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