Speaker 1: For messenger, the Messenger of the Covenant, which the minor
prophet talk about. That's Jesus in Exodus three. The voice
speaking out of the burning bush is the same angel
in Exodus twenty three who can remit sins and has
the name of Yahweh in him. That's not a creature
Roman Catholics. All of this is demonstrating that Roman Catholics
and their insane commitments to stupid positions, are on their
way to being Muslims. They're almost there. James White too,
by the way, because the Angel of the Lord is
not the Son of God. I mean, has this guy
never heard any debates that me or Sam she may
have done with Muslims. I remember when I debated Trent,
I said, Trent, how are you going to debate with
a Muslim when you're sacrificing one of your best arguments
against must or against the jew Did you guys hear
Sam Sheumun's debate with the Orthodox rabbi kid he demolished them.
How by this he demolished that young Jewish guy from
Britain who knows Hebrew. I was trying to argue the
Hebrew and Sam demolished him. It's an amazing debate. I
highly recommend it. Guess what, it's the same debate with
the Muslims.
Speaker 2: And that's not exactly a modern thing.
Speaker 3: It's all over Patristics because Patristics are crystocentric, and the
debating originally Jews as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely right, it's.
Speaker 3: Not a fringe, weird positions, theologumental stuff. No church pazzes
go all the time through the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: They say, hey, that's Christ.
Speaker 1: Now other people commented on this, oh, some other commentators
have done a response, and the Thomas Aquinas mentions that
they're traces of the Trinity the Old Testament. This is
not talking about the Catholic idea of traces of the
Trinity in the Old Testament. This is specifically about Theophanes
in time and space, particularly the Angel of the Lord.
And it's not always just a theophany of a body
who is rustling. What does it say in Genesis thirty
two says at the end that when he struck his hip, Well,
it says that that Jacob saw the ladder of God right,
ascending it to heaven. Is that twenty eight? I think? Yeah,
So in twenty eight Jacob sees when he lays his
head down. He sees this vision of the ladder of God.
That's the you know, spiritual ladder. It's verse seventeen.
Speaker 4: Ish.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to go back between septuigen and right here
and Masaai texts. Jacob awoke from his sleep and said,
surely God is in this place. No, wait a minute,
how is God in this place? If God is not
in time and space? But no, he actually is interacting
with the theophany of the Lord. You understand this argument
refutes Roman. All of Roman Catholicism can fall on this point.
You understand that. Do you remember the Thomis that called
in argue with me and I kept going to Leviticus nine,
the glory of the Lord appearing in time and space,
and they all admit that the Glory of God is
not a creature. Uh oh, Now what they have to
admit essence, entergy, distinction in our position, or else they're
going to be Muslims. Look what does it say right here?
Jacob awoke? Surely he always in this place. How awesome
is this place? This is none other than the House
of God and the Gate of Heaven. And let's go
to thirty two where he wrestles. Who I wonder who
this is? I'm amazed these Roman Celics are. This is
how biblically illiterate, the Roman Calics and the Tamasar. If
they would get their head out of the dry, boring
aquina stuff and put their face in the Bible, they
might actually know some of this. Jacob said, tell me
your name? Who are you this angel that I've wrestled with?
Why is it you ask about my name? Where have
we heard that before? Judges thirteen? What does the angel
Lord say to Manoah? Why do you ask my name?
Seeing as it is wonderful? Why do you ask my name?
Why do you ask my name? It is wonderful? Who
does Isaiah identify as wonderful, wonderful counselor mighty God? The
one whose name is wonderful is not Michael or Gabriel.
It's the Son of God, the Son of God, the
son of God that job saw. I saw one like
a son of God. Tell me your name, it is wonderful.
Jacob called this place Peniel. I have seen God face
to face. Imagine thinking seeing that and going with the
Jewish Muslim argument that the created being there was an
angel God doesn't share his glory with creatures unless we're
talking about theosis. You don't get to be called Yahweh
if you're a creature. And yet we're told that Yahweh
turned his face to Gideon when the same angel the
Lord appears to Gideon, the same angel the Lord. Now
you've you've read all this right? Who does Jesus identify
himself as in John one? Well, it's actually Nathaniel. Nathaniel says,
I saw you, and are you the King of Israel
and the Son of God? John one forty nine. Jesus said,
because I said to you, I saw you under the
fig tree, do you now believe you will see greater
things than this? Most assurely, I say to you, you
shall see Heaven open, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of Man. Oh, what is that?
That's exactly what Jacob saw when he had his vision
of the logos. Jacob identifies the Angel of the Lord
as the ladder of God upon whom the angels are
descending and ascending and descending. And the Roman Caolics can't
figure out that this is Jesus. This is a pathetic
and heterodox. The papal cult. Is it really is this bat?
You wonder why I'm so vicious and vehemence against the
Roman Catholics. They're robbing you of your best argument against
Muslims and Jews, these idiots. Genesis twenty eight twelve to
thirteen Jacob's latter where he sees the angels ascending and descending,
when he sees the Angel of the Lord, and Jesus
tells you right there who it is, and the Roman
Catholics say, no, Jesus, that's not you. I know better
because Thomas Aquinas, my cult leader, told me that that's
not you. Now that we can go, There are twenty
other passages in Genesis. But if you want a longer exposition,
I've already done every passage in the Torah except for
the one I missed, which I mentioned later on, of Etheophany.
Let me give you just one more, because the Roman
Catholics really struggle with Leviticus nine. Remember, God's glory is
not a creature. We all admit this. So even if
it's not the case, But even if we threw out
all these examples of the Angel the Lord, what are
any of these Roman coal that's going to do with
this passage where it says Aaron lifted up his hands
toward the people, blessed them, and came down from the
offering of the sin offering and the burnt offering and
the peace offerings. Aaron and Moses went into the tabernacle
meeting and came out to bless the people. And then
the glory of the Lord appeared to the people, and
fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the
burnt offering, and they all fell on their face. Now,
wait a minute, is the glory of God a creature?
How is it appearing to all the people if God
does not equate his glory to a created thing. Remember
when I asked this to the Tomus that we're calling
in and they all lost their mind and just flipped out.
Do you think this is the only Theophany? There's multiple
more in Deuteronomy, in numbers in Leviticus. So they just
don't know what the bubble actually says. They're like Muslims
and Jews, because Jews follow the Talmud and for the Thomas,
Thomas is their Talmud saint, Talmud Aquinas. How's that Talmud Aquinas?
There you go? I'm sorry Exandra rant to go ahead.
Speaker 4: Oh okay, thank you? Is they love I'm still or no,
you're good, Okay, that's good man. That was actually insane.
I oh my life.
Speaker 5: Even Sam Shamoon when I was watching them back in
his Protestant days, like that was that was this was
the argument that it was hammering down.
Speaker 1: It's like so obvious when if you know the Old
Testament really well, it's just super obvious. It's not even
it's like, that's why Paul says that there's a veil
over the mind of the Jews when they read the
Old Testament because they can't see Christ everywhere in the
Old Testament. And these, uh, the followers of Saint talmud
Aquinas have the same Jewish veil over their hearts.
Speaker 3: And again it's not only being robbed of argument, it's
what's the point of the Old Testament?
Speaker 4: Then?
Speaker 2: You know, that's the entire point that it was Christ
all alone.
Speaker 3: That's the entire death of these sticks, which which is huge,
that's the entire point of it. That's that's also super
important thrust in terms of worship, in terms of spirituality,
in terms of understandings the new system, and it's it's
a central part.
Speaker 2: It's before abram I m.
Speaker 1: Well, and it's also part of the big deception, as
Snacks pointing out, which robs us not just of apologetic arguments,
but actually robs us of the truth. And we fall
into delusion because when Nos Tate three says that Muslims
and Jews and Christians all worship the same God, it's
premised on the assumption that the Old Testament is teaching
a unitarian God and not the Trinity, and that it's
generic theism. So you see that Roman Galvics are just
following their papal masters and Vaticans.
Speaker 4: The quick question, real.
Speaker 5: Quick, before I asked my last question, is this also
why Jimmy Aiken came out saying that Isaiah for three
was also about the about Israel, the nation of Israel,
and Jesus and not just Jesus.
Speaker 4: Or is there something different going on there?
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't know his position on that, but I
did you know that he liked Voice of Reason also
rejects Ephesus. Oh well, yeah, let me play the clip.
Is that after the task of emphasis Hisstorius accepted the
Church's judgment.
Speaker 6: He said, actually, no, I don't think Jesus is two persons.
Speaker 1: Let me clarify, and he did.
Speaker 7: He clarified his views.
Speaker 1: He didn't like calling Mary mother of God, but he
clarified that.
Speaker 7: He didn't think Jesus was two persons, and he accepted.
Speaker 1: The Church's judgment, and he died in communion with the church.
Speaker 4: Died in.
Speaker 1: I think he meant Astorias, but he actually says Nestorius.
And then he says Arius died of faithful Catholic So
I mean, this guy is a complete clown. I mean,
but this is why Voice of Reason says the culture
of effanges made error where they condemn their storage good
in their storage. I heard d this is why they
say this because of this gootball.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: So they actually reject emphasis and they don't believe in
infalliblecumenical councils because the councils now aired and the Storius
was cool all on.
Speaker 5: Oh wow, thanks for thanks for clarifying that. So my
last question is is this. I've been looking inside the
community of saints and stuff.
Speaker 4: And then uh I went when I went.
Speaker 5: To to the Antiothan church, I couldn't help but notice
the saints on the ceilings and on the walls and
everywhere around this, is there is there like a thematic?
Speaker 4: Is there a theme around that, or is there like.
Speaker 1: Well, the the dome and the ceiling of the church
is supposed to give us the impression that Heaven has
come down to us and we are in the presence
of the heavenly liturgy, which is what John is doing
and seeing in Revelation five or nine.
Speaker 5: And I was, okay, I just want to go from
them because it's feeling the same way.
Speaker 3: So there are some common themes, you know, icons that
is posed in the churches.
Speaker 2: There are local.
Speaker 3: Variations and variations from parish to perish. Parishes will often
put saints that are more relevant or important for them.
You tend to have a female saints on the left,
male sense on the right. The central door will have
the for evangelists, because there is a door that opens
toward towards the inner symptom is is the gospel above it.
You usually have the annunciation to show that this all
starts with incarnation. Oftentimes there is the icon of the
protection of the Mother of God above the outside door,
so that's about you know, going into the world having
the protection. There is also classification of things in terms
of important there are so usually you'll have apostles, martyrs,
things like this, and of course, liturgically speaking, you you
really often have a dasis meaning Christ on the right side,
John the Foreigner on the left side of theotocurse. That's
a classic one. So there is a method to the madness.
Speaker 4: Thanks thanks man about the icons.
Speaker 5: One last thing before I'm going to leave this the
list thing, I'm gonna say that I have this argument
that I was talking to my personal friend about this,
about like the whole community of saints and stuff like that,
and like how I first started, like I started like
having prayers about it, about a prayer book from the church,
and then I started praying and he said he was
asking me, well, why don't you just go directed.
Speaker 4: To Jesus and stuff.
Speaker 5: Like that, And I didn't. I didn't give out the
common responses. I I think I like I reached this
conclusion by myself. I wanted I wanted to I wanted
to know why.
Speaker 4: You thought the way you thought of it.
Speaker 5: Is that Protestantism's way of viewing the saints it makes
God a pagan utilitarian god.
Speaker 4: That in.
Speaker 5: One way, because like, uh, the way that view got
the way to view the saints is, uh, the God
just uses them for here on earth, and after that
he discards.
Speaker 4: Them, and like he all all the oldest focus is.
Speaker 5: On him, like he uses it for like for one person,
one purpose and one purpose, and then after day like
he forgets about them.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean, I think you could maybe make
a connection like that, But I mean, I think most
Protestants would admit that, you know the quote saints are
in heaven doing something. I don't know what, but the
Book of Revelation tells us that they're involved in the
liturgical worship of heaven. So I want to play this
clip here to let you see that Voice of Reason
has the exact same ridiculous error that Jimmy Aiken has.
Speaker 8: Are serious, So the church isn't protected in matters of fact.
Speaker 4: The Church is only.
Speaker 8: Protected only infallible in matters of faith and morals. In
the same way that condemn the stories erritic, we don't
know looking bad that the council correct the story.
Speaker 1: First of all, all of that was assertions the idea
that there's no connection between the condemnation of a council
and faith in morals, I think condemning one of the
biggest heresy arcs in the history of the Church relates
to morals and faith, you think, But he tries to
come up with this arbitrary standard that, oh, that actually
is not under infallibility, and so the entire Council of
Ephesus and all the acts. He doesn't even understand how
devastating this would be to the actual council. He's not
even read the acts and the statements that Cyril wrote
the twelve anathemas. Of this would mean the anathemas are wrong, too, dummy,
and that would mean that Ephesis is wrong not just
in the condemnation of Nestorius, but in the canons and
the anathemas that all condemned the multiple errors of Nestorius,
including arguments about the Eucharist. So he doesn't even know
how dumb this admission is. But it actually shows you
that in the Roman got the position it doesn't even
matter what the councils teach. Literally, in fact, they're now saying,
we don't even care if you were condemned as a
heretic for centuries palam moss mark of emphasis. Uh, you know,
all these guys, Photius, they're all saints now you're all
You're all good. Now, it's all cool, even though cantade
Domino says that if you die, even as a martyr
outside the Roman Catholic communion, you are damned. No, it's
all good. No, it's cool. Uh let's see us n
us got on mute man n s n hell yeah good?
What's up?
Speaker 9: You just want to orthodox?
Speaker 10: I just wanted to ask about like coincidence and accidents.
Speaker 9: How do you how do we view that, like is there.
Speaker 10: Some coincidence in the world or is all everything and
led by God?
Speaker 1: I think these are just human vantage point terms that
we use. So strictly speaking, ultimately know everything is under
divine providence, but from the human manage point, yeah, we
can talk about things that are a coincidence or are accidental.
Anti heresy. Now, before we go to anti heresy, I
want you to understand that these are the canons of Ephesus,
and they're I'm excuse me there. These are the Anathemas
of Ephesus, and the twelve Anathemas have always been cited
as authoritative documents that disprove Nestorianism and all the variant
sects and groups like Calvinists that become that have a
version of Astorianism. So you understand how stupid that guy's
position is, whether it's Achan or whether it's Voice of Reason.
That if you say that the council aired in the
combination of Nastorias, that also means all the anathemas of
cyril at Ephesis that Ephesus accepted are also wrong. That's
how dumb this position is. I just keep ranting on
this because I can't believe anyone be so stupid as
to believe this or follow this these people, like it's
kind of baffling to me. Honestly, I'm not trying to
be I'm not trying to be mean. It's just like
that should tell you right there that Rome and at
least in terms of its pap apologists like Achan and
Voice of Reason don't care what the ecumenical councils teach.
When did Rome ever actually care? I mean, except the
first thousand years maybe they did when they were pretty
much faithful, or they began to deviate even before ten
fifty four. Like I mean, they're just sitting there saying, yeah,
ephesis is wrong. Uh, and we have revised the history
now and Nestorius is cool, So we can do the
you know, uh liturgy of Adi and Maria or whatever,
because it's in the store. We can have we can
honor Patriarch Nestorius to the Roman Kelly Church. That alone
to tell you that the Roman Kelly Church is an
apostate institution. I don't know what else if that doesn't
tell you, like like why is it hard for these people?
It's a delusion, That's why. What's up man? Anti? What's
up on you?
Speaker 11: It was something's going on, Jake.
Speaker 7: Hey, Yeah, I just probably had a couple of that's
probably had one to have a discussion maybe on the geopolitics.
Speaker 2: Of it all.
Speaker 9: Okay about how maybe.
Speaker 7: You could consider probably laughable to you. But the Roman
Catholic Church maybe like an agency of God.
Speaker 1: An agency of God, what do you mean, like.
Speaker 7: Uh, an agency as a way of spreading the Gospel
through means of peace across the world.
Speaker 1: So God wanted Rome to become a quest to rock
as Dick Tatus pope and when I'm sunked them to say.
Speaker 12: No as as in a sense that like for instance,
like maybe with the Jim Yake and with him like
dismissing the claims of the Angel of Yahweh being Jesus
and whatnot, Like maybe those claims were specifically left out
not too I guess kind of infuriate the Jews at
the time when these debates were happening, because they like,
you're pretty much condemning their whole belief to begin with,
when you're trying to to educate these people that everything
that they did believe prior.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how would that have anything to do
with Rome being when you're agents coming up.
Speaker 7: With his dumb discussions choosing to and raising these people.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't get it, man, I'm sorry, I
don't know. I just I don't understand what the arg
is A wolf? What's up? I mean, the Roman is
definitely an agency. It's like the older the world's oldest
intelligence agency. A wolf. You got on me, man? What's up?
Speaker 9: Hey?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 13: Man?
Speaker 9: I had a question about geopolitics.
Speaker 11: Sure, if you worry about a lot of.
Speaker 13: Protestants are invested in nation Israel and if something was
to happen to Israel, like if a Nuq went all
for something or they got their butt kicked or something.
I mean, it seems like a lot of them might
do away their Bibles because they are so into this
prophecy stuff.
Speaker 1: Well they're into they're into false, you know, dispensationalist interpretations
of prophecies, but they're not actually into quote, real prophecy.
But yeah, I agree with you. I think that dispensational
premillennial zionism. We actually spent the last two weeks on
that topic, so I went heavy on that for days.
I mean we debated that goofball and prior to that, Jim,
Bob and Paush and I did a four hour breakdown
of the heresies of Christian millennialists, dispensational and Zionism. I mean,
it's it's really dumb. I mean, basically, you've never read
Galatians three and four in Hebrews. I mean, it shouldn't
be that difficult. But I went again, well, we'll save
the geopolitical stuff if somebody else brings up another gyopolitical question.
But I appreciate your question. That was good. Heisenberg was something, Oh,
I remember, I was going to say, it's like we
said last night, right, So I tried to tweet at Candace.
I'm sure she's not going to see it. But between
the Candace Jordan Peterson debates, I mean, do Jack Pasobiac
and Candace and the Catholics not realize is that the
thing they're fighting for Rome already came to this. Now.
I was in Rome during the publication, so let me
let me rephrase that I converted to Rome right when
they published the two thousand and three document Covenant and
Mission right. And so a lot of the trad cats
and the new converts are well meaning, and all they
want to go, you know, to battle against the subversion
of Rome and all this stuff. They don't realize that
Rome is already capitulated to the thing they're fighting. And
one example of this that is still out there, it's
the US Conference capt Catholic Bishop's website right here. And
this is precisely why Francis and John Paul and all
of these Vatican two popes have said we should not
have a mission to proselytize and convert Jews. Their document
literally says right here, it follows that since there's a
dual covenant for Jews, Jews should not be converted. There
should be no mission to Jews. They have their own mission. Likewise,
Jews don't care about converting Christians Hello, did anyone read
Contante Domino, the Roman Calli Church. Cantante Domino says, Jews,
Pagans and heretics cannot be saved unless they convert to
the Roman faith.
Speaker 3: Some people, by the way, we say that the Orthodox
failed to evangelize sufficiently, denied as a great commission because
we didn't have enough colonialism.
Speaker 2: You know, it is a literacy, okay, Jews, no other problem.
Speaker 1: I mean, by the way, if you think rat Singer
is some sort of like trad Bastion, no, I've read Rats.
I read like six of his books, and in many
religions one covenant rat Singer basically affirms at the same
point here. So no, they are very dubious and wishy washy.
And yes, it's true that there were Jewish influences on
the two documents. It's very famous and well known.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: One of the writers of Look magazine wrote an entire
article about the Jewish influence at Vatican two, particularly in
Nostro Tate and Dignitatis Humane. Hence why nosro Tate says
basically what you have here, It's all good, dude, no
reason to try to fight over this stuff. Oh yeah,
so why do we have all these martyrs for all
these years when we could have just all been saved
in our false religions. Yeah again, but to Candace and
to Soback and all these people, the trads like you're
your Vatican has already like subtled this issue. They've they've
chosen to they don't do the Gospel anymore. Okay, they don't.
They're not into that. They're into a humanism dialogue and
whatever crazy world religion is emerging, and it's not just
reflections on conant emission. This note infallible document doesn't matter
because it's produced by the Catholic Conference and bishops. And
as we pointed out, I just I just found Canon
seven fifty two. Cannon seven fifty two says you submit
to all of the teaching, not just to the Pope
but also the bishops, even if it's just ordinary teaching
with facility. So you don't get to reject it. If
they put out a document and Rome never rescinded this
or rejected this, you don't get to say that's not
tree teaching. I don't follow that. You don't get that right.
What does Canon seven fifty two say, Let's read it again,
because this is what Roman Catholic Church law says, it's
just one. It's another of these. I don't even know
this one until like a month ago. Now I have
a list of five places in Catholic dogmatic theology and
people teaching where you do not get to ordinary teaching,
and this is yet another one ken in seven fifty two.
Now this is talking about things that are not under
quote divine faith. Now we don't exactly have a clear
list of what that is. But let's say for the
sake of argument, that you don't want to believe Covenant
and mission, or Francis is teaching on the death penalty
or whatever. Although not an assent of faith, a religious
submission of intellect and will must be given to the
doctrine of the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops
when it declares concerning faith or morals, when they exercise
authentic magisterium, even if they don't intend to proclaim it
as a definitive bat Therefore the Christian fable or to
take care to avoid those things which do not agree
with it. In other words, if Francis says it's time
to not support the death penalty, even if you think
that that's not true, and even if by the same
for the sake of argument, say it's not part of
difine quote faith, which is super vague. Does that say
you get the right to reject it? No, says you
do know how they're right? Why? Because no one judges
the first sea. It doesn't matter what you think. It's
not a Protestant religion. You don't get to pick and choose.
Data List becomes a member. What's up man? Soyhoon Park
becomes a member. Thank you Theosis five dollars talk about
AI art. Some of your apologetics are already on some
Brazilian soccer players mouths as promised. Oh you mean you're
gonna make AI Brazilian Brazilian soccer players that are AI
talking about some of my arguments. That's pretty funny. Yeah,
I can't. Yeah, feel free to do that. I don't care.
That's funny. Mark Macho elbow five dollars have a great lint.
Thank you, man. I appreciate that, you too, big time
five dollars. Let's effing go, Please, Lord have mercy on me.
A sinner. Marcus Antonio gives twenty memberships. Wow, thanks man.
James David David James flood gifted a membership Jordain ten dollars.
Glad to see patient Jay today. I'm trying to be
I mean, this is the Year of Love. I'm trying
to you know, cost the passions. I don't. I've not
been totally successful obviously this year. I have gotten angry sometimes,
but I will say that, you know, James White is
a newna Storias. James White is a mega heresy arc.
He has been a major push repiracy for thirty plus years.
So now I don't feel bad about making fun of him.
Cards two dollars Jay's Year of Love, Well, that's what
we're shooting for Heroes Workship. I'd us thank you for
the stream. I like this this I command, Sir Penttory. Yeah.
I got my Cobra Commander shirt on today because I
was feeling kind of sassy. Jacob Croker two dollars. Scripture
and falluably teaches that there's oral tradition, absolutely, and not
just in Second Thessalonians. It's also anytime Paul talks about
preaching the Word of God passing on the traditions. He
says that to the Corinthians, straight white male five dollars,
have you seen the beat between Andrew Wilson and Apostate Profit.
I saw a couple exchanges, and you know, I'm friendly
to both of those people. I'm not exactly sure what
first popped off their disagreement. I don't know if maybe
they were trying to set up a debate. I think
some of that happened prior to a postate profit becoming
a catechumen And by the way, I meant to comment
on that, I forgot to very happy for AP. I
love AP and wish him well in his entrance into
the Catechumenate. We had a lot of DM discussions back
and forth. But I don't know what their disagreement is
if it's over Israeli geopolitical stuff. But I do think
that AP will have to come off of some of
the Zionism to be consistent with Orthodox Christianity. But I
think in time all that stuff gets ironed out because
we all bring baggage to, you know, our conversion, so
it takes time to flush a lot of that stuff out,
whether it's like Latinizing or Calvinism or whatever. But ideally,
I mean, I think AP and maybe AP and Andrews
should just have a debate. I mean I think that'd
be a really good debate. But no, I don't. I
don't have any beef with either of them, eh, new member.
I did unfollow AP, not because I don't like AP.
The only reason unfollowed him was that I so that
I wouldn't get triggered by any of the geopolitical postings,
so that we wouldn't have an argument, so that he
could get into being a catechimic. That's why. So it
has nothing to do with like, oh I don't like
him anymore. We were actually trying to set up a
geopolitical debate, but me and him. But I don't. I
just don't know if we're ever going to be able
to figure out the parameters of that. Steve mcleven, five dollars,
thank you so much. And the Lord can't be Jesus
because there's no red text. That's pretty funny, but I
wouldn't be surprised if a Protestant actually said that KB
production five dollars. You always avoid confessional Lutheranism. It's like
you're afraid that we will deconstruct your false faith like
we did with Rome.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we've had two Lutherans ever call in. I'm
so afraid of confessional Lutheranism that I'm giving you the
link right here to call in. And by the way,
anytime I put Protestant in the title that includes Lutherans, goober.
So you think because I don't list I don't list Methodists,
does that mean I'm scared of Methodists. Oh, he didn't
list Quaker in his description. He's terrified at Quaker apologetics.
Give me a freaking break, dude. In fact, I'm asking
you right now please do come and bring your Lutheran
Manichean arguments. I've read six of Luther's books, so I'm
more than ready to debate Luther.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: What's funny is that when Lutherans come to debate, they
don't want to talk about Luther. Well that's what Luther said,
but uh, you know the Heidelberg cat because it was
not Luther. We have a very we don't agree with
Luther on everything. Okay, so you're heresy arc and creator
of your sact you don't want to even defend them.
It's like the Calvinists, like you start going into Cavin
Calvin's own positions. Well, as a Calvinist, I don't have
to accept COVID's positions. O'Brien's kayak ten dollars. And by
the way, if KB Productions doesn't want to debate, then
he's wasting everyone's time. Ignacio Lrios two dollars. He says
he's going to go to Apostolic City College. Well that's uh,
if you do, you might want to form a study
group with a misfit patriot because he's also going to
the Apostolic College. All right, I'm sorry, we got to
get back over here to debates Heisenberg. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 9: Was o j?
Speaker 4: I you doing good?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 14: So I've been an Orthodox inquiry for for a couple
of months now, and I've been watching your videos for
a couple of months now, and I had a question.
Speaker 9: So I saw in.
Speaker 14: One of your one of the open forums the other
day you said that like the Greek and the Russian
churches are not in communion.
Speaker 9: Correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a canonical removal of communion, which is the
stages or steps before excommunication. So it's not an official excommunication,
it's a stage of canonical discipline. So like, by the way,
this has happened many times in church history.
Speaker 14: Okay, so my question is what stuff like that happens,
Like does one church claim that the one true church
and the other one like claims they're not I mean
the other one, like are they both?
Speaker 1: Well, anytime, anytime there's a schism, both sides are going
to claim that the true church and other ones on
the right. So of course, but it doesn't it doesn't
require the papacy because if you look at the recent
Macedonian schism that was recently held, I think it was
like an eighty ninety year schism, it was recently healed
without the papacy.
Speaker 9: So all right, so like what.
Speaker 14: In terms of like which church, do you have any
like biases towards one like the Russian Church or the it.
Speaker 1: Was not a bias. I've talked many times about the
corruption and subversion of the ep.
Speaker 14: Okay, So my my, my concern that's drawn like I'm
drawing from that is that like what like isn't that
kind of like a little bit of like a relativist
like relative relativistic type of like way of thinking where
like each church just thinks are the they're the true
church and they just they break up.
Speaker 1: No, And I mean that's like saying I mean the
same that would apply. That would mean that the Roman
Catholic position is relativistic because when the East schism from
the from the West, they both claim to be the
true church. So it's just relative. No, that's a fallacy.
So the fact that people disagree has nothing to do
with which positions true or false, not relativism because they
disagree one of them is right and one of them
is wrong.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I got you, I got you.
Speaker 14: So, like, is there other Orthodox churches that are in schism?
Speaker 9: Like, like, currently it's.
Speaker 1: Not schism yet because it's a removal communion. Schism would
be when there's a formal excommunication. And yes, if that
happened that it would split the patriarchs then split the church. Correct,
But that's how that happened in ten fifty four.
Speaker 9: Okay, So you recommend the Russian Church.
Speaker 1: Got it. It's not just the Russian Church. I mean
there are many Orthodox churches that are fine because they're
canonical and we would like it. So like in the
Russian Orthodox Church, we would only not accept the person
from the Greek Church after there was an excommunication. Prior
to that, anybody who was brought into the church through
the Greeks they can come and commune at a Russian church, right,
We are not, however, allowed to commune well in some
situations unless there's like a permission, like I'm not supposed
to commune and go urts churches. So all right.
Speaker 9: I had also another question about.
Speaker 2: What I'm in.
Speaker 14: I'm like an undergrad and like university, and in my
philosophy class they talked about the youth fro dilemma.
Speaker 9: You probably talked about.
Speaker 1: It many times. We've already We've already addressed it many times.
I'm not gonna do that again today. Dang, We've got
a lot of people here. Uh calab what's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 9: Hey? Can I add to that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely? Hey, j Just one second pill.
Speaker 11: Uh pre pre sanctified because we have a parishioner the
corruption and she came out of road Corps.
Speaker 1: So let's be clear.
Speaker 11: Neither the EP or Moscow are saying the others not
the true church, right, not yet not yet clearly ones
right and one's wrong. So they're both part of the
church because we don't define the church in terms of
one bishop like the papacy would.
Speaker 9: And so the fact that.
Speaker 11: They're in communion, the fact that there's an administer I
guess we could call technically an administer an administrative schism
or an administray. Either not in communion doesn't mean that
either ones not the true church.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, just we don't runan Catholics to just
look at the Malician schism for an analogous type of situation.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Second, because I I was doubting myself, and then I
asked Father Russell, and he said I was correct about that.
There's nothing technically to prevent parishioners who go to a
roal court attending to an EP. I know that that's
kind of pushed among ro corps and real corps priests,
but now there might be if you did that, there
might be practical implications that your own parish if you're
a tiding member. But there is no canons or anything
like that says, first of all, you're not baptized into
a jurisdiction. You're baptized in the Orthodox Church. Later you're free.
They're not bound to a jurisdiction. And Father made a joke.
He pointed and he says, see are cuffs. It means
we're we're cuffed and bound to a jurisdiction. And I'm like, oh,
that's true. So technically, although there might be practical concerns,
there's nothing dogmatic, canonical that prevents MP somebody attending MP
parish or rocor going to eat, a go work or EP.
I just wanted to make that clear.
Speaker 1: Can you handle this for a second. I got to
run to the little girls room.
Speaker 11: Yeah, But like I said, you know, you could be
under your priest, and you're part of a community, a parish,
a tiding members, et cetera. Certainly the priests could say, well, look, hey,
you're disobeying disobeying what I said in the you know,
I mean, I guess technically even withhold communions, so there
could be practical implications, but there's no dogmatic, economical, or
historical issue because people are not baptized into a jurisdiction.
And people really get this confused. People was like, well,
I'm real Corps, I'm antio Antiochi, and I'm Greek or
something like.
Speaker 9: That, but you're late.
Speaker 2: That's crazy.
Speaker 11: Everybody thinks in terms of jurisdiction. I attend to ro
Corp parish, but doesn't mean that your or courts do
you see how kind of divisive and kind of wrong head?
And I brought this up after precinctified at the little
meal that we had, and I'm like, I swear I've
met people who I'll just pick on the Antiochians who
are part of the Antiochian parish, who are traveling, going
I need to find an Antiochian church to go to. Well,
why because I'm Antiochio. I'm like you, does your driver's
license say that your antio Like this is so weird?
If you're traveling, why don't you go travel and check
out another jurisdiction, see what their parish is like, see
what those people were like. And the problem is everybody thinks,
lady thinks in terms of what jurisdiction should I join.
I'm this jurisdiction. I think Father Russell even made a
joke about the Greeks that, well, do you thinking Jurisdictionally?
Guy says, I'm Greek. He's like, well, you're born in
where you born on the United States. But I go
to a Greek parish. So he says, do you carry
a Greek dirt and your briefcase?
Speaker 2: And he says no.
Speaker 11: He says, well keep the dirty out of the church. Anyways,
I'm trying.
Speaker 9: To give you a.
Speaker 11: Healthy kind of mindset as an approaching Orthodoxy. If your lady,
don't think jurisdictionally, think locally. I have a local parish
that I go to, happens to be Rope or Serbian, Antioch,
and et cetera. But you are not tied. In fact,
even minor clergy readers and subdeacons are not jurisdictionally tied.
Speaker 2: They're free.
Speaker 11: Only the proof to it the doc Uh, the presbytery
and the bishop are tied, and they're tied to a
jurisdiction because they're tied to the bishop.
Speaker 1: That was Thank you, Yeah, appreciate that. And guys, remember
not not fussing out that guy. But it's it's not
you know, Catechuman question night. So please, if you have
Catechuman questions, take those to your catechists. Uh, it's debate
topics as listed. What's up at kill?
Speaker 2: Hi Jay?
Speaker 6: This might fit in the category of geopolitical JQ kind
of thing.
Speaker 1: Uh so I'm on YouTube. I'm on YouTube. So what
we can't get.
Speaker 9: Super Okay, okay, cool. It's more has to do.
Speaker 6: With you know, when when Moses says in Deuteronomy, uh,
you know, you shall be the head, not the tail, Taiale,
not the head, depending on you know, their their obedience
to the Covenant. Wouldn't it be that the Jews uh
will never achieve their vision of global dominance as at
least as I understand it, because of that mosaic covenantal promise, Like,
is there ever a termination to that promise?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: I know.
Speaker 1: So you know Hoaseiah talks about a divorce, God giving
Israel a bill of divorce. The Book of Revelation is
the sanctions and the filling out of that divorce covenant
and the marriage of the new bride, which is the Church.
Now does that mean that God failed in his promises
to the Jews? Well, most of the church fathers believe
that Romans eleven predicts some future conversion of the Jews.
So when that will be and how that will be,
I don't have all the details of that, but it's
pretty standard amongst the church fathers. But the covenant promises
that you mentioned in Deuteronomy or in Leviticus, if you
look at Revelation two and three, Jesus applies the covenant
promises and sanctions to the church. Aimes, what's up? So
it's not Cateyquemen Knight guys, please, have you got your
what can I eat during the fast? What about the EP?
Like that's a kind of a geopolitical one. That's fine,
but it's not catakuemen Knight. What's up man?
Speaker 11: Hello, long time listener, first time caller.
Speaker 15: This may not exactly I just now heard that you
wanted to only kind of stick within a certain handful
of topics, so.
Speaker 11: This might not exactly be within.
Speaker 1: So just what's the topic.
Speaker 15: I'm really intrigued by the transcendental argument for God, mostly
because I've seen it being very effective with you and
even someone who I don't even understand it fully, just
calling people out on their presuppositions the way the transidental
argument seems to let itself very well too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I meant I've put atheists in there, so
that's fine.
Speaker 11: Oh okay, awesome.
Speaker 9: So the question, and look, I've watched a lot.
Speaker 11: Of the videos you've made about it. I've tried to
understand it. I'm a little bit of a slow boy.
Speaker 15: But basically, what I'm gonna say is what exactly It's
a prefold question. First, what exactly is a justification for
your for knowledge? In that two is the Christian and
possibly you may even take a step for the Orthodox
idea of God the only possible justification, and if.
Speaker 1: So, why the only consistent justification. Justification refers to giving
Usually it's justified true belief in classical epistemology. Sometimes you
can add a fourth criterion of the getia problem, but
we don't really have to go into all that. It
just basically means giving coherent good reasons for why you
believe what you believe.
Speaker 11: Okay, And so why is it that the Christian God is?
Why is it only the Christian God?
Speaker 2: And do you take it so far?
Speaker 11: Say you only the Orthodox God?
Speaker 1: No, only the Orthodox conception of the trinity is the
coherent one. So, I mean other Calvinists might be able
to take the argument so far, but they're not going
to be very consistent because they have defect of Trinitarian theology.
So ultimately, only the Orthodox conception in worldview, it's not
just our quote idea of God, it's really the entire
Christian worldview. So Christian metaphysics, Christian ethics, and a Christian
account of knowledge and revelatory theism are really the only
things that give a consistent, coherent, meaningful, explanatory power justification
and so just correct me if.
Speaker 2: I understand it.
Speaker 11: Probably is that A way I kind of understand, and.
Speaker 15: Maybe this is more simplistic, is that in order for
anything to make sense, to have knowledge, you have to
have something unchanging and constant, just otherwise.
Speaker 1: You're just kind of like it's not just having It's
not just like justification is not just concerned with having knowledge,
because everyone has knowledge, even if they've never heard of
philosophy or epistemology. But it's a question of making sense
of how and why we have knowledge and the good
reasons to believe in our beliefs.
Speaker 15: Okay, do you have any like kind of further reading
you could point me too, because I don't know that
much about philosophy.
Speaker 11: I've only made able to take one philosophy class. I
want to do more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fathered again, and I says entire classes that you
can take. I have a philosophy class you can take.
Speaker 11: Okay, that and that's okay, awesome, thank you.
Speaker 4: On his I'm going on his channel.
Speaker 11: Probably, yeah, I'm probably I'm building an epistemology that will
probably launch in a week. That's university full university course,
interactive software, graded.
Speaker 16: Free book, a free office hour, sixteen weeks at free
office hours each week, and are of you yeah, and uh, anyways, yeah,
I do.
Speaker 11: I argue that there's only he can make it really easy.
There's only three possible positions. Revelatory is an autonomous epistemology
which you can still believe in them, and and accidentalism.
So the beliefs that there isn't a God and if
it isn't, if there's not intention behind the world, that
God created all these things and accounts for it, then
it's the obscaty accidentalism. We can rule out autonomous pistemology
because autoistemology says, well, it's possible that God doesn't exist,
we just have to prove it.
Speaker 2: So once I show that.
Speaker 11: Accidentalism self defeeding impossible, then it must be intentionalism.
Speaker 4: So with the.
Speaker 11: Results in a contradiction, natural theology does. It's saying the
necessary condition is both possible and not possible, which is
a contradiction. So you can rule out autonomous epistemology and
natural theology you rule out accidentalism. So what's left is
revelatory theism. Well, how many religions claim to be revelatory
theism And I don't mean personally revealed, but just a
standard lexical definition of what revealed means what would be
hidden or not seen to be made publicly available. And
so this is why it's part of the paradigm that
it's historical. It isn't a made up thing in my head,
copy paste or something like that. The fact of the
matter is we start with the data, Well, there were
these people, there are these things, There are these things.
Now is it true and these things I mean orthodoxy?
And then we look at well, the others can't. What
about the other revelatory thesm. Well, it either doesn't match history,
it's incoh aren't it can account for these things? Or
it makes knowledge impossible. So all the and there's about six,
maybe other religions that claim to be revelatory that can
be disqualified. So what does orthodoxy do Not only does
have a positive account of why and how all these
things can be known and explain the world and satisfy
all the necessary conditions as possibility knowledge, it also claims
to be uniquely so it excludes all others, and the
ones that you consider fail as well. So that's why
tag actually only proves orthodoxy if it's not orthodoxy it's nothing.
That's the short, the short of it, the easy short
of it. I mean, I could get much more complicated,
but that's the summary of it.
Speaker 1: Squeety, what's up man? By the way, And when that
first guy was on, when I was talking about doing
a miss in Innergaya, I meant to pull up the
blue letter page here which has all the New Testament
references to innergay and I forgot to do it, but
here it is for those that are wondering. There's pretty
expansive uses of the energies in the New Testament in
terms of the Greek. And I'll put this in the
link for those that want to take a look and
see that. Like, because he's concerned with whether we're being biblical, yeah,
you want to be a biblical person as a Protestant,
will explain all the energy references because as far as
I know, Protestants have absolutely no conception of divine energies. Squeaty,
you got a mute?
Speaker 2: Oh can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I had a question about.
Speaker 9: I had a question about.
Speaker 17: Motial collapse and about inertrinitarian relationships. Okay, so for the
Innerturnitearian relationships, what exactly separates the.
Speaker 9: Father, the Sun.
Speaker 1: The hyposthetic properties.
Speaker 9: Are those properties like.
Speaker 17: So, I think for orthodox it would be the logi,
like exemplifiable properties.
Speaker 1: Would be logi have nothing to do with hypostychic properties. No,
not at where you get that?
Speaker 9: So normal instantiated properties are you using?
Speaker 1: Are you googling and using chagpt?
Speaker 9: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Well, I heard you typing, so I wasn't typing.
Speaker 9: I was playing with a candle. Well, we're gonna need
to see your hands.
Speaker 1: So the logi are the divine thoughts?
Speaker 4: Thought?
Speaker 1: Wells there that they have nothing to do with differentiating
the persons.
Speaker 17: Yeah, when we have like normal properties like the property
of browness or something like that, aren't those from the logi?
Speaker 1: Hyposthetic properties in the Church Fathers has nothing to do
with modern analytic philosophy of properties. Okay, the property of
the Father, according to the Kappadocians and the Second Achemical Council,
is to be the sole sol e cause that's his
hypostetic property. Fount ark anarcha cause source.
Speaker 9: Yeah, how is that? That seems to be a relation
of opposition.
Speaker 1: Where in the property.
Speaker 9: This is?
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. Even Congar in his Essay admits that
you can't find relations of opposition until you get to
somebody like perhaps Augustine, who anticipates it, and then it's
fleshed out by a Quinas. There's no oppositions in a triad.
Oppositions relate to a diad. So the fact that you
think a hypothetic property like cause is in any way
an opposition just so shows that you're using the toomis
Aristotelian metaphysical character characterizations of creature. That's not what the
Cappadocians are doing when they're talking about the Father as cause.
So it's not cause as a relation of opposition or
something opposed, like scholastic metaphysics defines cause or fount or
archae or source. In fact, it's the Aryan argument when
you do that. And you guys aren't even aware that
Athanasius rebukes thinking that creaturely causation is what's going on
in the triad? Do you not know that the Cappadocians
say that the Father is the sole cause.
Speaker 17: Aside from Gregory of Nissa, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Who else says that.
Speaker 1: Gregory Nazi Azis and Gregory and Basil, they all say
that it's their Dictum.
Speaker 2: Okay, God shout.
Speaker 9: When you say something's a sole cause.
Speaker 1: No, they say he's the sole cause, not me.
Speaker 9: When they say he's a sole cause. That seems to
be a relational property.
Speaker 1: About what distinguishes a personal relations are not relations of opposition?
Speaker 17: Okay, So what separates the father and the son is
relational but not a relation of opposition.
Speaker 1: Correct, it's a relation of origin. If you read the Cappadocians,
they will say that is a relation of origin. Hence,
the hypostatic property of the son is to be generated,
Basil says, the hyposthetic property of the spirit is to
be spirrated. Quoting Basil again, for you, what the distinction is,
we do not know, but that there is a distinction,
we do know. That's the Cappa Docean teaching. That's what
the Second Ecumenical Council dogmatizes. And etomas would do well
to go read them.
Speaker 9: Okay, cool, are we can? I can I ask about motoclops?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 9: So what exactly is the force of.
Speaker 17: Motoclops that creation is necessary or that God necessarily wills creation?
Speaker 1: If the will of God is isomorphically identical to the
essence of God, and if the of God or God
is a necessary being, then every act that flows from
the will of God is necessary, and thus creation is
a necessary action, and so it removes free will. Likewise,
if the divine ideas that are the patterns of the
created order are synonymous and identical to the divine essence,
then the divine ideas are also necessary in regard to
their created types, and so creation is necessary also from
that vantage.
Speaker 17: Point, I see, Yeah, what about what if somebody says
they're compatibile, is that it seems like that.
Speaker 1: Has nothing to do with addressing the objection.
Speaker 17: Creation could be necessary because it's the good thing for
God to do, and God might.
Speaker 1: Do that in every possile. Then you then, I mean,
then you're already a trinitarian heretic because you've denied that
God has free will.
Speaker 18: Yeah, well that's why I run it.
Speaker 9: The compatible is some thing, because well, then.
Speaker 1: It's not necessary. How is it necessary? How does God
free will? Creation is necessary?
Speaker 17: So certain semi compatilscy that you can have free will
without being able to do otherwise.
Speaker 1: But you're missing the point of how the Patristic definition
of free will is already determined via Christology, which reflects
trenentary theology to be a choice of multiple options. So
you're using again some modern analytical thing that has nothing
to do with the patristic definition of what free will
is from Christology. Have you ever thought about maybe it's
a he runaway exactly. So this is what we get
with the Roman Catholics is they come in, they think
they know everything. They want to repeat all the stuff
that I try to explain to them, This is all
the Wagner stuff. And then when I start explaining it,
when I go into why a relation is not a
relation of opposition, and I talk about Kongar's essay from
the Roman Catholics about it where he admits everything I said,
and then I talk about Loski's essay, which is about
everything that I said. They run away because they don't
want to actually deal with the topic. So we're opening
it up to people who want to discuss the listed
topics that include libertarianism, feminism, Romcantholism, protestantsm even Islam, Atheism, dismisationalism, Zionism,
Hebrew Roots, Gnostics, Mormons, blacky Euros, are Lights, geopolitical stuff,
religious engineering. Okay, Joe, what's up?
Speaker 9: Jay?
Speaker 1: And I engaged in twenty minutes of explaining stuff to
that guy and then he just leaves.
Speaker 4: So it's like.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to say a couple of things before
asking my question. Firstly, like you're completely right either day
on how Calvinists think they're intellectually like superior, and you
just look for Deem Zimmer's video. He does like a
body of Christ his church, and he puts the Calvinists
obviously has the head intellectrical superior beings, you know, a
pretty death in party pants of the Christian world. So yeah,
and I wanted to also say something to clear up
with ap.
Speaker 9: I watched his live stream.
Speaker 2: It was like last night.
Speaker 7: Around your livestream as well, with the whole Canvas thing
and all that stuff. I was gonna ask my first
question about him, but I realized he didn't. I realized
your position on it, because that's super chat.
Speaker 2: But one thing I wanted to clear up about him is.
Speaker 7: That his main hole argument with Canvas and all of
them is the this new thing that came out with
Jordan and Peterson.
Speaker 11: And are there cool about.
Speaker 1: How I covered it all last night?
Speaker 11: Oh okay, sorry, alright, cool?
Speaker 7: Well, MA, main question, it's a question, fast statement I
am a Protestant, but other than more research, I've been
in the world of like art and stuff like that.
And the thing that I've always found annoying with definitely atheist.
Speaker 9: But now I've come to realize.
Speaker 7: With Catholics apologetics and Protestant apologetics, and what I've seeing
you do different is how they deconstruct things with self
evident towardy things you know, like oh, that's evil because
it's self evident when you go to Christology before that,
which what I see is what they're doing is deconstructing
evil instead of deconstructing you know, God and seeing the
truth and God instead of seeking you know, God's wisdom.
And the main question I have I think that's very
important about that is that the whole basis of the
livestream you did eight months ago as well on Crisis Game,
because I know you did a live stream eight months
ago about it as well, is that if you want
to take over and evangelize a country with Christian.
Speaker 11: Values, is what you first have to do is take
over the.
Speaker 7: Art system and other parts of the system and also
you know, live a christ Like life with your family, yourself,
and your community and outwards. The art side is so
important because that is the expression of the society. That's
why they take it over.
Speaker 1: That's what you.
Speaker 11: Express through the society.
Speaker 9: And my main question with you on that expression of the.
Speaker 7: Society is how would you want to like Christians to
go about that expression. Is it like more like telling
the Vego's stories of right and wrong? Or do you
would you want to see Christians more involved in trying
to evangelize in artistic realms of expressing.
Speaker 11: Jesus through the arts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we should try to, you know, speak
to the culture and attack the culture as well. If
you are not you know, if you're able. So yeah,
I mean definitely for those that are interested. For the
twentieth time, we've addressed the relations of opposition issue. Right
here here is east Congar's massive essay admitting all the
stuff that I talk about that the Greek fathers didn't
teach relations of opposition. It's something born out of the
Augustinian mindset and a model and fleshed out by Aquinas.
That's Congar telling you what I said, and Wagner and
these people that I don't he said, I read some
of that. They don't care about reading and understanding what
I was actually arguing. And then here's Lawski's famous essay
talking about relations of opposition and how the Orthodox view
is relations of origin, not relationship opposition. I've mentioned this
probably ten times.
Speaker 2: Something you can see your shallow with this.
Speaker 3: For example, it's a recent article about Christ not being
about the Angel of the Lord not being Christ.
Speaker 2: It just starts with like Portuguese manualist Thomas from the
seventeenth century.
Speaker 4: And so.
Speaker 2: These things only make sense when you're already in their
system exactly, and that's some things that's systematic, and.
Speaker 3: Even even then their systems it's not as brilliant as
I think.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah, people should read con Guard's essay on the
Augustinian approach to the Triad versus the Cappadocian and I'm sorry,
but the Second Council did not affirm the Augustinian position.
It affirmed the Cappadocian position, and even Congar says the
Greek position is intension with the Augustinian position. They're different positions.
Well for people who disagree, So if you disagree, you
go aheadline. If you are asking catechumen questions, I would
ask that you please take that to your catechist we're
not doing the Q and A today, Hey, Jay.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 19: So firstly, I hope that you converse and father and
and I is are having a very blessed len. I've
got a question surrounding geopolitics, especially in the UK and
just in the general West. So a few weeks ago
King Charles invited some Mohammedans or Islamist.
Speaker 9: Or whatever you want to call them or Muslims to
go and.
Speaker 11: Celebrate the pagan.
Speaker 19: Festival Ramadan in Winter Palace or I think it was
a palace, I can't remember.
Speaker 9: And I was just sort of wondering.
Speaker 19: Why Islam is getting like forced on all of us
now and pushed so heavily when their whole religion completely
go against the ideologies that a lot of the secular
Western governments are poding. I thought at first, you know,
and maybe it's because of quote unquote tolerance, but it's becoming.
Speaker 1: No, it's a plan. It's a strategy. The Fabian socialist
wrote in the nineteen tens and twenties in the UK
how they would use first Sufism and then Sunism to
change the landscape of the UK and then change the
landscape of Europe. It's a one hundred plus year old plan.
Rabbis talk about it openly and say that Islam is
the broom of Israel. So I mean, on on on,
it's not hard to figure out if you read the
source material I've lectured. I'm not trying to be rude
to you. I've done maybe ten talks on how Islam
is a tool of Western oligarchical elite. Particularly the Joan
Ratio book The Milner Fabian Conspiracy is the best overall book.
It is about six hundred pages, but it will give
you in the first three hundred pages all of it,
every detail about that. And there's in those other books
as well. But I mean, I just covered Black Gold Spies,
written by a French intelligence analyst, Galsmunier, and what did
I titled that? That was a really good book. It's
very difficult read because it was so packed with dates
and info and people and events, and we did a
whole talk on it. Oh, I had to put it
in the title because I could never figure out what
I titled Black Gold Spies. That will tell you the
whole history of British intelligence in the Middle East. You
can't understand the world without this right here. This is
it and that gets into Mounier's book. I commented on
Sufism as well, because I don't even know the Sufi's
were like trying to say one of the Sufi order
heads who's like tied up with British intellig I was
trying to say that he thinks he thinks Bush and
Blair or are saints in Sufism because they fought against
the enemies of the Sufis. I just thought that was funny.
But people misunderstand and think that Charles is a Muslim.
Charles not a Muslim. Oh, but he was holding an
icon one time. He's Orthodox. Secret know he's not Orthodox.
Charles isn't Muslim. Charles's Orthodox. Charles funds a perennialist publisher
called Tomainos. Charles is a perennialist, and for him, perennialism
is what blends with his radical ecology vision tied to
his Malthusian philosophy. So I'm trying to scroll back to
where I commented on this recently, and I think I
linked underneath this my older talks on this topic. I
will admit I got one detail wrong, which was that
I one of the sunny excuse me, Sufi Shakes claimed
that Charles was inducted into a Sufi order, but that
apparently is not verified. It could still be true, but
rather Charles visits and gives money to and support to
Sufi religious sites, So it might as well be that
it was a minor detail that I got wrong. But overall,
for the most part, what I wrote was correct, and
I've been covering this pretty extensively. Dang, if I can
find it where was? This should be pretty.
Speaker 4: Here?
Speaker 1: It is right, so I said, if you watch my
lectures on British intelligence in Islam, you know that the
Royals have it a long fascination with Islam. Charles was
inducted into a Sufi order. That turns out that he
was just giving money to it and visiting it, but
could have been He might as well be naive. People
see him holding Orthodox icon, they lose their minds and
assume that he's secretly Orthodox. If anything, Charles is a perennialist.
He funds the publishing house Temenos. Most of the Royals
are not into anything except, in my view, depopulation and Malthusianism.
And you can read mainline articles about the fascination that
he has with Sufi Islam. And this goes back to
the British wanting to control Mecca and wanted to control
a lot of religious sites that were important to Muslims
and to carve up the Middle East after the Sykes
Pico Agreement, which was a secret agreement to carve it
up with France, Russia and the UK. So that's why
the Middle East is the way it is now. British
Empire created Iraq. It's literally a made up country by
the British. The British chose the Saudi tribe leaders that
would be the Souds. T Lawrence read about him. Go
watch the movie with Nicole Kidman about Gertrude Bell. She's
the one that went for British intelligence and picked the
first king of Iraq, one of the tribal dudes Faisal
or whatever. So yeah, so that's what that's why it's
geopolitics has nothing to do with I don't think with
Charles actually being like into Islam. Now he could convert
to Islam, that's possible, but I don't think. I think
it's more of a pragmatic, devious kind of state craft
cunning than it is anything serious. What's up, man, I'm
gonna have to go pretty soon, so let's go ahead
and make these pretty quick. What's up, dude? All right,
he dropped off. Uh, we'll do the last one here.
Anyone disagree, raise your hand, I'll go to you. Of
the eight people who disagrees, raise your hand, will go
to you first. Put up your hand emoji. If you disagree,
you'll be the last call tonight because I gotta go somewhere.
No one disagrees, Okay, we'll go to you. Legal legal
eye piece, legal eyes, legal eyes piece.
Speaker 9: Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 9: Great?
Speaker 20: Yeah, I'm glad you called on me because I certainly
disagree pretty much about every religion. Kind of think where
I can begin. So I believe in reincarnation and also
in aliens and UFOs and basically that all the angels
and gods of the Bible were advanced extraterrestrials. And you're
basically following a sophisticated cargo cult and Christianity.
Speaker 9: Slash Catholicism cargo cult. Yeah, you know what a cargo
cult is?
Speaker 1: Like cargo pants.
Speaker 4: No like so like a like like a.
Speaker 9: Tribe that was.
Speaker 20: Like the American planes would drop cargo off to like
an indigenous tribe, and then they would start worshiping the
planes even though they're just advanced civilizations. Okay, and that's
basically what I believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Speaker 1: Is did the the bong of the gods tell you this?
But what the bong of the gods?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 20: So, like I said, I believe in reincarnation, and so
I believe.
Speaker 1: I know you believe that, But I'm asking how do
you know that? Like, where did you get this knowledge
from this secret nosis?
Speaker 20: Well, so I believe in Jesus and that he reincarnated
later as Mohammed trying to preach a similar message. And
there's been other reincarnations and there's a current incarnation.
Speaker 1: How come they saw totally different messages than if they're
the same.
Speaker 20: Well, the Church changed a lot of what Jesus taught.
But there's a deed from Mohammed who says the closest
person to me in this world world is Mary.
Speaker 1: Well, if Muhammed says that if it's if it's, if
it's in a hadith, it must be true. How do
you know the church changed the teachings.
Speaker 20: Well, in the Council of n I see a lot
of things were changed.
Speaker 1: Like what because I can I can read all the
pre nice scene fathers and they teach the same thing
as the post nic seen fathers. So can you give
me a specific example.
Speaker 20: Yeah, well, reincarnation was one thing that was changed.
Speaker 1: What n see what pre nice scene? What pre nic
seing church father? Can you let me talk a little bit,
what pre nice seing church father teaches reincarnation?
Speaker 20: I'm not I don't know about any fathers, but I'm
saying Jesus himself taught reincarnation.
Speaker 1: Where do you teach that?
Speaker 9: Well, it's it's not in the Bible because it was
removed exactly.
Speaker 1: So goodbye, thank you, goodbye. It's just too dumb. You
can't do it. Thank you guys. A lot of fun tonight.
Remember head over to Chalk dot com. Use your promo
code J forty four life to get forty four percent
off all those great Chalk products c h o Q
dot com. Right there, you can get the performance stack.
That's what I'm a big fan of, especially at the
Tonkatta lead boost test sauce round with natural means you
can read the peer viewed studies that show that it
really does boostest sauce rone over here at Chalk dot
com schoq dot com. You can unsubscribe at anytime, so
you're not locked into it. If you would just want
to try it out, you can use a promo code
Jay four zero to get forty percent off. That's j
Ay four zero to forty percent off all those great
Chalk products. A lot of great conversations tonight. Thank you
guys so much. Remember you can support me through bitcoin
if you want to, through my wallet address right here.
Oh wait a minute, I apologize. There's I get some
other super chests I didn't read. I gotta read those
or people get mad. Forty two attack five dollars. Uh,
no way, that was yesterday. Victor Ziegeler ten dollars. Make
it Rain, appreciate it, dog, Nicholas Clinton. This is a reminder.
We're all wondering how many hairs are on Alla's uncreated
any chin chint? Well, isn't he a beard less, blonde
haired youth? So he doesn't have a beard, so one
of the hot deaths calls him a young blonde boy.
I'm not joking. Thank you for this live stream. I
got my boomer dad to watch the streams on a
regular basis any life advice for him. I would not
presume to give Boomer's advice, and I do not believe
any Boomer would ever listen to me about any advice.
Heroes Workshop, I like this stream, this, I command already read.
Excuse me, where's the Lutheran dude? I thought he was
gonna he was talking smack. He doesn't want to come debate.
Oh and then somebody says, will you debate Corey Moller? No,
I think Corey Mahler is a psycho. I tried years
ago to get him to come into do debates and
he wouldn't do it. So no, I'm not interested. Glitchy
rhythm two dollars. I mean, he just calls. He doesn't
he's not a serious person. He just says, your religion's Hinduism.
You worship God's polemism, Hinduism. It's like that level of stuff.
Marcus Antonio, Jay, you're scared to debate the Heaven's Gate folks,
You're a coward. You're scared. Correct, Thank you, you got
me exposed. Marco's two dollars. Marco's two dollars. I listened
to this one. I'm in the gym, my back is
pumped baby got back. So that sounds a little gay,
but whatever, job two dollars. I'm just kidding with you.
Speaker 4: Jay.
Speaker 1: You're afraid to debate the yellow Deli cult and not
the vegan vegetarian group that's set up a deli. I've
heard of this, and yes, I am afraid. Actually, I
would be more afraid to debate cults than the rest
of these goobers, because cults are nuts.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 1: It's the cults that'll actually like try to come after
you one shot a seventeen dollars, ten dollars. I want
to say thank you, Jay. I grew up in a
Pentecostal church. I became agnostic for fifteen years. Your video
brought me back to brought me to orthodoxy. Finally. Hey,
that's great, man, God bless you. Appreciate everything that you do.
I meant to make a video on just why speaking
in tongues. I gotta remember to do that. It's not
what charismatics think is. There's nothing gibberish anywhere. It's literally
just languages. So if that goes, then all of charismatic
Pentecostalism goes. Joshmo twenty five dollars. Protestants don't realize that
their denomination, even if you call it that, relies on traditions.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, they have a tradition by which they have a canon.
They have a tradition of solo feeda solar scriptura. It's
just that their tradition is from you know, five hundred
years ago exactly. Sounds like a scam, Yeah, Carlos one dollar.
Let me give another example of why Protestant stuff's a scam.
If you talk about the four marks of the Church,
one Holy Catholic Apostolic right, If you talk about what
the nice you know, constant Politan creed says, I believe
one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, right, every Protestant says, oh,
we believe that too, But it's reinterpreted to be invisible
church and individual believers and blah blah blah blah blah.
It's nothing to do with the meaning that the actual
people who composed the creed gave it. You see, that
is a scam job. So it's more consistent if you
beat to be like a Anabaptist blackout theology person who
thinks that from the death the Apostles there was a
blackout until the radical reformers, because the radical reformer people
are more consistent when they admit that that's not what
the Nicene Creed is teaching. It's not teaching Calvinism, it's
not teaching four marks of an invisible church. So there
you go. A Apostolic prince, you're raising your hand. Do
you want to be the last one? What's up? I'm
your apostolic prince.
Speaker 4: I'm you.
Speaker 9: Oh sorry, I didn't really, I've spoken to you before.
Speaker 18: I just wanted to bring up something I debate with
Muslims on TikTok.
Speaker 9: I told you that last one.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you're aware.
Speaker 18: But the Islamic position is the same as what you
used to be, which is a Calvinistic position. You can
only affirm alas divine will and divine decree. The philosophical
dilemma of the one and many does not allow for
all of being independent of his creation, and then also.
Speaker 9: His creation having three will.
Speaker 18: So they affirmed double predestination even between all.
Speaker 1: The Yeah, I did know that, Yeah, absolutely, I appreciate that.
Now we have talked about it, but I gotta hurry. Dudes, Carlos,
dudes with small hats went after the czar it is
your cube. Do not block me, straight white male, five
dollars off topic? Have you seen no, we already read
that forty two attack ten dollars. I do not have
roundtable discussion pitches. Thank you for your education that's free
over the years. Appreciate the work you do. Thank you, Donnie.
Since fifty bucks he wins, no way he was gonna win.
And then we got a one hundred and seventy five dollars,
a massive fat super chat. Junior Yotagallo, do a brief
commentary on Thessalonians two eleven. For this reason, God sent
them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie.
And what are we seeing today is this Protestants, Catholics
and Muslims. Well, I think Paul is talking about the
unbelief in every age that he calls the mystery of iniquity. So,
in a sense, the strong delusion is anyone who in
any age doesn't affirm Christ. And it's not God sending
it as like a causal.
Speaker 4: Thing.
Speaker 1: It's God giving them over to the thing as a
punishment which they willed. So in other words, they wanted
to believe a lie. That's what the textas are they
chose and will to believe a lie instead of the truth.
So then God lets them have the delusion and they
delude themselves. But I do think that also it could
apply to the end whenever that is, that there will
be some special type of delusion in the final end days.
I don't know if that's what we're in now could be,
but whenever that final final end times is, there will
be a strong delusion that people are given over to
which leads to worship of Antichrist and the beast.
Speaker 4: So that.
Speaker 1: Knew that well, that would be one of the many
delusions of m I n I many delusions, of the
many delusions m I n I of the ma A
n y delusions. So would it apply ultimately to Catholicism,
protestantsm in Islam in a general sense, yes, But I
do think Paul doesn't tend eventually to be speaking of
some final eschatological delusion. Whenever and however that will come
about X timely. But thank you for that very generous
super jest fifty dollars. Thank you for teaching the nubs
and helping clarify things that aren't immediately clear. Well, thanks man,
tried to We try to be accurate here, Steve mcleven
five dollars. All we already read that one the Angel
Lord isn't Jesus because it wasn't written in the red
text exactly riptide five dollars, God, bless you and yours.
Thank you so much, Curie la some on one dollar
tell us rebuttal to Angel of the Lord is not God.
Essentially is to bring up an example that in the
same sense the dove descended into christ baptism is not God. Yeah,
but it is God. We're not saying God is a dove,
but it's an energetic manner in festation or appearance, just
like the fire in the Glory of Leviticus nine. Did
you watch Wagner attempting to reconcile this now, because the
issue is about the Theophanes and the presence of God
the Son in time and space prior to the incarnation,
which is not just the bodily references like when he's
wrestling with Jacob, it's also references to things like the
fire and the glory of God in Leviticus nine. So
we're not told of anything about a body like Jacob's
wrestling with in Leviticus nine. Were told that it's a
manifestation of fire, just like in the wilderness, the cloud
and the fire, the shoa kind of glory cloud. Those
are not bodies. They're called glory. They're not said to
be created reflections of glory. They're identified as God and Glory.
And you always face with Gideon. So all of that
refutes the attempted claims, which were not about traces of
the Trinity in the Old Testament. So Roman Catholics, yes,
they affirmed that there are quote traces of the Trinity
in the Old Testament. That's not what's in debate. The
problem is the in time and space manifestation, which is
an energetic manifestation of Orthodoxiology prior to the incarnation of
God really in time and space. And that's a problem
for tumism number one because of absolute divine simplicity. Number
two because of God being reduced to pure act. If
God is pure act, he's not in time and space
in a localized manner. And number three, it undercuts they
don't even realize it, the incarnation itself, because if God
can't be in one of his hypostases in time and
space in a self limiting way, then they've undercut the
entire incarnation itself, because it's not the Trinity that became incarnate.
It's the second person of the Godhead, not the Father,
and not the spirit that came into time and space
that really was over in Jerusalem and not in bethsta
in a unique mode, mode or presence. Their position can't
make sense of that. It's all created effects. It's not
the divine logos in time and space, which is why
they can't admit the Theophanes And by the way, how
does a being that is reducible to pure act how
does that being limit his actions in time and space?
Allah Philippians too. In the Kenosis passage, you see that
the doctrine of absolute dimind simplicity and God being reduced
to pure actuality with no potentiality, destroys free will, destroys
the incarnation, destroys distinguishing the act of creating from the conflagration.
It destroys the distinction between the divine power of walking
on water from the divine power of creating the world.
It's literally stupid, but they will go to all lengths
to patch this nonsense up and make it work. And
now thank god they've come out and just said Saint
talmut Aquinas. It's not Jesus in the Old Testament, it's
an angel. Good Now go back to Mecca Dance Commander
ten dollars, Thank you, the only show in the world
that teaches complex theology and is also top tier comedy.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Can you do your Mark Zuckerberg and I can do
my Mark Zuckerberg? Just like this, I think you guys
are gonna enjoy it because you're gonna be in a
kumpad and I'm gonna make you read for all eternity
the writings of Saint telmut Aquinas. How's that when you
get stuck in the compot and your hell is to
read Aquinas for eternity? Hades not ten dollars. We see
in the Bernie bush to the angel, the Lord peer
to him, the angel Lord's in the bush, but then
God called him out of the bush. So the angels
identified as God. Yeah, it's identified many times. And is
it Exodus twenty three? I did devise the same angel
in the bush. This is like basic theology. Man, I
can't believe that they've gone to this. I can't believe it.
There's no idiocy to which the Roman Catholic goofballs won't sink.
So I can believe it. I send my angel before
you obey his voice. He will not pardon your transgressions.
My name Yahweh is in him. Oh look at that.
Do angels parton sin? Or does God pardon sin? By
the way, this is the same angel that pardons sin
that Joseph mentions at the end of Genesis. So, Joseph says,
the Angel of the Lord is the one who redeems
him from all of his troubles in Genesis the end.
Speaker 11: I was going to bring up that first. I'm glad
you brought that up. Who can forgive sins?
Speaker 4: Got Alumm?
Speaker 1: Now Jesus says that who can forgive sentence to the Pharisees?
Now these idiot Thomas who ghosts angels for good sins? Well,
guess we can worship angels and call them ah wah,
Well that makes sense. Roman Catholics believe that there's created gods.
They believe that there's the grace that they get as
a created supernatural thing. It's not God, it's a created
supernatural grace. So Roman Catholics are polytheists that believe in
multiple gods. Why wouldn't they worship angels? And Metatron or
whatever else. They're basically just cobblists at this point. No,
what m five dollars? Random question? I brought some tallow
from the website. Oh you mean Jamie's. Does it contain
coconut oil? I think, Hey, Jamie, do you have coconut
oil in your tallow? Yes? So I don't know if
you are allergic or something, but it does have coconut oil. Kbor,
we already did that. Get we did that, We did that,
We did that, glitchy rhythm to dollars. Please debate my dad.
I can't stand to me.
Speaker 4: Sucks.
Speaker 1: Well, you gotta try to love your dad anyway. Sorry,
meet mentos more five dollars. You're the catechists from online
Orthodox Church of the Interwebs. No, that is not what
I am. This is not katechisis. This is basic defense
of principles regarding religious errors. Okay, out of cais. This
is what you get when you go to the Orthodox
Church and you become a catechumen and you're taught by
a priest who hopefully will be a kind of spiritual
father to you. That's not me, and that's not the
role that I can provide for you. Now, if you
don't live near a church, you gotta do the best
you can do. I understand it, but no, I'm not
a catechist. One shot a seventeen dollars. Thank you, are
we read that? Harry Sapanos three dollars, Thank you Jay
for another great train, God bless Thank you saw Snake
ten dollars. Thanks for this awesome content. Can I DM
you on X and ask questions? I mean, I'm pretty busy.
I don't know if I have time. I get a
lot of X messages and honestly, I it's not tied
to reply to them all. So maybe UH ask your
questions in he