Speaker 1: I'm married to a buncle pop. Oh.
Speaker 2: Oh, we got better to come.
Speaker 1: Joined in a subway shop.
Speaker 2: Oh oh, I'm married to a buncle pop. Oh, by
the man's mats.
Speaker 1: They come to me through a tube. My whole life
it's been watching on a tube.
Speaker 2: Whoa oh oh oh.
Speaker 1: We got weard a courtius been a subway shop.
Speaker 2: Oh we got wed at Curtis in a subway shop.
Oh we got wet courtaus be in a subway shop.
Speaker 1: Oh oh h I got married to a fucko pap. Whoa,
we got ready come joint in the subway shop. For
I'm married to a funco pap. Whoa I imagine made
Rosie come to me through tube? Who like the stick
watching on the two whoa, whoa.
Speaker 3: Over a boding joy to see the subway shop.
Speaker 4: O we got waiting for the sad subway shop. Oh
m hm, oh, I'm married to a phone cap. We
got ready, we got joined in a subway shop.
Speaker 1: Right, listen the roads. They come to me through the
two nights in the roads. They come to me through
this hanto bunco phone call. Whoa bunco the bunk? Oh
oh I got married, I got married to my punk
go papa. We got ready. We got joined in a
subway shop.
Speaker 5: Well, phone call love, phone call love, I'm mappy to
my phone.
Speaker 1: Do we got wedded? Come join in the subway shop. Oh,
I'm mappy married to a funk. Go boo.
Speaker 6: We got joined cords in the subway shop. Vitamins and biscuits,
some minerals to come and be through it to the
holy man watching on the two.
Speaker 7: Whoa, Oh, I'm happy to my funk, go boo.
Speaker 1: We got wedded. We got joined in the subway shopping.
Speaker 8: So where do we get to the Bible from?
Speaker 9: Did you even read the cannons?
Speaker 1: There is only one church. You are in din occult.
Speaker 5: You're a gobbling a demon, a bull merchard you saw mean?
Speaker 1: I'm your dude? Is this your person? Webs?
Speaker 10: I need a gender jew?
Speaker 1: Can't taking these little to yours?
Speaker 8: On your dude?
Speaker 1: You one plus one plus one equal free. It comes
from a dog tree. Why do you pray eat dead people?
The traditions a madden you? Heretic on your dude?
Speaker 11: Is this your person?
Speaker 1: Webs?
Speaker 9: I need a gender jew?
Speaker 1: Tickets little to your soul boys on your dude?
Speaker 12: What's your pistic justification?
Speaker 8: Circular and you are.
Speaker 13: Too.
Speaker 1: And the monkey you bud off in that tree? What
you doing up there? Why you stand? Why you run
it from them?
Speaker 14: Re bad?
Speaker 1: You ran mom and to and from me?
Speaker 15: That del the monkey, female monkeys with them bananas between
the trees, hanging down upside down.
Speaker 1: Found smart.
Speaker 9: We're making it out of the trees with this one. Boys,
What you doing to me? Dela monkey?
Speaker 10: Makey mmmm?
Speaker 9: Put your diddy oils in the microwave right now, because
it's about to get live, get it warmed up.
Speaker 1: Till a monkey?
Speaker 8: What do it to me?
Speaker 1: Tal it deal a monkey? Whoa huh?
Speaker 9: They ended too quick? What the heck? Do we have
any more bangers to get you all ready? What's up? Welcome?
We're already got six hundred live right now. What's a
welcome all of y'all, six hundred chat nerds to the chat.
It's been a minute. It's been a minute since we
had an open debate. And I always like to mix
it up. I always like to throw a curveball. I
hope you put your microwave diddy oil on thirty seconds,
got a nice and warmed up because it's about to
get live. It's about get hypes about to get crazy
up in here. I don't know what to expect. Quasimoto.
That's right, everybody forgotten Quasimoto. We got one last song
before we kick it off. That's this is a lesser
known be hit by dire mode aka young Boomer Jong Boomer. Yeah,
y'all feel it.
Speaker 16: Quas in modo. Quas it quasi quas in modo. Gun lots,
bitch is calling me on my mobo Quasi modo our
gutten natural flesh patch tracks for my move over. I
live life crossing Modo. My bitches be calling me nothing Modeo.
You don't even understand this.
Speaker 9: Float over, float over.
Speaker 15: When I get older, will I still have an f club.
Speaker 9: Shoulder I got. I got tangled in Modo.
Speaker 16: High school kids making fun of me? You call me
played over on this back part right here, This is
the part flo cousin Modo. I'm up in my castle.
It's very dank.
Speaker 9: I found that I found a hump backed chicken.
Speaker 1: She was stank on it. A quasi modo.
Speaker 9: Looking for a quasi modo. Ho was in modo.
Speaker 17: You don't even know what it's like with a little
bitty friend on your back like this ragion. I got
a little brother on my shoulder, Quasim Moldo. I just
smile a with modified Lamboo.
Speaker 9: So that I can drive in a Wizard. He had
to buy a modified Lambeau because of his humpback. Did
y'all understand that? Did anybody get chutched them bars? By
the way, I spit that whole track as always ad
hoc and prov baby. Everything we do music wise is improv.
That's the amazing part of cringe core. When dire Mode
steps up to the mic, you know you're about to
get some freestyle fire. It's all freestyle, that's all roll
over all right, I'm you dude. We're about to make
it out the trees with that Mott Dylon monkey hit. Yeah. Now,
a couple of these I have to admit. My original
tracks were then remixed via the creativity of our friends
out there. Shout out to Amid the Ruins fourteen fifty three,
who did most of the dire Wave tracks. But we
also have new friends who've been remixing, putting out some bangers,
putting out some hot tracks, also remixed via AI. Well,
this one is the slow Boy, Chopped and Screwed mix.
So I hope y'all enjoy Quasi mode. I thought Quasi
Modo was a It was a good cringe court head.
It didn't pop off, you know, like the rest of them.
Now we got one song. We got one for y'all.
Anime boys looping over here made anime remix. You remember
this one.
Speaker 1: I'm not doing, monkey, you clumb up in that tree.
Speaker 13: What you're doing up there while you staring at while
you running from every debate you ing from Andrew and
from me, I'm not.
Speaker 1: Doing I'm not doing all.
Speaker 8: My doing.
Speaker 18: A monkey's hanging down.
Speaker 1: I'm sent down sound.
Speaker 19: By a smile monkey.
Speaker 1: What you're doing to me? Clemment up that tree?
Speaker 13: Matt and a feeding no male monkey climbed up a tree,
K S s and he and doing much more enforce.
Speaker 8: Than that.
Speaker 20: Monkey.
Speaker 21: Dea monkey with them bane the tree dress hanging down.
I was like, down sound, that's a smile, Not so monkey,
what you're doing to me?
Speaker 22: Clemment up that tree?
Speaker 8: All right?
Speaker 9: Last one and that's this one's This one's because it's
a debate where we got to have like the oh
my gosh, how does Mike Winger get a million views?
Who are these people? Even these This is weird. Oh
this is a damn quasi moto right here. Look at
this doe looking like damn quasi moto. We're trying to
debate theology, bro, you can't debate if you've got a
damn fed up face looking like Quasimoto. That's not even
that you can't do it, it's it's it's not allowed
in the cannons to debate if your face is I'm joking,
by the way, that's called a joke for those pious men,
those little pious soy boys. Is about to expose me.
This one goes out to the Calvinists out there, because
today is a debate day, so we got to dedicate
a nice little ditty to the cal in it cold.
You are not getting a church yould ben to your
own church.
Speaker 23: Excuse me, you're you're just making an assumption that all
the saints agree they.
Speaker 8: Do they do.
Speaker 9: I can go read them.
Speaker 8: You have those things.
Speaker 24: You're a call that demon a boomer card part a demon.
Speaker 23: A boomer assumption that a boomer part. Excuse me, a
demon a bloomer art.
Speaker 24: Are you're acholar ly a deement in a boomer part
outdoor anomicy a demon.
Speaker 9: In a Boomer part.
Speaker 23: Excuse me, a deement in a Boomer part, or a
demon in a boomer making an assumptions, or all the
councils inspired in an errant.
Speaker 9: The acumenical thing ideas.
Speaker 12: So there are ecumenical sentence are inspired in an errant?
Speaker 8: Correct? How do you know? Because the oyster at least
is another truth? How do you know the voyster leads
you to know the truth because.
Speaker 24: They're in a court with all the other ecumenical doctors,
all the other test parts and the scriptures.
Speaker 8: You're just making an assumption.
Speaker 23: You're acholarle that demon in a Boomer part, or a
demon in a boomer making an assumption of collar that
dement e a Boomer part.
Speaker 8: Excuse me, who's me?
Speaker 24: A demon em a Boomer part, or you're acholar ly
deement in a Boomer part. Outdoor economy a.
Speaker 23: Demon in a Boomer part, excuse me? A deement Boomer
car em Boomer car.
Speaker 9: All right, that's enough of all that. It's time to
open it up. We got a nice little fat chat
room here ready to go. We had a excuse me,
excuse me, we had a soy man in the chat
talking smack all day. I hope he calls in. So
the way this works, as you guys know, is that
you request to speak over here on Twitter. So call
ins are via Twitter. It's the Twitter space at the
top of my profile. Here is the link in the
chat to call in. So if you click over there,
your hit request to speak, and you go in a queue,
in a line, and then I go to you one
by one. Now remember the way this works is you
can ask a question if you want to. If you
want to debate, you go to the head of the line.
So you raise your hand if you tell me you
want a debate. And the topics today are literature books
of the Bible, theology, church history, Patristics, ecumenical councils, Islam,
the Qur'an Revelation, Protestantism, Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Arianism, Cults, Hebrew Roots, Mormonism.
Thus all Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Oriental Heretics, Arians, Hebrew Roots,
Black huber or Israelites. This is the det Gnostics. I
forgot the Gnostics. This is your day to call in
and put me in my palace. Somebody need to shut
that man down, put him in his place. I want
full on. Sassy black woman working at the DMV energy today,
I want full on just let me have the heat,
maybe because I need to be put in my place.
We all know I've been running this game too long
up here, growing and popping off this channel. It's time
to put him to bed, baby, put him to rest,
shut him down. He is too mean, his arguments is
too good. He got a damn tom Selleck visage. Look
going on. It's too much. We can't handle it. We
gotta stop this somehow. We need a brave champion from
the domains of Papalism, from the domains of Islam, from
the domains of Calvinism, to just step on up with
that Queen Latifa, Monique Cardi, b Energy and put me
in my place because jay Do are getting destroyed today.
He getting wrecked today, he getting cooked today. How do
we how do you do this? I'm gonna help you
all out. All you gotta do to destroy me is
come on and present a argument. In fact, I want
to be destroyed. I want to be killed. I want
to be wrecked. I'm ready for somebody to come correct me,
because guess what if I'm wrong, I want to know
I'm wrong. I don't want to stay in my delusion
like a lot of y'all soy boys out there, y'all
want to.
Speaker 18: Stay in my little delusion. I want to stay in
my little soy pod delusion fantasy world.
Speaker 8: No, no, not me.
Speaker 9: I invite you to destroy me. Who else does that?
Nobody else invites everyone to come and destroy into the bank.
Nobody why? Because they're scared.
Speaker 18: All the other online apologists. They will only interact in
a professional way with the other big channels and apologists.
I'm not dirtying myself with the messides, with the plebs,
with the workers. Please please, all of these snotty apologists
on the internet.
Speaker 25: To a degree from a Baptist university, I want to
open borders. And by the way, miss scholar, I come
through a though try. I'm caving Ortland a mis scholar.
I don't care about none of that. Could care less.
Speaker 9: If you are a gave an Ortland follower, Come make
an argument, Come get in the chair and make an oreum.
Speaker 14: A boy.
Speaker 1: Play shakraf some more.
Speaker 26: No, because I'm an elite apologist on YouTube, I go
on Matt Fred I drank pints with a queas. I
drank a giant Beerstein full of cake icing like Ibirah.
We professionals, we don't sink to the low levels of
the meanness of Jay Dyer and his student voices that
he does.
Speaker 9: We're better than him.
Speaker 27: We're better than that, are better than that. I'm the
best person on the internet, a better than that, better
than you because I'm pious. Let me show hold the
world how piss on?
Speaker 9: I'm thinking about like a like a Limp Biscuits type
of song on pious. You know, remember that horrible era
of rap rock in like two thousand and three. Oh
it's the worst, like big old baggy jeans, Fred Durst
with a baseball cap backwards on pious on one.
Speaker 8: Of the best.
Speaker 9: Let me show y'all are better than the rest on
pious on the internet. It's good. All of that's gay, bro,
Get out of here with all that game is. That's
why nobody will come debate now in the debates sphere.
I forgot to mention this. Somebody sent me Alex O'Connor's
discussion with some other dude about tag. I have not
yet yet seen the so uh apparently the dude that
he had on who I don't know who it is
said something about he thought that precept tag was was
one of the better styles or techniques of debate that
feists have. Ah, well, thank you. At least we get
a little bit of a nod from the atheist. I
don't know what else they said in this discussion, so
I can't really comment on it. I did intend to
watch it if anybody has that clip, because I think
somebody sent it to me, but I've already forgotten who
sent me the clip. I don't know where it is
and what message. Rap rock is totally gayd That's one
of the worst stuff ever. Remember when we were making
fun of butt rock and we could, we could throw
butt rock is like a subgenre. Rap rock is a
subgenre of butt rock. Now, we just had our conference
last weekend at my church. Do you even go to church?
We literally just had a conference at my church, dummy,
and we covered iconography. So I did a lecture literally
at the church on iconography, and people are.
Speaker 28: Asking, do you even go to church? He doesn't even
go to church. Well to you, to you, good sir,
I licked the phone from my espresso. That is my
response to you, sir, I look at the phone. I
licked the phone at you, sir. Anyway, So back to
the issue. Did they never gonna have me own pines
with Aquinas? I don't care anyone else.
Speaker 9: I mean, I've always been in the sphere of the fringes,
you know what I mean? Like, you know, if you
talk about the type of geopolitical stuff, I talk about
your class as conspiracy and so that kind of stuff is,
you know. I mean, we're a lot more mainstream nowadays
than we used to be, but it's still seen as
not normian, am I Okay? I mean I'm not acting
any different than I act on literally every live stream
where we just clown around and have fun. So I
don't know what you're talking about. You know what I'm
on Expresso. It's about to be like, it's about to
be damn serial killer level apologetics out here. Okay, it's
about to be I was gonna say Jeffrey, butdonka Donald,
but he was too he was two skittles, So it's
about to be damn h who was the lady killer?
Speaker 28: Serial killer?
Speaker 8: What was his name? Remember him?
Speaker 9: I just went blank. I know my serial killers very well.
I just went blank on what's his face? Bt not
BTK because he was all dressed up like women.
Speaker 8: He was.
Speaker 9: He was gross. Who's the one that zach Efron played.
That's what I'm trying to think of. All right, we
got four people in line. That's good. That's what I
like to see. We already get four people, are about
to open it up. Oh, I'm so, I'm nervous. Super No,
not the nice talk or he was a Satanist although
actually Ted Bundy, right, that's what I'm talking ab well,
I'm about to go Ted Bundy on, y'all. Ted Bundy on, y'all.
I didn't want to read a poem before we before
with this a poem I wrote in grad school, back
when I was in academia. It's we had a death
in the family, and I just really wanted to express
when we had this death in the family back and
as an underground I wanted to express my feelings during
that tough time, and so I wrote this poem for
grad school. I won some awards at some multicultural events
at college ballers. We be on some twinky Twinkie play.
I hate us get found stanky stanky chief in fat
blunts of the danky danky, big diamond rings on a
panky panky that was my grad school poem that won
many awards. Because, like to thank you, it's more of
a haiku. I guess you could say, uh, sort of
a ghetto haiku is a good way to put that.
All Right, we're gonna open it up. Remember the topics
today are limited to I was in the I wasn't
in the dead Poet society. I was in the lit
poet society, right. I was over there with Juicy j DJ, Paul,
Project Pat. You know what I'm saying, gangs, Taboo, We
was all over there crafting HiPE beats and rots. You
know what I'm saying. Anyway, it's not a haiku. It's
a joke, dummy, You're so stupid. Too many people in
this audiences too's got too much spurgetism. They literally can't
tell what jokes are. They're They were here like snops
like fact checking memes and jokes. Fact check.
Speaker 29: Technically, uh, technically, Project Pat was not writing a haiku.
I studied in Japan under the foremost authority haikus, and
that is technically not a haiku.
Speaker 9: Well, thank you, thank you so much. We were all
concerned all over here, waiting for the definitive proof to
whether Project pat was right in Haikus or not. Thank you,
Spargatism five thousand. We love you, We owe it all
to you. Next up Harrison, not Smith, but Harrison, just Harrison,
just straight up Harrison. What's up, Harrison?
Speaker 5: Yo?
Speaker 28: What's good day?
Speaker 22: Great to be talking with you. I just had a
question regarding uh, which Ephesians was it?
Speaker 8: Really quick?
Speaker 30: It was Ephesians two eight nine.
Speaker 8: You know, for the grace you have been saved through faith. Yeah.
So I was talking to.
Speaker 22: One of my Protestant friends and they were basically just
arguing that, oh, you know, the relationship with God is
enough and not actions.
Speaker 8: So I just wanted to see you know, what your
thought is or like what a rebuttal.
Speaker 9: There's no such thing as a relationship without actions. I mean,
imagine saying to your wife, well we're married, but it's
a relationship. This can you mute bros ecking? But I
don't have to actually do anything to demonstrate that I
actually love you. It's all notional, it's all just verbal.
I mean, that's crazy. What does Jesus say, if you
love me, you keep my commandments? Many of many will
say to me on the last day, Lord Lord, do
we not even do good things in your name, and
Jesus says, apart from me, did Matthew.
Speaker 8: Twelve?
Speaker 9: Okay, So he has a Protestant presupposition that that text
and Ephesians too, is teaching the Protestant doctrine of solo
fide or justification by faith alone, apart from any kind
of works. When Paul is talking about in the context
first and foremost of the works of the law, the
Jewish law, so circumcision, none of those works are going
to save you. That's what the very next verse he said,
as you are called the uncircumcision by those who are
circumcised by hands. So the context here is the works
of the Jewish law. It is not Paul saying that
you never have to demonstrate or have any good works,
because he says in Galatians, the only faith that counts
is faith working through love. So even in Galatians, the
supposed book of Solafide, Paul actually says that the only
faith that counts is the one that works.
Speaker 8: Right on. Yeah, thank you, Yeah.
Speaker 22: I quoted Matthew seven twenty one through twenty three to them,
and they just presented me with Ephesians, and so I
was like, man, that's just.
Speaker 9: So they think the Bible contradicts I mean, you have
to harmonize the text.
Speaker 30: So the question, I know, yeah, it was, Yeah, it's
kind of some circular logic.
Speaker 8: I don't know.
Speaker 9: But well, and other other points you could Other points
you could make is that the Church never in history
taught sola fide. I mean literally, the ancient world didn't
even have the metaphysics and the nominalism necessary to divorce
one's status from the ontological reality. So if you don't know,
justification by faith alone is premised on the possibility of
divorcing what is ontologically the case from what is nominally
in a legal sense status said to be the case.
So it's as if you could be actually wicked in reality,
but you're declared nominally righteous via a legal standing. The
ancient world didn't think that way. They didn't divorce reality
from nominal or word terminology or legal standing. That's something
that develops after nominalism takes precedence in the Late Middle
Ages and influences. Luther is a nominalist that follows Gabriel
Bile and Akham that those philosophers had to come first
before you could get the idea of divorcing righteousness from
actually being righteous. You see, the ancient world did not
think that way. This is now well known and admit
in the scholarship. So even if you find a passage
in the Church Fathers that says we're saved by grace,
people like you know, James White, will just go in so,
oh see, they're teaching the Protestant doctor of justification boy
faith alone. Even though Alistair McGrath, the famous Protestant, in
his book Ustecia Day, has admitted that nobody in the
ancient world or in the Middle Ages taught anything close
to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Speaker 8: Thank you, I appreciate that. Man. One more thing.
Speaker 30: I know this may not be relevant to the topic.
Do you think bitcoin is going to go back down?
Speaker 9: I think that, like I said in the last live stream,
if there is a dip, usually what happens is that
when there's a crash, the crash of the of the
latest cycle is the peak of the last cycle. So
the peak of this cycle has been about sixty.
Speaker 30: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The faith did go
back down, it would not go packtick yet, right.
Speaker 9: I don't think we'll see like you know, bitcoin below sick.
I mean it's possible you have a like.
Speaker 30: A prediction like when what do you mean when, like
when if it did hit the floor, like when it
would Oh.
Speaker 9: Well, I think based on past cycles, and this is
not any infallible guide, but it's just the best guess.
Is that right around uh, you know, June is when
the since we're since we're in a bullmarket now, the
bull the bullmarker will probably start ending around June, and
then we'll probably see a crash around that time.
Speaker 8: All right, man, thank you. Yeah, I'm gonna go.
Speaker 9: H but I but again, I don't know if I
I don't know if I would rest in there being
a crash to sixty you know what I mean? Like,
let's say we get two hundred thousand dollars bitcoin, it
might crash to one hundred, you know what I mean?
Speaker 8: Right, Yeah, that's that's fair. Yeah, I've been thinking about that.
Speaker 22: Thank you for the uh, for the insights on the arguments.
I'm gonna go, uh talk to my friend about that
and see what they say.
Speaker 9: Yeah, great questions. You could also always you know, shift
the topic over to he may not want to shift
the topic, but you could you could talk about, you know,
the canon of scripture, because you know, Protestanism is really
grounded on solo fide and excuse me, solo scriptura as well,
solo fide sol scripture. You know, the sola's the only
in other words, sola fide itself rests on solo scriptura,
right because they need their specific canon, which for example,
excludes books that talk about the necessity works. And Luther
was even explicit about this when he talked about why
certain deuterocanatical books had to be removed, which you didn't
agree with, but he said, you know, the since these
books don't teach quote the doctrine and Gospel of Grace,
they're clearly not part of the canon. So Luther's presupposition
about what the Gospel of Grace was was a big
part of dictating why he chose to exclude those books
from the canon. It's not the only reason, but it
was part of it. Seraphim Saraphim, what's up?
Speaker 19: Man?
Speaker 9: Go I'm you, I'm you dude?
Speaker 8: Hey man?
Speaker 19: Hey man?
Speaker 8: How you doing hey?
Speaker 31: Hey?
Speaker 11: So I had a few questions. I know this is
a debate, However, this is a this is not my
position ask questions. It's fine, okay, awesome, man. So I
have a friend that is in the O c A.
I won't mention his name or anything.
Speaker 14: And he claims that there's a lot of people that
you know, uh, say that they're a humanist this and that,
and he views that those that view the O c
A as a humanist our sectarians almost like akin to
that of like the calendarists, like true orthodox schismatic types.
And I mean digging into it, like what why would
one say that the O c A Is a humanist?
Speaker 8: I guess is what I'm doing.
Speaker 9: There's more accurately, every jurisdiction has a humanists and liberal
accumanizing elements amongst them, so there's no perfect jurisdiction. I'm
sure you can find a humanist amongst rocorps, but whether
there are a humanists amongst the OCA is. Of course
there are. There's a humanists in the Antiochians. There's a
humanist in everywhere, so that shouldn't even really But it's
not like the entire thing is that way.
Speaker 32: Okay, So what did you say, Like OCA is as
a whole is like not, I only use the word tainted,
but like not like just because there's some a humanist
presence within some of the clergy within the OCA that
doesn't like undermine.
Speaker 9: Well, remember that although there is this kind of there
is a sense in which the various jurisdictions operate as
a kind of a collective. Really Orthodoxy is in many
ways decentralized, and so there's gonna be a lot of
good priests and a lot of good perhaps even bishops.
I'm not familiar with all the bishops of the OCA,
but I mean there's certain bishops of the OCA who
are really bad, like Archbishop Alexander Gilitzen, who thinks Origin
is a saint and is obviously a big open ecumenist.
So there's bad elements amongst the clergy anywhere, but it
wouldn't make the entire OCA bad because these are essentially
decentralized jurisdictions and them and even amongst Greek Orthodox there's
solid anti Acumenist sections in groups. So it's really just
a case by case basis. I would say there's no
perfect jurisdictions or perfect you know, parishes or anything like that,
but certainly certain jurisdictions have a tendency towards more of it.
And the other thing with the OCA is that there's
I think there's a danger that some people sense and
feel this is not coming from me, but from certain clergy,
is that there might be backdoor deals that are happening
whereby the OCA wants to achieve eventually recognition by the EP.
And that's because the OCA has always kind of been
in a somewhat ambiguous statu in terms of their canonical recognition.
Not all the jurisdictions have actually recognized the OCA, and
this goes back to issues in the Cold War. And
so there might be on the part of some elements
of the OA that the desire to achieve full canonical recognition,
which could then allow a backdoor deal with the EP,
whereby they maintain a continued status as supposedly an independent jurisdiction,
but they kind of have a secret backdoor deal with
Bartholomew and go Art. So that's also a possibility, and
that might be why some people are saying.
Speaker 19: That awesome, Hey, that was a good answer. That clears
things up. And then I have another question on that
of baptism.
Speaker 33: So I just read on the reception of the heterodotsy
to do with that, that's church by Uncome Mount and
press and it kind of left them with more questions
than answers.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just if you go back to the last
open Debate stream, we had about a whole hour where
we discussed this, So I would just say go back
and watch that stream because I just don't really want
to repeat the whole hour of argumentation about that topic.
But I think it's the last open Debate live stream
that we had, we had about a I don't know
two or three people asking that question. So, and I'm
not trying to be dismissive or rude, it's just I
just I've literally had probably fifteen people in the last
three years asked that question, and after spending an hour
every live stream on that topic, it's just it gets
really old. But I appreciate that. And you can go
check out the previous lection that we did Bob Bob,
the Duke, Bob, the Duck, Bob the Duck. Welcome everybody,
if you would like and share. We had like eight
hundred people and two hundred likes. Now one thousand people.
We hit over a thousand and one and fifty one
current viewers. Only two hundred of y'all like the stream.
What the hell is going on? Maybe y'all don't like
we got eight hundred haters up in here. What's up
eight hundred haters? No, Bigcoin is not a scam. I'm
sorry that you believe that. I think a lot of
people when they miss out on opportunities, uh, they get
angry and bitter, and then suddenly it was always good.
Speaker 16: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Yeah, So people who were very successful through it, they
must all be part of a giant scam. Everything is
a scam. Oh, I'm blackpilled. Everything's bad. Everything's a scam.
You gotta I'm mute, Boba duck. What's up? I'm mute.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 34: I remember the Church of Jesus Christ the Latter day Saints,
and my friend was saying that I should debate you,
But really I was just trying to get an understanding
of the what you called it, the monarchical trinitarian view
or something like that. But it sounded like you had
other things that you wanted to debate about Mormonism.
Speaker 9: Or we debate whatever you want. I don't care. We
could talk about Trinity, or we could debate Mormonism, whatever
you want.
Speaker 34: Honestly, I don't have many issues with the Orthodox. I
think they're closer than everyone else. You know, we're in
an agreement on my grace versus works. It sounds like
we're an agreement on rejecting Thomism. Thombism, however, you pronounced that.
Speaker 35: A lot of stuff like that.
Speaker 34: So I don't dislike any of my Orthodox guys, and
I don't have enough of a knowledge of their doctrine
to have issues with it.
Speaker 9: Can I ask you a question? Yeah, One of the
things that I think is probably just on the surface,
one of the most maybe difficult elements for me in
terms of what I mean. I'm not an expert on Mormonism.
I've done over the years. I've done a decent amount
of research. I've read Talmadge, one of your systematic Theologians,
and other kind of older texts from Brigham Young and
Joseph Smith, and you know, doctrine Covenants, Pearl of Great Price,
various sermons that Smith gave over the years. But I
think one of the most difficult things for me to
understand is the added sections where Joseph Smith added about
thirteen or twelve or thirteen verses to Genesis fifty, which
included himself being prophesied in the Book of Genesis. To me,
that on the surface just completely destroys this entire religion.
Speaker 8: You know, the Joseph Smith translation was non necessarily intended.
Speaker 5: To be.
Speaker 34: Like oh, this was actually in Genesis, or even necessarily
like this is canon.
Speaker 9: Okay, so I can add to the Bible and present
it as if it's a prophecy. I mean, you understand
these verses are intended to predict and prophesy. Joseph Smith,
you absolutely can.
Speaker 12: And this is something I can't talks about.
Speaker 34: Where Nephi is reading in Isaiah and he says, well,
I made this, and I liken the scriptures unto myself.
So he tries to find himself in the scriptures and
let God teach him new things about himself or about
God from the scriptures rather than seeking strictly that's what.
Speaker 9: But see, that's what. Are you aware of the way that,
for example, Muslims do this with Mohammed in the Book
of John or in Deuteronomy, that those passages are prophesying Mohammed.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but they don't necessarily.
Speaker 34: But like we don't use the Joseph and the translation
is like evidence.
Speaker 9: It doesn't matter whether you use it now because it's
evidence of a con man. He's a fraud.
Speaker 34: You could say it like that, but you could also say, well,
you know, an actual prophecy would look like that way too.
Speaker 9: Right Like now, actual prophets don't add themselves eighteen hundred
years later to the text, and.
Speaker 34: You reading the Book of Matthew would say, these are
clearly the apostles retroactively reading.
Speaker 11: Christ.
Speaker 9: Not at all, totally, totally not true. Number one, no
matter what Jews say. But that's not at all. That's
the argument Gesus himself makes, not the Pharisees. It's Jesus
saying that these Old Testament passages predict me, totally different
than retroactively saying eighteen hundred years later the Book of Genesis,
which actually thousands of years later, retroactively the Book of
Genesis predicted Joseph Smith. That's preposterous.
Speaker 34: So Jesus saying eighteen hundred years earlier, Moses predicted me.
Speaker 9: Are you aware of what the Gospel of John says?
Jesus doesn't just say those books predicted me. He says,
I spoke through those prophets. Sure, yes, no, that's not
the same. What did hold on?
Speaker 16: What did I just say?
Speaker 9: What did Jesus? What did I just say?
Speaker 8: He said that Jesus said he spoke through the prophet.
Speaker 9: Does Jesus say, what does Jesus claim that in the Gospels? Yeah, okay,
so that's different. Man, that's totally different than what you're
talking about.
Speaker 34: Again, for a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ.
Speaker 9: That's a fallacy. You have, dumb dis argument is Jews
reject the Book of Mormon. Sure, so what the heck
does Jews.
Speaker 28: Have to do with anything?
Speaker 9: That's a stupid argument. That's a dumb argument. What does
Jews have to do with anything?
Speaker 34: I'm saying that the same principle by which you're discounting.
Speaker 9: No, you're using a fallacy. It's not the same principle.
You're way off retroactively saying eighteen hundred years later.
Speaker 8: Well, whatever you think. It is like the same loge.
Speaker 34: It could be used by someone who is inclined to
argue against Christ.
Speaker 9: No, it couldn't. That's the false equivalence. You don't see
the difference there. If Joseph Smith said I was predicted
in the Book of Genesis because I spoke. If Joseph
Smith said I was predicted in the Book of Genesis
because my spirit, yes, I can hear you? Can you
hear me?
Speaker 8: Okay, I'm back.
Speaker 9: Can you hear me?
Speaker 19: Can you hear me?
Speaker 16: Yes?
Speaker 9: Can you hear you? Okay? So if Joseph, if Joseph Smith,
do stop for a second. Stop for a second. Okay,
let's walk through this. If Joseph Smith said, I spoke
through the spirit that was speaking in Genesis, it was
my spirit speaking in Genesis to predict me. Shut up, man, Well,
are you're not going to stop talking when I'm explaining
this to you? Why do you keep interrupting? Let me.
Speaker 13: Right?
Speaker 9: Why is this funny?
Speaker 8: I'm hearing you out.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but you're giggling. Why are you giggling? Are you
giggling at the idiots of momentum? I mean I would
be giggling too if I was a Mormon, because all
this stuff is amability stupid. So again, if if Joseph
Smith said, I am speaking through Genesis, that would be
all right. If you're not gonna, if you're gonna, If
you don't stop, understand, if you don't stop talking over
me and interrupting, We're done. That's just so stupid. You
want to call back in and try to get a
better connection, because I think there's a delay. You're welcome
to call back in and try again. But it's just
I'm not gonna talk to somebody who talks every two
seconds when I start talking Golden weak. No, there's not
an equivalence between Jesus saying I spoke through Moses. All
of the revelation in Genesis is about me, because I
was the one speaking through all of those texts. Peter
says it was the spirit of Christ that prophesied through
the Old Testament. That's not the same thing as Joseph
Smith saying I'm gonna add verses to the Book of
Genesis that predict me. That's a totally false, false equivalence.
How stupid this is. Go ahead, I'm mute.
Speaker 8: kJ how's it going?
Speaker 9: Can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Yep?
Speaker 12: Awesome. I don't have any debate or anything.
Speaker 19: I just have a question.
Speaker 36: Anybody have actually talked about this already, So if you
have my apologies and you can just shoot me away,
I'll find the other reference.
Speaker 12: But what do you think about loose from the Catholic Church?
Speaker 8: And then about what about Loose?
Speaker 9: I guess we already covered that, like three lives rooms back.
I made fun of it. I made fun of it
for an hour.
Speaker 36: What is a What do you think about secular art,
like art that's not blessed by a priest being used
to promote Christianity.
Speaker 9: There's nothing wrong with Christian art. It's just that the
canons of the Orthodox Church were set up to dictate
the liturgical worship practice. And by the way, it's actually
it's not even the Seventh Council that first starts to
rule on this, it's actually the Council Trollo. Trollo and
Canon eighty two, it is one of the first canons
of the Church to specify what's appropriate and not appropriate
to the liturgi worship of the Church in terms of
imagery and iconography. And so the Church even at that
time forbade pagan art. In Canon eighty two, I think
they talk about pagan's styles of art, and then that
becomes the basis in part for the theology of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council. So for the Orthodox Church in the East,
Trollo was pretty much seen as an ecumenical council, and
even Pote John the Eighth pretty much agreed with everything
that was in Trollo, including the elements if I recall
relating to married priests. And it's only much later that
the Vatican, the papacy rejects elements of Trollo, but the
Seventh Ecumenical Council affirms Trollo. So once again we see
that the principles of iconography and the Seventh Council aren't
made up by the Seventh Council. They actually go back
to Quinnessex Trollo Council. And even earlier you have, for example,
Canon seventy three of Trollo mentions sake art and what's appropriate,
what's not appropriate, and keeping pagan art out of the church.
Now what's considered pagan art? Well, when you look at
what if you go to the Vatican, which I've been
to the Vatican, I have been to the Vatican Museum
and all that, you'll notice all kinds of nudies and
boobies and tiny peepies. I guess everybody in the Red
County Church has tiny peepies, because all the artwork in
Rome is all like micropenes. But and that makes sense,
maybe that's why they are the way they are. But
when you go inside the Vatican, when you go into
Saint Peter's and you see naked people everywhere. Do you
think the ancient Church had nudies everywhere, had you know,
boobs and butts, and they're all fat people by the way, Yeah,
that has nothing to do at all with what the
seven Documentical Council lays down. And what that shows us
is that all the way back to even earlier than
the Renaissance papacy, the Western Church gave verbal credence to
the teaching of Trollo and the Seventh Ecamenical Council when
it came to iconography. They never understood or accepted the
theology of the Council, because the theology of the Seventh
Ecminical Council is literally bound up with our Christology, our
you know, fasting and assetic practices. In other words, what's
appropriate for in the church. Obviously, nude people everywhere is
not appropriate for the church. Hence why they have all
this nonsense of histrionic women, saints right, and spiritual orgasms.
None of that exists in the Orgied Church. I'm being serious,
Theresa of Abel and all those people, right, That's because
the Roman Church only gave verbal credence to the Seventh
Echeminical Council and never cared about the actual theology and
banning pagan art for iconographic purposes. So sacred art is fine,
it just has no place in other words, like Christian
art work. You know, if I'm gonna paint you know,
Paul preaching in a you know, I don't know, Rembrandts
style where Paul's preaching right to the pagans or something.
There's nothing wrong with any of that. It just doesn't
belong in the liturgical setting of the church.
Speaker 36: I gotcha, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be blessed by
a priest at that point. And then of course you
couldn't use it.
Speaker 12: Like in the church.
Speaker 9: Well, I don't know if what you mean by blessed
by a priest, because I mean you could you could
say that, you know, Like the imagery is like for example,
it just it depends, right, So like this image, for example,
the famous image of you know, Adam and Eve touch
or excuse me, God touching Adam. This is a heterodox
image because it's presenting God the Father as if he's
this old man that creates Adam. When Adam is created
on the image and in the prototype of Christ, there
is no incarnate God, the Father, the Father is never incarnate.
Speaker 8: You see. Oh yeah, I never thought about that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And if you read the later icon count like
for so, in the sixteen hundreds in Russia they had
really big icon councils. They're not ecumenical councils, but they're
still very important for Orthodox iconography, and they were having
to deal with UH Jesuit promoted Western heterodox iconography coming
into Russia and Eastern churches. And the point was that
a lot of these icons were intended to teach Philly okuay,
and so you have he in the Orthox church. You
have heterodox icons, and there's many of them that makes sense. Yeah,
there's one called h like I forget all the names.
This is in volume two of the Lost lostky Alspensky
book on icons. There's a whole chapter on heterodox icons.
And part of the decision again had to do with,
you know, not having images of God the Father. So anyway,
does that answer your questions that I said, I.
Speaker 12: Really appreciate that, Jay, and I got another one here.
Speaker 36: This is a maybe this will get some of the
UH Muslim folks spun up for some debates here.
Speaker 12: I don't know.
Speaker 36: I noticed the contradiction in the Kuran that I wanted
to share with you. Sure, and and might maybe you
could say if it's a good contradiction or you know whatever.
But so there's a surah which is two to one, yeah,
two two one two two to one, and it states
that Muslim men cannot marry polytheistic women.
Speaker 19: Okay.
Speaker 36: And and as you know, many Muslim apologists will argue
that the Trinity is a form of polytheism.
Speaker 9: Sure, actually the Koran.
Speaker 8: Says it is.
Speaker 12: Yeah, the exactly the Koran says it is.
Speaker 36: In Surah five five, it states explicitly that Muslim men
can marry Christian and Jewish women. This is this Allah
confirming that there is something correct about the Trinity.
Speaker 9: In other words, if you can marry Christian women, then
Christianity is not polytheis exactly.
Speaker 36: It's either it's either Alla didn't know that the trinity
or that he approved of it. And you know, there's
a bill the like to site the like to site
a further exegesis by Umar and he was a companion
of Muhammad, and he states that it's best not to
marry Christian women because because of their doctrine on trinity.
So he says you should you should avoid Mary and
Christian women. Luckily, Allah thought about that in his greatness.
In ser five eighty seven, it was revealed that Allah said,
you should not forbid yourself for all the things.
Speaker 12: That have been made lawful to you. For Allah is great.
Speaker 9: Nice. Yeah, now I pulled up each of these texts
so everybody can see on screen the three texts that
he's mentioned. All of these have been pulled up for you.
So there's a very clear contradiction and what it actually shows,
which we've known for many years. And as Kai has
shown in his early or watching out of videos, the
Qoran and Muhammad did not understand the Trinity. Even if
you think the Trinity is wrong, we would at least
expect the Koran to get what the Christians believe correct.
But they don't. Well why would they not at least
get it correct? Isn't all knowing? I mean again, even
if it's false, you could at least state the doctrine correctly, right.
Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, exactly, I mean, and he would know all versions.
Speaker 9: Of Christianity, all versions, Oh exactly right, he would know
all the sacks, all the different groups correct.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 36: So there's even you know, modalism, which which I don't
know if you'd even consider that trinitarian or not, but
you know, there's so many versions of it that surely
one might be justifiable at anyway.
Speaker 9: That's a great contradiction. I appreciate. I wasn't aware of
that one, but yeah, it does seem like it would
be an outright contradiction. So I appreciate that. A we're
going to try the Mormon guy again if maybe he's
got a better connection. There's not a delay. What's up man?
You there? You want I'm mute?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm back.
Speaker 9: Sorry, Okay, So let me restate what I was trying
to argue to you. It's a false equivalence to say
that because Jesus says I'm the one that spoke through
all those prophets in the Old Testament. That's not the
same thing as Joseph Smith saying, oh, let me add
a few verses to the last chapter of Genesis to
predict me. That's totally that's a false equivalence, very different.
Speaker 16: Okay.
Speaker 19: See, you're saying like the problem is adding.
Speaker 9: Scripture, right, Well, it's not just that, but it's also
a con man element that obviously nothing in the Book
of Genesis is talking about Joseph Smith. And what he's
doing is because the last chapter is about Joseph the patriarch,
he's tagging himself in there because it says Joseph, sure, sure,
you're okay with that? Yeah, all right, Well then I mean,
if if it's okay to be a con man and
be a fraud, then we can all do that. But
that is what that is. Do you do you think
Genesis is talking about you just admitted you admitted Genesis
is not talking about Joseph Smith.
Speaker 1: Right, not in the text?
Speaker 9: We have no then then that's a con man fraud operation.
Speaker 8: It can be.
Speaker 34: But again, you know, non Christians Christians.
Speaker 9: This is do you know what a fallacy is? Do
you know what a fallacy is?
Speaker 23: What?
Speaker 9: What's a fallacy?
Speaker 19: Formal or informal?
Speaker 9: Informal is fine.
Speaker 34: Informal is two logical propositions that do not necessarily connect
to the conclusion.
Speaker 9: Right, So the fact that people in other religions don't
accept Jesus' claims has nothing to do with whether or
not Joseph Smith's adding verses makes him still a potential prophet.
Those are two totally disconnected. What does the attitude of Jews.
Speaker 25: Have to do with this.
Speaker 19: It's just that they use the same argument, right, So.
Speaker 9: What how does that make it a good argument?
Speaker 8: I don't know.
Speaker 34: You think it's a good enough argument to use against
Joseph Smith, Right.
Speaker 9: No, I just showed you that it's a false equivalence.
It's not the same thing.
Speaker 8: It's not quite the same.
Speaker 9: No, it's totally different. Jesus is not just saying that,
let me retroactively find a few verses that might hint
at me. He's saying, I literally spoke the entire Old Testament.
Peter says that it was the spirit of Christ who
spoke through all the Old Testament prophets. Joseph Smith is
not doing that. Joseph Smith is saying the last chapter
of Genesis, it's about the patriarch Joseph. Oh, by the way,
here's ten extra verses about me, Joseph. That's fraud, con
men stuff.
Speaker 34: Maybe Joseph did have such a prophecy in Genesis, unless
you think it's a full account of everything.
Speaker 9: Happened to You just admitted a minute ago that Genesis
is not talking about Joseph Smith.
Speaker 19: Yes, because it's not a full account.
Speaker 9: A full account, it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.
Speaker 34: I do not know whether Joseph in Egypt had her
personal prophecy about Joseph Smith.
Speaker 9: You just admitted that Joseph Smith added those verses and
you said we don't have to accept that as a Mormon.
Now you're trying to say, well, maybe it can be counted,
so you're flip flopping.
Speaker 34: No, please, please listen, I don't know whether Joseph had
this prophecy.
Speaker 9: You just said a minute ago that you don't have
to believe those as a Mormon, did you not, Yes,
And now you're flipping the argument and saying that, well,
maybe actually Joseph did have a prophecy of Joseph Smith.
Speaker 8: Okay, how is that different from we don't have to believe.
Speaker 9: It, because now you're admitting that it was a prophecy,
when a minute ago you said that Joseph Smith might
have actually just added those things. Which one is it? No,
you've contradicted which one is it? You're moving the gold
post in the middle of the argument. Which one is it?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 34: Personally, I would say, if you'd let me finish that
it was Joseph likening the scriptures on chin cell and
God kind of speaking to.
Speaker 19: Him as if this was true scripture and using it.
Speaker 34: To teach Joseph Smith something about Joseph Smith not necessarily
completely suid.
Speaker 9: All right, we're out here, We're done. This is the
dumbesth I've ever heard. Later, yeah, yeah, goodbye. He literally
changed the argument, right, So when the first argument that, look,
we're more Mormons, don't have to believe this. This could
be Joseph Smith just being creative and kind of retroactively
finding himself in the Old Testament. Excuse me, finding himself
in the Old Testament retroactively. And then he flips it
and says, well, it actually could be a prophecy of him. Now,
which one is it? You said ten minutes ago, you
don't have to believe it. It's just jose Smith being
creative in a you know, retroactive prose way. Well, now
it's actually a prophecy, and the patriarch Joseph was predicting
Joseph Smith. So you just contradicted yourself. Vinny, I want
people to disagree today. Okay, if you're here with your
catechumen orthodox questions, take those to your priests.
Speaker 37: Jay I had a question. It was about logical fallacies.
If you want to I'll just step down and wait
for another time.
Speaker 9: What's the question?
Speaker 37: There are questions about the tag position. So in the nutshell,
we're arguing as a as Christian's logic, ethics, and science
are grounded in the triune God or the Christian paradigm,
if you will, can the same grounding be applied to
concepts like logical fallacies for example, that the gentlemen before
made one, or like circular reason, and what do we
attributed it attributed to? Is it God as He's revealed
in the scripture? Like how do we justify all of
the fallacies that we know today?
Speaker 9: Well, fallacies are a violation of the principles of logic,
So we don't have to justify fallacies. I'm not sure
what that means. We just have to demonstrate that the
principles of logic are the case. They are grounded in God.
They're grounded in the mind of God, the eternal mind
of God, and so that's what gives them their permanence,
their stability. They don't evolve and turn into the opposite
of themselves, and so any fallacy is merely a violation
of those principles of logic. So you don't have to
you don't have to quote justify fallacies. You justify the
logical principles, and then by extension, any fallacy is a
violation of those principles. Nectarios.
Speaker 8: Hello God, yep, let's if you say.
Speaker 19: I was gonna have a question, but I'll just actually
just take.
Speaker 8: It to my priests.
Speaker 19: But I do want to make a comment real quick.
Sure you know Protestants also make that same marketing.
Speaker 8: Well, the Jews says this, and the Jews.
Speaker 9: Now the Muslims remember that, I've had multiple Muslims say
Jews don't accept the prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament.
So yeah, exactly, this is totally irrelevant, totally, but what
about But what.
Speaker 38: About the Jews who will then convert to Orthodox and
say no, the Orthodox and justified.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's arbitrary, Like why yeah, what about those Jews?
And by the way, Jews don't accept the Book of Mormon,
so like what is that? What does that have to
do with earth?
Speaker 20: And also, I don't Mormons don't even accept the Bible anyways,
I've had tons of conversations with Mormon.
Speaker 9: No, it's a stupid cult that they say. Once you
start talking to him, then it turns out they'll tell you, Oh, well,
by the way, the Bible has errors in it, and
the Book of Mormon fixes all that. Right, So it's
just like it's just like Islam. Mormonism is an American
prairie muffin Islam Manuel. What's up? The only difference, by
the way, is that you know, actually I was going
to say, is is you know not. Actually Islam is polytheistic.
That's the real, honest truth. So just like Mormonism is polytheistic.
You have multiple God. God the Father was once a body,
had a body, and it was impregnating women, all this nonsense,
and he attained to God the Father status. I mean,
it's literally just like Greek It's like religious marvel universe shit.
When you really understand Mormonism, it's completely stupid. Go ahead,
I'm mute, challenger. You can support the stream, by the way,
by super chats. The super chat link is it's a marvel.
It's like silver Surfer religion or some shit. What's up, man?
Speaker 39: Yeah, So I'm just curious on the transcendental argument for
God right now, I'd say I'm more of an agnostic,
and my main issue with a positive claim of God
is that even you admit that God is a circular
argument and you use God to justify logic, to justify
morality and all these things.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well, how about I just use the term recursive
or self referencing? Is that better than circular because everybody
gets tripped up on the word or the terminology. We're
just pointing out that at a basic level, everybody's argumentation
will bottom out and you will have something that's self referencing.
So let's say, for example, we want to do linguistic philosophy.
Can I do linguistic philosophy without using words? Or if
we talk about meta loogic, can I talk about how
logic works or how logic exists without assuming some form
of logic? No, it's impossible. Is that circular? No, it's
simply pointing out that at a different level of analysis,
or at a different at a meta level, you must
assume the things in question. So it's not circular argumentation
in the classic sense of a violating of a law
of logic. That's like mundane normal types of argumentation. It's
because it's a different type of category question, which necessitates
using the thing in question. That's why it's not circularity.
Speaker 39: Okay, but couldn't you say that for anything else, like
you need to use you need to use words to
justify using words.
Speaker 9: It's a category error. Do you understand that there's two
different There's a difference between studying logic and meta loogic.
Those are two different types of questions. Do you know
what that means?
Speaker 8: No, I'm not super well read on philosophy.
Speaker 19: I'm just wondering because on it.
Speaker 9: That's the point right there at what you don't understand
I'm telling I'm not trying to be rude to you,
but I'm telling you that that's what you're misunderstanding. You're
assuming that, for example, fallacies across the board apply in
every single type of situation or case, and there a
certain situation where they don't apply. Let me give you
an example. We all agree that ad hominem is a fallacy,
right sure, Let's say that we're debating in one situation,
a case where the thing in question is precisely someone's character.
And so let's say we're debating, you know, the character
of Bill Cosby, and I bring to the table all
of these arguments about how Bill Cosby is a for
the sake of argument, a piece of crap he you know,
is drugging people, graping them, et cetera. Well, wait a minute,
is that ad hominem for me to do that?
Speaker 39: Oh, I mean you're you're referring to the subject at hand, which.
Speaker 9: Is yes, exactly So in this case, because it's a
unique situation, it's not at hominem because precisely what's in
question is the character of the person. So likewise, if
we say, in the question of logic, right, if I
ask a metalogical question, which is about the status of
logic itself, what's the ontological status of logic? I cannot
do that without assuming logic to reason about it. So
it's not circular because it's simply unavoidable in a meta
type of question.
Speaker 14: Okay, So.
Speaker 39: I mean again, logic is necessary is kind of what
you're saying, And you're saying that logic would come from
God because I've seen some of your videos.
Speaker 9: I've said those things, but those things don't relate to
what I'm saying right here. This is just a category mistake. Right,
So do you know what we mean by meta questions?
What that means?
Speaker 8: A question about questioning.
Speaker 9: No, a question about the status of something like the
like the ontological status is something you know what that
means they're doing. I'm not trying to put you on
the spot of me it make you. I'm just literally
trying to explain. I'm not trying to be rude to you,
but are you familiar with that term of like what
a meta question is?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 9: No, Okay? So, like if I'm doing mathematics and I'm
doing two plus two equals four, I'm doing basic arithmetic, right,
that's a different question from when I say what is
the number two or the number four? So that's a
different type of question. It's a meta level question where
I'm asking not what weather two plus two equals four?
But what is the ontological status of the number two
or the number four. That's the point is that TAG
is operating at that higher meta level, and so it
is necessarily recursive or self referencing. If you want to
throw out the word circular, go ahead. That's all we mean.
Speaker 19: Okay, But I mean I'm just saying that.
Speaker 39: If you're gonna say that you can't do logic without that, right, right,
I mean I don't see how that's.
Speaker 9: The case, Like, it's obviously the case. You don't understand
this like, because logic is necessary for all reasoning and
all propositions and all meaning and all predications. So if
I'm going to reason about logic, I have to assume
that logic is the case. You can't make sentences without logic.
You don't know that, No, I do know that. Okay,
then you just prove my point. Thank you. You prove
the point.
Speaker 8: What does that have to do with God? Though?
Speaker 9: Like what, we're not at God yet. I'm just trying
to demonstrate the category error. You're not going to understand
the argument for God until you understand the mistake you're
making about the category error. First. I'm trying to demonstrate
that to you first.
Speaker 8: Okay, there's a cat.
Speaker 9: Like what I literally just explained all of that to you. Alright,
We're moving on next up MKG hey, j yep.
Speaker 19: I just wanted to say first, thank you for the
book recognition.
Speaker 20: I just got my copy of the mcgotting books controversy.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that will solve a lot of you know, like
Protestant or you know, Chrystal logically that people have.
Speaker 19: My argument free right now though, is regarding the law.
Speaker 20: So what's happening specifically for a circumcision and I'm basically
looking at Acts fifteen, Genesis seventeen, Relation two, Enrollment seven,
and this I feel like this is I don't feel
but based on my reading, it seems that Paul is
having this kind of tug of war happening where he's
not rejecting the law, but he's not saying the law
is the be all end all.
Speaker 19: I'm having a hard time seeing how he justifies the
cessation of circumcision.
Speaker 9: Well, because circumcision is itself a limiting right, women cannot
be circumcised. And his argument in Colautions, if you Readclautions,
is very clear that the right of circumcision itself is
a type of the right of baptism of the New Testament.
And so because circumcision was specifically the right of initiation
for males in Israel for that Covenant. If the Covenant
is to be expanded and open up to all of
the gentile nations and it's going to include women, obviously
it cannot be circumcisions. So what is the new circumcision.
The new circumcision is baptism, which is something very easy
and accessible water right, which can include both men and women.
And so when you read Jeremiah thirty one and Jeremiah
thirty three in the Masoretic version, not in the Orthodox version.
I don't know what the chapters are off the top
of my head in the Orthodox version, but those two
chapters that speak of the new covenant. When the Messiah comes,
it says it will not be according to the covenant
with Moses. So there will be a new covenant, specifically
contrasted to the covenant that they had at Sinai. And
that necessitates then, according to the reasoning of Paul in
all of his epistles, not just in Roman's Regulations, but
in all of the epistles, the totality ugmentation is, especially Hebrews,
is that the rights themselves also have to be transformed
such that these rights can go to all of the nations.
And if you have it essentially still Judaic, it's too limiting.
And that's part of the logic and the argmentation of
Acts fifteen, which is that if Noah has made righteous before,
or what's gonna be without circumcision, then we ought not
require of the gentiles coming into the church anything more
than what was required of Noah. That's the logic of
Acts fifteen.
Speaker 20: But my problem here is isn't there a progressive righteousness
with every generation that comes. Isn't Peter more honored than
David in some sense?
Speaker 9: No, I don't know where you where that comes from,
because I mean the Hebrews eleven when it describes the
heavenly Jerusalem, they are classed as saints along with us.
Speaker 20: Okay, but specifically the covenant of circumcision that starts with Abraham,
not with Moses.
Speaker 19: Correct.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but Noah has made righteous without prior to circumcision.
Speaker 20: But from a Christian's perspective, don't we believe in progressive revelation?
Speaker 9: Yeah? But the argument of Acts fifteen is that the
precisely what is the progression is the opening of that
covenant to the nations. And there's a direct connection between
the Abrahamic and the Mosaic because circumcision is the right
of that covenant right until we get the new Covenant
that was appropriate for that time because God was still
working primarily with a single nation state as his church.
The Church of the Old Testament is Israel, the nation state.
But once Israel has fulfilled its mission, which is to
produce the Messiah, then it has fulfilled what it was
intended to do by the way circumcision also fulfills what
it was intended to do. And if you look at
the Book of Luke, and if you look at the
Orthodox liturgy, circumcis decision is fulfilled in Jesus being circumcised.
In other words, the prediction of circumcision itself, whether when
it's given to Abraham in Genesis or whether it's anything
else in the Mosaic, comminent circumcision is done when Jesus
is circumcised in the Temple.
Speaker 8: I see.
Speaker 20: But now, my my argument for that is that, yes,
it's clear that some of the law, the letter of
the law is fulfilled and actually represented as the spirit
of the law.
Speaker 8: It's it's it's.
Speaker 19: True form is shown through the spirit of the law.
But there are still especially from the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but the Church determines. The Church determines what The
Church determines what things carry over exactly, not Jews, not
Messianic Jews, not. The Church has determined that circumcision is
fulfilled in the circumcision of Christ and is replaced with baptism.
Speaker 20: And my concern here is that if we were Protestants,
then this would be no issue and we could just
move on.
Speaker 9: But hold on, why would that be Why would that
be no issue for Protestants?
Speaker 20: Because because Protestants put all their weight on the spirit
of the law, and that's worth.
Speaker 9: There is no first of all, there is no one
Protestant that does that. In fact, many Protestants are judaizing
sex which don't do that. So I don't even I
wouldn't even agree with that argument. Okay, if if the
Apostles are given the authority to determine and interpret the
texts and decide what carries over and what doesn't, that's
all you need to know that circumcision doesn't carry over.
Speaker 8: Okay, But but.
Speaker 20: What the church uses as justification for why circumcision doesn't
carry over?
Speaker 19: Does it not rest mainly on Paul's arguments? I guess
that's my question.
Speaker 9: No, the apostles are arguing that circumcision was done and
fulfilled when Jesus was circumcised.
Speaker 20: But doesn't that's my question. Doesn't James disagree? And that's
where kind of the quarrel and Acts fifteen is happening.
Speaker 9: And no, what do you mean now what James? James
doesn't disagree, he agreed the council agrees with not requiring
circumcisions for gentiles.
Speaker 25: What do you mean?
Speaker 20: But in the beginning of it, it's not a full agreement.
The Council is convening to say do we impose this
yorke or not? And then they come to a conclusion
that no, we shouldn't. The yoke shouldn't be asked of
the gentiles.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 19: So I'm saying that's that there is this intersection that's
happening that.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So there's debates and then and Paul Paul rebukes
Peter at the beginning Glatians.
Speaker 20: So I'm saying, I'm saying the sources Paul, Paul is
the rebuker.
Speaker 19: Paul is the one saying, no, what you guys are wrong,
which shouldn't we shouldn't ask this of the genial?
Speaker 9: Okay? And do you think that Paul tricked the Council
in Acts fifteen to side with Paul. I mean, this
is this is a problem. What you're arguing is a
Protestant judaeic argument.
Speaker 20: And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying, here's the chorus
you here. Can saints be wrong?
Speaker 9: No not, Apostles can't be wrong?
Speaker 19: No?
Speaker 22: No?
Speaker 19: Okay, Well, first can saints be wrong.
Speaker 9: Well, saints are not equivalent to apostles, so yes, later
church fathers can be wrong the apostles. The apostles do
not teach error in this regard.
Speaker 19: No, apostles can be wrong.
Speaker 9: When there's like a counsel or an authoritative teaching that
makes its way into the scriptures. No, they don't teach wrong.
Speaker 19: Because you know where I'm going with this.
Speaker 9: I think you're going to say, what that Paul, that
Peter rebused wrong? Wrong, but they got rebuked and so
it didn't become part of scripture or the Council in
Acts fifteen Providential.
Speaker 19: This is this is my problem.
Speaker 8: This is my worry.
Speaker 9: I feel what is There's not a problem Peter.
Speaker 19: Is he and James can be wrong and Paul is right?
Speaker 9: Then no, you're missing the points. You're missing the point
they got something wrong but got corrected and none of
the wrong teaching made it into the Council or into scripture.
Speaker 20: Well that's how the story ended. I'm pausing, and this
is all coming from Paul and Luke's point of view, And.
Speaker 9: Well you're why are you setting Paul and Luke against
everyone else? You have to trust the divine Providence. It's
the same faith that you have that stop interrupting. It's
the same faith that you have. The Divine Providence guided
the church in later centuries to collect the canon together.
So if you doubt this, then the whole religion goes.
I agree, But what reason is there to doubt this?
I don't understand the basis of delt This whole doubt
comes from.
Speaker 19: Essentially why I think orthodoxy is appealing and.
Speaker 9: It's favorable over But what you're saying would make orthodoxy
false because it's a denial of the guidance of the
Holy Spirit in the Church.
Speaker 20: No, I'm saying, yeah, it's a continuous of it's the
Orthodoxy's claim is that we're there, we're the true tradition,
we hold the oldest tradition.
Speaker 19: That's the orthodox cost.
Speaker 9: No, it's more than that. I mean, I'm saying that
in Acts too. There's a promise that the Holy Jesus
in the Gospel of John promises that the Holy Spirit
with leading God the Church into all truth. And that
happens primarily at a sonodal or communal level. Right, it's
not primarily individual people. Because yes, you can have Peter
thinking something wrong or getting something wrong, but providentially that
gets corrected and it never makes it into the teaching
of scripture, or into the teaching of the oral teaching
of the Church, or into the liturgy, or into the
ecumenical Council. So there's never a dogmatic mistake. Even if
Peter at one point got something wrong, it's never dogmatized
or inscripturated that there's error.
Speaker 20: But would it be fair to say that you can
only that claim if we've already agreed on.
Speaker 19: That being the case.
Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely, yeah, you have to. Of course the presupposition
that the church is guided as part of that is
part of that assumption.
Speaker 19: Absolutely, But I'm speaking in the case itself priority.
Speaker 9: But you can't do that that that that's an invalid move.
There is no but in this, There is no invalid there.
You can't have This is a Protestant type of argument,
or a Muslim type of argument, where you assume that
there is no guidance or holistic faith. There is this
possibility that they got it all wrong at Acts fifteen
because they followed Paul. Well, look if Paul, if Paul's wrong,
then Christianity is wrong.
Speaker 19: I guess this is this is where I'm coming from.
So you can see where how this relates the question
that you've posed to the Muslims or to.
Speaker 20: The Jews about or specifically the Muslims. At that point
of if I was a fifth, sixth, seventh century Jew
or Christian, how would I know what Muhammad's thing is true?
That's we're directly You're directly investigating the scripture.
Speaker 9: That's based on a consistency with prior revelation. So what
I'm arguing is precisely that Paul and Acts fifteen are
consistent with prior revelation. Prior revelation itself is not teaching
that circumcision continues for all eternity, for all the nations.
It's not even possible to do that. How could the
Mosaic law, when most of it is confined to Palestine
and Israel and the Land of Israel, how could that
be for all the nations?
Speaker 19: No, I agree, But what I'm getting at is, let
me focus the point.
Speaker 20: If I'm a Jew in the first century, and I'm
hearing this Gospel, and I'm hearing the I'm hearing the Act,
the Letter, I'm listening to the letters of Paul, how
can I investigate that? What Paul is thinking is consistent
and has continuity.
Speaker 9: By going to the Old Testament texts and soon not.
Speaker 19: Just post facto of the Holy Spirit has.
Speaker 9: Protected because only that interpretation makes sense of the Old
Testament data in a coherent way.
Speaker 19: Because I have to have you read the Book of Hebrews,
the Book of Hebrews.
Speaker 8: What part are you the.
Speaker 9: Entire Book of Hebrews is making the point I'm making.
Speaker 19: Because I don't disagree.
Speaker 9: With did you have you read the Book of Hebrews?
You're not listening to what I'm saying, not not in
this entirety. No, you haven't read the bro I'm not
trying to be rude to you, but like you got
to go and read the New Testament at least before
you try to make this, before you try to argue this. Ukraine,
what's up?
Speaker 40: Yes, Hello, yep, yeah, this is Ukraine. Seven seven seven okay, yeah,
I have I have a question about I was reading
some church history and apparently in the year eleven eighty
two there was a raid on.
Speaker 8: It was actually by Orthodox.
Speaker 40: Christians against certain Roman Catholics that were in Constantinople, and
they basically just killed everybody.
Speaker 9: And that that was part of the Yeah, I guess
one of the policism is true now because there was
a one raid by some Greek Yeah, no, no, no,
it's a really good argument.
Speaker 40: You No, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying you know,
I mean, well they were, they were asking for it,
but you know, probably, but you know, should the church?
Speaker 8: Would it be appropriate?
Speaker 40: And did the Church ever repent of this or anything
or apologize for it or would that even be how.
Speaker 9: So if one nation, if the Greeks do something, are
we collectively guilty?
Speaker 40: No, that would just be presumably that would just be
that particular well, that would be that particular Holy see
it best. I mean, I'm antiop and so we never
really we never had an emperor patronize us.
Speaker 8: We never really had enough power to abuse.
Speaker 9: What are you Ukrainian or are you pro Ukraine? I
don't understand what Ukraine saw, but I.
Speaker 40: Just put that in there because I just think that.
But I just think that that, you know, what Russia
did to Ukraine is grotesque and unfair.
Speaker 9: Well, what about the seven years of Western NATO provocation?
Speaker 40: Well, Obama blockaded all military to Ukraine from the get go.
Speaker 8: I mean, NATO wasn't this is.
Speaker 9: Prox this is this is proxy. The proxy stuff that
they did, including setting up those bio labs all along
the board of Russia.
Speaker 40: Those the footage from those, those were Soviet biolabs that
were built in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 8: Ukraine ever built a single I'm.
Speaker 9: Not talking about Ukraine. I'm talking about the State Department
setting up biologe. You're saying that's all fake.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so what the they were found? There was one
found that they found one in.
Speaker 9: So you're a boomer who listens to Western mainstream Is
Trump a bad man too? Is a boomer media?
Speaker 8: True?
Speaker 9: No, no, no, but I mean all are we still
fighting the Cold War? Are we still fighting the KGB
and the Cold War?
Speaker 8: Unfortunately? Yes?
Speaker 9: The k Look, I mean, I mean, tell me, tell
me more about Is the c I a good Are
the the good guys?
Speaker 40: I'd say, I'd say that I'd put them into kind
of the.
Speaker 8: Gray category, neither neither black or white.
Speaker 9: But you know, what's the official policy of the West.
Speaker 8: That doesn't mean the Russians are worse.
Speaker 9: What's the official policy of the West when it comes
to things like Malthusianism, enthusianism. You don't even know. So
you're a boomer expert on geopolitics. You don't know what
Malthusianism is.
Speaker 8: Mount malthus theory, that that's absolute.
Speaker 9: That's oh, that's obsolete. Really have you read people like, uh.
Speaker 8: Yeah, well that's the progressives or fools.
Speaker 9: I mean, I'm not talking about progressives. I'm talking about
like official Kissinger Deep you know, State Department Global two thousand.
You could read Miles Copeland's CIA Manuals where he talks
about the whole purpose of everything they're doing in these
countries is precisely for Malthusianism.
Speaker 40: Well, well, if Ukraine wants to join the empire, and
we want them to join the empire.
Speaker 9: Now now, now it's an empire.
Speaker 8: Empire.
Speaker 9: Now wait a minute, So America America is a wait
a minute, because the propaganda from people on your side
about ten years ago is that there is no American empire.
Speaker 8: Now it is.
Speaker 40: Well, they call it a coalition of the willing, but
that's a semantic debate. I mean, it's basically an empire.
I mean, why do you think you know they put
all this money into Israel. It's to hold that position.
It's to control those trade routes and Somber.
Speaker 9: Wait a minute, you're pro Israel, right because Israel supports
does Lenski and Ukraine, Well.
Speaker 8: We would hope it would be. Well, I'd rather have
them do it than us to it.
Speaker 40: But I mean that's one you would want if you're
running an empire, you would want one part of the
empire to support the other.
Speaker 8: Part of the empire.
Speaker 9: So I mean we need want more skittles, more abrations.
Remember one Lenski said, what does Lenski say if you
are from blaw whether they want to run an empire,
you need large, healthy families where men or men and
women are women with traditional value. But you just said
you're pro Ukraine.
Speaker 8: Doing is insane. You just said you're pro Ukrainian's your
right wing.
Speaker 9: No they're not.
Speaker 40: I mean they're not all flat out Nazis, They're not
that right wing, but they are far more the typical
Ukrainian if.
Speaker 9: You ask like that, I mean like the Azol battalion
and right wing. The most Americans the battalion and right sector.
You like those guys, I understand them. Oh interesting, but
I thought you're pro Israel. Well, now what would you do?
Speaker 40: What would you do if you're if if if Chinese
soldiers were marching up and down, you know, God forbid
invaded our country, you'd want something like the Michigan militia.
Speaker 9: To be there, right, quite so, Satanic minded like literal
Satan tattooed dudes are the equivalent of the Michigan militia
in your mind.
Speaker 40: Yeah, Well, the Azop Battalion, they're neo Pagans. They're into
Norse mythology and that kind of thing. It's the old
the original pagan religion of Europe. The East Europe didn't
haven't have like inquisitions. So the witches were never burned
at the stake. They just never went away. They were
always there. And some of them are left and the battalion, Uh,
you know that's what they are.
Speaker 9: Okay, So what's the origin roblem?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 9: So the origin of all that right wing stuff in Ukraine? Like,
where do you think that comes from?
Speaker 8: It's the the what the azo and that's that's all that,
that whole sector instep of the indigenous prequel.
Speaker 1: No it's not, no, it's not.
Speaker 9: No, it's not Stepanic, No, it's not. I'm talking about
Steponic and right sector and all that.
Speaker 40: Well, they did, they did, they had to choose between
Hitler and Stalin, and they did go with the Axis
Powers and the White Russians from World War Two.
Speaker 9: It goes back to that, right, So it's the Galen
It's Ryan our Galen's network.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 40: Yeah, yeah, Bendarra's network and the you know people like that.
It goes back, you know, it goes I mean, but
if you think about it, if you're in World War
two and you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin.
Speaker 9: I just want you, as a boom, I just want
you as a boomer to admit that you're pro neo
in in Ukraine.
Speaker 40: Well, I think the kind I think the ninety when
borders are finding that they should be returned to and.
Speaker 9: You know, if you so, you're pro neo in at
the same time as pro Israel. Makes sense of that
for me?
Speaker 40: Well, if in terms of supporting in terms of economics,
Israel is the money.
Speaker 9: Think Okay, so it's just about economics of course. The
classic classic boomer, right, classic boomer Thoughtian have.
Speaker 8: The resources, the Ukrainians, they could give.
Speaker 9: Us more money. Yeah, exactly right. It's all about that money,
ain't it. Boomer? For years, do boomers care about anything
other than money? Do you guys care about anything other
than the money?
Speaker 8: How empires look?
Speaker 9: So now you're it's funny. These people were anti empire
and they would go after if you talked about empire
ten years ago. It's just funny. Now they're all about
and impart it's all about that.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 40: I think you know people, I think the I think
people like to use too many euphemisms to be too
politically correct. I don't I'm not a fan of political correctness,
but I think the country, but I think the country
should honest. I think our country can do a better
job honestly describing what is our foreign policy and why
is and why do we do what we do?
Speaker 9: Wait a minute, are you pro so? Are you pro Trump?
Or were you pro? Were you pro Walt Kamala?
Speaker 8: Because no, I no, I voted for Trump. I voted
for him.
Speaker 9: But doesn't Trump want to end the Ukraine conflict? So
isn't that a bad move on his plots?
Speaker 8: I hope he.
Speaker 13: I think he.
Speaker 40: I he did a good job on the Abraham Accords
with the Israelis in the Southeast. If he can get
those guys talking to each other, I'm sure he could
reason with Zelenski and Putin. I mean they're not nearly
they neither one of them is half as crazy as
as it is down in the Middle East.
Speaker 9: I mean, what if, what if the root of the
problem is boomers like yourself. What if you are the
root of the problem.
Speaker 40: I didn't order, I didn't order, and I didn't order
Ussia to be in that country.
Speaker 9: All right, So, like most boomers, doggy.
Speaker 40: Dude gave Russia money to keep it from completely dissolving.
We proved Russia downsize, but American money. We gave them
hundreds of millions of dollars directly to Russia. And this
is a fact to keep so that the entire so
that the whole thing wouldn't unravel and they would be
able to control their nuclear weapons. So, you know, Putin
owes us we saved we We quite literally, he wouldn't
have even been the president if it wasn't for us.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, I'm familiar with like the era of Yeltsin,
and Yeltsin being a Western typical Boomers said you know,
you're not gonna let me talk, You're just gonna talk
over me.
Speaker 10: Uh.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I'm familiar with all of that period of like Yeltsin,
being a Western operative and that I'm sure that there
was a phase early on when the West didn't mind
and supported the idea of a Putin presidency. But what
is the source in your mind? Where where is it
that you get Does this go back to the Cold War?
Are you still living in the Cold War era? You
said to be believing the kgbben a problem? Is that
the root of this? Like why you think Russia is
a bad guy? Are you there? I guess he left.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 9: I couldn't hear him. If you want to call back
in if your mike's messing up, I don't get any
sound from you. Uh no, I guess he left. So
there we go. So basic. It's great because that was
like the archetype of any bloomer debate that you have
talking over you moral, just like virtue signaling. When asked
about what the root of the problem is, I got
none to do with it. I mean that was like
classic the KGB. So we should start playing Uri Bezmano.
Speaker 8: Clips Hi Jay have balls.
Speaker 41: Well, sorry, I just got a couple of questions on
your thoughts about some Bible verses, one of them being
the when Jesus speaking to his disciples and saying that
his father's house has many mansions.
Speaker 42: Do you reckon there's any chance of that being anything
beyond what he's just trying to say?
Speaker 9: Like, No, it has nothing to do with it has
nothing to do with there being many religions that get
to Heaven, none of that stuff.
Speaker 8: How about anything beyond that?
Speaker 42: Look with metaphysics in the sense, do you think there's
any chance of him because it's quite obvious that there's
a place there.
Speaker 8: No, you wouldn't think that the I don't.
Speaker 9: I don't think so.
Speaker 19: No.
Speaker 9: I just think it's talking about the beauty and expanse
of heaven being beyond.
Speaker 42: What we can conceive, Okay, because I was sort of
like thinking about him, thinking could it potentially be in
to say that there's much beyond what we know and
what's going to be revealed here and if you could potentially.
Speaker 9: Lead to well, yeah, I mean I think Paul speaks
that way when he talks about, you know, seek through
glass darkly and all that you want to try again,
go ahead. I don't hear any sound from you, So
I don't know if your mike's messed up or what,
But we don't hear anything. Mas Williams. I have to say,
I think that was the first, like Bloom or Neocon
that has ever called into debate. I don't think I've
ever ever had one. Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 19: Hello, what's on your mind?
Speaker 12: I have one question for you?
Speaker 8: Yep.
Speaker 30: My question is in the Bible.
Speaker 12: In the Bible it is said that so you are authors.
Speaker 8: I don't know about the suspicion. I just know about
the Catholic person.
Speaker 9: Okay, Brad, what are you trying to say? What is
your question?
Speaker 8: Is Jesus God.
Speaker 12: Is the Father God?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 15: Then why does Jesus say that Father is the only
only true God?
Speaker 9: Because it's called monarchical trinitarianism, and so he is the source,
fount cause, an ark and principle, the Godhead from whom
all Godhead flows. Right, he left moving on United. I
didn't kick him.
Speaker 14: He left.
Speaker 8: Good.
Speaker 9: You think it's rude, call in anybody who has an issue.
You want a debate, You think it's rude. I don't care.
You think I'm mean? You think I care that you
think I mean I don't care. Has people calling me
mean for ten years made me cease at all?
Speaker 13: No?
Speaker 9: You can call in right there? What's up? Man, United Kingdom.
What's up? We've got the entire United Kingdom calling, oh brother,
bloody hell.
Speaker 12: Glody, your rings are?
Speaker 9: What's so?
Speaker 43: Just about the meta question earlier and the metaphysical frameworks
of the Holy Trine.
Speaker 8: So I sent you a message.
Speaker 43: About what a Russell universal want and the hypothesis that
his description of how the universe works can unite and
work with the Holy Trainee based on the source being
the Father, the Son, the matter, bone and such.
Speaker 9: But I just I just want to the matter. There's
nothing to do with matter. I don't know what you're
talking about.
Speaker 43: Yes, So if you, if you, if you read that message,
just s you can just have a look and if
you want to give me some feedback, you most welcome to.
Speaker 8: If you think it's like out there.
Speaker 9: I think it's out there that we don't. This is,
this is it's not where we go with our turnty theology.
But thank you, Dane. What's up? Daniel?
Speaker 23: And I'm you.
Speaker 19: Hello?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 8: One question is the is the word Jehovah?
Speaker 19: Is that a misinterpretation of the tetragrammaton?
Speaker 9: I don't think it's a misinterpretation, though, I think I
think it's one of the isn't one of the early
names of God that's used, if I remember correctly, I
haven't looked at this into this in a long time, but.
Speaker 12: Okay, that's all I have, thank you.
Speaker 9: Yeah, So, I mean the term is used in Exodus first,
so let's see, we're here Exodus six, so it looks
like in Exodus six. Yeah, the term is in the
Hebrew Jehovah. And let's see what that is said to be, Jehovah,
the existing one, self existent, the Jewish national name for God,
Jehovah yahueh. So no, I don't I've never heard that
that's a mistranslation, but thank you for that question. Good
question there, Kenneth, what's the frequency of Kenneth? By the way,
I hate rim so no, I'm not like, oh Jason's
secret irim fan. No, No, I don't like that Michael
Stipe's skittles as hell. I did like at one time
when I was in high school, I liked that everybody hurts.
That's because I was an idiot high schooler. So what's up, man, Kenneth?
What's your frequency? What was frequently Kenneth? By the way
it was actually written. If you don't know about a
crazy conspiracy theorist. Jamie was telling me. I didn't actually
know this, but there was some news broadcast one time
where like Dan Rather or some idiot like Bloomer newsperson
was out on the street and this crazy conspiracy dude
named Kenneth came up and he had like temple hat
on or something stupid and like accosted Dan Rather. And
so he was talking about frequencies or something. And so
the story is, I don't know if it's true. The
story is Michael Stipe or whoever they wrote that song
about some crazy conspiracy theorists a costing a newsman, Kenneth?
What's up? Where you at?
Speaker 13: Man?
Speaker 9: Try again? It's like Kenneth's having a hard time connecting.
So look, I'm looking for people who disagree today. So
please if you don't disagree, then please don't clog up
the quay, the queue or whatever. The what are the
gay terminology is they use in England? I don't know, Man,
Kenneth's not working. We'll try to come back out, come
back in. We've got Jamal. What's up?
Speaker 8: Jamal?
Speaker 20: Can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 9: What's up?
Speaker 8: Okay?
Speaker 19: Okay?
Speaker 8: So I'm against.
Speaker 36: The argument did orphinic you percents when it comes to
the divine and the energy distinction'.
Speaker 9: You're against the essence energy, is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I think it's well.
Speaker 9: I can already tell from your voice that it's because
you have high level spurgatism five thousand and you think
that it's not logical. I can't deal with like some
five thousand levels perk right now, Gang's delicious? What's up?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 9: Got a Yakoub in the house. I have a why'd
you go? Mathematical proof in the energy thanking? You call
what's up?
Speaker 8: What's going on? What's happening?
Speaker 9: Yakub to the power to the fourth power?
Speaker 8: Baby, that's right, that's right, the father Yakub.
Speaker 19: But that is right.
Speaker 31: This is a prophet, a prophet of of Yakoub gangs
delicious speaking.
Speaker 9: I agree. I accept your prophecies with docility.
Speaker 31: Awesome, awesome, good good. I actually had a couple of questions.
Speaker 35: I'm actually Orthodox, but they're not Kanakis's questions. I'm not
going to ask you about uh drinking beer on Wednesday
and Fridays.
Speaker 1: Okay, that is allowed.
Speaker 31: But I was gonna ask because my dad is a Protestant.
Speaker 35: And uh he had asked me one time about the
scriptures and the councils.
Speaker 19: And all that kind of stuff, because he's obviously scripture.
Speaker 8: Alone that sort of thing.
Speaker 9: Are you in a spaceship, dude? It sounds like a theremy.
Speaker 19: Sorry.
Speaker 9: It was blasting off to the PDEs to meet he
blasted off and up here he's blasting off in up
pyramid to meet your coup.
Speaker 8: That's actually exactly what I'm doing. I'm coming to bring
the message of your coup.
Speaker 9: So you're talking to your dad. Your dad is a
prompt and he's talking about councils.
Speaker 35: Go ahead, yeah, And he was his His thing is,
why aren't the things taught in what his holy tradition
in the councils, things like that, Why isn't it included
in the Bible? I tried to explain that, you know,
they serve different purposes. I don't know if that's even correct,
but it sounds correct.
Speaker 8: At the time of saying it.
Speaker 9: So well, wait, so why isn't the ecumenical councils included
in the Bible. The Bible predates the ecumenical councils and
is the direct teaching of the apostles in Moses and
so forth. So why would the ecumenical councils be in
the Bible. I don't understand the objection.
Speaker 19: I guess more like the.
Speaker 35: New Testament, Like why isn't like some of the rules
that think, like the canon law and things like that.
Speaker 9: His thing is like, all right, So the early form
of canon law is in the New Testament. It's the
decision and decree of the Council in Acts fifteen. That's
church law.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 9: So you'll notice there's a dispute that arises. We talked
about this with two or three guys back right. The
dispute arises. The Apostles meet together in the Council in
Jerusalem and Acts fifteen, and they come to church law
decisions based on multiple problems and scandals that are happening
at that time. So the church after that, the Apostolic era,
follows that same model and has local synods that are
the normative way of governing the church to solve these
problems and to have the authority to make church law
canon law.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay.
Speaker 9: So in other words, the church after the Apostles is
merely following the example of Act fifteen. Yeah, okay, dude,
you over that plant. Dud's over there playing pole position.
Speaker 1: I'm actually at work in a in.
Speaker 19: A piece of heavy machinery.
Speaker 8: I'm moving that dude.
Speaker 9: Don't don't try to foolish you. You work at the
go kart h at the at the the name go
Kart Factor. You over there run it riding go karts around.
Speaker 8: Oh man, you got me, You got me. I'm just
I'm just rolling around on the go carts.
Speaker 9: But that's actually pretty awesome. If you're like, you're at
the go kart track proselytizing for yakub.
Speaker 8: That's exactly what I do. I sit here for twelve
hours a day.
Speaker 9: Just all the parents think you're like a total creeper
because you're a white dude that's over there trying to
talk all the kids into Yakub.
Speaker 19: I'll wear the T shirt too.
Speaker 9: Any other questions, that's a good question. So I would say, well,
like you said, yeah, the Bible is like a it's
a it's not the type of book that we would
expect church law to be. And of course church law
is normative, it has authority, but it's not on the
level of divine revelation. Divine revelation is the direct like
revelation of the Holy Spirit to the church, it's you know,
stands for all time. Revelation ceases with the death of
the Last Apostle. And church law, although it has authority
and it's normative for us, it's it's obviously going to
be time bound and it's going to deal with specific
things at that time. This is why you can't be
like a spurgatism five thousand and try to read the
canon law from a thousand years ago into today.
Speaker 18: Well, it says that we can't go to the theaters,
and when it goes to the theaters as excommunicating for.
Speaker 9: The theaters at that time are not the same thing
as movie theaters today. It's totally a different thing.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 9: You can't like a clergy can't ride horse? Is why? Well,
because at that I'm serious, like in the Middle Ages,
riding a horse was a sign of nobility and clergy
were not nobility. Okay, so does that cannon still apply? No,
because it's not relevant to a society that no longer
has aristocracy.
Speaker 19: That makes sense.
Speaker 8: I'm with you, I'm with you.
Speaker 9: I'll so what I'm trying to say is that that
church law is necessary because the church has to deal
with unique cases in various times and places within history,
and the Bible itself doesn't address every possible situation like that, right,
but it doesn't make the church law identical to divine revelation.
Speaker 19: Okay, cool, I like it.
Speaker 13: I like it.
Speaker 9: Great question, man, Thank you, and good luck with the
Yakubian proselytizing at the go kart track. Patrick, what's up, dude?
Oh forgot, by the way, there's supposed to be there
is a Roman Catholic wants to bait tonight. So this
is a buddy of Tim Gordon's. I forget the guy's name,
something like Chris or something. So it seems like a
nice dude, you know, seems like a wholesome, dad, dad,
core kind of dude. He has a kind of a
small channel, and he came across my video arguing that
the dogmatic teaching on the temporal supremacy of the Roman
bishop and how that's a contradiction. He made a long
response video to that. So instead of watching his entire
response video, which I'm not trying to be rude, I
just have time to watch it, I invited him to
come to debate. So for everybody listening, we may have
if he's he's not sure if he can do it tonight,
but about nine o'clock Eastern, we might have a debate
with a friendly Catholic dude.
Speaker 38: What's up, man, Hey, there's it, Golenius Patrick, I'm not
really understanding your prompt for debate because it's just a
whole bunch of nowns.
Speaker 9: Well, it's debating, though, it's debating any of those. In
other words, that if you're a caval y prot Yeah.
Speaker 12: I'm not Protestant, Catholic, any of that ship.
Speaker 9: Okay, it's open debate for anything.
Speaker 38: Really, I'm definitely I'm definitely agnostic. But I was wondering
if you're open to a debate about.
Speaker 8: Whether or not rights or a force mandate or define mandate.
Speaker 13: Uh.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Like we've had a lot of like libertarian type
debates that would touch on that.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 38: Uh so, do you ad hear that it's a force
mandate or divine mandate that we get our rights?
Speaker 9: I would say, ultimately, any justification for the existence of
rights would have to be grounded in some kind of
divine transcendent being.
Speaker 38: Yes, Okay, because I hear a lot of people talking
about force mand date.
Speaker 8: I'm not gonna waste your time because it's not really
a debate anymore because we.
Speaker 28: Both agree so well.
Speaker 9: As an agnostic, what what type of deity are you
talking about?
Speaker 38: So, I mean, holistically, I do believe in a Christian God,
it's just I don't. It's really hard for me to
follow a specific religion because it's really hard for me
to pin myself.
Speaker 8: Down to a group. I don't like group identity.
Speaker 38: So it's hard for me to be like, say, all
go around and say I'm a Catholic or a Protestant
or Eastern Orthodoxy, because I feel like, once you put
yourself in that circle, you are now held to those
principles of that standard, and if they go, if they
conflict with your interests or values, you really don't have
an argument because now you just put yourself in a
place where you have to follow a doctrine, because if
you're not following that doctrine, then you're not following the
principles of that ideology. So as an agnostic, I respect
I believe in the principles of Judeo Christian values.
Speaker 8: And I do.
Speaker 38: I'd hear to a lot of their principles, but it's
just for me, I can't lock myself down into a religon.
Speaker 8: I don't believe an organization.
Speaker 9: Well, so you don't reject all collective identities, right or
do you?
Speaker 23: Uh?
Speaker 38: I think if you're running around as an individual saying
on this, on that, and preaching and preaching to people
of what you are and who you are,