time, and
anybody who sees the Son has seen the Father. So
that's why the Ancient of Days includes chrystological imagery, and
it's not an old dude with the beard separate from
or next to Christ. That's technically not what you're supposed
to do. Now, there have been instances where churches and
people in the history of Orthodoxy have done this and
it has been tolerated. There are some monasteries and there's
some churches that have these famously, but they're technically not
supposed to be done, and even though they're tolerated, it's
really not the norm. So that's enough on that topic.
But that's actually come up quite a bit this week.
Speaker 1: Actually.
Speaker 2: Okay, great questions there. I think this is the first
time we had a Muslim ask questions and it wasn't
a debate. That was interesting. You are able to ask questions,
but I'm actually looking for people who disagree. So if
you disagree, feel free to raise your hand. We've still
got We actually got more people now than we did earlier.
We got fifteen fourteen people. If you disagree, hold up
the little what do you call it, emoji or whatever?
Anyone disagree, Okay, we'll go to you. Maddie what's up man,
Thank you guys for the super chest. I'll read those
just in a second. Oh, I was gonna say. Idolatry
is also not just an external thing for us. Hold
on just one second. Idolatry is also first and foremost
something that comes from the mind and from the heart. So,
in other words, if I spend my life trying to
get money, you know, if my life revolves around greed,
money is an idol, even though I don't have a
visible picture of the dollar sign that I'm bowing to.
So idolatry first and foremost comes out of the heart.
If you remember Jesus says, it's not the things that
go in the mouth that make you unclean. It's the
things that proceed out of the heart, evil words, et cetera,
that comes out of the heart. So again, the Ancient
of Days. Hold on one second, Mattie. Just read the
Lawsky Alspenske book on Icons, Volume two deals with the
whole Moscow Icon Councils and the Ancient of Days. And
if you believe that the Ancient of Days is the
two natures of Christ, that's actually a problem because you
can't even an imagery separate the natures of Christ. So
it's very problematic to interpret it as two different natures
of Christ. I think it's weird to interpret it as
Christ in one state of humiliation, as man and as incarnation,
and then Christ triumphant. Everybody's divorcing the Daniel seven texts
from Revelation, and this is what I don't see anybody
talking about. The text in Daniel seven. It's talking about
the ascension of the Son of Man coming in a cloud,
which is exactly what X one says. And then when
you read the Book of Revelation, when the Sun ascends,
and when John sees into heaven and sees the sun
ascending and going and getting the scrolls and being given dominion,
power and authority over were all nations, tribes, and tongues.
Many people, I believe wrongly push that to the end
of the world. It's not the end of the world.
It's the ascension. Christ has given those things inner nature
in the ascension to sit at the right hand of
the Father. Does Jesus sit at the right hand of
the Father at the end of the world or in
the ascension? Every time Psalm one ten has cited in
the New Testament, and this is crucial for refuting premillennialism
and dispensationalism. It's his ascension. But this means that Daniel
seven is talking about then, and Revelation is talking about
then the Son being given authority, power, dominion, et setter
up by the Father. And I think that's true. I
don't see how it's not the Father. Now does that
mean that you can be creative and start imaging the Father.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Hence, the Ancient of Day's images that do exist look
like Christ. But it's Christ under the image of Revelation
ie where he has white hair and so forth, and
he's on a and Ezekiel one to ten where he
appears with white hair and all this stuff. So this
is the glorified Christ or the preincarnate Christ, same Christ, right,
But the Ancient of Days has to be imaged. And
I pull up at this on Twitter Day, it was like,
it's the Ancient of days that you notice. It's it
looks like Jesus from the visions of Ezekiel one in
Revelation one. Now beyond that, you're not supposed to really
image the Father. That's about it. So you'll notice here
in this Ancient of Day's image the Son, this looks
like the son with white hair, because the presentation in
Daniel seven of the Ancient of Days, even if it's
the father, it has to look like the son, because
the son is the only legitimate icon and image of
the Father. Now the reason one side note before we
go to you, Maddie, just to address all of this.
So like these these icons like this, even though they're
tolerated in some places, the theology that the Moscow Icon
Council has to reject these is because they're theologically inaccurate.
And I'm not saying everybody's a heretic that does this,
because there's plenty of good people that don't know all this.
It's it's just that, first of all, the Father did
not become incarnate. He doesn't have a form. The only
form the Father has is the son. So to portray
the son as an old man next to excuse me
as the father as an old man next to the
son is theologically wrong. And then the spirit in between
them suggests philioque. So that one and what's called the
paternity icon, let me find the paternity. They were rejected
out in the Moscow Icon Synod because they suggest the
illogical errors. That's why So the paternity icon, for example,
suggests Philly Oakuay, and I think, yeah, here it is.
So you'll notice in this one it gives the impression
that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through
the son, which sounds okay. But the son's birth as
a child is confused with the eternal relation of the
intatrinitarian generation of the son. So the problem is not
just do the icon suggest Philly oak Way. And the
reality is that if you read the loskow Spinsky book,
they argue that the heaterdox icons like the New Testament
Trinity and paternity and sonotha ron is another one, they
suggest theological error and they were actually introduced by Jesuits
into places like Kiev to literally convert Russians to Philly Oakuey.
That's not the only reason. The other reason is the
father doesn't have a form, he's not an old man.
And the other reason is that it confuses economia with
the innertrinitarian life. Now, how often do you have anyone
exegeating icons on the basis of this theological nuance? And
if you read the Moscow Icon Council, it's pretty profound.
I mean it's great. Now, it doesn't mean it's infallible
because the Icon Council, even Losk admits is inconsistent because
at the beginning of the council and the theological argumentation
he makes, they reject all images of the Father, but
then at the end of the council they say, but
we do allow for the imaging of the Father as
the way Ezekiel one in Revelation describe him like an
old man. So it left it was kind of confusing,
in other words, what the Moscow Icon councils say. Anyway,
long story short, the main point is it's not a
good idea to image the Father. It should not be done,
but perhaps rarely and tolerated rarely. And the main reason
that we don't do it is because icons teach theology,
and we don't want the theology of the symbol of
the icon teaching Philly okuay and confusing economia with theology
proper or the eternal intertrinitarian relations. So I'm sorry, Mattie,
go ahead, No, No.
Speaker 5: You're right, bro. That was very explanation.
Speaker 7: I was actually gonna mention you'll podcast with Sam quotam
p favor one cool.
Speaker 2: Did you see my bio? I'm a co writer for
the new Samhart Show.
Speaker 7: I heard about that. I was going to ask you
about that off. So what's happening with that show you're
going to be? Is there to be a new show for.
Speaker 2: Michael sam Uh Well, it's kind of been morphing in
terms of what's the plan. But he's gonna there will
be a studio and all that eventually, but the first
episode is officially going to be the video that just
came out about Elon.
Speaker 5: Okay, beautiful, beautiful man. I'm looking I'm looking forward to it.
I love you, I love you guys, thank you.
Speaker 7: I was gonna ask I was gonna present an argument
in the form of a question as well. So Saint
Isaac Assyrian, he's canonized as a saint in the Orpanops Church.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So my question slash argument is the Council of
Emphasis was in four thirty one a d.
Speaker 7: And Saint Isaac was a bishop in the Assyrian Church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he during the time period where he was alive
that they were reconciled to the Orthodox.
Speaker 5: But okay, so that's interesting.
Speaker 7: So he was his professional position was aligned with the
Assyrian Church, which was in six eighty eighty, which is
two hundred years post schism.
Speaker 2: No, but he was reconciled to the Orthodox. I don't
know how wide that reconciliation was. But if you read
about this and from the Orthodox perspective, that's why we
consider him a saint. He was not in schism, so.
Speaker 8: Is that okay?
Speaker 5: So that's interesting. So that him individually, individually.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure if it's the
entire region that he was in or how widespread it was,
but he was he himself was not in schism.
Speaker 9: Now, okay, So if that went to me, you there,
you cut out, start over.
Speaker 7: So if there was a modern example of this, say
someone isn't a different church than the Orthodox Church, and
they have the own spiritual life, but it sort of
aligns with the Orthodox.
Speaker 2: They're actually as president. In fact, there's two examples of
this in modern Orthodox practice. Well, and I say modern
because I can give you a modern example. In a
late medieval example, some of h Jan huss I think
is sometimes considered Orthodox or or the Hussites are sometimes
considered Orthodox. And there was a person, a Lutheran in
the circles of the Romanovs that is considered orthodox. I
forget the name of that person, but there is yes.
Speaker 5: So like the statement would be like although the professional
position is not Eastern Orthodoxy, you know.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that well correct. I think in the case
that I don't know the specifics of the Hussites, but
this has come up in I think Rokor and with
somebody who served the royal family the Romanovs who was
Lutheran but was eventually professed Orthodox. If I don't know if
they were actually received, but they were professing it, but
I think they're considered Orthodox. I'm just I'm not like
an expert on church history. It's not my main thing.
But I'm pretty sure that in the case of Isaac
the Syrian, he was there was no such thing as
Assyrian Church of the East. That title is a much
later title, and so they would have called themselves orthod
even if they were in schism. But the Orthodox position
is that he was reconciled to the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 5: That's interesting. I actually have a little into that. So
when do you think the Assyrian church gives So.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm saying that the council, I'm saying the
title quote Assyrian Church of the East is what it's
known as today. So what I'm saying is you can't
say that Isaac Assyrian was a member of the quote
Assyrian Church of the East. They don't know. They would
have known what that title. That's a more modern title.
I'm saying that he would have seen himself as Orthodox,
but he was actually united to and in communion with
the Orthodox Church in his day, the rest of the
Orthodox world. That's why he's a saint. We don't hold
anybody as a saint who died out of communi or
in schism officially with us. But jon Hooss was not
in schism with us. And the women who are the
person that served the Ramanovs who was Lutheran, the profess
Orthodoxy before she died, If it was a she, it's
it's an interesting There are cases of this, But no,
he's not. He's not a member of the Syrian Church
of the East, is what I'm trying to say. He's Orthodox.
Speaker 7: So what about people of today, they're not considered Orthdox
who a Syrian coach of today on considered Orthodox.
Speaker 5: In your opinion.
Speaker 2: So look, you're thinking of this as either or black
and white. There are people in these regions who at
different time periods can be reconciled to the rest of
the Church, and that that may not last may or
may not be there forever. Right. So no, there's no
such thing as people in the Assyrian Church of the
East that are Orthodox today.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's interesting. I really appreciate that conversation. Day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and uh, I I don't know all the details
all the top of my head, but if you look
into this you will see that I'm correct. It's just
not the area that I did not spend a whole
lot of time on the history of the historians. And
Kai is actually the dude for that. If you want
to know the history of the Church of the East,
that's Kai's whole thing. That's not that's not my thing.
Kai knows all about that, you know, is way more
than I do. Kai even knows all the Assyrian terms
and theological canuma and all these weird words. I don't
know any of that. Uh tallahouse, see what's up, dude.
But I'm sure there's people in the chat that know
more about this than I do. But I remember because
this came up with Taylor Marshall. Because Taylor mar Chill
was arguing that the Orthodox are inconsistent, and he was saying, oh,
Isaac of Nineveh was an historian. And the Orthodox response
when this came up like four years ago is that no,
he was actually no general hardened opposition to Chalcedon created
a final division between the Church of Persia in Saint
Isaac's day and Chalcidon, whereas for the Monophysites it was clear.
So the argument here is that there was not a
clear split of the Assyrian Church of the East. The
title Assyrian Church of the East is a modern term
that's used for the modern Assyrian Church of the East,
so it's wrong to retroactively read that back into the
Church of Persia in this time period. That's why it says,
I hear the Church of Persia or the Orthodox Church
in Persia, which is what it would have been called
in his day right, is nowadays called the Assyrian Church
of the East. But that does not mean that in
his day they were officially the Nestorian Assyrian Church of
the East. That's what I'm trying to say. And the
Orthodox view is that he was not in schism. What's up, man,
tallahause gonna i'mute.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, awesome, Yeah, I want to ask you about
a topic that I feel like, you know, you could
hear so many different interpretations on different viewpoints across different
kinds of Christians. But I wanted to ask you, what
is the Orthodox Church's interpretation on the blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit passages?
Speaker 2: That it's rejecting the call of the Spirit until the
end of your life?
Speaker 10: Okay, especially it's like the reject the rejection of Christ
that they just has a like spirit drawing you to Christ.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not a literal, actual thing that verbally can be said.
Speaker 10: Okay, I was I was just curious. Yeah, I was curious.
There's so many different viewpoints out there. You know, people
like discuss debate this and some people like really free
out about it.
Speaker 1: But uh oh yeah, I was really I was curious.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great question. Uh yeah, we've had that. That one
comes up every now and then. Which is which is fun?
It's a good question. I I don't I mean, I
don't know off the top of my head, like every
patristic exegesis of the passage, but I think typically we
don't believe that, like there's some you know, incantation that
if you say it, you could never be saved again.
I don't know any priests that would tell you, oh,
you said something against Holy Spirit. Uh, you'll never be saved, goodbye.
I mean I think everybody would uh would uh if
you're Orthodox, that priest would hear your concussion? What's up, joker?
Speaker 1: Hi? Jay?
Speaker 4: So I got a question on.
Speaker 11: Uh, maybe I should give it a little bit bit
of a background. I come from a Mormon background. I'm
not specifically Mormon right now, but I'm kind of wanting
to get your thoughts on.
Speaker 4: Sorry, I'm getting over I'm getting over cold.
Speaker 11: I'm I'm wondering your thoughts on do you think that
Joseph Smith was Do you think he was a liar?
Do you think that the angel morone I came from
the devil? Do you think that he he hallucinated it?
Speaker 4: Because that's kind of I'm kind of wondering.
Speaker 11: Recently, you know, reading Galatians and.
Speaker 6: And a lot of the.
Speaker 11: A lot of different New Testament Bible verses without Mormon
interpretation on it, it seems like, you know, the Mormon
religion is kind of refuted just with the New Testament
absolutely about you know, false false angels, false prophecies.
Speaker 2: How we know, Yeah, it's the same correct and it's
the same route of reputation that I would go with
a Muslim, because both religions believe that there's ongoing new revelations.
When the Orthodox Church early on in the in the
Early Councils condemned Montanus and in the condonation of Montanism,
there is the theological position that there's a finality to
divine revelation. There are no new prophets after the death
of the apostles. Jesus in Luke sixteen says that John
was the last of the prophets. Since that time the
Kingdom God has preached, and so there is no such
thing as a office of a prophet anymore. That doesn't
mean there can't be people with clairvoyance or that there
aren't miracles, but in the sense of public, divine dogmatic
revelation that ceased when John died. There's many other verses
too that also point out that the faith was quote
once for all, delivered to the saints in Jude three,
So that means there cannot be new revelations. And if
there's ongoing new revelations, you couldn't really follow Paul's injunction
in Galatians one to judge everything according to what Paul
laid down. You see. The other thing is that if
you read the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis he created,
he added eleven verses to Genesis fifty to predict himself.
I think that's one und percent, absolute, definitive proof that
he was a con man and a liar. So what
is your Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 6: By the way, Yeah, I am, I know I know that.
Speaker 11: Yeah, he because a lot of that is not in
the Book of Mormon. That's that's one of the is
that they bring people into the Mormon faith is they
preach the Book of Mormon, which is you know, for
you you would be able to pick it apart pretty quickly,
but for a lot of people it.
Speaker 4: Seems internally consistent.
Speaker 11: But then what they do is they add the doctrine
incumvenance and the Pearl of Great Price, right, and like
the the Book of Abraham and.
Speaker 1: Stuff like that.
Speaker 11: Where where now now you thought that you were just
getting in, you got baptized, and now you're learning about
the Pearl of great price.
Speaker 2: It's the same. It's the same with Islam. Yeah, it's
the same with Islam. Where many people will convert because
they oh, Islam is just simple. It's the Quran, and
you know these basic ideas of monotheism, and it's like, no, no,
you gotta believe all these You gotta believe the fart
hadieds dude, you gotta believe that Satan's making you fart.
You gotta believe you know all these I'm serious, there's
multiple fart hediths. You gotta believe all those things too.
Speaker 4: So what do you what do you think is the
best way too?
Speaker 6: Because I I'm in.
Speaker 11: A Mormon family myself, like so both sides of my
family mother, father, extended family on each side, like they're
all like super Mormon. They attend church every Sunday. What
do you think is like the best way that you
found where you can kind of red pill them on
on this topic, but not the super abrasive where we're
like the the instinct of wanting to fight back whenever
they hear anything that is slightly even anti Mormon. What
do you think is the best way to kind of
go about that route of trying to just even talk
to them.
Speaker 2: I'll be honest with you, I don't I've not had
It's only been in the last two years that I've
even had many Mormon interactions and that we've actually been
seeing Mormon's convert. So I don't actually have a lot
of background of debating or interacting with Mormons, because like
in Tennis, you know, I'm from Tennessee, I grew up
in California. I'm in Florida. I mean, there's not a
lot of Mormons. So it's not something that I mean,
I've read and I studied a decent amount about Mormonism,
but it's not a thing that I encounter a lot
until the last couple of years of the channel growing
and a lot of people calling in. So I don't
actually know the best route. Probably a former Mormon who's
now Orthodox. I think Elder Millennial is a was a
guy that's on my feed if you find him on Twitter.
I think he used to be a Mormon. He might
be a good guy to ask because I think he
came from a Mormon family. There's another Orthodox guy in
my followers on Twitter. I don't remember his name, but
I know Elder Millennial I think was a Mormon. I
would ask him, so dm that dude or follow that dude,
But I would say, just kind of going by my intuition,
I think both Mormons and Muslims kind of have this
idea that our revelation is kind of it's in continuity
with what came before, but it's superior. But the problem
is that the prior revelation that we have, whether it's
Deuteronomy thirteen, Deuteramy eighteen, Galatians one, Jude three, like, it
lays down strictures that prior to the supposed new revelation,
whether it's Muhammed or Joseph Smith, like, the new revelations
have to match up to the old. And what both
Mormons and Muslims do is say, no, no, no, the old
revelation has to be judged by the new. But that's
what every cult leader and sectarian birdo says. But the
prior revelation tells them. And by the way, even the
Quran I've got right here. I know you're not Muslim,
but it's very illustrative because it's exact same principle.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The Quran says, right here, let the people of the
Gospel judge what has by what Allah has revealed in it.
So the people of the Gospel, the people of the book,
the people of the prior revelations are supposed to look
and see, oh, look the Koran is consistent with previous revelation.
And what does every Muslim do when you point out
the multitudes of places where it's not, Oh, well that's
where it's corrupted. You see. Well that's a double standard.
And Mormon does exact same thing when they say, well,
we believe the previous revelation, but oh it turns out
it was corrupted, and Joseph is fixing all the private
prior corruptions. Well now wait a minute, Joseph Smith is
fixing the pro ruptions. Why is he adding eleven verses
to Genesis or whatever that is? That sounds like a
con man, not a you know.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 11: Well, so, but what's your take on do you think
that so it Jesseus Smith got visited by the angel Moroni?
Do you think that that visitation was like satanic or devilish?
Speaker 2: I don't know, it could be.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's entirely just in your in your opinion.
Speaker 4: I'm not I'm not saying you have to.
Speaker 2: I believe it could go either I could you could
go either way. So, just like with Mohammed, you know,
when he first started having these so called revelations, he
was falling on the ground in seizures and he thought
he was possessed. That's in one of the hydiths. And
so it's entirely possible that Joseph Smith. I did see
some texts many years ago which there was an ex
Mormon channel that used to be on YouTube, and I
don't think you can find it anymore, but they were
uploading old Mormon texts where there was evidence that Joseph
Smith was interested in ritual magic. Now, maybe those were
not real texts.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I didn't, but if they were real texts,
it's entirely possible that he was involved in occultic type
stuff and he thought he was, you know, interacting with
spirits or you know, he his magic peep stone or
whatever that story like. Maybe he's just a comment. I
don't Either way, it doesn't matter to me.
Speaker 11: Okay, I have one other quick question. It's actually not
about Mormon theology or anything like that.
Speaker 4: Sure, I was in a space yesterday and they it.
Speaker 11: Was a question about of you know, the the Catholic
Marian dogmas. I know that there's differences between I'm leading
more Catholic than Orthodox.
Speaker 4: I'm not really one side or.
Speaker 11: The other, but I know that they're that the Orthodox
does have Marian dogmas.
Speaker 4: Such as like the perpetual virginity.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, I mean we agree with Catholics on that one,
but we do not believe in the mechanical conception because
we don't believe in the Latin ideas of original sin.
Speaker 11: Okay, yeah, so what about Because I was posed with
the question of, well, what does it even matter believing
in that?
Speaker 6: Does that?
Speaker 4: Does it save you? Does it not save you? Do
you really have to believe in that?
Speaker 2: Well, the thing is that they just in Orthodox theology,
all the doctrines are kind of bound up together and
they're interconnected. So, for example, mariology, as St. Cyril says
at Ephesus, is crucial to the Gospel because calling Mary
theotokos literally is an expression, as Cyril says, of the Gospel,
it means that the person that came forth from her,
that she gives birth to is a divine person and
identical to the second person of the Godhead. So for Cyril,
the word theotokos, he says, is a summation of the Gospel.
So the soteriology and mariology and Christology, they're all really
just implications of one another, and they go together. So
that's why they matter, is that they all it's a
golden chain. What you believe about Christology is going to
determine your ecclesiology, It's going to determine your sacramentology. So
that's why they all standard for all together.
Speaker 6: Well, what if you what if you have a.
Speaker 11: Perfect idea of like let's just let's just say go in,
go into a Catholics Maan, I know you're not Catholic,
But what if what if I believed in every single
Catholic doctrine, but I just rejected the Marian dogmas like
and I think there's a little bit of a part
of the Orthodox Church that could agree with this, But
what would you lose your salvation?
Speaker 4: Like, do you you have to accept every single yes
to be saved?
Speaker 5: You have to do you have to accept those to
be saved?
Speaker 2: You have to accept every dogma to be saved. In
the Roman Catholic system and in the Orthodox view, dogmas
by definition are not negotiable. So in other words, you
can read Mestichi Corporus, you can read Southeast Cognedium, you
can read when I'm Song to Them, you can read
Vatican One from the Roman Calic side. They all state
that everything proposed by the magisterium for belief is necessary
to believe. In non negotiable Orthodox Church, we don't have
the Magisterium of the papacy and all that, but we
have the the ecumenical councils, we have the dogmatic definitions
from those councils, and you know the niceno constablitan creed.
Uh So, yeah, you can't can't negotiate.
Speaker 11: Arguing if you're arguing with a with a Protestant that
doesn't believe in all those you know, the the church
fathers and the traditions and the history.
Speaker 6: What what would you.
Speaker 4: Say of, Well, no, this is this is a this
is a logical Christian.
Speaker 11: Reasoning for why you you have to accept these these
dogmas and doctrines that may not be specifically laid out
in the Bible, but it's still a part of salvation.
Speaker 2: Well, because there's all kinds of things that the Bible
doesn't directly deal with or treat that even many Protestants
would admit are necessary. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity,
all though found in many passages of the Bible, is
a doctrine that is explicated outside of the Bible. And
there's other things too that are even if you're a Protestant,
I mean, if you believe in soul scriptura, well, the
canon of the scriptures was something that's not in the Bible,
so you have to look to extra canonical things for that.
So I don't think anybody really is consistent with this
idea of only believing what's in the Bible for salvation. Nobody,
nobody's consistent with that.
Speaker 11: So you're kind of you're kind of going with the
reasoning of the birth of Jesus Christ came from Mary, right,
she was the theotokos. So having a correct holistic view
of who Mary is directly involves your your perception of
who Jesus Christ is. It's kind of it's kind of related,
like all that is related.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mary, That's why I'm saying Mary and doctrines are
an outworking of Christology. That's the argument of cyril at ephesis.
Speaker 4: But so for the and I don't I'm not even.
Speaker 11: Prepared for any debate at all of the assumption of Mary.
Speaker 4: But if we're following your logic.
Speaker 11: Since the assumption of you would I guess you would,
you would reject the assumption.
Speaker 2: Of many we believe in the body of the Orthodox
Church believes in it because it's actually an Eastern feast
of the dormssion.
Speaker 4: You said earlier that you know.
Speaker 2: You don't believe immaculate conception is not an Orthodox teaching
because immaculate conception is bound up with the Augustinian view
of what original sin is and the idea of a
taint of original sin that has passed on through seminal transmission. Okay,
but now you said you said you find also is
the more convincing the Orthodoxy? Why I always find this odd?
Speaker 1: Why? Well?
Speaker 11: I I am a grouper, after all, I I listened
to Nick, But I don't get my Catholic faith from Nick.
Speaker 4: I kind of just got the.
Speaker 2: The song po political stuff is.
Speaker 11: No no, I I I I have more gotten it
from Trent Horn and and Sam Schimoon and and guys
like that.
Speaker 2: So what would be one er, what would be one
or two arguments that they present for the Catholic position
that is more consistent or more convincing than the Orthodox position.
Speaker 4: I feel like that I I think that the papacy
is the best way to and and you know, I'm
I'm a Mormon and.
Speaker 11: So there's actually a little bit of a there's a
thing that Mormons and Catholics can agree on.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good one.
Speaker 11: But I would say that having having a have having
a leader, having authority of of your beliefs, and having
someone that is is infallible.
Speaker 5: Okay, just and just and I'll finish.
Speaker 4: I'll finish with this and I'll let you respond.
Speaker 11: But in my mind, I think that there has to
be someone that is infallible to interpret the.
Speaker 4: Bible, which is also infallible.
Speaker 11: If you don't have someone that is infallible to interpret
something that is purpose, something that is you know, as
as Protestants would would say, you know, God breathed, then
it's it comes into interpretation.
Speaker 2: Between them, and I understand. So you're still going to
say that about Okay, so the pope does that, But
how does that actually help you on an individual basis
when you're still fallible and you now got to interpret
all the papal documents, So how is it not just
moving the problem back and stuff?
Speaker 4: It doesn't And and I kind of.
Speaker 11: For me, I want to be personally, I want to
know every single thing about the traditional churches, and.
Speaker 2: But I don't know. But aside from all that, a more
fundamental question is what I'm asking, which is okay, so
you're saying, I want a guy who's going to be
the arbiter, who can, you know, tell me the right interpretation?
And I'm saying, isn't that begging the question and just
moving the problem back and stuff? Because now you are
going to be interpreting the pope's words about the scriptures?
So how does that solve that dilemma? I don't understand.
Speaker 4: Sorry, you cut it.
Speaker 11: I don't know if it happened to anyone else, but
you cut out.
Speaker 2: I said, how how does it solve the dilemma by
just adding another step to the equation and saying that
the pope is going to solve the interpretive issues? Well,
you have to interpret all the paper writings, which are voluminous.
Speaker 11: Well, and it's very hard for me because I look
at this is the reason that I can I can
easily break through or kind of say.
Speaker 4: Why I came to at least like a Catholic reasoning.
Speaker 11: Is because I listened to all of the all of
the Protestant positions on you know, infant baptism or you know,
water baptismal regeneration.
Speaker 2: Why does.
Speaker 4: Believe in the Marion dogmas?
Speaker 2: How does that prove with I mean if if a Christian,
if a Christian lives a debate to a Muslim, does
that make his launchry?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 11: But the the problem is is that when you look
at I came to Cathosa because I understood that Protestantism
didn't really hold any water.
Speaker 4: Because they don't.
Speaker 11: They don't have any authority to say, well, well, should.
Speaker 4: We baptize infants? Should we even have baptism at all?
Should just should it be through water? Should it be
through a handshake?
Speaker 6: Should we?
Speaker 2: But how does that tell you? How does that tell
you that? How does that tell you the difference between
the Orthodox or the Catholic? So Protestants are wrong, agreed,
How does that tell you true?
Speaker 1: It doesn't.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'll admit that, like I don't. I don't think
it does.
Speaker 2: Now you're a groper. So as a groper, I'm curious.
I mean, when Francis goes and praise in the synagogues,
how does that make Catholicism convincing? I don't understand.
Speaker 4: You said, when Pope Francis.
Speaker 2: And John Paul the Second, when they go and pray
in the synagogues. How does that? How is that consistent
with what you're looking for?
Speaker 4: I mean, can I don't.
Speaker 2: I mean every gropper I've ever seen is pretty critical
of rabbinical Judaism.
Speaker 11: Right, well, yeah, per personally, I don't think that he
should be doing anything in a synagogue because, yeah, in
a synagogue they believe that in a compute a completely
bristical view of monotheism, which is which is anti trinitarianism.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, by the way, but have you read Vatican two?
Speaker 1: I have not.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay, because guess what Vatican two turns out you're
going to be in another situation of what you were
just talking about with the Mormons, where you join it
and then oh, it turns out you actually got to
believe this other thing because in lumin Gentiem sixteen it
says that Muslims hold the faith of Abraham just like
Roman Catholics do, and that they all worship the same
odd no state says the exact same thing. So if
you if what you said is correct that Jews do
not have the right faith because they're quote monotheist and
not trinitarian, then you're just you are now refuting and
rejecting Vatican two, which says that exact thing.
Speaker 11: Well, yeah, and and you got to give me a
little bit of grace and charity though, because I haven't. No,
I think I think that you are and you know,
I'm not. I think that you bring up a lot
of good points, and you know, I've I've watched you,
I've watched.
Speaker 4: Debates that you're in.
Speaker 11: I think that you're very knowledgeable and and I completely.
Speaker 6: I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't disregard anything that you said.
Speaker 11: I think that I am not ideologically prepared for a
discussion on on Vatican Team.
Speaker 2: That's whine. I'm not trying to drop you. I'm not
trying to trap you. I'm just trying to make the
point that the very thing that you express concern about
originally in the debate, which I think is a very
profound point, which is that sometimes groups will give the
impression that when you convert, it's just these simple things
that you have to believe, and then you later find
out no, there's actually also these other things that you
also got to believe that are problematic that they didn't
tell you about initially, like Perl of great Price, doction
and covenants, etc. These things are later added on, and
I'm telling you that it's exact same thing. When you
join the Roman Catholic Church, you're going to learn that
you do not get the right to reject or criticize
anything that's dogmatic or proposed as belief. And all the
ecumenical councils in the Roman Catholic Church are papally approved
and thus dogmatic, including Vatican one and Vatican two. And
so you don't get the option to reject lumin GENTM
sixteen or no Stratate four, which is very problematic, I
would argue. So, not trying to call you out or whatever,
I'm just encouraging you to not finow into the exact
same thing. And I appreciate your questions are going to
move on that you will experience as well. And I
say that as a person who was in the tradcat
world for around eight ten years somewhere in there. All right,
we got still got a lot of people in line
seventeen ish people who disagrees. Raise your hand. If you disagree,
you go to the head of line. Alex, are you
putting up one hundred percent because you disagree? I don't
know what one hundred percent means, does that mean you disagree?
Raise your hand if you disagree, could we'll go to
Alex since he says he oh my.
Speaker 12: Gosh, hi jed Mary nativity even what's up?
Speaker 1: I'm a Coptic Orthodox. I just had a quick question.
Why do you disagree with the idea of one nature?
Speaker 2: Because nature signifies the same thing that it signifies in
the trinity, which is the thing that makes it that thing,
and so Christ can't have a tertium quid. So if
one nature is what Christ has in terms of the
hyposthetic union, then it's a turtion quid.
Speaker 1: What does like internion quit meaning to be exactly.
Speaker 2: Moving on, Daniel, I think was next tertium quid? Third thing?
Not tertion quid. And I'm not trure to me mean,
but not playing the Coptic Oriental game. If you want
to listen to our critiques, go watch our part one
in part two six hours ahead.
Speaker 13: Hello, yep, Yeah, So I had a question about Eastern
Orthodox rebaptisms from people coming from other faith traditions. Okay,
so to me, it's a little confusing. I've asked a
lot of Eastern Orthodox. They tell me, go ask your priests,
who ask your bishop, But it sounds like you could
get a different answer on whether.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's because we don't believe there's a one size
fits all. It's a question of economia.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: So the Sixth Ecumenical Council gives different accounts in different situations,
as do the Canons of Nicea, for the reception of
different people in different situations. So a priest who is
received back from the Novations and Nicea is received by
vesting or by just simply profession of faith because he
was already ordained. People that were ordained in a Unitarian
baptism in the Canons of the Sixth Econmentical Council are
said to need to be rebaptized and received in a
different way. So there's a lot of kanonical precedent for
it being the decision of a local bishop to decide
on a case by case basis how they should be received.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 13: So you're saying, like, and I agree with you completely
on Unitarian or Mormon baptisms, but that could also include
a Roman Catholic baptism as well.
Speaker 2: There have been different ways and times at which people
from a Roman Catholic church were received. The Serbs did
not rebaptized, or it's not rebaptism, it's just baptism, and
even Roman Catholics practice conditional baptism, so it's basically the
same idea. But that is different from the question of
whether this canonical allowance is abused at times for acumenist reasons.
And so acrevia is just as important as economia. Economia
is flexibility on a case by case basis, but acrevia
is also the stricture of trying to be accurate according
to the canons.
Speaker 1: Okay, I gotcha.
Speaker 13: And if I could just ask one work question about
nicea too. So where it talks about, yeah, where it
talks about there's a phrase in it that's a Catholic
actually brought.
Speaker 1: Up to me.
Speaker 13: It says, those who do not salute the Holy icons
let them be anathema. I'm a little confused at what
that means. Does that mean that icon veneration is absolutely
necessary every time you enter a church?
Speaker 4: Like, what does that mean?
Speaker 2: No, it's talking about the people who are iconoclasts. If
you teach iconoclasm, you're an anathema. It's not some weird
like mandate about every single instance.
Speaker 13: Okay, okay, So they're addressing so that's that's not addressed
to believers when it says that that's addressed to people
who are anti icons.
Speaker 2: Right, the whole council is against the iconic class.
Speaker 14: Okay, got you.
Speaker 13: So you would say, as an Orthodox person that it's
good to salute icons, but it's not like I'm required, No, you.
Speaker 2: Are required to. I was making the point that it's
not like if I walk into the church and I
accidentally didn't do this icon over here, and I did
the other fifty nine gone dawn. It's not a legalistic
being counting thing. It is saying against all the iconoclasts
as heretics, and that's for our day in time. Protestants, Muslims,
et cetera. All of those people are anathema because they
don't follow the theology of the Council, which is an
outworking of the incarnation. To reject icons is ultimately to
reject the incarnation.
Speaker 13: Right, right, So does it specify what the veneration exactly
is like for example, there's people who bow, there's people
who might kiss it. There's might some people who might
look at the icon because of what it represents, Like,
do you have to do a specific type or is
any type like acceptable.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's a lot of that tradition.
A lot of that's what you would do to a
person who was in authority or reverence. It comes out
of ancient Near Eastern traditions. I mean Joseph bows before
or Pharaoh Elijah bows before Elijah. I mean kissing is okay,
you don't get Brady, get each other, Brady, greet each
other and the brethren with a holy kiss. As Paul says,
So some of this is out of the ancient Middle
Eastern traditions. Some of it is just normal expressions of affection.
Speaker 13: I mean, yeah, yeah, well thanks Jay, I appreciate.
Speaker 1: You having me a wonderful rest to night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, those are good questions. I wasn't trying to be rude,
all right, Well, looking for if you have questions. If
you disagree, feel free to raise your hand. It is
the year of love. I hope I have been successful
tonight in being loving. I think only one guy got
this sort of boot, but I think everybody agrees that
he was sort of a ridiculous clown character. So we've
been We've been loving. Parker disagrees. What's up, Parker, Hey, Hey, I.
Speaker 15: Got a question about the time frame in which councils
can be overturned. So like in HYRIEA right obviously second
council and CEO overturns on their councils. Is there a
time frame or could like if everyone in the Orthodox
got together had a medical council and they just like
say stuff, but they could overturn previous counsels.
Speaker 2: I'm not aware of any argument or tradition about time
frames canonically, I don't know.
Speaker 15: So would it be like logically following then they could
overturn one like a thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: Or well, I don't think that. Like, so an Orthodox council,
for example, that's been accepted and received throughout the whole
world could not be like retroactively negated, because that would
basically mean that the church was universally deceived. But I
think councils that occur that eventually are rejected were never
accepted by the whole and never achieved universal acceptance.
Speaker 15: Okay, okay, yeah, I got one more question. It's about
a scripture. But I was gonna say, for in terms
of whenever I get into the faith works echotomy or
debate or whatever, it just turns into quote minds of
Ephesians two eight and nine, like James and stuff.
Speaker 5: So how would you How does the Orthodox.
Speaker 15: Position harmonize something like Ephesians sweet nine with the Book
of James and stuff like that, because to me, it doesn't.
It's hard for me to harmonize on either side. It
seems kind of contradictory.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, first of all, the works that we
do are works that are accepted by God in grace
and done through grace. So we could agree with Augustine
on that point that even when we do good works,
we are really just you know, I think his phrase
is something like God's crowning his own gifts. So even
the good works that we present their gifts from God too,
whether they are our own nature or whether they're by grace,
they're still gracious in the sense that their gifts from God.
So good works are still.
Speaker 5: Because of deification.
Speaker 1: Would that be why? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, So like the good works that we do.
Paul says in Thessalonians that it is the power of
God at work in him to do good. Right, he
calls himself a co worker with Christ because it is
the energy of Christ in him working, and he's working
with Christ. So there's a synergy there. So, but even
if there's synergy, we don't get to account it as
merits because that even the natural energy that we have
is a proper work, proper to our human nature, that's
still a gift from God too. So everything they have
is from God, whether it's nature or grace, right, whether
it's synergy, theosis, all of it is a gift. So
there's really no place for boasting, even though we do
believe that works are necessary. Another way to go about
this argument is to point out that every time God
makes the covenant with people throughout the Old Testament, even Abraham.
If if you read Genesis twenty two, God makes clear
that in the Abramic covenant there were still stipulations and requirements.
So there's never a time when the covenant relationship and
God always has a relationship with humans via covenant, there's
never a time when there's not stipulations and requirements for
both parties in the covenant. And that means works are
always necessary. But there's never a point where you merit
the enough of the of the good works, because it's
always by grace. Even the works are by grace.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, I think those are all my questions about
the weird question of you.
Speaker 5: I just always wondered that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Another way to approach this question is to, yeah, thank you.
If you go to the psalms. In many of the psalms,
and yes, we know that the psalms are David speaking
through the spirit of Christ, as Peter says, So there
are many of them obviously messianic, but they're also actually
David writing and composing the psalms and speaking. So it's
an application to David himself and his life, and prophetically
to Christ and his work. But you'll notice in many
of the psalms David says, you know my works. My
works are laid out before you. I have been faithful
to you. I have not done wrong. Hear me? Oh God, Well,
I mean, as David a believer in works righteousness. I
mean some Protestants are actually so goofy that they'll actually say, yes, no,
David actually believe that his salvation was by works, which
is dumb because Paul says it was never by works,
whether you're David or Abraham, all salvation always is by grace. Okay, well,
then how was David able to, you know, make so
many psalms talking about the fact that he had kept
God's covenant, and even keeping the covenant does not mean
sinless because within the covenant, even the most strict mosaic
covenant included ways to deal with sin.
Speaker 5: So oh right, so like that would kind of make sense.
Then I've you heard the phrase like.
Speaker 15: A lot of Orthodox people say, like God has saved me,
is saving me, and in the future you will continue, right,
So that kind of makes sense.
Speaker 5: Within that framework, that would be an outworking of deification
kind of does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Salvation is a one time event where it begins
and then it's a process, and then it's an eschatological
final event. So it's all those right.
Speaker 4: And then one more.
Speaker 15: Sorry I have another Orthodox question, but Jonathan Joe said
that the Orthodox teaches, the.
Speaker 7: Orthodox Church teaches that the reason why it's like kill off.
Speaker 15: Your passions and all that type stuff is because you
don't change when you die, so those passions will be
with you in the escotone kind of like.
Speaker 5: And that's just the cut off point, right.
Speaker 2: Well, we do pray for the for those that die
because they might still have have some attachments like that.
So yeah, when you die, like the reason the church
prays for you and that you're you're included in the liturgy.
Is that most likely you were not you know fully
sanctified before your death?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Okay, So then.
Speaker 15: In terms of theosis then the Orthodox framework, is it
like I always wanted this question, is it like, is
it like a percentage and is it like, are you
like ten percent, say Earth, you know, deified or.
Speaker 2: How would that work? No, it's a it's a never
ending assent. In fact, the Cappadocians and Palamas describe it like, uh,
the language is sometimes used as if there's portions, but
strictly speaking, there's no portions to God. So it's a
never ending spiral up into God is what the Cappa
Docans describe.
Speaker 15: Okay, that makes sense too because, like you say, it
continues into the afterlife as well, the sanctification.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we never stopped being deified, correct, because God is
infinite and endless. There's no there's no point at which
you like, Okay, I'm done being deified because I've used
up all my God points right right right?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 5: And that's where is that where you would say the
process go.
Speaker 15: Wrong kind of like the one time event type of understanding.
Speaker 2: I think there's that's part of it. But also like
Protestants take the passes where Paul talks about, uh, you know,
glor glorification, sanctification, and they split these up like they're
rigid things. But that doesn't work because Paul can you
mute is loud. That doesn't work because Paul talks about
glorification happening in this life. So you can't have this
rigid like structure to justification, sanctification, glorification because in which
most of the time Protestants think those are like three
distinct things, and glorification is thus something in the escton.
Paul says that Moses experienced glorification when he went up
on the mountain in sing Corinthians three, So this is
not a rigid, three part tier thing that Paul's writing about.
So sanctification happens when you first believe. Justification happens as
you believe. That's why in Romans four Paul doesn't cite
Genesis twelve, which is where Abraham first believed. He cites
Genesis fifteen, meaning that Abram had already been doing three
chapters worth of good works. If Paul was teaching the
Protestant doctrine of justification. He has to cite Genesis twelve
because that's the first point when Abraham believes and is
quote justified in the Protestant view. But then Paul messed
up because he didn't cite Genesis twelve. He cites Genesis fifteen,
where Abram's already been doing three chapters of good works,
already is the friend of God, already is in the Covenant,
et cetera. So justification in Romans four is an example
of process which is totally contra to all Protestant theology.
Speaker 5: Is it too kind of ask more question?
Speaker 1: Or is it too loud?
Speaker 15: One of the points in my life where is that
Protestantism was untenable was the the understanding that it's either
a Nestorianism or you split the Trinity.
Speaker 5: Right Right at that point I kind of had to
give it up.
Speaker 15: What how do you harmonize the passage about it's saying
like Jesus cursed hung on a tree.
Speaker 5: Right, because my prost and friends, I get.
Speaker 2: Exactly if you read, uh, if you read on the
Orthodox Faith by Saint John Damascus. The last four chapters
at the end of book three discuss what the Orthodox
conception of Christ's punishment on the cross and death and
all that what it means in a sense, Yes, he
did accept the punishment of the fall, which was death,
which is the separation of his soul from his body.
So the death of the experience is not a spiritual death.
As if the divine person of the Word, the Son
of God, could die, he can't spiritually die. He's the
second person the Trinity. That's impossible. So what happens is
that he willfully undergoes death, meaning the severance of his
human soul from his human body, and he descends into
Hades as the person to that human soul. Going into Hades,
he thus herrows Hades, destroys power of death, and then
resurrects and heals our body in her nature. So that
is not the Protestant conception, and hence why the Protestants
had to reject the descent into Hades and turn it
into in the classical Reformation tradition, Christ being damned on
the cross, as Lutheran calvin say. And then the I
just went blank on the other question, the story in
our arian splitting the Trinity, Oh, what it means to
be a curse? Excuse me? Yeah, if you read John
of Damascus in those last four chapters. I think it's
the first the four sections. He says when it says
Christ became sin or became a curse, it does not
mean he literally ontologically became a curse. It means that
he became as one if one were cursed, or he
says by appropriation, meaning perceived as if he was cursed.
He wasn't actually cursed, but men believed he was cursed
and saw him as that. So it's not possible for
the Holy Son of God to literally become evil and
become a curse. There is no such thing as a nature.
Becoming evil doesn't exist. There are nature doesn't Evil doesn't
have a nature. It's a privation magma. Okay, so you're
you're ferociously disagreeing. What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey? Yeah, thinks? Uh, thanks for this? Can you hear me,
by the way, I don't think of I can hear Okay? Yeah?
Speaker 16: He could you kind of quickly go over the problems.
Speaker 14: With the beatific vision, I don't.
Speaker 16: I think the Orthodox Church rejects that, right.
Speaker 2: So it's based on first of all, it's based on
a erroneous doctrine of absolute divine simplicity that God is
equivalent to his essence, and that the end of man
is to stare into the essence of God. We do
not believe that creatures ever know or see the essence
of God, so it's wrong from that point. It's wrong
because the beutific vision docrine is part of the doctrine
of created grace that you don't actually experience the reality
of God's presence in this life, hence created grace in
the Roman Catholic doctrine. And that's another issue, because we
believe that you really do experience the uncreated energies of
God in this life, so glorification is not something that
is only for the esketon. And then the other problem
is that the beatific vision doctrine removes the possibility of
free will, because free will is defined and Patristic consensus
to be the ability to choose between multiple options. If you,
in the esketon only have the Divine Essence as the
only thing to will, which is what Aquinas for example, says,
then you no longer have free will because you have
multiple things to will. That's why the definition of free
will according to the Eastern Church and the Eastern Church
Fathers and the councils is the ability to choose multiple goods.
Hence there are multiple things to will in the escaton.
But the betifvision doctrine is actually neoplatonism because it says
that the satiation of man's intellect and will has to
be only willing the One for all eternity. That's the
neoplatonic doctrine, is not the Orthodox doctrine. You're resurrected into
a body. So how are you only willing the essence
of God if you're resurrected in a body to do
different things in that body? That makes it impossible to
only will and stare at the essence of God?
Speaker 1: Right, okay?
Speaker 4: And so that.
Speaker 2: Well, well, by the way, it's also premise on the
idea that man's highest factory is the intellect, and that
man is only satiated by his intellect staring at the
essence of God. That's another point. So there's no doctrine.
Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of the nouse and that
the intellect is not the highest faculty.
Speaker 17: In So is that is that kind of like platonic?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, That's why I said it's a neoplatonic doctrine that
to be to be Yeah, to be satiated. The will
and gaze must be only on the one for all eternity,
and to will many would be a defect and would
lead to a fall or some sort of willing evil.
That's pure Platonism neoplanists.
Speaker 1: Okay, is there anywhere I could kind of read up
on that? I don't know, if you.
Speaker 2: Have free choice in Saint Maximus includes an entire chapter
critiquing the division from the everything that you just heard me.
Speaker 17: Spit out, Okay, Yeah, And then I did have another question.
Speaker 16: I've heard you kind of critique the penal substitutionary atonement
at the presence hold two. And I've heard you say
that there is a sense of punishment, but it's not
the like the wrath of God.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's the Son of God, as the church
fathers oftentimes stay, especially if you read John Damascus, he
states this when he talks about the incarnation. The Son
of God willingly chose to assume human nature and willingly
underwent death in that human nature. So it is not
a father turning his wrath to the second person of
the Godhead.
Speaker 14: Okay, but there is like a sense of punishment though, well.
Speaker 2: I mean God did say in the Garden of Eden
that if you eat of it, you will die, and
Adam chose to eat of it, and we experience death.
So death is the punishment, okay, but it is not
the damnation of the son that is the punishment. But
Protestantism in the PSA doctrine, because of imputation hinges on
that needing to be the case. If the punishment is damnation,
that's what we're doing, then it stands to reason that
the son has to undergo damnation, and that's actually what
the classical reformers all teach.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 18: So okay, So in what sense does the verse and
I Seaiah apply to Christ when like it says it
it pleased him to crush him?
Speaker 1: Like is that is that looped in with that? Or
is that not?
Speaker 6: Does not know it?
Speaker 2: But again it's still under the condition of the willingness
of the Sun as the second person of the Godhead
undergoing willingly that that's why in the so like in
the Garden, when Jesus in the Garden of gethsimone. This
actually ends up being a big debate and a disputed
text at the six Ecumenical Council and the book that
you want to read on this is disputation with Paris
by Saint Maximus. So essentially the whole debate ends up
hinging on let this cut pass for me. And what
the resolution is is that even though Christ in his
human nature does not want to die, the death is
the punishment. The death is the thing that he chooses
willingly to accept from the Father. And that death, though is,
is the severance of his soul from his body. It
is not a divine spiritual like Jesus didn't spiritually.
Speaker 1: Die, right, Okay, all right.
Speaker 2: He underwent death in the human nature that he assumed,
and that's the punishment, and that's what he willfully accepts
in the garden when he says, let this cut pass
from me. However, not mine will be done, but that
will be done. And Maximus Maximus says, that's Jesus submitting
his human nature, which does not will to die, to
the will of the Father into the divine will.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right?
Speaker 16: And then what about if I could ask one more question,
what about predestination and election?
Speaker 1: How is that applied.
Speaker 2: Biblically and the Orthodox Church it's seen through the lens
of Christology. And so if you read Ephesians, or if
you're reading these passages, you'll notice that those are letters
written to visible churches, the of Ephesus. It's not a
letter written to the elect only. And so when Paul
writes to the Church of Ephesus, he's calling that whole
visible baptized community, the predestined and the elect. So I mean, yes,
God knows in his foreknowledge on who all the final
perseverers are, but we don't know that. We don't have
that knowledge, so we do not believe that there is
this sort of divine causality which overrides free will to
you know, DestinE certain people for damnation and certain people
for salvation. Yeah, but ultimately, when you get orthodox Christology,
the synergism that occurs with the human nature and Christ
synergizing with the divinity, that becomes the paradigm for human
will synergizing with the divine will in sooteriology. And so
there's never a God's the divine will and the divine
energy never supplants or replaces the human will and energy.
That's never possible. Hello listener, and then we'll go to
the next people raising their hands, people in the chat,
go ahead, can.
Speaker 1: You hear me?
Speaker 15: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay, is it midnight there?
Speaker 2: Almost?
Speaker 19: Okay, I was gonna say, Merry Christmas. It's eight o'clock.
Speaker 2: It is right, my clock is off, good.
Speaker 1: And Christ is born.
Speaker 19: I just had two simple questions, Uh, I were you
were talking about some heretical icons from Patriot Prime recently,
and I posted something in there of an icon that's
pretty popular in Alaska is called the sick Icon of
the Mother of God.
Speaker 1: And I posted in the comments here, and.
Speaker 19: I was just wondering your thoughts about it because it
looks like there's an image of the Father God of
Father God at the top of the icon.
Speaker 2: Let me go to the comments. Let's see if he's
if he's pictured as Ancient of Days, that's typically the
one that's tolerated. Let me see if I can find it. Okay,
I see, Yeah, I think that the the the image
of Ancient of Days is the one allowance for imaging
the Father. So I'm assuming that's supposed to be the
Ancient of Days.
Speaker 19: Oh okay, Yeah, I wasn't sure. I guess it wasn't
obvious to me. That's pretty much my only question for
a question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think there are you know, there are
are examples where this is violated, but it's typically it's
still tolerated. So who was raising their hand? I already
forgot who that was.
Speaker 1: Matt.
Speaker 2: We're looking for people who disagree, so remember it's it's disagrees.
Go ahead, and Matt, hello.
Speaker 1: You hear me?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 6: So I came in here a couple of months.
Speaker 20: Ago talking to you about my atheist cousin. I was
struggling arguing against Can I ask a few questions relating
to arguing against an atheist?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 20: So his worldview is very super complex and super kind
of insane. He kind of views how we view the
problem of man to be sin. He views it to
be race and a specific race of people that you know,
I can't really say.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm on YouTube, so.
Speaker 20: Well, no, I'm not going to say, of course, I'm
not gonna say.
Speaker 2: This on YouTube, man, So remember to keep your questions
YouTube friendly. That's want to lose my channel on this tonight.
Let's keep the topic to Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, libertarian, NaSTA
Hebrew roots. I actually I'm not mad at that guy,
but I didn't include atheism tonight. I wasn't in the
mood to do the atheist stuff, So let's keep it
to the topics listed. What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 2: Go ahead? Are you there? You've been raising? Yeah, you're up, dude,
Go ahead, glop yep.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 21: I want to continue on justification, specifically from a Protestant perspective, So.
Speaker 1: How he said?
Speaker 21: So, just so I'm not misrepresenting you, it's you guys.
Don't believe you merit your justification correct through your works.
Speaker 2: Nobody deserves any grace or natural gifts from God, so
there are there is never any merits. But that does
not mean that there are not required works, because Jesus says,
if you love me, you'll keep my commandments, and Paul says,
the only faith that counts as the one that works
through love.
Speaker 21: Sure, So I mean, wouldn't that pretty much be the
same as what most Protestants would say, though, because they.
Speaker 1: Works are also an outworking from faith.
Speaker 2: No Protestants believe that the doctrine of solo fide is
an imputational righteous that you are given righteousness that you're
given on the basis of Christ's penal substitutionary toonement, that
is accredited to your fictional bank account and has nothing
to do with your actual moral standing or transformational repentance,
and we do not believe that.
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, So.
Speaker 21: Would you say solo fide is kind of would you say.
Speaker 1: It's monogists in a way where there's no action.
Speaker 2: Of Him, I mean Calvinists, And maybe Luther would make
solo fide necessarily perhaps monogist, But there are many people
who believe in solo fide who are not monoargists. So
it's not necessarily connected to monogism.
Speaker 1: Interesting. Okay, that's all I have with thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jesus says this is the work of God that
you believe on him whom he has sent. So even
according to Christ, faith is a work which is always
a challenge for a Protestant. Go ahead, Xenodrome Aiden Nelson,
nineteen five dollars. What do you think about Western right
Orthodox churches? There's nothing really problematic with the right itself.
The problem is that, particularly amongst some sectors of the
Western right, it becomes a haven for people who convert
out of Roman Catholicism or Protestants who want to rehabilitate
many Latin theological errors and oddities, and so it becomes
this weird hive of weirdos that think it's their job
to convince everybody of original guilt or some such nonsense.
And so that's the main problem, nothing to do with
the right itself. Ms Rachel five dollars, thank you so much,
day Ji one dollar. I recently bought a few books
you mentioned. I tried searching your take on one your
YouTube channel with no luck. I have thousands of books.
I've mentioned thousands of books over the years, so I
have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, Do you
have on your website, Electra every book that you've mentioned? No,
I mean, I don't know, man, I only have limited time.
Not trying to be rude to you. I appreciate your day jire,
but I have no idea. So just specify what the
book is and maybe I could give you a better response.
Anonymous five dollars channel, see you talk much about the
Anglican Church. We just had a debate with an Anglican
two weeks ago, so it's on my channel and we
went into the stupidity of branch theory and he had
a meltdown. So Jordan ten dollars never let that Lutheran
bozo on again. Hey, I think by God's grace, not
by my own merits. I was able to be patient.
So the year of love hopefully is charging forward with
some success. No more, mister nice j two dollars twenty
two cents. Here's a mini paypiggy. Thank you so much.
We love you over here because this is a channel
of love. Now backseat, sauceman. Ten dollars. I've been going
to Orthodox Church for like forty eight years, but I've
never heard of the Trinity dog. Can you help me out?
I got some FAQ's dog. Thank you. That's a funny one.
I think that's from earlier tonight to Nubble at five
dollars Jay the next hour. Protestant presidence says scripture is clear.
They don't need any church fathers for interpreting or any guidance.
Ask them why they believe the euchars is only symbolic
when Orthodoxy believes it is more. Yeah, I just I
think they're going to say that we're just wrong and so.
But the point still stands that I think they're overly
simplistic when they think that the scriptures are just clear. Well,
the scriptures are just clear, then why do we have
centuries of people trying to debate and explain the Trinity. No,
the scriptures are clear in some places. I mean, the
Ten Commandments is pretty clear about good and bad, but
other things are not clear. So it's not always clear
which ones are clear and not clear. And that's why
the Bible doesn't make you know stupid statements like the
Koran that everything is clear, which the Koran says many times.
DC will working three dollars, I think is a much
c cutch one two three five dollars. I think your
clip channels are helping the growth. I hope so. I don't.
I have one clip channel, which is jayder Life Streams,
and as certainties, I don't run or control any of
the other channels. Kyle runs dire Clips, which is fine
with me. And I've told you guys, anybody wants to
clip my stuff and do clip channels, go for it.
I don't care. I just asked that if you would
link back to my channel, that's it. Go for it.
Other YouTubers have many, many clips channels. We should all
be clipping and sharing the moments in your life streams
that inspire us. Hey, go for it. I hope you
guys do.
Speaker 1: Please do.
Speaker 2: I'm honored when people do clips of my stuff, Dragon Origin,
Dragon Age origins three dollars. Is there any chance of
you debating Alex O'Connor. I've asked many times, tweeted at him,
goes ignored. I mean people, you know you guys always
ask not I'm not fussing at you, but people are
always asking me. It's almost every day when you're gonna
debate this person. Look almost everybody that you ask I've tried,
and everybody has an excuse. So O'Connor's arguments are weak.
They need to be dealt with. I agree, but don't
hold your breath London five dollars. What do you think
about the street preaching movement online?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I think street preaching is kind of stupid. Nobody really
finds this convincing. I mean maybe somebody here's a street preacher.
I just think it looks stupid. It comes off as crazy.
And in the Orthodox Church, you don't preach without being commissioned.
As Paul says in Hebrews, no man takes this honor
onto himself. That's why we always tell people not to
listen to randos on Twitter who have no blessing and
no commission and authority is not something that you take
upon yourself. It's given to you. So I mean, I
understand they probably have good motivations to go and protest
and preach at the parades or whatever. And you go
on to say, although these people preach at LGBT parades,
they reject the church. Yeah, we would say these people
are in delusion. But thank you for that, JCBO nine
five dollars. Did you ever play Metal Gear Solid? The
third game has cold war sci fi geopolitical storylines. I
played the first one for a little bit and then
was busy doing other stuff, so I never got back
to it. But I do remember that being like transhumanist
stuff in the first Metal Gear Solid. But I did
not get to the third one. But what was it
Black Ops that came out a couple of years ago?
Remember that one was all Cold War themed and that
was full of like MK Ultra Cia Assassin cold war stuff.
That was pretty fun. Actually, I actually enjoyed the campaign
part of that Black Ops Cold War That was fun.
PGA Lifestyle one dollar. What are the best resources? In
addition to the Orthodox study, abot about Messianic prophecies being fulfilled,
go watch my talks where I cover this Zeno drone,
you know, I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Didn't want to interrupt in its far.
Speaker 22: So I had a question regarding the Book of Daniel
and the prophecy and King Darius is a kind of
concerning I just wanted an Orthodox perspective on this.
Speaker 2: Well, well, you muse like I'm echoing broken. Sorry, no,
I mean you you're I mean you're you're.
Speaker 22: Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm using headphones and it's it's
I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Here with me.
Speaker 22: In Daniel Chapter five, Daniel tells King Belshazzar that his
kingdom was basically going to come to an end, you know,
the number of measure divided, all that stuff. And in
that very same night King Garius, Babylonian King Darius, came and.
Speaker 6: His reign pretty much ended that night.
Speaker 22: However, historical accounts suggest that King Garius is conquering the
babylon couldn't have happened the.
Speaker 5: Way the Book of Daniel suggests.
Speaker 22: And I was just very I'm just wondering, what, what's
your perspective on that?
Speaker 2: As a as an Orthodox, I would never take why
can you not? I would never take the so called
authority of secular historians over divine relation. Meg, What's up.
Speaker 14: Hello, Hey, I got a question following up about the
post resurrection escaton specific to the state of the wicked
or those who have fully rejected Jesus in this life.
So my understanding of your view is like everyone is
universally like Jesus, universally recapitulated human nature. So everybody gets resurrected, immortal, imperishable,
and corruptible. So do the wicked experience physical pain or
decay if they're resurrected in a body like that of Jesus.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what we believe is that the experience that they
have is a bad experience. So even though they're resurrected
the presence of God, which is a good presence, because
they're evil, it torments them. So that is what the
river of life or river of fire is, is that
the river of life is the river of fire to
the wicked because they have rejected God and become his
enemy and they hate him from all eternity. So they
have a what Maximus calls a ever ill being, whereas
the righteous, because they participated in divine life, have ever
well being.
Speaker 14: Okay, is that just experienced in like a spiritual sense
or or in.
Speaker 2: Them I would imagine that the body which they misused
and mistreated also becomes a source of disease and displeasure
for them.
Speaker 14: Okay, So then you would say it is different than
the resurrected actual like.
Speaker 2: Physical well angels. For example, angels never lost their angelic nature,
but they will experience an angelic form of torture and
torment for an eternal angel nature. So the natures don't
have to change, just like you know, human nature. We
have the same nature that Adam had and that Jesus has,
but this body can experience pain and can experience disease
in this life. And so the only difference is that
in the escaton all people get ever being, but not
everybody gets ever well being, only the righteous do. Okay,
So it is like Jesus's body in some respects, but
unlike Jesus's body in other respects.
Speaker 14: And then I would assume you would not say that
they are in like they're able to experience. They're probably
going to be like sad and experiencing negative emotions on
a soul level endlessly.
Speaker 2: I mean, Jesus seems to describe it that way. So
I don't know that impassibility would be I don't even
know that the human that our bodies necessarily become impassable.
Speaker 14: That's just the divine nature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean we're resurrected in bodies. We're resurrected in bodies,
and we walk around and do stuff in the escaton.
So that to me suggests that it's in some way changeable.
It changes positions and location.
Speaker 14: Okay, And then, like onto, since having a will and
a free will as part of our nature, what about
like the wicked, do they will multiple evils or are
they only able to will multiple goods?
Speaker 4: But they just know?
Speaker 14: I think they don't want to cooperate with it.
Speaker 2: I think I think, like the evil angels, they have
fixed their will upon continually willing evil, so there's no
possibility of willing the good. So I don't know how.
I don't know whether they will multiple evils or not,
but probably, like the angels, their wills are fixed on
consistently willing evil.
Speaker 14: Okay, So then is there's still deception left in their
mind or soul?
Speaker 2: What do you mean deception left in it?
Speaker 1: What do you mean?
Speaker 14: I don't know, Like I guess, I think of evil
and deception as something that doesn't really have a substance
or a work.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 14: So in the Escaton, it's hard for me to understand
how people are still willing evil if God is all
in all, like, where is the evil.
Speaker 2: In the same way that the.
Speaker 14: Full presence of God? How can they still remain deceived?
And how can they still be willing evil things?
Speaker 2: Because they chose to fix their will in a state
of rejection of God, and so God's presence to them
is a torment and not something that they can ever
choose virtue again from. So in other words, the mode
of willing, which was, which is personal, is what determines
the experience of the Askeaton, and that's dependent upon whether
you recapitulated the virtue, as Maximus says, or whether you
chose vice and thus became an enemy of God and
hated God. So if you chose to be an enemy
and hated God, then you chose that as your fixed state.
Speaker 14: So yeah, I understand his view and yours. It just
it's hard for me to understand how God can be
all in all if those people are just fixed in evil.
But but I appreciate.
Speaker 2: Your well, So the evil is not a thing that
you get fixed in because their natures are still good
but they are perpetually willing, like the fallen angels against
the good.
Speaker 14: So yeah, okay, and then my last question is.
Speaker 2: Are you are you a universalist? Is what you're getting at?
Speaker 14: No, I'm not.
Speaker 2: What's your position?
Speaker 14: I believe, as Irenaeus believed, that the wages of sin
is death, and so the wicked will not be raised immortal,
and they will undergo a second death. And it's only
those who are baptized into Christ who will be raised
and perishable and immortal.
Speaker 2: So you don't believe in a general resurrection.
Speaker 14: I believe that though there's a resurrection of the just
and the unjust, and everyone will stand before God. But
what's believed like the unjust are resurrected into the same
type of body that they lived in this life. And
but but he believes go a second death.
Speaker 2: But he believes, but he believes in recapitulation. So what's
the basis for resurrection.
Speaker 14: Being in Christ?
Speaker 2: So how are the resurrected at?
Speaker 14: Is for those who are in Christ so receive a
heavenly defined.
Speaker 2: So Christ didn't assume universal human nature.
Speaker 14: Christ has a universal selvaffic will and his.
Speaker 2: What did he assume in the incarnation so he didn't
assume the whole of Adam's nature.
Speaker 14: He did, and so like the invitation is open for
everything one.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about ontologically in him ontologically did he assume
universal human nature? Because you just said that they're wicked
are resurrected on what basis?
Speaker 14: I guess because they like need to be judged.
Speaker 2: Okay, But Paul says there's no basis for being resurrected
other than in Christ.
Speaker 14: Okay.
Speaker 2: So in First in First pridy Is fifteen, when Paul
talks about the extent of Christ's healing of our nature,
it's as cosmic and universal as the extent of Adam's sin.
And that's why Jesus is able to rescue people in
every state of life, including infants. Yeah, that means all
wicked are only resurrected on the basis of Christ.
Speaker 14: Yeah, But he also talks about like this is applying
for people who are in Christ, like this type of
resurrection they receive.
Speaker 6: So you're saying first favenly nature like his.
Speaker 2: So you're saying First grand Is fifteen does not extend
the scope as wide as Adam's sin.
Speaker 14: I believe it extends a scope as wide, but not
everybody accepts the salvation of Christ.
Speaker 2: I agree with that, but the only way to be
resurrected is through Jesus destroying death, because it's our nature.
Do you don't think nature is a universal?
Speaker 14: I do think it's a universal, But I don't think
that we're like inherently immortal.
Speaker 2: Or I don't believe we are that.
Speaker 14: Everyone who rejects Christ.
Speaker 2: Fully, well, you just admitted.
Speaker 14: My life and be immortal forever. You just admitted my
emotional upon being in Christ.
Speaker 2: You just admitted my point that if Christ assumed human nature,
and if human nature is universal, then he resurrects all
human beings on that basis. That's what Urinaeas says. Recapitulation
is okay.
Speaker 14: I mean, like, I agree that everybody gets resurrected.
Speaker 2: And on what basis?
Speaker 14: Anyone who gets resurrected has to be on the basis
of God's power, because in Him we live and move
and have our beings.
Speaker 2: Where in the New Testament is there any idle.
Speaker 14: To continue on for an entire eternity? I don't think is.
Speaker 2: So are you aware of those who reject? Does Maximus teach?
So you don't believe the Orthodox position that Maximus lays out,
are you orthodox.
Speaker 14: Or I'm not I'm Protestant.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, there we go. Finally, that's all. You should
have just said that from the get go. Yeah, I
mean you you That's the problem is that you have
a Western idea that Christ did not assume human nature.
But human nature is a universal thing, and that's why
the scope in First Parents fifteen is everybody. And you're
just saying that God arbitrarily just resurrects the wicked for what.
Speaker 14: To destroy them and give them the just punishment.
Speaker 2: Where is there any evidence death? Where is there any
evidence there's a resurrection that's not based on Christ's work?
Speaker 14: It is based on God's power.
Speaker 2: No, Christ's work. What did you already said? Christ assumed
human nature and you call it a universal I don't
think you know what that means. So but what where
is there any evidence of a Where is there any
evidence of a resurrection that is not based on the
work of Christ defeating death in our in our nature?
Speaker 14: I guess can you show me where it says that
the wicked are raised in Christ.
Speaker 2: First Corinthia's fifteen says that all human beings are raised
in the same way that all human beings experienced death
on the basis of Adam's sin, So it's just as
wide as the scope of Adams. And you're saying, no,
it's not, it's only for Christ. Oh, so did Adam
only extend the death to certain people or to everybody?
The scope is as wide.
Speaker 14: As Adam to everyone, just like Sin died.
Speaker 2: Exactly, so the scope of Christ's saving the nature extends
as wide as Adam's sin. That's the argument of first
parent is fifteen. That's why all men are resurrected, even
the wicked. Okay, but why should I have to prove
that explicitly from a Bible verse when Protestantism doesn't have
a basis for what books go on the Bible. I
don't know, man, you don't know. Why would you be
Protestant if you don't know where the canon comes from?
Speaker 14: I mean, the like the canon. You want to talk
about the canon?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you're a Protestant, you believe in
the Protestant canon of scriptures, So why is that the
right canon of scriptures?
Speaker 14: I don't know. It's not necessarily something that is a
hill to die on for me.
Speaker 2: So you're not a classical Protestant, you don't believe in
solar scripturer.
Speaker 14: I would say, I believe like scripture is a very
high authority, maybe higher than what you would say, But
I wouldn't say solo scripture.
Speaker 2: Is it the final authority for the church.
Speaker 14: I would say it's a higher authority than like some
stuff in church councils.
Speaker 2: Who decided what books go in the Bible.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I'm I mean, I know, like church fathers and
councils played into all that. So that's fine. If you
want to debate that with me, we can.
Speaker 2: Well, but I mean that's going to.
Speaker 14: Condition you don't find it hill to die on? And
I'm well, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, isn't that going to condition the way that we
interpret what Aaronaas says or what Maximus says or what
NICs says? Is I mean for you, it's kind of
like touch and go or like you don't really have
to concern yourself with those guys, right, No, I.
Speaker 14: Do concern myself with those guys, and I like read
a lot of church history and church fathers and I
care a lot.
Speaker 2: So okay, but what does that have to do with
whether or not there's one true church or not? Because
That's where I'm going with this, because if you're a Protestant,
you obviously don't believe that there's one true church, right.
Speaker 14: I mean, I would say I believe in the priesthood
of believers, and that like a Muslim living in Iraq
who has a dream about Jesus tonight and understands the
Gospel and puts their faith in Christ, even if they
are not baptized into your Orthodox church, like I think
that they can be saved. So and I'm not saying
that like I don't know.
Speaker 2: So it doesn't really matter whether your Protestant Orthodox is
basically what you're saying, Yeah, well, then why be Protestant
if it doesn't matter.
Speaker 14: I mean, I would say the definitely the number one
reason that I have not become Orthodox is because I
think that the message has been lost, of just the
simple Gospel.
Speaker 2: And how do you know what?
Speaker 1: How do you know?
Speaker 14: I do believe in penal substitutionary atonement, and that like
I can't. Do you believe that Jesus was damned enough
to be at the level.
Speaker 6: Do you believe Jesus Jesus?
Speaker 2: Do you believe that Jesus was damned? Probably?
Speaker 14: No, I believe the wages of Sinn' death.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, classic penal substitution says that Jesus was damned
by the Father as part of the pain.
Speaker 14: I don't agree with John Calvin. I think he was
completely wrong.
Speaker 2: Well Luther teaches it to John Calvin is not the
only one.
Speaker 14: I disagree with Luthor then too, So.
Speaker 2: So you don't believe in you? So is it your
version of PSA that you've come up with or like,
where did you get this.
Speaker 14: From the New Testament? And like understanding, So.
Speaker 2: How is it a payment if he doesn't take the debt.
Speaker 14: He did take the debt?
Speaker 2: Is the debt damnation? No, it's death, but not spiritual.
Speaker 14: Death, complete death.
Speaker 2: What does that mean?
Speaker 14: Spiritual and body?
Speaker 2: You just said not spiritual, but now you said it
is spiritual. What you just contradicted yourself. You said it's
complete death, spirit and body. So the Son of God
did spiritually die?
Speaker 14: No, but like he died.
Speaker 2: But I thought the debt that we owed was damnation.
But is the debt that we owe not damnation in
the PSA view, I.
Speaker 14: Mean in John Calvin's PSA view.
Speaker 2: Okay, well tell me in your view how it's.
Speaker 14: That Jesus went down to Hades and suffered. You know
all this.
Speaker 2: So you've made up your own Christianity. So why would
you make up your own christians So you've made it up,
you made up your own view basically. No, no, who
else teaches your view?
Speaker 15: Uh?
Speaker 14: Irenaeus, No he doesn't.
Speaker 2: There were no, he does not. You're totally wrong. US
does not teach penal substitutionary atonement. There's nobody in the
nobody in the first fifteen hundred years teaches penal substitutionary atonement.
Speaker 14: Melito of Sartis, well, he's.
Speaker 2: A heretic, so good job, all right, So you're in
with heretics. So you found a church father's heretic that
teaches your your view. How is it how is it
penal substitution if it's not damnation, which was the the penalty.
Speaker 14: I'm confused death the wages.
Speaker 2: You just said it's also spiritual death. Did you not?
Speaker 14: Well, because human beings, like we're not inherently immortal in God.
We live and move and have our beings.
Speaker 2: So I'm talking about the death that's the punishment, that's
the fall. Is that spiritual death?
Speaker 6: No, because you just said.
Speaker 2: It was spiritual death.
Speaker 14: Kick them out of the guard.
Speaker 2: Five minutes ago, you said.
Speaker 14: In a state of death.
Speaker 2: Literally five minutes ago said it was a spiritual death,
which one is it?
Speaker 14: So for like a human being, this is.
Speaker 2: You're making this stuff up on the spot.
Speaker 1: So this is all right.
Speaker 14: I appreciate the conversation.
Speaker 2: Okay, goodbye, Nuclear We got our wine. Mom of the night,
Matt one dollar. I was not trying to delete your
channel bringing that topic up, Anonymous, three dollars? What are
your thoughts on sixteen seventy two. I don't think there's
any problem with Dycitheus or Jerusalem. The problem is that
people see translations in Western language and they read all
the Western theological baggage into words. That's the problem. Why
am I mad? That was inane conversation. If you have
a disagreement, call in. This is not for you to
spam the chat on YouTube with your issues. And she
literally contradicted herself within like two minutes. So I mean
she literally said spiritual death and then she said it's
not spiritual death. I have no idea what she's talking about.
She's making up her own view, and I mean, look,
I'm sorry, nobody. Irenaeus did not teach penal substitution. This
is what Protestants do is they see terms just like
what I'm talking about, uh, and they read into the
terms all of their theological baggage. So they see some
Western translation of aaron As and they see something, Oh,
he's teaching the Protestant doctrine and the soul of feeding
at penal substitution. So I mean, there is no penal
substitution doctrine. That's what we know of as that from
the history of Protestantism. That doesn't include an actual transaction.
If the punishment is damnation and death, then the reformers argued,
then Jesus had to undergo the punishment to give us
the right. That's the exchange. Unmute Sam, Yeah, how's it going?
What's up?
Speaker 1: Not that much was this listening in. I saw that
you're you have a wide array of people you'd like
to debate.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what's your topic of debate?
Speaker 23: Well, I am a Muslim, so maybe we could discuss
some theological differences.
Speaker 1: It's been my favorite of yours.
Speaker 23: Sure so John seventeen three, which Jesus said, and this
is eternal life that they know you when he was
speaking about the Father being the only true God and
Jesus Christ when he has sin. How would you reconcile
that with the idea of the Trinity.
Speaker 2: It's called monarchical trinitarianism. Everybody who believes in the traditional
Orthodox doctor in the Trinity first thousand years believes that
the Father is God proper, hence monarchical trinitarianism. And if
you read the rest of the passage, it also goes
on to talk about the Son being gone.
Speaker 23: All right, how would you reconcile the.
Speaker 2: Have you read John seventeen to five?
Speaker 23: Yeah, I mean, I'm fairly familiar with it.
Speaker 1: What is it?
Speaker 2: What does it say?
Speaker 1: I can I can't quote it verbatim.
Speaker 2: Well, do you have it in front of you.
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 23: I don't know how to leave this page and pull
it up at the same time.
Speaker 1: But if you read it, you're more than welcome.
Speaker 2: This is eternal life that they know you and Jesus
whom he has sent and now glorify me together with
you and the glory that I had with you before
the foundation of the world. So is Jesus saying that
he was equally glorified with the Father before the foundation
of the world.
Speaker 23: I mean the way I would understand that was, you know,
like how I would understand Jeremiah one five, where God
was to Jeremiah before you were.
Speaker 2: Are you the same guy that calls into sam Shami
with this stupid argument.
Speaker 1: No, I've never speaking to the same.
Speaker 2: Does Jeremiah say that he had glory equal to the
Father before the foundation of the world.
Speaker 1: No, but it was predestined, So.
Speaker 2: So you literally you heard nothing of what I said.
Jesus says I have the same glory with the Father
before the foundation of the world. Jeremiah doesn't say that.
Speaker 23: Yes, let's see what you're saying, but it just you know,
the way it's qualified in seventeen three is that he
calls the Father the only true God. So that disqualifies
Jesus from being God.
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't, because Jesus himself, in the same passage
says that he is equal to the Father and has
all the same work. Says the Father and Jesus called
God in every chapter of the Book of John.
Speaker 1: I refree to believe that. I mean, if that's your.
Speaker 2: Interpretation, No, I mean it's not my interpretation. Is what
he says. By the way, doesn't the Koran say that
the previous scriptures in Koran five forty eight confirm the
new scriptures being the Koran.
Speaker 1: No, not exactly.
Speaker 2: What does it say, because I've got it pulled up,
we revealed to you, Oh, Prophet, this book a confirmation
of the previous scriptures.
Speaker 23: Yeah, but right after this says it's a supreme authority
over it.
Speaker 2: Okay, but does it claim to be a confirmation of
what came before.
Speaker 23: Yeah, But there's a caveat because in chapter two, verse
seventy nine, it says, well to those who write the
scripture with their own hand, then say this is from God,
and this is in reference to the previous scriptures.
Speaker 2: No, it says that they twist it with what.
Speaker 23: No, you're thinking of the wrong Verse two seventy nine
says they write it with their own hands and say
this is from God. You're thinking of the other verse,
which talks about the Jews who have twisted the words
of God. That's a different verse. The verse I'm talking
about is literal. If we say in Arabic or word.
Speaker 2: Corruption, what's the verse before that? In seventy eight, I
don't have it on me, oh I do. It says
that they are illiterate. The ones that you're talking about
in seventy nine, who distort it with their own hands?
How do they distort it if they're illiterate?
Speaker 23: No, it's saying they try to fool the people I.
Speaker 2: Just read you. Among them are the illiterate who do
not know the scriptures. So woe to these who distort
it with their own hands when they say this is
from Allah? So how to illiterate people?
Speaker 23: The people that are trying to fool are the illiterate ones.
But the ones who are distorting it with their hands.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. It's the people who distort it that
are the ones that are illiterate because they know nothing.
Speaker 1: How do you come up with that interpretation?
Speaker 2: Because it says woe to those who dissort the scriptures? Right,
And it's not the scriptures that are distorted, it's the
people who distort it, right, who are deceiving people. How
does the Koran prove prove the previous revelation when the
Qoran says that the previous revelation is from Allah? Matthew H.
Speaker 1: Jay, can you hear me? Okay? If you're only debating,
that's okay. I kind of had a quick question, not
really debating.
Speaker 24: Okay, So obviously I'm just trying to understand from the
Orthodox position, like early in the Fathers that kind of
talks about the supremacy, kind of the supremacy of Rome,
Rome being the first see and kind of referring to that.
How does like, because obviously the Catholic claim is that
the Roman see is first.
Speaker 1: So how is that different than what, uh, I.
Speaker 24: Guess Vadictum one claims because you disagree with that?
Speaker 2: What is Vatican one claim?
Speaker 1: Like people inabability?
Speaker 2: How does first equate to that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I kind of see that like the
Roman Church would be first above the others.
Speaker 2: I don't know, Yeah, I mean it does that have
to do with infallibility universal canonical jurisdiction when Rome literally
just had to put out a document right here saying
that they didn't have that in the first millennium? So
which one is it?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Have you read? Have you read? She eighty?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: So right here, paragraph nineteen, the Bishop of Rome did
not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East
and the first millennium. So how is Vatican want true then?
Speaker 1: And where is this from? Sorry?
Speaker 2: So, nodality and premacy in the first millennium Gady document.
Speaker 25: Okay, so how does the Orthodox understand then, like, uh,
infallible dogmatic statements?
Speaker 5: Like how how does the church I guess.
Speaker 23: Uh put out a.
Speaker 5: Dogmatic statement that is infallible? Is it only at counsels?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: The Orthodox Church only holds that for councils.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, that was pretty much it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sure, no problem.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: To the guy in the chat, if you want to
come on in debate, you can. It's not a venue
for you to spam Protestant stuff everywhere. Nobody here is
going to be convinced by you saying that the Bible
doesn't talk about prayers to saints and Mary, so we
don't believe in scripture alone? What man? What go ahead?
You've been pushing the emoji for an hour? What do
you want the dude? What So you spend all that
time pushing the emoji and you don't have yours? Michael,
good job. My love is dying. I gotta replenish my love. Vasily,
Genesis priest, Vasili, what's up? I'm mute.
Speaker 26: Yeah, I just got a quick question about your understanding
of eschatology. Is Christ on the scene in Isaiah sixty.
Speaker 2: On the scene.
Speaker 1: What do you mean is he reigning? Is he back
on earth?
Speaker 2: Let me see.
Speaker 1: The whole chapter. Some would say is the millennial reign.
Speaker 2: We're not pre millennials. No, No Orthodox Church is pre millennial.
It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council. Christ's reign
began when he ascended.
Speaker 26: Okay, so at what point in your prophetic timeline is
Isaiah's sixty taking place?
Speaker 2: Now it's a prediction of the church. Hence the Gentiles
are mentioned. The Gentile church is mentioned. Uh, just scrolled
past that word to go verse five, verse six. That's right. Now,
this is all of the gentile nations worshiping the Messiah.
The kingdom is what Jesus set up in his first advent.
Hence the church is the kingdom of Matthew sixteenth.
Speaker 1: Ei.
Speaker 2: There you gotta amute man?
Speaker 1: All right, you're telling me.
Speaker 2: No the other guy, Genesis, are you there? You gotta umune?
Are you there? We can't hear you. So all of
these Isaiah passes, I've done whole talks on the prediction
of the Gentile Church in Isaiah, which is right now,
it's not the so called millennial rain. That's a judaizing heresy.
What's up Vasily?
Speaker 27: So hey guys, Hey Jay, sort of I've been listening
for a while.
Speaker 1: I'm in Sweden.
Speaker 6: Woke up in the night, but so it's some off
for the rest of it.
Speaker 27: But I don't know to common something about the the
Mormon the so so if you think of like what
they accomplish, maybe maybe not focus on the every detail.
Speaker 1: It's like the look at the actions and not the words.
Speaker 28: Okay, I appreciate that, Hm, go ahead, text us.
Speaker 29: Yeah, I was a revolution in the chat talking about Mary, okay.
And I just one of the ways that people talk
about the Trinity is they say that, you know, Jesus
can hear the prayers of everyone.
Speaker 1: It's talked about in John.
Speaker 29: And this is one of the ways that we affirm
that Jesus is God. And so but I've noticed that
the Orthodox and Catholics, they make the same claims about Mary,
that she can hear millions of people's prayers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because in Revelation five through nine, the saints in
heaven hear the prayers of the saints on earth. It's
talked about in the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 29: But it doesn't actually say that, does it it actually
says that there's bowls, but it.
Speaker 2: Does actually say that because it says they're offering the prayers.
How are they doing that if they can't hear it?
Speaker 1: So it says.
Speaker 29: That they had balls full of incense, which are the
prayer prayers of the saints, So it doesn't actually say
they're listening to the prayers or they're answering the prayers.
Speaker 2: It's called the Communion of Saints. They're part of the
same church as us. So the problem is that you
don't believe that people can be deified, which they can.
Speaker 29: Okay, So I'm guessing your orthodox I don't know much
about you, but it sounds like anox sort of thing. Okay,
so I guess is there any other scripture whatsoever? Because
I'm not really convinced about that. But like, so, I'm
guessing that you're you're basically looking into the scripture from
your traditional beliefs.
Speaker 2: Which everyone does what you do as well.
Speaker 29: I tend to go more with if the Bible says
it and it overrides my traditional beliefs, I'll go with it.
Speaker 2: No, I'm talking about everybody interprets text from their paradigm.
So you have a Protestant paradigm from which you interpret
the text. It's unescapable. Everybody does.
Speaker 29: Yeah, everyone has paradigm. But we can overcome those paradigms.
Speaker 1: We can look at right.
Speaker 2: Yours is a false paradigm. Correct?
Speaker 1: Sorry? What was that? Yes?
Speaker 2: Correct, and yours is a false paradigm.
Speaker 29: But your understanding of this is basically from your church tradition,
So you're overwriting.
Speaker 2: You have a Bible that is from my tradition. The
received text is the Greek Church text, so you actually
borrow your name as Texas Receptives. That's the Orthodox Church's text.
So even you rely on us, I.
Speaker 29: Would say that the originals that the Byzantine Church did
use the Boison place.
Speaker 2: How do you know what the originals are?
Speaker 29: Because the Bible season relationship in twenty two nine.
Speaker 2: How do you know what the originals are? You're you're
so foolish that your name is Textas Receptis, which you
just admitted is the boys Untaking Church, which is the
Orthodox Church. And I asked you how you know that
that's the correct text from where? From where? And you're
going to cite the Book of Revelation, which is assuming
that that's part of the correct text, And that's what
I'm asking you, So stop us assuming the thing in question,
how do you know that that's the right list of books?
Speaker 17: Well, every text says this, and so well, every text
says what I'm about.
Speaker 2: How do you know that the textas receptist includes the
correct New Testament texts?
Speaker 29: Head to one of the textas receiptist has the correct
New Testament texts?
Speaker 17: Yeah, because.
Speaker 2: Begging the question, how do you know that? Because it's
written on the title, Where does Matthew identify that's written
by an apostle? So you don't know the.
Speaker 17: Third century documents that have this is from what?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: From? From what? People in the third century?
Speaker 17: From manuscripts from the party.
Speaker 2: Who maintained and passed on those manuscripts? Did they drop
out of heaven?
Speaker 17: They were multiple different like people.
Speaker 1: Like who.
Speaker 17: People in history?
Speaker 2: I mean the Orthodox bishops that maintained that the boys.
Speaker 30: And tins, well I guess they.
Speaker 2: Who are the boys and tains?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: Who are they?
Speaker 30: They?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 31: Exactly see, I'm getting mean again. I gotta I gotta
be nice. The boys and tape go ahead?
Speaker 2: Did you want to finish your comment?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know what happened.
Speaker 1: But you said that Isaiah sixteen.
Speaker 2: So it's the air of the church. Jesus set up
the kingdom of Matthew sixteen. He calls the church the
kingdom and is not postponed to the end of the world.
It's not pre millennialism, it's now. Hence a prophecy of
the gentile church, which proves Christianity, and all pre millennialism
does is destroy one of the strongest priests for Christianity.
Speaker 1: Okay, So why is it? Who are the gentiles?
Speaker 26: So it says gentiles will come to thy.
Speaker 2: Light the church. That's the church, the gentiles converting to Christ.
Speaker 26: Okay, so the light the your is Does it matter
what translation, my reader, what you're preferred?
Speaker 2: Arise and shine? Your light has called the glory of
the Lord has written risen upon you. Right, the Lord
will arise over you. When did Jesus arise over everybody
and rule over a gentile kingdom? When did that happen?
Speaker 26: I'm asking you, I don't take this to be fulfilled
or I believe this is future.
Speaker 2: And I'm showing and arguing why that's stupid.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: When did Jesus rise up over everybody and sit at
the right hand of the Father at the end.
Speaker 6: Of the world.
Speaker 1: Did they say right hand in here?
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, When did Jesus rise?
Speaker 26: It says, I don't believe this is Christ because it
says arise and shot your light has come.
Speaker 2: I'm asking you in the New Testament, when Psalm one
ten is cited every time in the New Testament, what
is it referring.
Speaker 1: To Isaiah's sixties?
Speaker 2: Not Psalms one team, I'm asking you a different question
that's going to relate to this.
Speaker 1: When did he he was already at the right hand
of the Father?
Speaker 2: The New Testament cites many times Psalm one ten. What
is it referring to When they cite it, it's a
basic questions.
Speaker 26: You don't know Christ, Christ sitting at the right hand
of the Father?
Speaker 2: And when did that happen? In the New Testament citations
of Psalm one tenth, what event is that about?
Speaker 1: You tell me what's your what' you're under?
Speaker 2: It's called the ascension, So you don't know what you're
talking John. That destroys all the pre millennial nonsense. They
don't even pay attention to all the citations of someone
in the New Testament. It's not the pre millennial second
coming rain on Earth. It's literally cited in the New
Testament every time about the ascension. That alone destroys all dispensationalism,
all the nonsense.
Speaker 30: Go ahead, boys are tight, Boys are tight, boys untied?
Speaker 1: Yep, hey, I call in a few months ago.
Speaker 32: I know if you spoke about like the history of
sala officema everything.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that? Oh?
Speaker 32: Yeah, yeah, I just want to pay first, Like somebody
cut out that I made a clip of it.
Speaker 1: I said, like a Muslim scholars talk to Ja Dyer.
Speaker 2: I don't know who made that. Yeah, I think Novisky
made the clip and he misunderstood. But no, you are
not a Muslim.
Speaker 1: No, I'm an ex Muslim. But Bible was not a
Muslim scholar.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know. I think you just
assumed that.
Speaker 32: Yeah, I think it is a compliment. Anyways, I want
to talk more about Islam. Have you looked into the
Islamic problem of free will and predestination?
Speaker 2: I have, And I'm not trying to be rude, but
I'm gonna take We're gonna I'm trying to close it
up here. So call back in next time and we'll
do discussions of critiquing Islam. But last chance for anybody
who disagrees, went to mind you gots heading over to
chalk dot com. I've been going for almost five hours,
something about uh spent and if I keep going, I'm
going to get rude and then, oh.
Speaker 1: He wouldn't love it.
Speaker 30: He got mean with people.
Speaker 2: See, I'm starting to get a little mean, so I
gotta I'm at the back off. Plus it's Christmas, so
Merry Christmas and church tomorrow, so last chance. If you disagree,
raise your hand. I will try to be nice to you,
but my niceness points are running low right now, so
the love tank's empty. I spent all my love tonight
on everyone else. Heading over to chalk dot com, joq
dot com. That is the best in supplementation online. They
are my sponsor and they are a beloved, wonderful company.
You can get the best in supplementation at chalk dot com,
hq dot com right here. Use a promo go J
fifty excuse me, J forty you get forty percent off
j Ay four zero forty percent off. If you disagree
in the if you're waiting in line, you have to
raise your hand. Otherwise I'm not going to and if
you ask me a Q and A, I'm not gonna
answer it. So only people that disagree. So there's still
seven people on line. Do you disagree? Raise your hand,
I'll go to you. Use a promo go j forty
four life four for l A f E to get
forty four percent off. Guy am, my favorite clip is
you'r a goblin demon? But Retard Slick single handedly was
pushed out of Calvinism. Does anybody disagree?
Speaker 1: I see.
Speaker 2: Six people fought, none of you disagree. Why are you
still waiting if you don't disagree, because I'm not going
to unless you disagree? Anonymous? Three dollars? What are your
thoughts on? We already did that? Did I missed the
super chent Jenny Lamp? Ten dollars? That has nothing to
do with your stream. I just learned the lyrics to
Seal Kissed by a Rose? Can you sing the Jay
Dire version? Ah Ben kissed by a Rose on your grave?
I don't know whatever he says, Chris JD. Ten dollars,
all held.
Speaker 30: The boys in teen Boys and ten?
Speaker 2: Does somebody disagree?
Speaker 1: Luke?
Speaker 2: And to Jake? Do you disagree? Do you not know
how to use emojis. I mean, so none of you
are raising your hands. I'm assuming you don't. All right,
thank you guys. Uh, we're gonna call it a night.
No nol and nole ten dollars. I'm attending a Greek
Orthodox church. I know you recommended. Russian father I'm talking
to said Freemasons are not allowed in the church. He
doesn't like acumunism. Sounds like a good good guy. Sounds
like a good dude. Use your promo code J forty
four Our Life j JF for for LF right.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 2: You can get signed copies of my books at the website. Also,
head on over to my Twitter and remember that we'll
be live in Tampa at the Dark Seekers or Horror
Movies Tampa Screams Convention. The convention to separate from my
evening event, which if you come over here to the Twitter,
you get tickets January nineteenth, right here in the ticket link,
and then I'll take you over to here and the
dinner with me is separate. First thirty people that get
tickets get a copy of Esotery Hollywood, So get your
free copy right there, signed and it's a dinner lecture.
Tickets are thirty bucks. This is separate from the convention,
but we will be at the convention selling books and
signing books and all that data US seven ten dollars.
Thank you, brother, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Dale.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. Appreciate that generosity. Again, Florida, if you're
in this region, come to the Tampa Screams Spooky Convention
and we're going to be doing it. We'll be doing
an evening talk. It's going to be fun, signing books,
et cetera. I'll see you guys there. Also, get chalk
dot com, get some supplements.