Speaker 1: The of, the of, the the the, the, the dot
to the.
Speaker 2: Day.
Speaker 3: Fo you gottle dottle bodn't brittle poopoo, Papa Papa.
Speaker 4: This is the Elon my song. I love it. It's
become my favorite song. This is that South South Africa mix.
This that there's that Elon South Africa mix. Then it
comes up with that emotional orchestral and then we get
some drops and fat beats. Oh right, yet I'm joking.
Actually this song is the worst. I can't stand that song.
Oh that's the that's that Elon mix right there. Yeah,
I muted on Twitter because I was listening to them
hype beats from DJ Elon and the South Africa South
Africa boys. That's that South Africa mix. Then' that South
Africa mixed boy, which doesn't make sense because that's that's
a that's a Jamaican accine broader.
Speaker 5: That the Jamaican accent rad Yeah what you're doing, thesis,
you're ra sister.
Speaker 6: Me go to pet turtle. It is ureases.
Speaker 7: Me.
Speaker 6: Grind up the turtle, make him into a powder on
smoking men. Smoke the turtle. Everything you faking? Yeah, why
are you gay?
Speaker 5: This is the Island mix the South Africa Island mix
me go to nice and sweating.
Speaker 4: Now, why are you gay? You are gay? What's up?
Speaker 8: What's up?
Speaker 4: Open Forum debates what's happening to redeem zoomer Well. I
suspect he is at the stage that many of us
have gone through. Many of us got to the point
where we started to wonder if Protestantism might itself just
not be correct. So I think that's where he's at.
He said today, I would like to announce I'm giving
up Protestant apologetics. It's the biggest waste of time of
my life. I haven't defended Protestanism one bit. I've only
made people leave Protestanism. Seeing how bad I was at it,
I think that it was a noble attempt. I think
that it's just Protestantism. RZ. It's not your fault. I'm
annoyed at smarter Protestants who could have helped me, and
they didn't want to create YouTube channels. They were armchair quarterbacks.
I realized that Protestanism is the currency, is not something
that I can defend, that can be defended with a
straight face. It's a joke. So I'm going to go
defend institutional Protestanism. Well, if Protestism is a thing that's
stupid to defend, it's even dumber to go and defend
it in the institution, which is the thing that you're
admitting is weak, anti intellectual, and corrupt. If you want
to convert to Catholic, Oriental or Orthodox, I can't say
I prove, but I also can't blame you. So he's
at I think the stage that many of us enter.
So pray for redem Zoomer to become Orthodox. I suspect,
given the commitment to Calvinism, that he will. Okay, I'll
fix the volume that he will see anytime I go
on stream yard stream yards, people's streams automatically puts the
volume low. So that's why, so you have to go
in and change it every time because it's too bid streammarks.
But so rz is at the state we're all I
suspect because of the commitment within Calvinism to Augustinian is
some predestination that he will not, at any point soon
wants to give up the Augustinian stuff, and I suspect
that would lead him if he did leave Protestantism to
Rome unfortunately. But pray for him. Maybe he will maybe
he will come more in our direction. You what hit
like and share. Welcome everybody. We're going to open it
up to debates, discussions topics. Personally, I've been reading through
Jeremiah again. Usually when I finish Isaiah, I go to Jeremia.
I've been I've been cycling through the profits, the major
profits in the last couple of years, and then I'll
do Ezekiel again. So a lot of that stays fresh
in my mind, and that tends to be pretty good
for regular interactions with Muslims, with evangelical, dispensationalists, protest minded people,
people who don't think the Trinity is sought in the
Old Testament, and also the Psalms. So I'm reading back through.
I'm up to Psalm I don't know what, forget what
Psalm twenty or so I'm at Jeremiah thirty five or six,
and then I'll probably do Ezekiel again. And part of
the goal for that is to really have these major
profits fresh in my mind, and I find that cycling
through them over and over it really helps them to
be ingrained in my mind. A particular note was the
insights in Jeremiah thirty one. It is different in the
Orthodox Bible because it's the subtuagen. So the chapters in Jeremiah,
as you may or may not know, or number differently,
so this will get very confusing. Jeremiah thirty one in
the propt Bible is Jeremiah thirty eight ish in the
Orthodox Bible because of the septuagen But of course the
most this is one of the most famous passages. And
I was just thinking of this in terms of both
Islam and Judaism, that we are told that the emergence
of the Messiah is signified by a new Covenant, which
is interesting because if you think of the Jews, Jews
are always the mosaic Covenant is the pinnacle, it will
never go away. And yet we're told in Jeremiah's day
that a new Covenant is coming that is not according
to the Covenant of Sinai. I'm sure Jews have all
kinds of ways that they would interpret that. But also
replies it applies to Muslims because Muslims assume that they
are the finality of the divine revelation of the One
True God and that Muhammad was the last of the prophets.
Yet there is nothing in Islam akin to covenant theology,
the entire Bible, the entire structure of the Bible. Something
that Judaism at least and Christianity have in common because
of the Torah and the prophets in common is the
notion of God relating to his people via a covenant relationship.
And so we have a new covenant again here, and
Jeremiah thirty one discusses this and the eternality of the
seed of Israel, the eternality of the life of the
Messiah when this new Covenant comes, and then it's also
spoken of again after Jeremiah buys a field and prays
for understanding, all of which is a type and a
symbol of the land and the restoration. The restoration, of course,
ultimately is when the Messiah comes and restores Israel in
the sense of creating the new Israel, the new Covenant,
the spiritual Israel, which Israel in the land in history
is a type symbol foreshadowing. But both Jeremiah thirty one
and thirty three are very insightful in terms of this
new Covenant and what it's explained in Jeremiah thirty three.
The new Covenant that we're talking of here with these
priests and ministers, and the seed of David my servant
and his ministers is akin to the eternality of the
covenant with night and day, or the covenant of Genesis
in the creation of the world. So the very creation
of the world in Genesis is covenantal. And then of
course this also is closely linked to the Noeic Covenant,
where God speaks of a lot of elements within nature
that signs seasons. My covenant with nature will not depart.
So this is at once a reference back to Genesis
and to Noah into the New Covenant as well as
a reference to the Davidic Covenant. And what's fascinating about
Jeremi I thirty one and thirty three is the contrast
to the Mosaic Covenant. Now that does not mean the
Mosaic Covenant is something that we don't consider as part
of the covenantal structure. It's just that in terms of
the newness of the Covenant, when the Messiah comes, it
will specifically not be exactly like the Mosaic Covenant, as
Jeremi I thirty one said, not according to the Covenant
of Sinai, but will there will be a likening to
and a referencing to Genesis and Noah, the Adamic Covenant
and the Noaic Covenant. That is why in jeremi Em
excuse me, in the Acts fifteen, when the apostles are
discussing the means by which JENTI would be brought into
this very covenant that you see here in Jeremiah, it's
on the basis of the requirements in the Noea Covenant.
When the Jerusalem Council meets an next fifteen, they discuss, Look,
if Noah could be made righteous without circumcision, because this
is centuries prior to Abraham, thank you, then we ought
not require of gentile converts anything more than was required
in the Noea Covenant. If Noah was righteous, then that's
good or no, right, that's the decision that they're now.
Are they just making this up based up no Jeremiah
is rarely referenced in terms of Acts fifteen, But if
you read Jeremiah consistently through chapter by chapter, even in
the Masoretic text, you can see that that's the pattern
here of the description of the New Covenant. And again,
oftentimes we look at Jeremiah thirty one because it's so
famous for the New Covenant statement, but we forget. Jeremiah
thirty three is also part of that discourse of this
section of Jeremiah, and it also links the Dividic Covenant
back to Genesis and to Noah. So what we're seeing
is that even in the Old Testament there's a continuity
of the covenants. Now it's true again, the continuity here
is contrasting the Mosaic Covenant in some aspects, but not totally.
So we're not totally saying, oh the no, the Mosaic coven,
it doesn't matter anymore. You'll notice in Jeremiah thirty one
it does say that the Messiah will have the levites
and priests that minister to him. In the Orthodox Church,
we think that's the priest, so that's the diaconate. That is,
there's still continuity. Jesus says, not even a jot or
tittle in the law away until all things are fulfilled.
So how we keep those laws, the ceremonial laws and
so forth of the Mosaic coven in the New Testament
for the Gentiles, we still keep them, but we keep
them in a spiritual way, the way that they're intended
to be kept for all time. We think and not
for the limited temporal scope which they did legitimately have
for a time when the nation of Israel served its
historical purpose, which was to produce the Messiah. So in
this way we see a continuity of all the covenants,
even though there is an element of contrast between Mosaic
and Messiah's Covenant. Here we see that there's a continuity
of God's relationship to human beings in history. Thus, to
bring it not just in contrast to Judaism, but in
contrast to Islam. Notice how out of accord with all
of the historical relationships a relationship that God has with
human beings through covenants, Islam is So you've heard me
bring this up in debates. Where's the priesthood, where's the altar,
where's the temple, where's the sacrifice? Where's any of that?
In Islam? They're they're clueless, They're lost. Danielle says, well,
we kind of have like in moms and mosque that
has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's
like not even a that's like a pale, not even
close similarity. There there has to be some form of
continuity of priesthood, of covenantal relationship and that's why the
New Testament is very clear. Paul says to the Corinthians,
all of the promises of the Covenant, that's a covenant reference.
We got these wine what are these these wine moms
over here, escape to discovery, cove on these ads. What
does that have to do with Bible Gateway? Like does
this suddenly there's a wine mom market for the ads
over here? But anyway, so you get. The point is
that the more fluent we are with the Old Testament,
with the law of the Profits, etc. The better and
easier it is to see the absurdity, the discontinuity, the
ad hoc nature of Islam. Yeah, Daniel's like, well, we
have emoms, Okay, that's nothing. That's not a priest dude,
what are you talking about? But do you see the
covenantal structure Jeremiah thirty one, Jeremia thirty three. References to Genesis,
references to Noah, references by extension to Abraham, references to
Moses and the Mosaic Covenant, and references to the Dividic covenants.
So those are all the covenants. Then we have the
finality of all of those. All of the covenants are
yay in him. Paul says that means they're all fulfilled
in Christ. This, by extension, also confronts and refutes dispensationalism.
So do you see how all of these dumb errors
and heresies, when we start to understand the cohesive, connected
narrative of the Bible, ends up refuting all of these
dumb errors. Whether it's the Judaic error or whether it's
the Islamic error or the dismensationless error, they all get refuted.
And by extension, you could even argue they refute Protestantism
because Protestantism ends up ahistorical, not historically linked to any
altered temple, priesthood sacrifice. In fact, Protestantism is actually premised
on rejecting those very things. So just some things that
came to me as I've been rereading Jeremiah. Obviously there's
many more things in Jeremiah that's not That's just one
thing that popped out to me recently. And by the way,
it also gives a crystallogical meaning. Did you notice this
to all the other covenants? In other words, the Adamic Covenant.
When Paul exegutes the Adamic Covenant, how does he explain it?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 4: He says, Christ is the new Atom. So in other words,
we should have a chrystological interpretation of the covenant with Adam.
And by the way, there is a covenant with Adam.
It's said to be a covenant in the minor prophets,
my covenant with Adam in the nowaic covenant. You think, well,
that's just a covenant of God's providence in nature, regularity
in nature. Oh, but it's also chrystological. Doesn't the New
Testament give that a crystall logical interpretation? The arc is
the church. No one's like Christ, et cetera. Abraham, Well,
that's obviously in Paul's letters and the epistles Galatians. Right,
even in Hebrews, the Gospel was preached beforehand to the forefathers.
The Gospel is preached to Abraham, Paul says a Galatians. Again,
continuity here, and see consistency. Each covenant builds on the
previous one. And even if when the Messiah comes, he
by his authority, because he's the one that gave the
law to Moses. Even if he says, some of these
things are fulfilled because I have now come, that doesn't
mean we're arbitrarily throwing out the Old Testament laws like
Messianic Jews think, or like dismiss we are Protestant seven
day avn is or something think or Bryson and his
goofy gris what that is?
Speaker 10: What that is?
Speaker 11: What that is?
Speaker 2: What that is?
Speaker 12: Right?
Speaker 4: Bryson's nonsense?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: Anyway, whoever else, Because he's the Messiah, he has the
authority to say, these are the elements that are fulfilled.
And remember, even with this is something everybody misses that
doctor Branson brings up. I brought this up too. Even
Jews understand that not every aspect of the law was
for all of the gentiles. So Hebrew roots people and
other would be objectors don't even understand the Jewish view
of the law. I mean, you can't even keep the
first of all, you can't keep all the walls anyway,
but you can't even keep the land law. How is
the how is a gentile a thousand years later? And
or now?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 4: How am I supposed to keep land walls? Am I
supposed to keep the Jubilee laws? This is crazy. Obviously,
the intention for this religion to be universal, which is
an intention the Messiah will come and the worship of
the God of the Jews will be made universal. Okay, well,
how could that happen if literally all aspects of the
Mosaic law we're intended for the entire world. Obviously it's
not and Jews don't even believe that. That's what I'm
trying to say. And ironically, what's the Jewish answer? Oh,
all the Noah Hyde laws. Well, isn't that interesting that
in Acts fifteen that's what the Christians already chose to do.
The apostles who were Jews chose to do that in
Acts fifteen. And I'm not equating Acts fifteen identically to
the Rabbinical idea of Noa Hyde laws. You get my
point though, anyway, So if we understand these things, we
begin to see how oh it and then actually a
lot of this is just totally refutes Islam, Rabbinic Judaism,
weird Protestant deviations and sex. So we're going to open
it up. It's open for him. That means that you
can you can ask a question if you want. You
don't have to debate, but I do give priority to
people who want to present an argument and would like
to present some form of debate. If you would like
to make if you say, hey, I want to make
several minute argument here, let me make my case. I
will let you do that. I will not interrupt unless
you start making fallacies or say something really ridiculous and stupid.
Then I will interrupt you and bring you back to
the point. If we are going back and forth, it
is my channel, it is my stream. I will interrupt
you if I want to, if you especially are making
dumb arguments, fallacies, red herrings, or whatever. Now I think
we had a Catholic guy who has popped up here. First, Drego,
Ivan Drago, what's up.
Speaker 2: Man, Jay, what's happened? Yes, sir, Yeah, I just caught
the tail end here.
Speaker 13: It's super interesting because I run into well you mentioned
Bryson and a lot.
Speaker 2: Of people in that movement as well.
Speaker 13: I think one of the caveats they say is that, oh,
you know, some of these laws are contingent upon their
a temple. So that's the reason they don't apply because
there is an a temple.
Speaker 2: But you wait, once the temple comes back, you better
get your goats ready because you're going to have to
start doing some sacrifices.
Speaker 4: Well again, like you know, you have all of these
prophecies like among the nations, my name will be great,
and my incense will be offered to my name among
the gentiles. Right like the minor prophets, those are clearly
Messianic prophecies that extend the altar and the incense and
the priesthood outside of the limitations of physical Israel. How
is that possible? Isaiah in two or three places mentions
gentile priests, how is that even possible? And so Bryson
has actually missed the very point of the coming of
the Messiah, which is to bring the Melchizedekian priesthood, which
the author of Hebrews says very clearly in chapter seven
is superior to the Iaronic priesthood. So Bryson is actually
really just a retard.
Speaker 13: Well, yeah, I don't I don't understand now the milk
because at that point gets rationalized.
Speaker 2: But but there, you know, there is a way that
they rationalize it.
Speaker 13: What you know one, So I've got it pretty in
depth with this because I was shocked when I first
heard you know this, you need to follow mosaic law stuff,
and I'm like, there's no way, like the scriptures can
support it. But then there, you know, they have enough
of like acrobatics. And I mean in some sense, actually,
I mean fair enough, when Christ said I don't want
to destroy the law.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm not going to abolish the law.
Speaker 13: I mean, there is a lot of rhetorical force, and
they have an interpreted interpretive framework where there is some
merit to their lens from a Bible alone perspective, which
obviously we rejected that the sol scripture concept. But looking
into history, I'm like, well, it seems like the fathers
actually debated this, and it wasn't until like Augustin and Jerome,
when they had letters back and forth, they finally.
Speaker 2: Agreed on the role of the Mosaic law.
Speaker 13: Because in the pro mosaic side, Jesus followed the law.
You had the early Apostles, the Disciples, the first generation
of Christians seemingly followed the Mosaic law.
Speaker 2: And so I mean, do you think that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't mean to be contentious, but I
don't think that's true at all. The idea that the
Church had not settled this issue until the fourth century
with Roman and Augustine, I think is pretty preposterous. I
think that the Letter of Hebrews solved this issue. I
think that within the Book of Acts itself, Paul had
to struggle to really convince people, even like Peter, that
his position was the correct one. You know, God had
to send Peter three visions about the food laws and
that the dietary laws were not applicable to gentiles, and
that they were symbolic. And that's why throughout Paul's epistles
he's constantly having to stress this, whether it's Galatians, whether
it's Hebrews, or whether it's you know, his his arguments
with Peter. No, it is this is not something that's
quote settled by the fourth century Latin Church fathers. The
remnants I think of this. The latest, in my opinion,
would be the Quartodscaminarian controversy, which has elements of a
holdover of Jewish calendar dates. That's probably the latest that
I would say, you could you could find this judaizing tendency,
and that's like, you know, one eighty one is the
latest because Aeronais rebukes Pope Saint Victor over the trying
to force one tradition tradition over the whole church, which
was concerning the Quartodessemonarian controversy. So just with a New
Testament execusis itself. No, I think that this issue is
settled by the time of Late within the Book of
Acts and Paul's later epistles.
Speaker 13: Well, do you might even though I agree with you
that you know we're not found by the mosaic law?
Can I offer a steel man here? Because I've gotten
pretty I pushed back. I've quoted the Peter vision, I've
quoted all this stuff, and can I give you a
steel man of what?
Speaker 4: They would say, Well, you can, absolutely, But I would
point out that I did debate Bryson, so I'm familiar
with some of their positions. They Oh, yeah, I did
about a three hour debate with Bryson. You can look
that up. But yeah, go ahead, I.
Speaker 2: Gotta look at it.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean the Peter's vision, right a rise, kill
and eat rightly after that vision, you know, he says, well,
the purpose is to you know, point to not separating
yourself from.
Speaker 2: The gentiles, which, of course is like, well.
Speaker 13: Why would God use the means of having you eat
the animals if he wasn't fine with it? But they're
saying that the problem is that the Jews of the
day took the priestly rules and they made them requirements.
Speaker 2: For like being a true Jew or salvation.
Speaker 13: Right, so like even with the circumcision, their reframe of
back fifteen Council of jerusalemess to say not that circumcision
is abolished, but that it's not required to become one
of God's people.
Speaker 2: But once you are God's people, you should follow the law.
Speaker 13: And I know it sounds a little bit of like acrobatics,
but but that'.
Speaker 4: I mean if you took maybe that in isolation from acts, okay, maybe,
but look, we have Paul's epistles many times over Colossians Timothy,
for example, Paul says to Timothy, right, nothing in itself
is unclean, but rather all meats are clean when they
are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. For
Simothy four to five in Colostionans, he talks about how, look,
circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. In fact, baptism is the
new circumcision, and circumcision had no ability to do anything. Baptism,
Paul says, is the power of regeneration. So they're so
foolish is to not even understand that baptismal regeneration disproves
their idea about continuing to do circumcisions Paul saying that
it's not just that the Old Testament rituals and rights
were symbolic, it's also that the rights of the New
Testament actually bring the grace they signify, whereas the rights
of the Old Testament pointed to the New Testament rights.
So what does circuits decision point two? Water baptism? So
it would be a reversion, which is what the entire
argument of the look of Hebrews is, to go back
to doing the rituals that are signs and symbols of
the realities that have come in this case, namely water baptism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I agree with you.
Speaker 4: So I well, I mean what would they say to
first Timothy four and five that foods are not unclean?
In fact, foods aren't made clean by the work by praying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd have to review my notes on that, fair enough.
I know.
Speaker 13: A big pivot is they always backtrack to, well, you
had the mission that you had these extra pharaistical laws
and like the washing of hands, because even like in
Mark was.
Speaker 2: It Mark seven where there's about cleanliness and.
Speaker 13: You know, yeah, I'd have to go back to specifically
and the Timothy thing one reference I'll say though, it's
a pretty powerful organization in this movement. It's called one
one nine Ministries, and they have really strong rhetorical chops
and frankly, I.
Speaker 2: Mean they do have some scholarship stuff.
Speaker 13: They they have the alternative interpretation on every challenging scripture.
Speaker 2: So I'll go back, I'll see what they have to
say about the first time.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, what's what I mean, the whole Book
of Hebrews really is, you know, geared towards pointing out
that now that the realities have come, to go back
to the shadows which are types. Is absurd. So I mean,
just just the whole purpose of two epistles in the
New Testament are directed towards refuting the Judaizing heresy. So
the fact that they would even attempt to like this
is like, I mean, this is as silly as saying,
you know, like the New Testament doesn't teach the deep Christ.
I mean, there's like so many passages that the deal with,
I mean, the Gospel of John is all about the
deed of Christ. So it's to me it's as absurd
to say that, you know, we've got to keep these
ceremonial laws and another indicator, by the way that these
people are heretical sects is that many of them, like
Bryson did, they don't teach the duty of Christ. I mean,
that's a pretty good indicator that you're dealing with a
heretical sect. What do they and they don't want to
talk about that. So if you go watch my bryceon debate,
I bring this up and it makes him mad and
he explicitly says, I don't.
Speaker 14: Want to talk about that. We are supposed to be
that we need to bate Net, we need debate Deity.
We're supposed to debate only his interpretation of Matthew five.
And my point is that like, if your sect is true,
you would at least.
Speaker 4: Get the weightier matters of the law, like the deity
of Christ, correct over these things. And what do they do,
like every sect do they want to focus on these
kinds of bodily washings and stupid stuff what Paul calls
the beggarly elements of this world over the more important
doctrines of the Trinity.
Speaker 13: Well, right, But I think that that points to the
limitations of like the Sola scripture of framework.
Speaker 2: Anyway, because arguably, if all you have is a Bible.
Speaker 13: You can't necessarily come to the conclusion of trinity and
the deity of Christ with the Scripture alone, like you
needed the authority of the Church, the Apostolic hand up.
Speaker 4: I mean, I disagree with that totally, because Jesus holds
the people in his generation liable for not believing in
him and not believing that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity.
So I totally disagree. I do not believe in solid scriptura,
but I do not believe that belief in the deity
of Christ requires the authority of the Church, because before
there's even a church set up, Jesus lauds Peter for
proclaiming his deity, and in fact, in John five through nine,
he excoriates the Pharisees for not recognizing that he was
the one that spoke to Moses and to Abraham because
Abraham believed in the Trinity.
Speaker 13: That's interesting, Yet, that sounds like what the religion of
the Apostles book.
Speaker 2: A lot of the old a lot of good.
Speaker 4: Goat, right. It's actually the argument of justin against trifle.
Speaker 2: The Jews, So justin against TREIFO. Okay, have you read.
Speaker 4: John five through nine. I'm not trying to be a dickhead.
I'm just saying, like, I'm not being rude to you
a but when I hear Roman Catholics say this stuff
to me, it's just sort of signifies, Like I mean,
John five through nine is Jesus constantly arguing with the
Pharisees that you're liable for not believing in me because
the Old Testament all taught me and Abraham worshiped the Trinity.
That do you believe that or not?
Speaker 13: Right, Well, I suppose if you're a Pharisee back then,
you know that there's a Messiah and maybe someone from
the you know, one of the persons of the Trinity,
but you weren't sure. You were trying to discern whether
Jesus Christ there this guy was the Messiah versus some other.
Speaker 4: Well, I understand that. But from this point on afterwards, right,
Jesus says to them, you are now liable because you have.
Speaker 2: Seen right, because yeah, you've seen it.
Speaker 13: Didn't believe exactly at some at some point I would
like to get of course, I wouldn't have expected you
to have this prepared now, but at some point your
opinion on the letter with Augustine and Jerome, because I
know the mosaic while they were debating on it, like
Jerome was confused because you're saying, why did Paul keep
practicing the laws? And any of the conclusion they came
down to is like, if the Jews want to keep
practicing mosaic law, like the converted Christians, let them practice it,
but don't compel the Gentiles to do it. Because and
they said, well, why didn't we abolish the mosaic.
Speaker 2: Law in the first generation.
Speaker 13: Augustin said, well, it's like having an honorable funeral.
Speaker 2: You don't want to just.
Speaker 13: Like desecrate the body. You want to give it a
proper burial, honor the ancestors. Because if we just chopped
the mosaic law in one generation, it would be like
suggesting that God.
Speaker 2: Who came up with nonsense in the Old Testament.
Speaker 13: And so that's why there's like a slow transition, which
again it's still kind of perplexing.
Speaker 2: It's a mystery to me.
Speaker 4: But well, I do agree with slow transition because but
I see that slow transition happening within the first century.
And one element that's often missed that is actually stressed
in the Eastern Fathers is the destruction of the Temple.
So seventy eight D is pretty consistent in you know,
Saint John Christal sermons and so forth. Athletes just talks
about it. Origin even talked about the importance of seventy
a D. Because that was the fulfillment of Luke twenty
one in Matthew twenty four that Jesus tells the people
in front of him in Luke twenty one, when you
see the temple destroyed, know that that's the end of
that old administration. That is heaven and earth being rolled
up like a scroll that Hebrews talked about, because heaven
and earth are symbolized by the temple and its ministry,
and so a lot of people who don't know biblical
ex to Jesus and sort of the patterns of these
events and the abomination of desolation for example, which is
again seventy eight that you's talked about. If you don't
know that important event, you will miss his coming in
judgment that he talked about. That is the sign of
the end of the Old Covenant, and that's the divorce
of flesh Israel that the Book of Revelation is talking about.
So you're correct that in the Latin Church, Fathers I
think this is at least with Augustine and Jerome, and
I'm familiar with what you're talking about, Like they don't
typically place the seventy eight destruction as having much at
a redempth of his significance. I'm not sure exactly why
it is very emphasized amongst most of the important Eastern
Church fathers for whatever reason.
Speaker 2: That's really interesting. I have to read more on what
they've said there. Okay, great, well, that was the Mosaic law.
Speaker 13: I did have a question, since I'm here with you
on the Catholic stuff, if I could ask, unless you've got.
Speaker 2: A hoop on.
Speaker 13: No, it's overformed, dude, sweet sweet, Well, okay, so I
think you've made the claim before the argument of like, well,
why have any of these ecumenical councils of all you.
Speaker 2: Need is a pope right where it kind of suggests
like there's.
Speaker 13: A contradiction, right, Is that fair that the economical consoles
in some sense falsify the concept of the papacy.
Speaker 4: The way that Vatican One frames the papacy makes the
first thousand years of Christianity seem absurd, a lot of
trouble over nothing, when literally, if they believed in the
Vatican One mindset of the papacy in the first thousand years,
then literally everyone could have just written to the pope
to have the issue settled. Fact Roman Catholic apologists, for example,
often will appeal to the letters of Clement as proof
that Clement, very many miles away from the problems in Corinth,
was quote settling the issues in Corinth. And my point
is that, Okay, so if that's the case, we're supposed
to read Clement's epistle on Vatican One way, then really
we wouldn't need any of these ecumenical councils all called
by emperors. Any dispute that, let's say the emperor is
aware of. You know, this is a empire wide dispute.
The emperor simply could have said, let's ask uh, Rome
case closed. Now, remember, you guys will take out of
context the phrase Rome has spoken cases closed. If that's
the Vatican One mindset, again, why have all this arguing
and disputing and debating and all these councils, why even
call these councils literally just letters of a request could
have been written to Rome. Yeah, I've made that.
Speaker 13: Argument, got it, Okay, So I guess it's two questions, right,
because I'm wondering if what you think about these lines
of thoughts?
Speaker 2: So right, So why have councils.
Speaker 13: If you just have the pope maybe one to one
correspondence and the Pope just tells everyone here's how it's
going to be.
Speaker 2: Right, do you do you find in any merit in this?
Speaker 13: We're like, well, what like if we make a council here,
even if let's say hypothetically, if the.
Speaker 2: Pope somehow had some quart of some sort of authority, it.
Speaker 13: Gives opportunity for people to ask questions, understand how the
teaching reconciles, so they can have the open debate. And
it also forces all the leaders of the church to
show themselves in written statement, whether.
Speaker 2: They're in a quart or not.
Speaker 13: So in some sense, you force the council and you
can reveal who's the heretic and who's the orthodox.
Speaker 4: Like do you think, well, I mean again, none of you,
none of that. But in the post first millennium Western mindset, again,
none of that's necessary because after the eleventh century, the
pope confirms every bishop in the world. The Pope decides
throughout the world old who's worthy of excommunication and who isn't. Ultimately,
so the very powers that are claimed and accorded to
the pope in the second millennium, and particularly a Vatican
One like again, ultimately this is this is raising the
question of was the Vatican One stuff in the mind
of the church in the first thousand years or not?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, right to your point. And I suppose the
difficult thing.
Speaker 13: I mean, we can't even read each other's minds and
here we are in the present, but to try to
read the minds.
Speaker 2: Of historical figures, of course there's going to be something.
Speaker 4: Well, remember how difficult it is in the ancient world
to bring all these bishops throughout the empire to one
central city. I mean, that's a huge feat. It requires
a long time, it requires a lot of money. When
all we needed was just like a one letter sent
to the Bishop of Rome and his you know, sealable approval.
And by the way, couldn't the Bishop of Rome to
tell us who's a heretic and who's not? By the way,
I mean, that's the Vatican One powers that he has.
Why can't why can't he do that?
Speaker 13: Well, So that's interesting, and this is me thinking for
the first time, I haven't thought about what you're saying
here before. But I suppose, like okay, for example, like
capital punishment at least in the Catholic position has has migrated, right,
So why did the church flip flop? You could say, well,
before there was no adequate means to deal with the psychopaths,
you know, the dangerous people there were, there were no prisons,
so you just had to kill them. But now that
we have prisons, that's changed. Or like war, the concept
of a just war, Well, now we have nuclear bombs.
Speaker 4: Well on, there were prisons in the ancient world. The
mosaic law mentions imprisoning somebody.
Speaker 2: What do you mean, Uh, well, I.
Speaker 13: Mean yeah, without getting too much into that point, I
mean the concept I think that you couldn't really have
a stable society with like mass you know.
Speaker 2: Prisons at scale, like you just have to kind of
to It's.
Speaker 13: Because you're balancing the good of letting the person have
an opportunity for redemption versus protecting society.
Speaker 2: From the evil doer.
Speaker 13: And you could argue that before you couldn't really contain
the evil doers, so it's better to just you know,
kill them.
Speaker 4: Well, the problem with that, I understand that this is
an attempt at explaining why this position might evolve. But
the problem is that in traditional Catholic moral theology, and
I think even I'm going from memory here, but even
in the Council the Catechism of Trent, it argues that
the basis for the death penalty is natural justice. So
does I thought things in Rome Mecalay theology natural law?
How's that going to change?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 2: Well, fair enough?
Speaker 13: And yeah, I guess I don't mean to get too
much united into that. I'd have to circle back on
that point, but I guess if there is a certain
element of the fundamental nature of the times is somehow changed.
Speaker 2: So you make an interesting point that, I mean.
Speaker 13: Today you can communicate around the world in a millisecond.
I mean, we're doing it right now, and so having
a centralized structure and dissemination of information whatever, I mean,
that's that's not much of a problem. But back then,
like you couldn't really travel. I mean, it's really problematic.
Speaker 4: So you're saying, but then that means you're admitting that
the Clement argument is not an argument for Aboutican one.
Speaker 13: Oh I'm not even aware, Like I'm not even making
a claim. Y, I'm just literally explored.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to like grapple with the consequence.
Speaker 4: I understand. But if that's the case, then the Clement
example is no longer an example for Vatican one papacy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I see what you're saying. But coolly, I
gotta have to look more into the stuff that you
brought up.
Speaker 4: But you know it's also I mean, are you are
you aware on this topic? Are you aware of the
Chidy document and the Alexandria document.
Speaker 2: I am not.
Speaker 4: So these are on the Vatican website. You can go
to Christianity dot christian Unity dot v A H and
you can look up the Chi eighty document and the
Alexandria document. Chady document says this is approved by the Vatican,
approved by Francis. It says, appeals regarding disciplinary matters in
the first some of the first millennium we're also made
to Constantinople and other SE's. So appeals are not just
made to Rome, always treated in a synodal way. So
in fact, this is admitting that anytime, even when there
was an appeal based on the Canons of Artica, this
was not a Rome speaks in cases close matter. It's
a let's retry. Let's have a retrial. Appeals to the
Bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of
the church, but the Bishop of Rome did not exercise
canonical authority over the churches of the East. This is
in direct contradiction to what Vatican One says about the
universal jurisdiction of the pope at all times. So I
would just say that your own Vatican, and not trying
to put you on the spot or be rude to you,
but your own Vatican, in its recent documents, has admitted
that this is something obviously that evolved. This whole idea
of the papacy evolved over time, and to me that's
another surrendering of Vatican One, because Vatican one claims, as
well as legal of the Thirteen that the powers and
prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome were always universally there
and known from the very first days.
Speaker 13: So okay, this is me not familiar with the specifics
of what we pointed to, but just even what I
know now, would the Catholic response be that, sure, like
the Pope on different issues will seek that you know,
appeal process that'll be more collaborative. But then there's specific
times where the quote unquote. You know, the keys of
infallibility are wielded, and that's like so rare, and I
understand that might be a little unfalsifiable, like when was
it infallible?
Speaker 2: When was it not?
Speaker 13: But you know, is it fair to say that the
pope might might allow for certain issues to be more
collaborative and worked out as opposed to other issues where
the keys will be swung.
Speaker 4: Let's say, Okay, maybe that's the case within Roman Catholicism,
that you can make that argument. But I'm making a
different argument, which is that there's a specific dogmatic contradiction
that Vatican One says everybody in all times, in all
places new from the earliest days that the Roman Sea
had universal jurisdiction, indefectibility and infallibility. That's contrary too, this
claim that saidmitted here that in the first millennium the
Church of Rome did not have universal jurisdiction. Both of
these things can't be true at the same time. That's
the area, got it?
Speaker 2: Got it? Okay? Right?
Speaker 13: Well, I gotta yeah, I'll look into this. I do
have to dive into the history. I will say that's
been on my to do list. But I guess if
I could ask one more question, because this is more
of just like a psychological of you know, Barrier Stumbach block.
But how would you succinctly capture the Orthodox view on sexuality?
Because let's say, you know, the Catholic Church has the
Theology of the Body, some pretty beautiful stuff on you know,
the nature of the sexuality, and it seems to me,
even on an issue of like contraception, I just don't
really understand what the Orthodox position is.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it just seemed it just doesn't seem
as tight doctrinely when it comes to you know, matters
of sex. Am I like, am I missing something? Like?
How would you capture it?
Speaker 4: So yeah, I would just say go to UBI Petris's
channel and watch the Inner View with doctor David Bradshaw
on sex, contraception, NFP Humana vite in Natural Law, and
then UBI has a separate documentary that he made on
marriage and divorce in the Orthodox view. But great questions,
Appreciate that, great conversation. Really enjoyed that. Uh it's it's
really good when we have a civil Roman Catholic who
doesn't just immediately scream and lose his mind. So thank
you for that. Grammy Winner. What's up man? What's up?
Speaker 15: Hell?
Speaker 8: Hi yo?
Speaker 16: So I have a question.
Speaker 2: I was recently reading the Books of X and the Church.
Your what I was reading the Book of X.
Speaker 17: And the Church describing it is so different from the
althod of Church. I mean it looks simpler, most simple issue.
Speaker 4: Want I think, hold on, I think you're running on
a lot of assumptions because it says there were many
lights that were there when they gather. That's the candles.
It talks about an altar in Hebrews thirteen, so Paul
talks about the Church and the Book of Acts having
an altar. So here's an altar, here's candles, there's robes,
there's relics. They take relics from Paul's body and drive
out spirits. I mean, these are all things that we
find in the Orthodox Church. So how where are you
getting this idea? It's not the same.
Speaker 17: Well, when you read the book, I mean the description
of the church is like, I mean, it's kind of
different in a way.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you read Paul's epistles, it's not different.
Because Paul says that the apostolic succession that he gave
to Timothy is based on the principles that you see
in numbers eleven. So numbers eleven. Moses lays his hands
and passes on the Holy Spirit. Paul says Timothy, I
light hands on you, passes the Holy Spirit too, men
after you. That's absolute succession. So that's also in the
Book of Acts. You can't take acts in isolation. There's
all the other passages.
Speaker 2: But you talk about the relics of Paul.
Speaker 4: Ax talks about the relics of Paul.
Speaker 2: Does it really? Because, I mean, he's still alive.
Speaker 17: So I don't know why we're talking about it in
the book that you know, was written when it was
still I'm living in this world.
Speaker 4: I mean, a relic a holy man can heal people
when he's alive. He doesn't have to be dead. What
are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Oh well, well, my my bad.
Speaker 17: But when we talk about the saints, I mean, at
the time of Paul and all the orders, I mean,
there were the saints. So why doesn't anyone actually pray
saints in this You know, in the early Scriptures they do.
Speaker 4: The Book of Revelation, Paul John seasoned Heaven in chapters
five through eight, and he talks to and presents the
martyrs in heaven interceding for the Church on earth.
Speaker 17: I mean, this is not like your interpresation of what
the one should expect, what interpress interpretation?
Speaker 4: Sorry, everybody has an interpretation, so that is that's a
meaningless statement.
Speaker 2: Mh. Well it's not convincing. I mean, I want to.
Speaker 4: Tell you that's a fallacy. So the fact that it's
not convincing doesn't mean it's not true. Yeah, I know, Well,
but I mean, are there are there are the saints
under the altar offering the prayers of the of the
Church on earth or not?
Speaker 2: I mean, I wouldn't be able to.
Speaker 4: I don't know. I mean it's you don't believe me.
I just that's what That's what John says the Book
of Revelation. You're not familiar with that.
Speaker 2: Well, he talks about the prayers, but it doesn't say
yes it does.
Speaker 17: Because you're you're using this to fit a narrative, I think,
and that's actually wrong because.
Speaker 4: Okay, what does it actually say? Since you I mean
to say that I'm wrong. Pre suppose that you know
what the text says, So you tell me what the
text actually says.
Speaker 2: If I remember he.
Speaker 17: Talks about perfume and prayer of saints like being you know,
spilled some way.
Speaker 4: I don't know, mention that perfume. What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: That's what I read. It's sometimes but still I think
the way you.
Speaker 4: Present well, you're saying that, but you're not telling me why.
You're just saying that. You're saying, oh, that's your interpretation. Well,
everybody has their interpretations. Everyone has an agenda. You think
that the people are neutral on this's what are you
talking about?
Speaker 17: Well, I mean it should be should do agenda? Should
you know, feed the narrative of a god? And that's
your own.
Speaker 4: And let me guess you have the agenda you have.
You have the agenda of God. You're the God, you're
the prophet.
Speaker 2: I just I'm kind of figuring it out, you know,
I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, the text says that they're underneath the altar
in heaven offering the prayers of the saints on earth.
That's what the text says. So you tell me, as
a Protestant, whether I'm making up a narrative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the prayers of the saint doesn't mean to
be out prayer.
Speaker 4: It's the saints on earth. It says our prayers are
offered by the saints in heaven. Yes, it does say that.
What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: No, he just talks about the prayer off the saints,
not the prayers.
Speaker 4: They pray for the saints on earth for vengeance for them.
Yes it does, they say, God, they intercede for the
saints on earth for God to avenge their brothers on earth.
Speaker 2: It says that, well, can you give me the text
or rat it afta please?
Speaker 4: Yep, let me pull it up. Thank you, they cried
out with a loud voice. O Sovereign Lord, how long
until you judge and avenge our blood on those who
dwell on the earth.
Speaker 17: Okay, which message is this? I'm just coming before after
the part about the bread off the saying.
Speaker 4: It's Revelation six nine through eleven.
Speaker 2: I see, well, I have a look at it, because
it's just really the whole thing.
Speaker 17: Like it also looks church, because you can't really differentiate
yourself from because of the Church.
Speaker 4: And so now so now you've tapped down so totally
changed the topic to differentiate from the Catholic Church. What
does that have to do with this?
Speaker 2: So what is that?
Speaker 4: I mean, you're changing the subject because.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure out what is the primitive Church?
Speaker 4: Okay, and any any evidence that contradicts your Protestant idea
of the early Church you're throwing out and saying, it's
my interpretation. Do you have do you have an maybe
you have? Do you have a Protestant agenda?
Speaker 2: No at all. I'm really upen to you understand. Just wants,
you know, to figure it out, that's all.
Speaker 4: But part of understanding means being willing to give up
our presuppositions, and the fact that you think you don't
have any presubpositions is the root of the problem here.
Everyone does.
Speaker 17: I am actually, I mean, I'm not trying to force
any idea upon you.
Speaker 4: I'm just trying to well, I mean when I when
I give you the text, you suddenly say you can't
differentiate yourself from the Catholic Church. What does that have
to do with this?
Speaker 2: Because they can the same things. I want to know
they can the same thing as you to be the
primitive Church, because.
Speaker 4: That's a fallacy. The fact that they claim the same
thing as us has nothing to do with which one's
true or false? Do you don't do you know what
fallacies are?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I know, but you too claim this hame thing.
So how I was, No, we.
Speaker 4: Don't what are you talking about? I mean, they claimed
that the Roman bishop was the universal, infallible, in defectible
head from the first days of the church.
Speaker 15: We don't.
Speaker 4: We don't claim that. I literally, I literally just argued
for thirty minutes of the guy before you text showing
that that's not the case.
Speaker 2: Okay, By the way, can I give a couple more sure?
Thank you? Uh Job.
Speaker 18: Says, if there shall be an angel speaking for him,
he shall mercy on him, and she shall say deliver him.
They may not go down to corruption. So obviously we
can petition angels. In the book of Tobit, when thou
didst prayed with tears, I archangel Raphael.
Speaker 2: Offered the prayer to the Lord. So there's prayers to angels.
Speaker 18: Saint John, another angel came and stood before the altar,
having a golden censer, and there was given to him
much incense that he should offer of the prayers of
all the saints upon the golden altar, which is before
the throne of guard God.
Speaker 2: So he clearly see that.
Speaker 18: Prayers and petitions can be made to the angels. And
that's all the scripture, right there and then offer it
up to God. But if you want to know that
the early primitive Church, we have Saint Cyprian of Carthage,
Saint Hilary of Boteers sat from the Syrian.
Speaker 2: These are all the third fourth.
Speaker 18: Centuries, Saint Anthonatius the Great, fourth century, Saint Basil the Gray.
It's in the liturgy of Saint Basil, one of the
earliest liturgies. Saint Cyril, Jerusalem, Saint Gregory the Theologian, all
say the early Church, and it commands you to pray
to saints. So you don't see this, don't pray to
saints until what fifteen hundred years later. So if you're
looking for the primitive Church, it's right there, and they
pray the saints, both in scripture and all the earliest fathers.
Speaker 4: I'm going to read you Revelation eight. When he opened
the seventh Seal, there was silence in heaven. I saw
the angels who said before God, and to them were
given seven trumpet's. Another angel. How any golden censer came
stood of the altar. He was given incense that he
should offer it with the prayers of the saints upon
the golden altar, which was before the throne. So this
is an angel in the heavenly liturgy, offering the prayers
of the saints before God.
Speaker 2: Okay, I see what I just see. You know better
than me. That's Ben the noble. And I'm really trying
to because I felt like.
Speaker 17: We can't really know what happened after the difficult death death.
Speaker 4: So well, how do you know that we have We
have a multitudes of writings of the post Apostolic fathers
ignacious uh Clement, uh Cyprian. I mean you're an as polycarp.
What do you mean we can't know?
Speaker 2: I mean, yes, we have done. But like I said,
they have an agenda.
Speaker 4: Well that's your again, that's your presupposition. You're you're saying
to have an agenda when it disagrees with your interpretation.
Speaker 2: And why not just say the apostles have an agenda?
So anything, I don't like that the apostles wrote it's
an agenda, because what if they will close up to
Jesus and they lived with him.
Speaker 18: So of course, Alsoiousious was writing under the authority of apostles,
in which they would have said you can't write that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, on what basis do you cut off Ignatius.
Speaker 2: Because he was not about of the droop.
Speaker 15: I mean what.
Speaker 17: He was not about off the drowp I'm talking about
those part of the.
Speaker 2: Jube, the group of the above Jesus.
Speaker 4: Okay, what well, Paul says to Timothy that lay hands
on men after you because the Holy Spirit is given.
So did the Holy Spirit die when Paul told Timbery
to start laying hands on men?
Speaker 17: Yeah, but actually Poe met with the others and your
saints I don't know who they all didn't.
Speaker 4: Meant, what are you talking about? You have no idea.
Speaker 2: He was taught by Christ from the Apostles? What are you?
He's the first second century scene.
Speaker 18: A lot of these were the ones that we're mentioning
Polycarp Barnabys.
Speaker 2: They're always they were all writing under the authority.
Speaker 4: Of the Are you like a Seventh day Adventist or
some kind of like assumption here that like after the Apostle,
when when the Apostles died, then suddenly there's this apostas
here like a job's witness. What you're you're coming from?
Something like that? I can tell.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to use critical thinking because.
Speaker 4: What's your background? Though, because it's not just critical thinking.
It's some indoctrination from some dumb cult. What is it
any Really, you're repeating what a lot of cults say.
Where did you get this information? Yes, you are, Come on,
be honest. No, I'm not okay, Well you got this
information from somewhere. You didn't just sit down and read
the Bible and suddenly decide that Ignacious was an apostle. No,
I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 17: I'm saying that you did say that I can't retely
trust them because they have an agenda.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's again, how do you know that? Where
did you come to the conclusion that they have an agenda?
Where did you get this information?
Speaker 17: Because they tend to go sam rude as Cazaric churge
and I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean maybe the Orthodox the Catholic are correct. How
do you know How do you know they're not correct?
Speaker 2: I mean they maybe.
Speaker 4: Oh, maybe you're talking to a demon. How do you
know it's holy spirit?
Speaker 2: Well that's I'm sure, okay, But anyways.
Speaker 4: DU's got Beyonce on his profile. This guy's troll. He's
probably trolling Ken Chin. What's up? Prema Scripture will call
in dude, what are you talking about? Defining cold? Call
in and I will define call for you. Ruh. We
should have got it. Sounds like he's just repeating seven
day having and stuff. What's up, man, I'm mute?
Speaker 2: Oh Hellotle, Gary? Oh Hey, how you doing? Jack?
Speaker 4: Good? What what's up?
Speaker 2: Okay? Awesome? Just making sure I was all set up
and good. Yeah.
Speaker 19: So I said a question about the final authority any
Orthodoxy would you be able to address up for me?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I generally want to know what it is.
Is it the equamentum, councils, is it the bishops?
Speaker 15: Yes?
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 4: And what is your position?
Speaker 2: Yeah? You Reform Calvinists, okay.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we would agree that the final authority at the
end of the day is the Holy Spirit. So every
Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant agrees that for the individual,
the final authority is going to be the Holy Spirit
revealing what's true or false. But where we disagree with
the reform person and with the Roman Catholic is the
means that the Holy Spirit uses. So we do not
believe that it is primarily just you and the scriptures,
and we do not believe that it is primarily just
the Holy Spirit so called and the Pope. We would
say that there's a combination of things working together and
there's not one magisterial thing that we would point to.
But where we would bit different with you more particularly,
is that Jesus did establish a normative authority for the church,
and your group does not believe in any normative, existing
historical authority. So that refutes your whole position.
Speaker 19: Well, sure, so let's just go to you said the
Holy spirits the ultimate authority. So you're saying that everything
that's that would be given a scripture would essentially the
Holy Spirit would guide us and give us a correct
interpretation that the correct path.
Speaker 4: To go down to, not just the scripture, not just
the scripture, also the oral tradition.
Speaker 2: And where's the ord tradition found.
Speaker 4: It's found in the oral teaching, an interpretation hermenoneudicts of
the traditional apostles, and it's found in places like the
liturgy for example.
Speaker 2: So like like, what what is the greatest thing I
guess in the or tradition that you're you would refer
to the.
Speaker 19: Liturgy, so are you? But it doesn't everything that's in
the liturgy. Echo would say the Bible. No, like what
the what would be absent though, if you have.
Speaker 4: Anything the liturgical service itself.
Speaker 2: M hm. So without that's that.
Speaker 19: That sort of or tradition you would say, that's missing
something critical in worship.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we're in the New Testament. Did the apostles give
you a liturgical worship service?
Speaker 2: Well, it sounds like it's not something that needs to.
Speaker 4: Be particularly interesting. So in Leviticus Native and Vai who
are put to death for misappropriating the implements of worship.
But in the reform mindset, I thought you guys believed
in the regular principal worship?
Speaker 2: What would that be or would you find that as I.
Speaker 4: Mean, you don't know your own traditions definition of the regulars.
Speaker 2: I don't know by that term.
Speaker 4: It's literally one of the one of the most famous
terms in the history of reform theology. You've never heard
of the regular prince of worship? No, no, I'm asking
you if you Cashew well, I want you to in
your reformed you are here to debate. You don't know
this term from your tradition.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I told you.
Speaker 4: Okay, stop playing dumb and be honest.
Speaker 2: No, I whatever it is in that that sort of
category of the name you named it as.
Speaker 4: Maybe do you think I made that up?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying I'm not saying that. No.
Speaker 4: Okay, So how reformed are you?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 4: Is this new to you?
Speaker 2: Or have you been this six caist what I've been
of a six point Calvinist?
Speaker 4: How long have you been reformed? That's what I asked?
Speaker 2: Oh for three years? Not maybe about three or four
of you.
Speaker 4: Okay, And you don't know about the regular principal worship?
Speaker 2: No, No, I mean I wouldn't.
Speaker 4: Do you follow the Westminster Confession? Yes, okay, this is
a pretty well known thing from the Westminster Confession? Do
you follow the original west mister? Maybe you follow some
edited version or something.
Speaker 19: Well, I mean most of the people that I would
prescribe to as good teachers and stuff like that, do
I think the London Baptism Confession is what most churches
that I would associate.
Speaker 2: With would follow.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's not the So you're a reform Baptist, not
a Presbyterian, So that's not the original Westminster Confession?
Speaker 2: Okay? Yeah, yeah, But but I mean.
Speaker 4: And what is the sixth point of Calvinism?
Speaker 2: I'm never heard of this stool Upso the sovereignty of God.
Speaker 4: It's five points, what's the sixth?
Speaker 2: I know this is what James White would say, is
the extraditions to.
Speaker 4: So you're trolling as a reform Protestant.
Speaker 2: No I am A I am. I just don't get
what you think I'd.
Speaker 4: Controlling because you're you're you're deflecting and not being clear
about what your position is. So you said you're reformed,
and then you said six point Calvinism, but you've never
heard the regular principal worship.
Speaker 2: Even though this is like, let's not let's not get
let's get stuck in that. I like to talk to
you about final authorities.
Speaker 4: If you would be really well, I mean, this is
going to matter because like the point that I'm making
is that if your tradition is going, if you want
to be consistent with your tradition, and I'm sure you
don't care because in you guys' position, you can disagree
with the generation right before you, uh, then you would
think that God, if you would think that God, who
cares so much about his worship in the Book of
Leviticus that he would kill people for doing it wrong,
would have given the New Testament Church a pattern of
worship Yeah, I'm just.
Speaker 2: Confused how you can take that out of context in
the Old Testament implying that to.
Speaker 4: Anything, because your entire tradition that you don't even know
always has done that. So what was an example of
the regulative principle of worship in the entire Reform tradition?
That's the example.
Speaker 2: You got.
Speaker 4: You guys killed each other. You guys killed each other
over this. You don't even know that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's relevance to No, it's not.
Speaker 4: No, it's not because you're part of a tradition that
you can at whim disregard and say I don't care.
It doesn't matter when the argument is about whether there's
apostolic tradition that's liturgy or not. That's my point.
Speaker 19: I'm saying that the God's word that He's given us
is what we need to do, what we need to
have in mind.
Speaker 4: Okay, why didn't God? Because God cares so much about worship,
and your own tradition has debated and killed each other
over this, why didn't he provide a liturgy in the
New Testament?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the way he worships lay down to the fundamental No,
it's not.
Speaker 4: No, it's not Where is there where is the liturgy
in the New Testament?
Speaker 2: The concepts are there? What are you talking?
Speaker 4: The concepts are there, the liturgy itself is not there.
Speaker 19: So where does that come from? Where's your preset position
that liturgy is even coming from?
Speaker 4: Because God kills people over this principle, and he consistently
kills people over this principle. Because Paul says that if
you eat and drink unworthily, God will kill you, so
it would seem pretty important, and it's something that God
didn't put in the written texts.
Speaker 2: So because you're saying God kills.
Speaker 4: People, who do you have to restate my argument? And
you can't hear the argument. You have to repeat everything
else said.
Speaker 2: I make sure I understood it right, So I just
confuse how that.
Speaker 4: It's trying. How everyone else can understand this argument, but
you're confused over it? Why is that funny?
Speaker 2: I thought that was a random point to bring up,
But well, why do you have to.
Speaker 4: Keep repeating everything I say? Do you have a low
IQ or are you having a hard time?
Speaker 2: I could what would that be relevant for the conversation
of the Final Authority?
Speaker 4: Because I'm trying to figure out why you have to
repeat everything I.
Speaker 2: Say, and make sure I understood it right to be scharitable.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you're slow, I got it.
Speaker 19: Yeah, that's the one way to put it. So anyway,
So you want to say that the holy spirits of
the final authority?
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 4: I already said that.
Speaker 19: Okay, So what does it have to do with anything
else that the Orthodox brings into in terms of it's
finalizing anything, any type of authority?
Speaker 2: So what does that do?
Speaker 4: So that's why I said the very beginning normative.
Speaker 2: Authority, meaning that it's typically the case.
Speaker 4: Do you know the difference between those things?
Speaker 2: Oh? That's why I'm asking a clarifying question.
Speaker 4: Oh you came to debate, and now you're playing like
you're here to ask questions? So are you here to
ask questions? You're here at debate?
Speaker 2: That's part of the debate, is it not? Is it
not a question?
Speaker 4: It seems like if you wanted to debate, you would
know the positions you're debating. But so are you here
to learn or you hear to debate?
Speaker 2: I mean I would love to learn, well, debating I
have no problem with that.
Speaker 4: What was the question?
Speaker 19: So I'm asking you, based on what you previously said,
that the Holy Spirit is a final authority. Right then,
how does that come into play with all the other factors,
like the oral tradition?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 19: Deciphering what the oral tradition is? How would the Holy
Spirit deciphered the correct oral tradition.
Speaker 4: And all the other bishops, I mean, the same way,
just the same way he deciphered it in preserving it
from the time of Adam until Moses wrote it down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how would I objectively be able to affirm that? What?
How would I objectively be able to confirm that?
Speaker 4: I mean, isn't that your own position?
Speaker 2: So you are you saying that the Holy Spirit makes
me feel that this is correct? Like that's a position?
Speaker 4: What did I say about anything that it was making
you feel something? You don't believe that the Holy Spirit? Listen,
you don't believe the Holy Spirit guided oral tradition from
Adam to Moses.
Speaker 2: No, no, I don't believe that.
Speaker 4: Okay, then you're not reformed anymore. So what are you
just changing your positions on the spot?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm sicky or at your laugh, your condescending laugh
is getting on my nerves. What how do you not
understand that you're not reformed?
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with or traditions.
Speaker 4: Of course, yes it does. So how do you think
that the message came from Adam until Moses wrote it down?
Speaker 19: The entire point is when Moses, when God gave a
certain point for him to write.
Speaker 2: It down God and to be carried out.
Speaker 4: So you're I'm sorry, I'm asking you how did they
transmit it through those generations? You don't understand this question?
Do I need to draw it on a board for you?
Speaker 19: Yeah, that org tradition and the story is being transformed
or what I'm saying, keep keeping going in them that
has nothing to do well, I'm just saying that, are you.
Speaker 4: Too stupid to even understand what I'm answering your question?
You said, how is the Holy Spirit doing this the
same way he did it from Adam to Moses? You
just said you just said it's oral?
Speaker 8: Did you not?
Speaker 4: Did you not admit it's oral? So you're saying you
have the same Why do you keep restating what I said?
Speaker 2: This is?
Speaker 4: This is like mind control or something. I'm trying to
plug in the dots, right, I'm sure to make sure
from the time of Adam to Moses you just said oral.
So you admitted my point.
Speaker 2: So I'm asking, he's that the same thing you think
you have? Right from Adam?
Speaker 4: You said, how does the Holy Spirit do it? I said,
the same way he did it?
Speaker 2: Then that's completely a different sort of.
Speaker 4: Idea, you know, it's not. It's you're asking my position.
I'm explaining it's literally no different than the way he
preserved it.
Speaker 19: Then, So children talking about their own history, about how
God had been has been working in their culture.
Speaker 2: It's completely different than having.
Speaker 4: Done children talking about what are you even talking about?
Children talking about God working? What the hell are you
talking about?
Speaker 19: Yeah, we're talking about like for like the in the
context the concept of ancient Israel. Right, so God is
literally working through this shertain type of people group and
everything like that, and the stories.
Speaker 4: Of you don't even know that your own tradition from
Adam to Moses teaches that God preserved that tradition, that
oral transmission. You don't even know that.
Speaker 2: Oh, I know, I can read my Bible and find
that out. That's fine with me.
Speaker 4: Where does the Bible tell you that the oral tradition
was preserved?
Speaker 2: Again, it's it's no need.
Speaker 4: Okay, you're literally a mentally unstable weirdo. Like, literally, what
you're saying makes note you don't even understand what's being said.
Where does your Bible tell you that?
Speaker 2: Where does my Bible tell me what? Well?
Speaker 4: You said? All I need to do is read the
Bible to figure that out. Where does it.
Speaker 19: Tell you that Jesus he's access standards to the phares
he's asked, is it not?
Speaker 4: Where does that tell you the Holy Spirit guided oral
tradition from Adam to Moses. So now you do believe
that I said no from the beginning, But then you
just said that the Bible tells you that no.
Speaker 19: The Bible tells me again, what I need to know
about any sort of tradition or anything about God, any stories?
Speaker 4: How do you think the tradition was preserved from Adam
to Moses? The stories that you read about in the Torah?
This is this is this is the stupidest conversation I've
ever read. We're done. Como, h.
Speaker 2: Hello, cayep yo. What's up? Jay? Yeah, I'm not gonna
take up too much time. I got three questions. I
could just rapid fire them. You can answer, and I'll
come back and listen to it later.
Speaker 20: All right, So first question is who or what movement
spawned the idea of the one, true, Holy and Apostolic
Church being on invisible.
Speaker 2: Church, And on what basis did they come to that conclusion.
Speaker 4: It's first found amongst the donuts, and then it's repeated
by Calvinists.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool.
Speaker 20: Second, you'll often hear Protestants say things like I was
guided about the Holy Spirit, or you're not a spirit
feel Christian, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So I'm sure it's safe to say that most.
Speaker 20: Protestants think by believing in Jesus Christ in a mental
sense and professing Jesus as like Lord and Savior verbally,
is at that very moment you're giving the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2: So I'm wondering what is the traditional.
Speaker 20: Orthodoxy on receiving the Holy Spirit or what must be
done to inherit the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 4: Well, it's not just being baptized and brought into the
church in that way through catechisystem baptism, and then you
have christ Mation, so they no Protestants have christ Mation.
So that's one of the key elements that's missing.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, all right, next one, this is the Okay,
this is probably the last one.
Speaker 20: So I got a friend who recently rediscovered his Christian roots.
He calls himself a Christian. He's a Catholic, but he
still holds on to like sort of and sort of
embraces some of Nietzsche and Carl Jung's.
Speaker 2: Philosophy, specifically stuff like bracing the uber minch or the
shade within and stuff like that.
Speaker 20: I'm not really too well versed on Knetzsche and Carl Jung,
but I got some of the books I bottom a
while ago, just never read them.
Speaker 2: So when I hear him say stuff like that, I
think that sounds like.
Speaker 20: Demonic and I wouldn't like, I would err on him
not leaning into stuff like that.
Speaker 2: But what's your thoughts?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's of course that's deemonica. It's like the uber
minche was that have to deal with Christianity to the
guy in the chat annoying to say the least, if
you don't call in, you get booted. So this is
not for you to come spam all your evangelical gibberish
in the chat value machine. Yeah, I'm having to unwind
from that like mind controlled madness of that previous goofball.
I mean to not know what the regulative principal worship
is tells me that that person does even know what
the reform tradition is. And so how are you going
to come debate this and try to act like you're
some like that's just nonsense. Okay, well it comes to
the to the chat or not value. What's up on? Mute?
Speaker 2: Hey man?
Speaker 21: I want to thank you first of all for everything
that you're doing.
Speaker 2: I'm not coming to debate you do, just have a question.
Speaker 21: I'm an Orthodox Christian three course dogs.
Speaker 4: I'm not doing fic qu'es today, man, So please if
it's an e fic you question, you can find it online.
So what's your question?
Speaker 21: It's all good then, I just wanted to ask you
about like two things. The first one is the christology,
you know, nature nature of Jesus, Jesus, and.
Speaker 2: The second one would be as my own family.
Speaker 4: And what was the question? What's the first question?
Speaker 2: The first question is the nature of nature of Jesus right,
like what.
Speaker 4: Do you mean? What's How's that a question?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 21: So if you can't explain it it of how like
the Greek Orthodox or the Orthodox viewpoint of how we
believe like Jesus was right like the natures and everything.
Speaker 2: If a tafic you question, then fine, that's.
Speaker 4: I'm not trying to be rude. That's a basic I
would say, go read uh Dogmatic Theology by Palmazanski and
he will give you a basic introduction to the hypostatic union.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, forth, I gotcha, Sure, thank you.
Speaker 4: No problem. I'm not trying to be rude, but we're
not doing basic q and A today. This is for
people who disagree, So debate Islam, Atheism, Catholics, and protests
of Gnostic Mormon, JW, Hebrew roots whatever.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: Please do not ask me a bunch of basic Orthodox questions.
So this is for people who disagree. Raise your hand
if you disagree, Benny.
Speaker 2: You what's up?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 22: So I want to Yeah, you're talking about that the
Quran has the Trinity wrong?
Speaker 2: Can you can you show that please? It's also a myss.
Like the last time I came with the myth that.
Speaker 23: The Quran talks about the same so uh that you
believe in there's also a myth.
Speaker 2: So I dismantled that.
Speaker 4: You didn't dismantle it. You said a bunch of stupid
ship and then you didn't have an answer. All right,
Now you're not gonna say you're not gonna talk over
me with those nonsense you get out of here. You
do you really think you dismantled the last time you
were in here? Yes, my claim was, and how did
you You didn't even you couldn't even restate my argument?
How do you think you dismantled it?
Speaker 15: If there is it?
Speaker 2: So you my plim my argument.
Speaker 4: Can you restate my argument?
Speaker 7: No, but you.
Speaker 4: Beak did none through even though he couldn't even state
what the argument is. Trust me, bro, he dismantled it.
I gotta I'm getting a little two heated. Hey, Jamie,
I need a I need a ginger chew. My my
blood sugars, my beat us is getting off the charts.
Could you bring me a ginger chew?
Speaker 24: And uh?
Speaker 4: And I don't need more coffee. I'm gonna got to
I'm gonna get too heated with the idiots. Bring me
one ginger you please? Thank you? Okay. Beecke is having
a hard time connecting, so we'll go to Dallas.
Speaker 25: Yep, Yeah, So I I actually read the Dudo canonical books,
like I guess what was the last month?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 25: From first isdras all the way to second Maccabee's I
was just wondering.
Speaker 1: What what is the.
Speaker 25: Does the Greek Orthodox? So you guys reconcile? How do
y'all reconcile the beginning of Judith?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: You're talking about when it mentions a king? That is
that we're talking about that. I'm going from memory. I
haven't looked at this a long time, is it?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 4: The Jews? The Jews typically will use the term of
one king to reference to all of their enemies for
all time, Like Amelek becomes a forever a reference to
every enemy of Israel, even though Amelek was dead a
long time ago.
Speaker 25: Okay, So I've heard, I've heard, well, I research, like
Catholics try to give me the answer, and they basically talk,
but they basically said that, like the region of Assyria
was like a huge region that included Babylon also.
Speaker 4: So, I mean the Book of Revelation calls, you know,
Israel at the time of Christ Sodom and Gomorrah. I
mean the Jews do this often?
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, Yeah, that's all I wanted to know.
Speaker 4: That's okay. I mean it's a common objection. I don't
I don't think it's a very strong objection. I mean
the same higher critics will point to similar types of
things in the canonical text. So who disagrees? So we
got a bunch of people, fifteen people. I'm eating ginger
cheese to calm down before you start fussing at me
forgetting got to calm down. And actually people think he's
so mean. The quote meanness actually is because of just
low blood sugar at time like that. That's all it is.
Because people will say, how see sometimes he's super patient. Yeah,
it's because of love bluture.
Speaker 8: That's it.
Speaker 4: So I gotta have a ginger chew Greek Greek name. Man,
I can't see what that says. The Chat is saying
to be more mean, more meon or more mean? Go ahead, man,
what's up? I'm you.
Speaker 2: Hey jay, I'm a Catechuban. I had not here to debate.
Speaker 15: You have a question.
Speaker 26: So I have an acquaintance that goes to Catholic confession,
cites Bible versus like a Protestant.
Speaker 27: And yet it has the audacity to say that the
Orthodox Church is.
Speaker 2: Told the true Church. How does what sort of like
what sort of rebuttal do you have for someone who
does that?
Speaker 4: Who says what you cut out. Hello, rebettal to what
you cut out?
Speaker 2: That's a connection?
Speaker 4: You cut out? Man, I can't. I couldn't get that question.
Try to come out and come back in bea want
to try again. I got my ginger chew. I'll calm
him down now, beak, I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Yo. Hello Jay? What's up? You hear me?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir?
Speaker 2: Oh hey Jay?
Speaker 28: So Roman Catholic here. I just had a couple of questions.
So I watched your you know, reasons not be Roman
Catholic video, and well, I thought it was persuasive. I
saw a response that I think kind of just put
you in shambles. It was by this guy named Michael Lofton.
Have you ever heard of him?
Speaker 4: Is that a joke?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 28: No, I just think he pointed out how you were
being really uncharitable, so you kind of have no.
Speaker 4: Like, okay, you're joking uncharitable.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just wondering, you know, when are you gonna,
you know, join the One True Church? You know, it's.
Speaker 4: Do you have an argument or what's what's up?
Speaker 2: Well? Yeah, I'm asking you, you know, so all.
Speaker 4: Right, that's really funny. I honestly can't tell that I
was joking me answerious, It could go either way. Alexander,
I'm in shambles. From Michael Lufton.
Speaker 2: Okay, quick question, would you ever debate Bartnerman?
Speaker 4: I don't know. I'm not a textual scholar, so if
I debated him, it would be more of a philosophical debate,
and I doubt he would do a philosophical debate. So great,
bro you great and cheese in the background. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Rory?
Speaker 4: Does not the brood? Then you are in shambles. Broad
If is anybody present an argument, I've not heard one.
Has anybody even given an argument yet? At least the
romanicality at the beginning had a few questions and stay
and at least at tend But nobody's given an argument yet.
Speaker 8: Rory.
Speaker 2: Getami mm hm h.
Speaker 29: Just get a question A bit.
Speaker 2: Like textual criticism on the New Testament. If you've got
the actual and historical account of.
Speaker 4: Jesus, what in your mind counts as a historical account?
I mean, do the New Testament texts and the thousands
of texts from the first few centuries count, because that's
more textual attestation than any other text.
Speaker 2: If they're anonymous side, they're.
Speaker 4: Not anonymous the tradition of the Church is that they're
written by other people, that they're said to be written.
Speaker 12: By Butt, and scholarship disagrees with that.
Speaker 4: So on what basis am I supposed follow on belie scholarship?
Do you agree with them on the Quran?
Speaker 2: I agree with them on the Korn.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you don't think that unbelieving scholars debunk the Quran? Really?
You don't have to like, yeah, come on, you think
New Testament scholar excuse me, a liberal scholars do not
debunk the Koran.
Speaker 2: Why are we moving to the Korn?
Speaker 4: Because it's illustrating a double standard?
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, you don't want to address don't want to
address the so.
Speaker 4: You're admitting it's a double standard.
Speaker 2: I'm just you said, okay, what you you were?
Speaker 4: You appealed to unbelieving scholars, and I said, do you
accept them on the Quran? So that's a double standard.
Speaker 2: But you're admitting that it is anonymous.
Speaker 4: No, I'm saying that you have a double standard.
Speaker 2: What are they.
Speaker 4: They're not anonymous by the tradition of the Church. I'm
not a Protestant, I'm an Orthodox. We believe in tradition.
Speaker 2: So how does that tradition bring you to thinking that
was actually.
Speaker 4: The same way that I know what the candone Scripture
is by tradition. So you think you're arguing to get
a Protestant or not.
Speaker 2: I'm asking you to give me the evidence in.
Speaker 4: The tradition of the church. Is the evidence? Yeah, because
it's believed to be the tradition that may if you right,
may if you you understand this is an argument I
use against Protestants. You don't even know I use this argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but Matthew didn't wrot Matthew.
Speaker 4: You don't know that the tradition of the church is
that he did. So that's a question that depends on
your worldview.
Speaker 2: Matthew is.
Speaker 4: To Mark and that's what liberal scholars say. And you
don't apply that standard consistently because you don't listen to
liberal liberal scholars on the Quran. Do you so you
have a double standard? Do you have a double standard?
Speaker 2: Apostle?
Speaker 4: Do you have a double standard or not? Do you
why are you laughing? Do you have a double standard
or not? Now, do you have a double standard or not?
Explain why it's not a double standard. You can't so
notice he can't answer this. Can you explain why it's
not a double standard. So it's all trolls today again,
which is which is fine. It's not all trills but
largely trills. So notice the double standard right now, nour
now uh as usual with Muslims. But by the way,
I reject out of hand that I listened to any
liberal scholar. And notice he doesn't listen to any liberal
scholar on the Quran. I'm not taking f A Hughes
acts on Yep.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so not really an f A to you.
Speaker 30: I'm I'm an ex senator contest, I'm mechanic human and
it's a bit more of an a deeper question.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I was, I was a Scotist when I
was a senator contest. And there's a are you.
Speaker 30: Familiar with the absolute primacy of Christ? That that's thesis
within all the what it's called the absolute.
Speaker 2: Primacy of Christ.
Speaker 4: I don't know what that mean.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's basically the.
Speaker 30: Theory that if Adam hadn't sent Christ would have become
incarnate anyways or that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the Eastern Father's teaching.
Speaker 30: Okay, So is that Yeah, I've read that Maximus and
a few others. So does that have the status of
like your official teaching of the one.
Speaker 4: That I was church is that at uh it's I mean,
there's no dogma. I'm not aware of a dogma to
states that it's just normative in the Orthodox Church to
understand Adam is as a Chris the logical being.
Speaker 2: Sure. Okay, awesome, thank you, I answered my question.
Speaker 4: Yeah, great question, And you are correct that is a
unique thing that the Franciscans had in contrast to the
tumus that agrees with us in the East. Jimmy, I'm
not answering faqes so yep.
Speaker 31: Hey, So I'm a Meridia Cathick having trouble reconciling and
accepting the idea that our sacraments are that different.
Speaker 2: And if you could just touch on that and you
a talking about each one individually.
Speaker 4: But just in general, I don't know what you mean,
I mean different in what sense?
Speaker 2: Well, I was just.
Speaker 31: Reading online a little bit about the differences in the
two and that some sacraments are not accepted.
Speaker 2: In the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox.
Speaker 31: If one were to go to the other one and
receive sacraments in those that they're not accepted.
Speaker 2: In each other.
Speaker 4: Sometimes, Yeah, it's a case by case basis. The local
bishop applies the canons based on your situation and what
what was your history?
Speaker 2: Okay, so something like the Eucharist could not be I've
read that, like I would not be able to go
to an Orthodox church and take us.
Speaker 4: No, you cannot. No, you have to abjure your heresies.
Speaker 2: Okay, got it, all right? Thanks?
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, I see I misunderstood the question. I see
what you're asking. Now, I got you. I was thinking
you mean in terms of vality. You're saying, like, could
I go and partake it? The second I see you
mean vertical?
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 4: I have calm them down. Now, I have my sugars,
have my beat us. I have my beat us.
Speaker 2: Choose. Well, you must not forget the eleventh Commandment. There, Jay,
that'll shalt be nice.
Speaker 4: I am being nice. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: So I have a I have a doctrinal question.
Speaker 32: I'm a Protestant and one of the things that's a
hang up for me because as I've been researching into
Orthodoxy is preservation of the saints.
Speaker 2: It's it's you know, as far as.
Speaker 32: The other five points of Calvinism, I've kind of come
to reject but I think that Roman.
Speaker 4: Do you mean perseverance of the saints. I don't know
what you're talking about.
Speaker 32: Yeah, perseverance of the Saints. But I feel like Romans
eight thirty eight is like pretty solid and understanding that nothing.
Speaker 2: Can separate us from God.
Speaker 32: And I think the reason why Paul goes into such
great detail about describing all different things is to say, hey, well,
there's not a single thing that can separate us from God.
And one of my biggest hang ups with Orthodoxy is.
Speaker 2: Is it doesn't There doesn't seem to be any assurance.
So I'd like to hear what you have to say
about it.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 4: First, I mean, even if hypothetic I adopted some Calvinists position,
you're in no different individual existential position than I am.
Because Calvinists admit that there's such a thing as self deception,
where you could believe that you're want to be elect
and believe that the Holy Spirit has given you the assurance,
and you might be deluding yourself. So really, there's not
actually this assurance. There's a theoretical doctrine of assurance, that
doesn't mean that you have it as an individual Calvinist.
If you believe in self deception. So that's one point.
Second point I would say is that the statements about
what Paul says in Roman's aid have to be balanced
with everything else he says in many of the other places,
And so in Hebrews he says that you can particular
the heavenly gift and be enlightened and so forth and
fall away. So why would there be all these warnings
of apostasy if there is no such thing as apostacy.
Speaker 32: Well, I'm not saying that aposesey isn't a possibility.
Speaker 33: I'm saying that someone who is truly a yeah.
Speaker 4: But it begs the question. I know I've heard this
a million times, So how do you know that you're
the truly, the truly.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that anyone can
know without a shadow of a doubt. I'm not.
Speaker 4: Well, then it's then it's not assurance. Then it's not
once saved always said, not assurance. Okay, So anyway, I
appreciate the question. I'm not going to go for an
hour back and forth on that. If you if you
don't find the text about apost to seek convincing, then okay.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 4: Next up, cool video I'm mute. By the way, if
you want to support the stream, you can do so
via super chats. You can also support stream via my
bitcoin wallet right there. Bitcoin is a free speech based
mechanism of true currency, true money, authentic ethical money, based
on math, and based on an international decentralized network. That's
my wallet, all right. He can't connect, come out, come
back in if you want to, Please do not come
on and ask me FAQ questions. If you want to debate,
I give you the premiacy of place, Rick, Rick, you
got to get a good connection if you want to
come on, you don't have to keep raising your hand. Rick,
I don't know what's up, man, you won't connect. Look,
if you're an inquirer, if you're a Catechuman, please just
we do this every day. You don't have to. Is
there people lazy? Like can you not go ask your
priest or read the Pomeazansky book? Like you don't have
to ask me every FAQ catechumen question? Guys, yeah, tech, do.
Speaker 2: You hear me?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 34: So right now, I'm thinking of converting either to Catalysism
or Orthodoxy. But I don't understand how the papacy doesn't work.
Speaker 2: I think having the unity that they have is is
good like unit?
Speaker 4: What unity do you think they have? I mean, again,
you're not familiar with the world of Catholicism if you
think it's united.
Speaker 34: But the Orthodox don't share the same belings about who
can be rebaptized, contraception look average.
Speaker 4: But the fact that there's debate and the like discussion
over issues does not mean that there's no unity. Right.
What I'm pointing out is that what you're looking for
doesn't exist. There is no unity like you think in Rome.
And by the way, even if you think there is,
even if there was a superficial unity, if it's not
based on truth, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 35: Uh Yeah.
Speaker 34: But aschism between the Moscow and Constantinople.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but there's a gigantic schism within the Roman Gallic Church.
So what are you talking about?
Speaker 34: Yea, if I'm joining the Russian Church, is it like
a separate one or is it the same?
Speaker 2: Because no, they are.
Speaker 4: They are out of communion in terms of not reading
each other. In the Diptychs, the church has not yet
excommunicated each other, so that is not officially a schism yet.
All right, But you're not gonna get you're not gonna
get away from that in Rome, because you're gonna go
into Rome thinking that as greener pastures, and then you're
gonna learn about all the problems and contradictions between pre
Vatican one, a, pre Vatican two and postmatical three teaching,
and then you're gonna be confronted with whether you need
to be a trat or not. You're gonna realize that
you made the wrong decision.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 34: Yesterday I talked you to a Catholic priest and I
told him that I didn't really like the crin pope,
and he told me that he sees the pope like
as a father.
Speaker 2: Even if he does something wrong, you still need to
respect to him.
Speaker 4: Okay, but that has nothing to do with Roman Catholic
dogmatic teaching. Okay, the pope cannot teach new dogmas or
change the dogmas and he has that's the point. So again,
you're coming at this with a very naive, simple I'm
not dissing you, but I'm saying it's a very naive
kind of simple view, like it's going to work this way. Well,
I get to see him as a father, and then
we'll get a new trad pope in the future. None
of that is even close to what happened to Vatican two.
And when you have the pope going and praying in mosque,
and by the way, it's not just Francis, it's trad
Pope Benedict praying mosque towards Mecca. So do you not
see that as like a major violation of basic Christian teaching?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: I say that because so why would you want to
join that you're joining in? You understand, you don't get
to join Catholicism and not be in spiritual communion with
Francis and his crew. Like there's no other there's not
like a Catholicism that's not connected to that. You're spiritually
in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he didn't bind the church to worship and the.
Speaker 4: Mosques, right, No, that's not true. So this is all
the propaganda that you've been told by Roman Catholics that
you don't have to believe this stuff. Have you read
Vatican two?
Speaker 8: Okay?
Speaker 4: Well, Vatican two says that you are bound to believe
that Muslims and Catholics worshiped together the same God and
have the faith of Abraham. Do you think that's that's correct?
Speaker 34: I think not trially you, But I think it's meant
it's Kulman that it's more a way to evangelize the
other faiths.
Speaker 4: Do you think he's not evangelizing when he goes in
praise and moss towards Mecca and builds an Abrahamic faith
center and tells people not to prossly How is he
evangelizing when he says not to proselytize?
Speaker 2: But did he make did he make a dougma or is.
Speaker 4: It just he's expressing that this is what Vatican two
tells you to do. Vatican two is telling you that
they have the same God, they have the faith of Abraham,
So why do we need to evangelize them? And by
the way, you can't. You can't, the pope can't. You
can't act contrary to the dogmas. If you're a pope,
that's also an action of apostasy to go and pray
and moss towards Mecca. So you're trying to say, oh,
he's trying to evangelize him. No, no he's not. They
used to call crusades against these people now, but they're
evangelizing them a praying most wars Mecca. That's that's an
action of apostacy. It violates the ancient cannons that say
you can't even go in mosques.
Speaker 34: So you're saying that if the pope is a heretic
or he commits sins, that he's the whole system.
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic theology does not say that the pope doesn't sin,
but it says that he can't commit actions of apostas
like that, because then Rome would defect. Rome cannot defect
in Romancalatic theology. You defect from the faith by actions
of apostasy, and you're gonna learn if you become a Catholic,
and you're gonna make a huge mistake that Romancalaic theology
has certain sins that automatically excommunicate you. One of those
is abration. Another one of those is to participate in
this type of worship with things like Muslims or Pagans.
To do those things in those rituals is an action
of apostasies to surrender the faith. That's why as late
as nineteen twenty eight and Mortalium Animos, the papacy was
still teaching that it is apostasy to do these things.
Go read Mortalium Animos then read lemon Gentum sixteen and
then Nostra Atate. So you're just falling for all of
their sales pitch, and you're missing the major point here,
which is that this is clearly not the same church
that called for crusades.
Speaker 2: That's true, another Christian but on the same topic.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so.
Speaker 2: So Abbot.
Speaker 36: The first centuries, the priests told me that there was
only three sees and that Constantinople was ather later, and
that's why we have the patriarchate.
Speaker 2: So it's not bublic, but it's not a tradition to
have the pentarchy.
Speaker 4: Like, no, that's that's stupid, that's stupid according to his
own tradition, because Pope saying, Gregory the Great refers to
the pentarchy. So no nobody believes the pentarchy is from
the apostles. But in the ecumenical councils, the church eventually
accepts the pentarchy, even the Western Church, and Gregory the
Great talks about it. In fact, Gregory the Great says,
the see of Peter is Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. You
can go read the Alexandria. Look before you make this
dumb decision, go read the Alexandria document. And the Chi
eighty document, and you're going to realize that today's Roman
Catholic Church is not the church in the Middle Ages.
It's not the Latin papal church anymore. It's the acumenous
world church that believes anything and everything. And the Alexandria
Document and the Ciady document will prove that to you.
I'm looking for people who disagree, Lauren, you have to immune.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Now?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 20: How does the Orthodox Church rectify the seventh anathema from
emphasis one on the christology.
Speaker 2: Of Christ having two wills? H uh huh?
Speaker 4: So are you not familiar with any of our responses
to this stuff? You think that we don't know what
episode says?
Speaker 2: No, I I this is my first time asking a question.
I'm looking into or than.
Speaker 4: H Are you there? Hello?
Speaker 2: Do you have a Hello?
Speaker 4: What's an anthematic? Did you say you're cutting out?
Speaker 34: I'm sorry, I'm driving the seventh anathemoeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, mm hmm. It's the one specifically teaching on No.
Two wills after the Where does this say?
Speaker 4: No, I mean I'm looking at it. I don't say
anything about no. Two wills? What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Well? I mean they have to be united wills, right,
I mean I may be mistaken.
Speaker 4: If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only
energized by the word of God, this would be one
this would be one energy or one will, let him
be anathema?
Speaker 16: Are you there?
Speaker 4: I don't understand how this been the case. What you're
talking about? What do you think our position is?
Speaker 2: Well? I believe that the position is two wills right
in Christ?
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm looking at the seventh I'm looking at the
seventh Anathema, and it says, if anyone shall say that
Jesus as man is only energized by the word of
God and that the glory of the only begotten Son,
who is attributed to him as something not properly his,
let him be anathema. I mean, so it's saying in
the story and position, Yeah.
Speaker 2: He's claiming that Christ has two wills.
Speaker 4: No, that's not the story. That's not when the stories
is arguing the Storias has a dual subject Christology. This
is not saying there's only one will, and that is
not saying there's only one will. Where does it say that?
Speaker 2: He doesn't specifically say that. I was just kind of
assuming that's what he meant by saying that the word
doesn't energize the human.
Speaker 4: Wait say that again? The word?
Speaker 2: What that the word doesn't energize the the the flesh,
the human.
Speaker 4: No, it says, if anyone s else, say that Jesus
man is only energized by the Word of God, so
that would be one energy. And then it says, and
then to say that the glory is attributed to him
as not something properly his, in other words, one subject.
There's only one subject in Christ, the Son of God,
the Word of God. But this does not say that
he has only This is saying that you cannot say
there's only one divine energy.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm sorry. It's just really hard to hear what
you're saying because of the background noise. But yeah, I mean,
Nestorius doesn't. It's the debate with the Storius is not
over two wills or two natures. The debate with the
Sorius is dual subject christology. Dave, what's up?
Speaker 10: Name?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: Dave? Right there? You gotta amute?
Speaker 2: Yeah, automatically you too, I know. So. So I'm the
Mormon on the channel and slid clicks.
Speaker 37: So my claim is that you know Book Mormon's true
than or the doxy.
Speaker 4: Has kind of a problem, Well, how could the Book
of Mormon be true when it's just like Islam when
it says that the prior revelation is all corrupted unless
it agrees with the Book of Mormon.
Speaker 2: I think that's a common tact that people use. We
don't say the prior revelation.
Speaker 4: Is all corrupted every moment. Every Mormon I've ever talked to,
many many of the missionaries say that the Bible's.
Speaker 37: I think you would agree that that part of the
Bible is not exactly as it was when it came.
Speaker 4: Out, and now it is corrupted. You said, it's that's
not it. That's not a thing you do, But now
you're saying it is.
Speaker 2: I said, it's not entirely corrupted like the Bible.
Speaker 4: Okay, what's your criteria for knowing when it's not and
what it is?
Speaker 2: Joseph Smith made translations or corrections to it.
Speaker 4: That's so exactly what I said, just like the Muslims,
winter degrees with winter degrees when it agrees with the
Book of Mormon is correct.
Speaker 37: You if you actually looked at the details, there are
like five of them.
Speaker 4: That are doesn't matter. So again, because the whole point
is that that thing's correct, matter because that thing's corrupted.
And now, so basically you lied because the very thing
I said is what you did.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm just.
Speaker 37: Saying if you look those if you look at a
specific instance.
Speaker 4: You would see you lied.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Whatever.
Speaker 4: Okay, So thanks for admitting you lie. Okay, how's you sure?
Speaker 2: I'm sure that's a fun debate tactic for you.
Speaker 4: It's not a debate tactic. You said that you don't
make that argument, and then you did.
Speaker 37: I don't make the argument that I said. No, I
didn't make the argument that it's completely corrupted.
Speaker 2: Don't make my.
Speaker 4: Word now you're playing word games because the point I
ask you, I know, I'm not. I asked you what.
I asked you what I asked you what the criteria is,
and you said, Joseph Smith, that's the whole argument, that's
the argument. Yeah, the criteria for So you have a
circular argument. Why would I follow a circular argument.
Speaker 2: No, the claim I made your playing word game.
Speaker 4: It's not a word game. It's a circular argument.
Speaker 2: No, the claim I made had nothing to do with
the changes in the Bible. The claim I made said,
if the Book of Mormon is true, the Orthodoxy has
a problem.
Speaker 4: And I responded by saying that you have the same
argument as the as the Muslims, and you basically you
have made argument. Yes it is. I I've debated all
the top Muslims in the world.
Speaker 2: What do you mean, Yeah, so the Bible's wrong? Like
a Muslim doesn't.
Speaker 4: Say that, yes they do. What are you talking about?
I have way more.
Speaker 37: Muslim argue the Book Mormon is true. That's the stupides
thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 15: Dude.
Speaker 4: Obviously I didn't say that. Are you this dumb?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not just dumb. I'm just you're playing sure
literally to do the same thing, right.
Speaker 4: No, I said, you have the same argument as the
Muslims to say that the prior revelation. Listen the prior Dude,
you literally came on and said the very thing I
said you would say. And then you said, you're not
saying it. This is retarded.
Speaker 2: Muslims would say like the Bible is no.
Speaker 4: They don't even know that out. That's not what they say.
Speaker 2: The Bible is right.
Speaker 4: What's your criteria? And I said, what's the criteria for
when you know that? And you said, Joseph Smith, that's
a circle. Yeah, Joseph Smith, that's a circle like you
can take, you can take, you can That is a
circular argument.
Speaker 2: It has nothing to do with the original argument, though.
I mean, that's this you're you're.
Speaker 4: You're this slow. Can you restate what my argument.
Speaker 13: Is you're saying?
Speaker 15: Can you say.
Speaker 37: You were saying because I'm saying the Book of Mormon
is true, that's somehow equated to what Muslims are arguing.
Speaker 4: No, you're too stupid to even understand the comparison. That
is not what I said.
Speaker 2: Good, I'm not I'm not conflating the two.
Speaker 4: You don't even understand my argument, do you?
Speaker 2: Okay? Restated again?
Speaker 4: So just like Muslims, I'm not saying you have the
same argument that Muslims have that about the Quran and
the Book of Mormon. Muslims don't care about the Book
of Mormon. I'm saying you have the same argument that
the principle that you used to know is the thing
in question for Muslims, it's the Quran.
Speaker 2: Let me finish, use I don't use the bookrue.
Speaker 4: You literally just did you said when Joseph Smith translated,
he fixed the errors. You said your criteria is Joseph Smith.
That's a circular argument.
Speaker 37: I use no, yes, to know which part of the
Bible is true, I use several factors, not.
Speaker 4: Just now you said Joseph Smith. So now it's changed.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't say only Joseph Smith.
Don't don't try and again, this is so.
Speaker 4: In other words, it doesn't. So it's not so the
position is a circle. So how is it not a circle?
Speaker 2: How do you know the Bible is true? Right? We
read the Bible, we ask God, and God tells us
the Bible is true. That's how everybody knows.
Speaker 4: No, that's a stupid argument. That's as dumb as saying
that I feel good today, So God's telling me that
I'm good because I feel.
Speaker 37: If you want to go with the group of Christians
that don't use that argument, they would say it's.
Speaker 4: Because that's what your cult does. Your cult says that
pray and you'll still have a burning in your bosom
and you'll know that's God. That's a subjective to your version.
Speaker 2: Then let's go into your version. Your version is, Hey,
I read the.
Speaker 37: Witness statements, and because so many of the match therefore
the Bible's truth.
Speaker 4: Did you hear me give an evidentialist historicist argument? I
didn't give that argument.
Speaker 2: What is your what is your claim?
Speaker 7: Then?
Speaker 2: How do you know the Bible's true?
Speaker 4: The transcendental argument?
Speaker 2: What does that mean? I have never heard that.
Speaker 4: Without God's existence, specifically the trinitarian God of the Bible,
I couldn't have a basis for knowledge at all. So
all knowledge ultimately derives from my revealed worldview.
Speaker 2: And that's not circular.
Speaker 4: Well, it's recursive because all positions are ultimately recursive.
Speaker 37: Right, But how does that not say anybody with worldview
has an access to that same claim.
Speaker 2: I have a worldview and reason of logic as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but your position won't be able to give a
basis for reasoning and logic. It might use reason free will, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, we could go down that rabbit hole. Okay, So
we believe that we have free will?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 2: So what how is that?
Speaker 4: That's not a justification?
Speaker 2: That's a justification for a non material world. No, it's not.
Speaker 4: That's just an assertion.
Speaker 2: How is that? Do you know?
Speaker 4: The difference be with an assertion and justification?
Speaker 2: What? Yes, I'm asserting it. The justification you can't claim
you know. I guess you would say the justification is
I think therefore I am.
Speaker 4: Okay, So now Descartes is the basis for your world view.
Speaker 2: How do you know you exist?
Speaker 4: How do I know I exist? Well, again, I believe
in the Christian worldview, which is my justification for why
there's particularity, why there's universals, why there's logic, whether there's
an external world.
Speaker 2: Ditto same here.
Speaker 4: But you don't have a Christian worldview. You're not a Christian,
you're a.
Speaker 2: Cult Well, yeah, whatever you want to call me. I
believe in a worldview that allows for me to believe
that I exist.
Speaker 4: Well, that, but that's not your justification because you haven't
given me a coherent account. Let me give an example
where it's not coherent. You're telling me that the Bible
is corrupted except when Joseph Smith fixes it. Well, the
Bible teaches that there's no new prophets after the time
of the Apostles, So you're you're automatically counseled out by
the fact that you claim there's a prophet that's a misstatement.
Speaker 37: Though you're you're making assertion that the Bible doesn't make
uh no, it does.
Speaker 4: It says that in the last days He's revealed this
to us through his son Hebrews one, and it says
that the times of the prophets he revealed things in
a different way. So that text says there's no new
prophets after the time of Christ. I mean that's there's
no in this last days. He spoke to us through
his son, Jesus said that John the Baptist was the
last of the prophets. There are no new prophets. Yes
he did, Jesus, Jesus, Yes he did. He said John
was the last of the prophets.
Speaker 8: No, yes he did.
Speaker 2: What do you mean he did not say John was
the last prophet? Yes he did.
Speaker 4: What are you talking about? Jesus says, John is the
last of the prophets, and since then the Kingdom of
God has been preached. Nope, bro, So just saying nope,
wrong is your argument.
Speaker 2: You can't you can't produce that claim in the Bible.
It doesn't exist, Bro.
Speaker 4: John is the last of the prophets and since that
time the kingdom has been preached.
Speaker 2: Just you're pulling that out of a hat. That is
not the scripture.
Speaker 4: What you literally don't even know the scriptures. Of course
it's in the scripture.
Speaker 37: All the scripture doesn't exist. It said John is a
great profit. But you never said John was the last prophet.
You're you're making a lot of inferm.
Speaker 4: You're an idiot. What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: What's that?
Speaker 4: I'm pulling it out. I'm pulling it up.
Speaker 2: So let's go back to my original claim. Though.
Speaker 4: That's the point now, now that I'm going to pull
it up, you don't want to go you want to
go back to the claim.
Speaker 2: I just I don't know how long it'll take you
to pull it up. Sorry, go ahead, Jay, pull it up.
Speaker 4: The law and profits were until John said that time
the Kingdom of Heaven has been preached and everyone presses
into it. There are no more profits. You are in
a cult. Oh, hold on, Luke, sixteen sixteen. There is
no text.
Speaker 37: If you want to make fun of me because you're
losing the argument, that's fine.
Speaker 4: I just produced the text you said doesn't exist. You
produced the to it, you.
Speaker 2: Added to or took away from the scripture.
Speaker 4: You're I literally read you the text, you liar. I
read you the text you're under I literally read you
the text. Now I'm under condemnation. So because you added
to it, added, I let I literally just read you
the text.
Speaker 2: You lie, and then you added, you added a whole
sentence after it.
Speaker 4: That was my explanation, dummy, Obviously.
Speaker 2: No explanation needed. It's your that was your.
Speaker 4: Then why are you talking? Why are you talking? No
explanations needed because you added an explanation, you're making it.
Oh but no, but so but you can give an explanation.
So you're refuting your own dumb principle. I don't know
what we're You just said explanations can't be given. Now
you're giving explanations.
Speaker 2: Yea.
Speaker 4: The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time,
the Kingdom of God has preached were until John. You're
in a cult. No, no, no, no, we finally got
a Mormon. Wow, who's up next? Jeff m.
Speaker 2: Yep ye, Hey, Jay, I just had a few questions. One,
I'm I'm an aspiring to be Orthodox, and.
Speaker 4: I just I'm not doing f a q and catea
chemic qui since man I said that like ten times.
Not trying to be rid to you, but I'm not
doing that. Cassius, Hello, yep, hello, Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I got a problem.
Speaker 38: I'm an Orthodox Christian and I got a problem with
this Muslim scholar in Australia.
Speaker 2: He lives near me, and I was wondering if you
would be willing to debate him for because I don't
know who, have no idea who this is? His name
is was siem rosv.
Speaker 4: I mean, is he a known person?
Speaker 2: He's he has a large Muslim organization in Australia.
Speaker 4: I don't know. Man, Maybe you can send me his
links and I'll see if I want to debate him.
Let's see. I gotta calm down. Things are getting getting
hot and spicy, getting heated up in here. We didn't
even get into the good Mormon stuff. It was getting
too stupid. It was just gonna turn just ridiculous. By
the way, there's like multiple passages that go through the
cessation of the Office of problem. That's just one of
the texts. We could go into the Zechari thirteen. We
could go into the Book of Jude. I mean, there's
many passages that even once some are explicit, some implicit,
that there's a finality to revelation in the person of
Christ and the time of the apostles. The faith once
We're all delivered to the Saints. There's no new profits.
This immediately cuts off Muslims and Mormons. Caleb was, oh,
so is my.
Speaker 2: My quality good? Yeah?
Speaker 39: All right, yeah, I just realized like halfway through that
you're actually a Christian. So I don't have anything to debate.
But would you mind if I just like says or shit, No,
this is about what I'm just gonna like talk about
some ship to disprove.
Speaker 2: A couple of religions for the chatters.
Speaker 4: No, this is not like where you come and give
a sermon. What's up? Let's see who's next. Ms Mark.
By the way, I have a old video on the
cessation of the office of the prophet in the and
it's in the Old Testament sense like new revelations like
Mohammad and Joseph Smith. It's on my clips channel. So
if you come over here to for people who want
the full Because this came up with that Muslim girl
the other day. She was asking the same question, because
what do you mean there's no new prophit uh, And
let's see what the video is called that. I mean,
you can come on here. What's your position? So what
are you talking about? The come on you're gonna come
on here and gibber a bunch of Arabic gibberish, or
are you gonna make an argument? They actually think this
is like an argument like that, I'm not kidding. Remember
when we saw this with a post prophet, right, like
when Muhammed a. Job starts singing to Jordan Peterson. Jordan
Peterson is.
Speaker 2: Like, why do you do that?
Speaker 7: What?
Speaker 6: What's that?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 4: How do you why do you know when to do that?
Speaker 2: What is that? So? Why did you do that?
Speaker 4: And like, in the in their mind, that's an argument.
They're like, he owned he owned him. He's singing Arabic.
Speaker 6: He owned him, we owned him.
Speaker 15: Brought up.
Speaker 4: Where is the No New Revelations? I can't remember if
it's an older video or I think it's older. Yes,
go back a little bit. I want to pull this
up because it keeps coming up where people think that
there's this ongoing office of the prophet, which like because
if there's not the ongoing office of the prophet, then
that cuts out a lot of these cults right in Islam.
But I can't remember what I titled that video No
New I should I tell that something simpler? So today
today is open debate. Please do not come with all
of your catechumen questions. It's not FAQ, it's gigantic text
to the top that says debate. So this is debate day,
and if you want sports stream, you can send a
super chat. I gotta find this. I know, I know,
I made a clipse video of this moon beavers. That's
not it.
Speaker 40: Okay, it's not any of those.
Speaker 4: I just pulled it up. I thought when that Muslim
girl called in, maybe I never made a clip. I
don't know, no, because I remember it was fda Is
on the call and we we're talking. Does anybody remember
this clip?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: New, I don't know. Let's have the finest other time.
Speaker 2: W K.
Speaker 4: Please don't ask me Orthodox questions basic Orthodox questions.
Speaker 2: Hey, so I have a question that's not really like
basic simply.
Speaker 41: I hear Andrew Wilson frequently, and I've asked my you know,
priest about this, and a sentinarian and everything, and I'm
getting different answers from everybody on the using of the
Eucharis in a Roman Catholic church.
Speaker 2: Like I hear that andrews says I could go down
to a Catholic church and take communion there, but they
can't do it with us.
Speaker 41: And then I hear Roman Catholics say the same thing,
just the reverse.
Speaker 4: No, Roman Catholics cannot commune an Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Okay, but could I go to like Sacred Heart and
commune there? Yeah?
Speaker 4: But what's what what's what's the point.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to get just an answer, whether it's
you know, prohibited or not. No.
Speaker 4: I mean, Robin Catholics are are all over the place,
so yeah, I'm sure they'll let you. But the norm
in the Orthodox Church is only baptized Orthodox can commune,
and the priest says that in every liturgy. Yeah, so,
I mean it's not it's not even controversial. I'm not
trying to be rude to you, but like, that's not
even controversial. And that is a very fac question. Elijah,
Does anybody know where this video is that I'm talking about.
That's a clip of like it's from a live tream
I did where we covered this whole question of whether
there's no new there's no new revelations and new prophets
some like that. Elijah, what's up? You have to unmute, man, guys,
you gotta unmute. You have to turn your speaker on
if you want to come talk, dude, you have to
give Mike permissions so we can. There's no sound.
Speaker 2: Matt, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 12: And I'm sorry?
Speaker 2: How do you reconcile the fact that how do you
reconcile the fact that in the boiblet says and the
Gospel will be preached to the whole world, will be
preached to the whole world. And but the schism kind of.
Speaker 42: Happened before was preaching to the whole world? I mean,
surely the God he wants an orthodox coind.
Speaker 2: Of a world be to be preaching the whole world before.
Speaker 4: And Paul says the Gospels preaching every preaching and or
having a Colossians, So what do you mean?
Speaker 42: Yeah, but it's preached by a Catholic point of background.
Speaker 4: Now, oh, so you think the entire first one thousand
years of the church was Roman Catholic?
Speaker 2: No, the layer of years war, the what the later years?
Speaker 4: Okay, well, if the first thousand years weren't Roman Catholic,
then the Roman Calolic churches in the historical church.
Speaker 42: I know, but it was it was more of the
preacher not done in the later years, say, like you know,
the sixteen hundreds when they went to the Americas.
Speaker 4: I don't understand the argument.
Speaker 2: What are you saying, Sorry, I have another question.
Speaker 4: You're saying that the entire world has been preached the
Roman Catholic Gospels that you're saying.
Speaker 42: I'm not saying that it has been, but I'm saying
that I would take the majority of it has been,
rather than the Orthodox to it like THEE would.
Speaker 4: Well, but if the first thousand years of Christianity was Orthodox,
that's not true, I know.
Speaker 42: But the first thousand news of Christianity only brings you
so far. So say, when was America discovered? The America's
got the Catholic kind of introduction to Christianity.
Speaker 4: No, No, the first Christianity here might have actually been orthodox.
Speaker 42: Well, you have been taught with probably the Conquistators, which
are primarily Roman Cathelic.
Speaker 4: Well, there's evidence that there was actually Orthodoxy prior to that.
Perhaps there's certain vikings that might have come, but it
doesn't even matter because at first or whatever, Like I mean,
it's a question of what's true. It's not a question
of numbers. So this is an often Roman Catholic used
argument that it's numbers that prove things. But I mean
does that mean that arian is was true because Arianism
was the dominant number in the fourth century.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's more dominant.
Speaker 4: But what of the saying He did say that though,
because you said it's numbers.
Speaker 42: No, But what I'm getting at is in the voyebo
doesn't even say that Christianity will be preached to all
the nations.
Speaker 4: But what's the w Well yeah, but but I mean,
the Romancality Church could go away and in the next
thousand years Orthodoxy preach it to the rest of the world.
So how is that going to be a proof for
Roman Catholicism if there's I mean, that's just based on
like things we don't know in the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. That's good point.
Speaker 4: Ye here, what was your other question?
Speaker 2: I heard this on the debate and I continue to
get an answer for it.
Speaker 42: Boy and eighties said this. He said, if God is
a perfect being, and why does he even feel the
need to create?
Speaker 2: It wasn't not perfect himself.
Speaker 4: It wasn't a need. It was an overflowing of divine goodness,
which is what Saint maxim As another church father, says.
So he wanted to express even more of his goodness
by having other beings that could share in communion and
goodness with him, and so he was sufficient in terms
of the intertrinitarian life from all existence. Yes, this is
for people who disagree. So please don't bring me a
whole bunch of orthodox I f AQ questions. Don't I don't.
Don't ask me about your fasting and your all this stuff.
And I want to talk about that glove. You don't
even have your mic on. Man, You've been begging to
talk this entire time. You don't have a mic on.
Speaker 15: Eric?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 2: Eric?
Speaker 16: Hdo thank you? I have a question regarding the Bible.
There is a Jesus says that every said a man
who can I'm cast out. You meant in the name
of Jesus.
Speaker 2: So I want I want to know.
Speaker 16: Possible that we all we don't have to be about
a dis denomination.
Speaker 4: But no, because after that he says that this person
will not forever be apart from us, but he will
also be eventually with us. An Act eighteen and nineteen,
when the apostles go out, they bring the disciples that
had not heard about the Holy Spirit or had not
been christmated under the episcopacy. But good question, Dave yep.
Speaker 43: I'm sorry about I'm sorry about wasting your time last
time I came on.
Speaker 2: But a serious question.
Speaker 4: I don't remember what we're talking about, what you're talking about.
Speaker 43: I'm not orthodox, I said, I was aspiring to be.
But my question wasn't about catechumud or whatever.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 43: The question was with regard to one of your accusations
against Protestantism. Okay, how the damnation of the son logically
concludes to Nestorianism?
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 2: I was hoping you help me understand that a little bit.
Speaker 4: Well, it's just a denial of the trinity. So the
Son is a divine person, he's the second person of
the Godhead. So how could he be damned by the
Father when he shares the same will, the same nature
and the Father and the Spirit and dwell him. To
damn him would be to split the trinity. So it's
actually worse than just an historian, it's actually arian mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Okay. I I read Hermann Bavnick a little bit ago.
I think, I think, oh, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 43: And he addressed this particular objection, and I promise I'm
gonna butcher this. But he said something in regard to
the subsistence of the son.
Speaker 4: Subsistence means per so the Sun is the subsistence.
Speaker 43: So he said something with regard to like the subsistence
of the son fully present on the cross.
Speaker 2: With that.
Speaker 4: Subsistence means person, that's the same thing as the son.
So I don't know, this is just stating that he's
the second person. How does that answer this question? I
don't think he does.
Speaker 2: That's just what I read. I wasn't sure if if
it did or not.
Speaker 4: I mean it actually it proves the point because the
subject that's on the cross is the divine person of
the Sun, the second subject in the triad, the trinity. Right,
So when he says, my God, my God, why have
you forsaken me? If that's damnation, then that's the son
being damned by the father, and that's actually classical Reformation
the elogy. Okay, all right, that's okay, good questions. I'm
not trying to be rude to you, but tonight was
a lot of Uh, we've had some sass so far. Kamala,
what's up? We've got some come all up in the
Kamala Unism. Come mama, what's up coming with hers?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 2: Bro yo, it's a quick question. It's really nothing like crazy.
Let me just pull it up. I affirm your words
and stuff.
Speaker 4: It's just you affirm my words. Uh huh, your troll?
What do you want?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 2: I should I have a question. So you know, papias correct.
Speaker 4: Papias, papayas, papayas. What are you talking about? I have words.
Anybody who starts with this weird fake voice, I have
fired your words. Dude, I already know you're trolling. Shiro.
I affirm your words. Dude's name was Kamala. Come on, Shiro,
I mean a hi Hi.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Yes? So, I don't like this
is not a debate thing, but I just want to ask.
Speaker 44: I like not an agnostic, but I adopted exist of God,
and I want to know what to guarantees that exist
being in that presents and energy matter, Like why the
guarantees God?
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 4: The transondent argument?
Speaker 2: Can you give me? Yes?
Speaker 4: You can go watch all the videos on it. Stan,
what's up?
Speaker 2: Jay? Hey?
Speaker 45: I was one of the I'm on your side, but
I was wondering if this is a good argument for
if God begets God every other being they were only
able to beget the same nature, so God can't be
why would God beget a lesser nature?
Speaker 2: Being? Right?
Speaker 4: I agree?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, that's all I want of them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's a good point to make with
you know, people that would say deny the deity of
the sun or whatever, like if God's begetting then you know,
if you had an arian who said that he's begetting
a creature, well that doesn't make any sense to because
to beget presupposes the same nature. Right, that's a good point, Hans, Right,
go ahead.
Speaker 29: Hey, Jay, I just wanted to say, first of all,
thank you for putting this platform for all of us
to force our opinions.
Speaker 24: Just from a general perspective, do you believe that Jesus
wanted to.
Speaker 8: His intention was for the church to be united?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Yes, Well I actually agree with you in terms of
the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. But do you
not see that the Orthodox is Christianity.
Speaker 29: Emphasizes national churches and decentralized authority.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, and that's what you see in the
ecumenical councils.
Speaker 29: So yeah, and would you would you suggest or would
you argue that this would weaken the church's influence.
Speaker 2: Rather than I think.
Speaker 4: It's I think it's I think it's natural because Jesus said,
go out and preach the Gospel to the ethnois the nations.
Those that's who he says in the Great Commission to
go convert. When you go through the history of the
Roman Empire, that's that's the nations that convert. When they
come to the ecumenical councils, they're represented as national bishops.
You even have the Autocephalish Church of Cyprus recognize that
the Council of Ephesus. So this makes perfect sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah. True, you could argue it's natural, but is it?
Is it what Christ intended?
Speaker 4: Yeah, because it's any I mean Christ guides the ecumenical
councils absolutely.
Speaker 29: Who's the one who's the voice of the Orthodox Church?
Who's the who's the authority?
Speaker 4: Christ and Holy Schort?
Speaker 2: Okay, well, how do I how do I find out
what Christ.
Speaker 29: Wants in the Orthodox I I agree with you with
the Pope, the Pope especially.
Speaker 4: This, Well, then if you agree, then the then the
then you can't ask me a Roman Catholic presupposition about
our church. So you're basically saying, where's the person in
the Orthodox Church? Is like the pope. There isn't one,
but it's it's the institution itself is is Uh, it's decentralized.
Speaker 29: Far greater that rather than having a decentralized.
Speaker 2: Institution like Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 4: Well, that's not the Roman Catholic position because Vatican One
does not say that the Romancallic Church is a vaster church.
It puts everything on the guy in Rome.
Speaker 2: I look anyway, I just I want to thank you
and appreciate.
Speaker 4: I appreciate. Yeah, good questions. Yeah, I'm not not trying
to be combative. I'm just.
Speaker 2: To me.
Speaker 4: It seems like the questions presupposed, you know, like, well,
where's your Roman Catholic papal figure in your joy? We
don't want that, we don't need that. Hayes, what's up?
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think for Roman Catholics it's just like it's inconceivable.
They have a hard time believing that God could be
fully present in the local church, which is the Orthodox view.
I mean, Catholicity for us is not one guy over
in Rome or one place over in Rome, which doesn't
even make sense in terms of the Roman Catholic idea
of Catholicity. Catholicity is the fullness of the faith at
every local church. So there's no super bishop in Rome.
He doesn't have super sacraments and supergrace that the local
church doesn't have, and that blows the mind of Roman Catholics.
Got dropped off. Okay, I'm not taking orthodox FAQs. Please
don't ask me orthodox FAQ's, and I'm not going to
go back to people who are trolling. What's up Russian name?
Speaker 2: Hey, j can you hear me?
Speaker 46: I'm an author of Christian from the MOULDI station. Firstly,
I'd like to thank you for your work, and I
have a rather quick question regarding Islam. What is his
stand stands regarding the existence of Muhammad. Do you think
he was a pagan, northy, heretical or he didn't exist
at all?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I have not looked into this question that people have
been posing lately about his total non existence, so I
mean there could be something to that. So far, I've
just been operating under the assumption that he was a
pagan gnostic in Nestorian person. Gabriel, he's here to debate Christians.
Speaker 47: Jibril, Hello, yep, hey, hello Jamon. I am Muslim and
I have a questions. I know you make it this
sinction between nature and personhood. But my question is that
wouldn't you even if you distinguish the three persons you
used to be polytheistic?
Speaker 4: So says two, I mean, are the Asharis polytheistic or
the Salafi polytistic?
Speaker 2: Well, I just think that if you have three and
you as you're describing.
Speaker 4: Okay, well what about seven? What about ninety nine?
Speaker 2: That's this?
Speaker 47: Doesn't I don't know what this has to do with
your justification for the your.
Speaker 4: Position, because you have the same issue in Islam?
Speaker 2: So what do you mean, No, we don't we believe
in one God?
Speaker 4: What about the Asharis and the Autharis and the Salafis
and all the debates over the uncreated Kuran and the
seven attributes and the real distinctions?
Speaker 2: Okay, look I'm not here. Okay.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah. So in other words, I don't want to
deal with any problems in Islam. I only want to
act like those problems in the Trinity.
Speaker 2: I can no, I can argue against this, but you're
not making like you're not. Okay, let me tell you.
Speaker 4: Look, okay.
Speaker 2: To this of forgive me. Okay, so you believe, but
how does it look? Should I agree that there's debate
between in Islam.
Speaker 4: No, I'm not even pointing out that there's Look, there's
debate a much Christians.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 4: The argument is not that there's a debate. The argument
is that in your own position you have to account
for unity and multiplicity in a law. And so you're
just out of hands saying that my position is false
because of any multiplicity in God. So why do you
get a free pass on the shin and the right
hand and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, because that's like morphic language.
Speaker 4: That's not what we don't it says too, because even
the Asharis who say that that's anthropomorphic language also believe
that there's a real distinction between the attributes.
Speaker 2: Do you do you have fun bullying?
Speaker 4: Like I'm trying to bullying you. I literally brought up
your aky to and you call that bullying. Don't play
the victim. You came here to debate, and you gotta
play victim. You guys are ridiculous. I have good contention, Okay,
I can prove to you. The Bible's cut upt. Yeah,
that script doesn't work when you come over here, dude,
Jennifer plays a victim. I'm here to debate. He says
his profile says here to debate Christians and Jews. He
comes on, plays victim and says, I'm bullying him. Give
me a break, dude, When he knows good and well,
it's a very It's a totally fair question of why
do I have to assume that multiplicity in my position
is some form of polytheism. But when you talk about
an uncreated Koran next to Allah, when you talk about
attributes of a law super added to his essence, if
you're in a Shari like then oh, that's a free
pass bullying me.
Speaker 48: Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Yep?
Speaker 48: Hey, So I am a Protestant. I hold to a
pre millennial view, and I wanted to ask you because
I know you don't about release in twenty verse three,
where Satan is taking to the bottomless pit and sealed
so that he should deceive the nations no more. If
the millennium is not a future event, what does it
mean that Satan is sealed that he can no longer
deceive nations?
Speaker 4: It's an ongoing, present reality because the millennium is identified
as the kingdom, and the kingdom is what Jesus set
up at his first advent. That's why this's not a
literal thousand year millennium anymore than God only owns the
cattle on one thousand hills and not the cattle on
the thousand and one hill.
Speaker 48: So I guess that would be assuming that the millennium
is like the start of the kingdom. In my view,
the kingdom started of course at the ascension, and then
the millennium is just a physical representation of that already.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that physical representation is the Church because it says
that it says that the first resurrection is those who
are brought into that. That first resurrection is what Jesus
talks about in John five when he says that you're
raised in the spirit, and then there's bodily resurrects. So
the first resurrection is baptism, is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, it makes sense.
Speaker 16: Do you mean if I ask another question?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 16: In the.
Speaker 33: It's called the Christmas Victor model.
Speaker 4: For Orthodox that's the closest approximation to what we would
say to a Protestant minded person. But there's much more
than that, because, for example, a Lutheran might be believing
christas Victor, but he believes that Christ was damned by
the Father or something that we don't believe any of
that nonsense for us christas victory, for us christas Victor
includes that he descended into Hades and is resurrected, and
and it sins to restore all human nature in the
entire universe. So there's a cosmic scope to it. There's
a heroin of Hades, and none of that is in
any Protestantism.
Speaker 49: Okay, So I guess why would he have to take
on human nature and experience death in order to defeat death?
Speaker 4: Because death is an angel, it's a demon, and it's
a kingdom known as Hades. And so when Adam decided
to leave God, he sort of covenanted with Satan and
became a member of Satan's kingdom. And so when he dies,
he goes down into Hades, which the Bible describes in many,
many passages throughout the Old Testament. Jesus then came, as
the New Testament says, to have the keys of death
and Hades to destroy that whole realm, in that whole kingdom.
Speaker 48: Okay, And so would that it had to be the
physical act of death in order to break the covenant
and take the keys from that.
Speaker 4: Well, it's when Adam sinned, it affected him spiritually and physically,
so the restoration required something spiritual and physical, hence the incarnation.
Speaker 2: Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 48: Yeah, that's all I got for a day at I've
been looking into Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: Thanks to you so taking up absolutely, Thank you, Jennifer.
Appreciate those questions. Those are good questions. Yeah. I remember
working through primasm myself a long time ago. So I
understand where you're at a baris.
Speaker 2: Uh hello, hey, hey, I So I had a question.
I don't want to misrepresent you anything, but.
Speaker 50: Do you believe that like in the literal story about
them an eve like in the garden, and then it's
not like.
Speaker 2: Not hypercal but.
Speaker 4: Theoretical or metaphorical agorical. Yes, I believe it's literal.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you you. Oh, I see. How do you
rectify things like.
Speaker 50: Like Neanderthal evidence of us having not I'm not I don't.
Speaker 2: Really want to.
Speaker 4: I don't believe in evidence because multiple examples have been
exposed to be notorious frauds.
Speaker 2: Can you name a few?
Speaker 4: Pelt down man, Nebraska man, right right?
Speaker 50: Do you are you familiar with the genetic evidence that
we have for Denis Evans, Neanderthals, and modern day populations
mostly focused in Southeast Asia, South America and Europe exclusively.
Speaker 4: How would genetic evidence prove uh, Neanderthals in Southeast Asia?
Speaker 50: Well, Neanderthal, it would Neanderthals in in Western Europe?
Speaker 4: But okay, would prove how a genetic How a genetic
information which is like uh, you know, code and information
for the human species or the animal species. How that proved? Cavemen?
Speaker 50: Well, I don't necessarily use the term cave man, but
it does. It does paint a picture that there is
separation in genetics. I mean, we obviously today everybody looks
the same.
Speaker 9: We've we've a.
Speaker 4: Lot of differents, a lot of different models could explain
why people look different. How does that prove? Gotic cavemen?
Speaker 2: Can you? Can you list a model that explains why
people look different?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Creation?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 50: Well, I mean to start off, I mean I am
a Christian, but I don't believe that science and and
the creation stories have to be mutually exclusive. I believe
that God the evolution can be guided by divine hand.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you would be ultimately a heretic because of
Roman's eight, which says that death in all forms enters
in through the sin of Adam. So how is there
millions of years of dead cavemen before Adam?
Speaker 51: Well, see, that's my biggest she was that if let's say, hypothetically,
if Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens, then
what would that say about man or tas before them
or an ad mixture?
Speaker 2: Did they not have a soul?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, let me, let's just put it this way.
Does Jesus talk in the Gospels as if Adam and
Eve were historical people?
Speaker 15: Yes, sir, there you go.
Speaker 4: So what does that tell you?
Speaker 50: Well, I mean, I I think that some things can
be out of oracle and they don't necessarily like.
Speaker 4: All right, So yeah, so Jesus apparently wasn't aware of
the allegories. And you know better than Jesus. But you
just you just said that he was not allegorizing because
he said that they were historical people.
Speaker 2: You just said that, yes, sir, But I think that
I don't. I don't believe that it has to be.
I think if I were to.
Speaker 4: Tell a just be honest, Jesus, just be honest, Jesus
is wrong. Is that your position?
Speaker 2: No, sir, I don't believe he's wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, but you just said, you just said that they're
not historical people, and Jesus said they were.
Speaker 50: Well, let's say, let's say hypothetically that Jesus was speaking
allegorical but didn't include.
Speaker 2: That or didn't tell people that that. He didn't really
have a way of going about explaining.
Speaker 4: Okay, and Denise Evans, do you think do you think
Romans eight is hypothetical? And Paul says that death entered
through Adam? All right, excuse me as aligorical.
Speaker 50: No, but I also think that they could that could
be true even with an evolutionary model.
Speaker 4: If we So, if death enters through Adam, then how
is it allegorically the case in the evolutionary theistic model.
Speaker 2: Ends on what you would consider Adam.
Speaker 52: I suppose.
Speaker 4: But what I'm asking is in that in in Romans,
Paul is clearly talking about Adam, the first Adam, the
guy in Genesis who introduced his death. And then he
says that Christ is the second atom. So is Christ's
position as the second atom also an allegory? So now
you're well that yes, so Christology goes down down the tube. Shane,
what's up? Conkf be sure to call in. Hey, what's up?
Speaker 2: Man's good to go? Cool.
Speaker 53: So I've got an argument that I just heard from
Jimmy Aikin a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2: I didn't. I didn't know if you've heard it or not.
Speaker 4: The same Jimmy Aikin who says that Arius and the
Storious we're not heretics.
Speaker 2: Maybe, but did you know he says that, No, I didn't.
I'd have to check that out. What what did you say?
He said?
Speaker 4: He says, Arius and Thestorius we're not heretics.
Speaker 2: Arius and the stories. I have to I have to
look into that.
Speaker 53: But no, this is in regards to the premiacy of Peter.
So from my understanding, you know, the Orthodox Church of
firms that there was a you know, a premisey to
the Patriot Office. And Jimmy Aikin kind of makes an
argument when it comes to defending the papacy that basically goes,
you know, who is more likely to misunderstand the function
of something, the person who possesses it or the people
who did not.
Speaker 4: And this is a dumb argument. Like so, in other words,
we have to listen to you guys, even if you
contradict or appear to contradict because you have the office.
But that's the thing in question. So the question is
not primacy of Peter, but what does it mean?
Speaker 2: Right exactly? And that's what I mean.
Speaker 53: His argument is basically, who's more likely to misunderstand what
it means? You know, whoever possesses it or whoever doesn't.
Speaker 4: But the thing in question is what is the meaning
of what you possess? Not do you possess it? So
this is trading on an ambiguity of terminology, right well, I.
Speaker 53: Think even if you accept, you know, this like to
take out the Vatican one understanding and I understand you
can't do that to the full extent, but I just
mean just for those so you can't do that at all?
Speaker 4: What do you mean? Right well?
Speaker 53: I'm saying, like, if we just assume this premiscy, like,
let's say we accept the Orthodox view of you know
what the premiacy of Peter is?
Speaker 2: You know, I think you could apply.
Speaker 9: It to that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
But do you are you aware of the Chiad document,
the Alexandria document. No, okay, how come? I'm not trying
to be rude to you, like Roman Catholics have not
read their own documents. I don't understanding because these documents
say that the Orthodox are basically correct and that it
evolved and that the Roman bishop didn't have your universal
jurisdiction in the first millennium. That's a Chad paragraph nineteen.
I got it on the screen right right, Because so
how is Roman how's Vatican one trip? That's trip?
Speaker 53: Well, I mean that's where you know, doctrinal and development
comes into play.
Speaker 4: And I know, well, but the Vatican One, the Vatican
One says that it was always the case. So how
is it now a development?
Speaker 53: Well, from my understanding, and you know, I don't have
the text in front of me, and I'm definitely not
an expert, but from my understanding, the Vatican One understanding
is that there is you know, this development.
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
Speaker 4: It doesn't you know. It says that it was always
understood from the earliest days that that Peter had this role.
Does not say anything about development. Development is what Newman
said To try to defend it to the people who said,
what about all the counter examples in the first thousand years?
Newman says that, yeah, it's the thing that it's a
seed that develops into a tree. Yeah, okay, so it
can't be it can't be something that was always there,
clear and present, as Vatican won in the other thirteen say,
and something that was not clear and developed. Those are
mutually exclusive claims.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And by the way, the I mean again eighty and
Alexandria document from the Vatican admitted developed.
Speaker 2: Right. But I'm sure there's a I'm sure there's a
Catholic understanding.
Speaker 45: You know.
Speaker 4: The Catholic understanding is that I don't care what she
Ate and Alexander say because they're not infallible and not
binding because anytimes it's been a problem, it's not binding.
Speaker 2: Right. But getting back to the question, or do you
think you know it's just not a legitimate.
Speaker 4: It's a it's trading on ambiguity. So the it's like
using ambiguity in terms to get you to admit that, well,
if there was a premiacy, therefore only Rome would have
perfectly understood it. So it's a classic car salesman bait
and switch pitch from the Roman Catholics. Uh, cost you,
I'm not doing FAQs, but good question, appreciate it. So
the Roman Catholics have been very civil tonight. I enjoy
that's been enjoyable. They've been the most enjoyable tonight. The
Muslims and the Mormons and the everybody's been crazy. Cost you.
Speaker 2: Hello, OJ, how do you do?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 2: Man? What's up? I got a question about TAG.
Speaker 31: Let's say that I just give up any idea about
you know, order in the universe.
Speaker 2: I don't need TAG to justify it. Therefore, and I
just based my worldview on observation and statistics. You know,
the statistics prevent against TAG.
Speaker 4: Statistics would presuppose order, so that wouldn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: Hm hmm. I see what you're saying. I figured you
were going to say that.
Speaker 39: But I feel like statistics, okay, they use numbers, but
they're also.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's the argument.
Speaker 4: I guess like, yeah, statistics requires numbers.
Speaker 2: You can have numbers without order.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean order in the universe is necessary to
have these invariant, immaterial concepts or principles like the number seven,
the number ten.
Speaker 7: Ye.
Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't saying it's without immaterial. I
mean conceptual concepts might in the human mind.
Speaker 4: Well, something conceptual by definition is abstract, is not material,
So if you want to say that concepts are matter,
that's even worse position.
Speaker 41: No, No, I'm saying there may be immaterial things in
an unordered, grandom universe.
Speaker 4: Well, then you wouldn't be able to make sentences, because
sentences require a universe where you can predicate and give
meaning to objects. That there's a law of identity. How
is the law of identity possible if there's no order
in the universe.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, yeah, good points.
Speaker 4: Yeah, linguistic Linguistic philosophy, I'm saying presupposes the ability to predicate,
on the basis of the law of identity, that you
can pick out one object as distinct from other objects.
John Helvin's words, Here we go.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Jay? Yep, my man, my man. Okay.
Speaker 54: One of my friends recently has been turning towards Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: God bless his soul. Shout out to Chris, God bless him.
Speaker 54: But he shot me a picture of the Catechumen it
and sort of if there are any heresies that one holds,
they need to be renounced, denounce whatever you may say
about it. And I saw total depravity is up there,
and I find myself to be in the reformed tradition,
and I've been looking at total depravity a lot, so
I wanted to hear from your perspective why it is
that total depravity is a heresy and then sort of
give you a little pushback if I can not too
affirm necessary in my case, but I do want.
Speaker 2: To hear what you have to say.
Speaker 4: Well, it's heresy from the outset, because typically Calvinists or whoever,
or when they try to explain this, they end up
saying that nature is someone inherently evil. God's the creator
of everything that exists, and he can't create evil. In fact,
Scripture says he's not the author of evil. So are
you a Manichean do you think that God creates evil things?
Or are you a Christian? And that everything that he
created in Genesis one is good?
Speaker 2: Absolutely believe that everything that he created is good. I
believe absolutely everything he created is good.
Speaker 4: Okay, so then your nature, your nature can't be evil.
Speaker 54: Yeah, I believe that your nature cannot be evil. However,
the both of us would I think to come to
some sort of agreement, Probably not in terms.
Speaker 2: Of linguistics, but in terms of when Adam and Eve
ate the fruit.
Speaker 54: God said that the day you eat it, you shall
surely die.
Speaker 4: Yeah, spiritual death. That doesn't mean that doesn't mean that
their human nature.
Speaker 54: I'm not going with I'm not trying to necessarily say
hold a totally property view, but I'm just simply trying
to investigate, how does etern orthodoxy under stay in that
death and what does it do? What are the what
are the ramifications?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, so it means the loss of divine life,
the life of the Holy Spirit. So the uncreated grace
of God is lost in Adam's fall, and Adam is
reduced to a mortal state. So he's mortal, but his
nature is still good, So he still has human will,
he still has human nature, human energy, all of those
things that we call faculties of human nature. And so
when Christ assumes human nature, that's what he assumes in
order to heal it, to resurrect it, to deify it.
So it's never the case that the nature itself becomes evil,
or that he's always sinning, or that there's such a
thing as a state of sin. All of those are
Calvinist Lutheran type positions which are patently false.
Speaker 2: All right, now, let me ask a weird question. But
so if it's perhaps for any reason, I.
Speaker 54: Don't I don't know how to I don't know how
to phrase this because I've been I've been hetruggling recently
with the fact that Calvin didn't hold to the l
Most Calvinists in general do not hold. They don't sound
like Calvin when he speaks about the atonement. Calvin's language
is very universal because one cannot hold to a true perseverance,
or one cannot hold that your salvation would.
Speaker 2: Truly be secure if you do not believe that.
Speaker 54: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world.
So Calvin holds that without any debate, and in fact
he says with with with a lot of fervor, when
you look at the predestination, what is it? The eternal
predestination of God? I think that's the name of the book.
Speaker 55: He says there when he's when he's debating with Georgia's
that he says that there are some there are some
people who say that, yes, Jesus died for the sins.
Speaker 2: Let me rephrase that.
Speaker 4: Look, I'm not trying. I'm not trying to. I'm not
We don't have the time right now to go through
all the Tulip. I've got multiple talks where I walk
through all of Calvinism.
Speaker 56: Uh.
Speaker 4: You can go to the talk that I did with
Cootel Church of the Eternal Logos and I go through
all of Tulip. You can go to my clips channel
and I have two talks going all the way through Tulip.
I don't have the time right now to go through
all of Tulip, but those talks will answer in detail, Uh,
the issues that you have today. I appreciate the question.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, but just
can't do the whole calvin debate right now. Knocta, what's up?
Knockta gonna, I'm mute, I'm mute.
Speaker 2: I'm here. My apologies for that. Always looking for the microphone,
the browser.
Speaker 4: It's all good.
Speaker 2: What's up, man, It's a nice being here.
Speaker 38: I've been listening to you for a couple of months,
to Sam watching a light you two. I'm born and
raised Protestant. I'm leaving Porto Rico. So the knowledge or
how the Gospel and the work got here to my
knowledge was around the nineties sixteen or nineteen hundred and sixteen,
when that I was a wave of.
Speaker 2: The Word of God. And I'm sorry for my English,
I'm not too well spoken on that.
Speaker 38: But basically i've been or I was because I was
out of the church for like eight nine years.
Speaker 2: I came back looking for knowledge.
Speaker 38: The true root of what is following Christ, and I've
been closer to orthodoxy. Actually, I'm gonna ask a simple question. Basically,
with everything that I went through, I sing things in
Protestant churches, God working through it, I live freeing people
of diseases, demons, and all that I've been seen in.
Speaker 2: Life of people improved through this is i'd say, way
of saying that Jesus Christ die for us. And basically
the whole idea is the same.
Speaker 38: We split up on incorrect me if I'm wrong, traditions
and how from the bottom up it goes, but the
idea is the same. So if I'm seeing all of
that God working through people through my mom, if I'm
gonna and everything of that, how can I put those
two things together?
Speaker 4: I mean, I appreciate the question. I mean there's no
I mean, everybody could say that God is working through
people and God is doing things for people. But obviously,
since everyone can say that that can't be the thing
that shows us which is the true church, because everybody
will claim that or everybody will say that. So the
only way to solve this is to actually go into
the theological differences and historical differences. Journalist, you got an
immute journalist, Connor, do you want to talk?
Speaker 2: You have to?
Speaker 8: I mute.
Speaker 4: I dropped off cunt opinions. I feel like I'm setting
myself up by going to cunt opinions for a troll,
So I'm guilty if I get trolled. Go ahead, I mute.
You have to ummute. Why are you raising your hand.
Speaker 2: Speaking to Meg?
Speaker 12: Yep, sort of literally just joined us to be like
seven seconds ago.
Speaker 4: Okay, what's on your mind?
Speaker 12: I shoined it because it's is to be Aslam, Atheism, controlimus,
take one, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Sure, what's on your man?
Speaker 2: That's all I mean is.
Speaker 12: I canolstate Christianity Prosonism. It's on the same religion. It
says a lot of hatred between each of those religions.
Speaker 2: And I'm just wondering if they anybody.
Speaker 12: Sees the differences within these religions and how silly they are.
It's Hadden of hatred that has caused between each of
their religions.
Speaker 4: So they're wrong because members of the religions hate each other.
Speaker 2: No, not wrong, not wrong, not at all.
Speaker 4: You said they're silly.
Speaker 2: No, So I live anyway, it's coast to Scotland.
Speaker 4: I'm not there. What you're saying? Yah rah ex ephens, exophens.
I'm mute, m hm axophans. You have to unmute if
you wanna talk. M David with a T. David, Hey,
can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Jack? Uh huh, Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 52: So my question is, so I am Oriental Orthodox and
I just want to get your opinion on the Oriental
Church on the north of orthodox side, and why do
you think the Calcidonian approach is true Orthodoxy given the
historical context of the church, So when the council was happening,
for example, historical fact.
Speaker 4: I've done many streams with David Arhun on this. You
go watch those streams. Do you want to get a
precise thing? We're not gonna go to all the history.
That's impossible. So what's given?
Speaker 31: Not the history?
Speaker 4: I just do you just said historical context?
Speaker 52: What do you mean I'm saying the Orientals were not
even invited to the Caltidonian Council.
Speaker 4: So the Fifth Council is the council that's that's crucial here,
cract for fifty one. No, the Fifth Council, that's the
key council, that's the one where the tempted reconciliation with
you guys is.
Speaker 52: Okay, So you're saying the Orientals did not accept and
they're not true Orthodox for that reason, some did?
Speaker 4: Which ones all the ones that agreed to the Justinian
reconciliation and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Because even today many
of your guys admit that the Fifth Council teaches the
correct view of the hypostasis and the subject of Christ.
But the point of departure tends to be what are
we going to do with the question of people like severuss.
So most of you guys, as far as I'm aware,
tend to say that we agree in the way that
the Fifth Council presents kurelling Christology.
Speaker 2: And do you think the physicists churches are not true Orthodox?
Speaker 4: Well, like I'm saying, like we are not in communion,
But you guys agree that the Fifth Council presents it correctly.
So the issue becomes the people like severus. But no,
we are not in communion, so we don't consider.
Speaker 2: Your orthodox Okay, appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, good questions. I mean I've got longer We've got
longer streams with David Orhan and all that. If you
want to go check those out, Uh exists exta Fins.
You want to try again, it's open for him. If
you want to call in uh, you can do so
through the call in uh Twitter space right here. I'm
gonna have to go T T and little girls room
here in a minute. But I'm still I'm still here.
I'm still staying. No, no exa Fins. We have to
um you.
Speaker 2: Hello, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 11: So?
Speaker 4: I have a quick question.
Speaker 47: What's the proper response to the platonic youth for the lemma?
Speaker 2: Is it like a first lemma?
Speaker 57: Or is it?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a false dilemment. We've covered that a lot
in the old old live streams. I'm sorry, I just
have the energy to go through all that. Do you
want to try again and not sing at me? Do
you want to make an argument? Or you gonna sing
Arabic at me?
Speaker 58: Hello?
Speaker 2: Everybody? I tried to speak Arabic earlier. I'm just trying
to bring up Palestine into the debat, but.
Speaker 4: Has nothing to do with the topics.
Speaker 2: I guess Arabic was it wasn't invented back.
Speaker 8: Eric.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're cutting out man, people in the chat bitching.
I make I make jokes. Dude, if you can't handle it,
don't come on? Where do you make fun of his voice?
Speaker 44: You mean?
Speaker 4: Go ahead, just a question if you're there.
Speaker 2: The attribute of God? Is it God in itself?
Speaker 4: The Orthodox view their energies, So they're not his essence,
they're his actions, but.
Speaker 34: It is it is God?
Speaker 4: Or is it God is fully present in his actions? Yes,
so they're not different than God.
Speaker 2: But that is That is the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 34: What about Islamic perspective on that?
Speaker 4: They've got all kinds of schools about the relationship of
all that to his attributes sit they have all kinds
of schools and positions. So it depends on whether you're
talking to AUTHORI a Shari Muturidi. They're all over the place. Sorry,
you're you're cutting out, man, I can't you there's no uh,
not a good signal here? Say that?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 4: I'm mute? You don't have to while you're raising your hand.
Speaker 7: Yeah, okay, what I'm a own language figure.
Speaker 4: So are you calling from a toilet? What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 2: Oh no, this is my figure. Can you give me better?
Or should I shut down?
Speaker 4: Are you calling me from six feet under the grave?
What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 4: I can't hear you?
Speaker 2: Great? Great, the grave?
Speaker 15: Yeah, they took this down from here.
Speaker 4: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 16: Can you get him better?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir? What's on your mind?
Speaker 7: All right?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 7: What's on my mind? That's an injuring space.
Speaker 59: I see Islam, Athis, Catholic, Protestantsagnostic, Mormons.
Speaker 7: I don't see scientos.
Speaker 4: Well, there's there's limits, there's limited spaces up there.
Speaker 59: So okay, well I'm independent though I have no affiliation
with the fucking church.
Speaker 7: So I want you to take part in the discussion.
Speaker 2: Some people are laughing. I like that.
Speaker 59: As as an independent, as an India. Okay, if I
can fat, if.
Speaker 7: I can fit. As I understand.
Speaker 59: The space is about, you know, cosmic stuff and the
religions like that.
Speaker 4: It is about all of this bullshet bro. Yes, what
is on your mind? What does your buh?
Speaker 7: Why are you talking like in Pakistani.
Speaker 4: I am trying to talk to you to vibe with
your brother.
Speaker 7: Oh no, my is my accent so Pakistan?
Speaker 4: Okay, bro, I don't you were from India, not Pakistan by.
Speaker 2: India, right right?
Speaker 7: Okay, I'm trying to do the American accent being a Greek.
Speaker 4: And I am trying to talk to you in your
own native tongue.
Speaker 15: Yes, okay, they took the stones from here.
Speaker 7: Well my tongue, My tongue is an ancient tongue.
Speaker 2: My friend is a Greek tongue. It told the world.
Speaker 59: But now I'm intervening here. Maybe maybe your listeners.
Speaker 4: Are are you Greek or are you Pakistani or Indian?
Speaker 2: Greek? Oh? Greek?
Speaker 7: I'm Greek, full full bloody Greek.
Speaker 4: Well will you sound a straight up Hindu over here?
Speaker 27: Yeah?
Speaker 59: Okay, Well I wanted to intervene and interject like a
little bit of scientology or has got.
Speaker 4: A patrolling there? No way, you're a Greek scientologist?
Speaker 2: Come on, yes, yes I am.
Speaker 54: I am.
Speaker 4: Wait a minute, so all the religions are bullshit, but
like space staatee and alien ship is real?
Speaker 2: Come on, Oh, you.
Speaker 4: You're trolling to get that is the most Indian Greek, dude,
I've ever heard in my life. Noah, everyone hubberd doers
did grouse from me?
Speaker 8: Are you from Greece?
Speaker 2: Brother?
Speaker 4: They took their stones from here? Noah, I'm you?
Speaker 2: Can you mean awesome? I just have a question. I
was wondering because.
Speaker 18: I've been getting into trying to study ecclesiology across the
denominational lines.
Speaker 2: A little bit would last little while.
Speaker 31: How does the what is the Orthodox conception of the church,
and how does that relate to its claim to being one?
Speaker 4: Okay, so I said multiple times, I'm not doing f
a q tonight. Tonight is debate. So what do you
mean the Orthodox Church is to claim to be the
one Church? Not trying to be rude, just saying its
claim is that it's the one true church. It's not
faq tonight. So if you're calling in to be faq,
please don't do it. Valantine Claudi, you.
Speaker 57: Hi, Jacob bless your brother's I'm going to lease the
rth bus and I had to pay with a growman
Catholic and you're very knowledge bog the boys think so.
He said that in the first dozen years the church,
nobody called the Church Orthodox.
Speaker 2: It was always Catholic and the name comes after kiss.
What's your argument against it?
Speaker 4: The stupidest argument I've heard in about two years, because
the name itself does not tell you that it's the
papist church. I mean, that's so stupid. Like we call
it the Orthodox Catholic Church. The idea that because the
church fathers called it the Catholic Church, that that means
papacy is literally like get some new friends. That's all
I gotta say on no one, Dave, what's up? Dave?
For having fun tonight open forum debate. Please don't ask
me the FAQ's and the catechumen questions. That's not what
we're doing tonight. I want more Greek Hindu scientologists, That's
what I want.
Speaker 43: Hey, last question, when you did your debate with Trent Horne,
and he asked the question of.
Speaker 2: Was there any kind of y'all's debate on natural theology?
When was there any ecumenical council that condemned.
Speaker 43: Natural theology or the tomistic idea of natural theology?
Speaker 4: And you, if I remember.
Speaker 2: Correctly, you said the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Speaker 4: I said, my extension, the idea would be condemned. Obviously
it's not going to condemn Thomas Aquinas since its centuries
before his existence. But yeah, the reason I said that
is that the iconographic theology of the Church would implicitly
be a rejection of the idea that nature can be
understood without reference to divine revelation through pure reasoning and
all this kind of nonsense, because for us, nature and
the creative world is that they often it's a christophany,
and that's foreign to the mind of the Roman cals.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Obviously, I wasn't saying.
I'm not saying you're saying this, but some Roman calliy.
Speaker 8: Oh he's so, he's so stupid.
Speaker 4: He thinks that they condemned to Thomas Glory existed. No, bro,
get out of here. We're trying to bring great Orthodox scientology.
Come on, man, Richard Bruno, Jordano Bruno, what's up? Yep? Richard?
Speaker 2: Oh as you do? Hey, I just have a question
about evolution, and I know you don't even evolution.
Speaker 60: And I saw this argument that you were having with
this lady and she was talking about the archaeological evidence.
But why didn't you accept that? I understand that she
was like quoting some scholars that she didn't understand. She
didn't she wasn't able to recall them. But why is
it that that wasn't a good argument.
Speaker 4: I don't even remember what you're referring to. But can
you rephrase like what she was saying or kind of
rehearse like what what it was? I mean, it's not
a good argument, by the way, too. I mean my
first thought was she was probably just citing scholars, and
I'm like, why is that? Why am I supposed to
just accept random scholars or academics. I'm very skeptical about
academics and claims of any academics because I've been in
the world of academia. I know what it's like. And
by the way, if you think I'm an idiot, that
also disproves academia because I'm actually a peer review published
in academia, so that that itself disproves peer review.
Speaker 2: I see. Okay, yeah, I mean that's basically what it was. Yeah,
that she would bring up scholars.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, then I'll cite all the scholars who disagree,
So now what.
Speaker 2: That's a good point actually, Okay.
Speaker 4: Wow, so scholars are like, you know that they can be.
It's kind of like a courtroom if you think about
a courtroom, and you know in the courtroom they'll bring
in expert witnesses or expert testimony, and then the expert
comes in and says, it is my expert opinion that
Jeffrey Dahmer had to have conducted these murders because of
the genetic evidence and because of his profile. And then
the jury says, this is an expert, and he gives
a good testimony as to why it must be the case. Now,
does that necessarily prove that he did it on its own?
Not necessarily, so it's an evidence, but strict analytic or
logical or whatever proof. No one scholar's attestation to something
in this domain unless it's something that's about like an
actual argument or proof that's like logical that could That's
like the only time I can think we're an expert
is right when it's like an expert math argument and
the expert shows that his argument is objectively the case. Okay,
and that's in that case, but it's not true because
it's from an expert. That's the fells this authority fil
appealed authority fallacy. So testimony of experts can be evidences,
they can be attestations, but they're not proofs. But you
got so many low tier atheist people or Reddit people
remember t Jump, Remember when we were debating. He's like, well,
the majority of the science men say this, so it's true.
And I'm like, you actually think that it's true because
the majority of science, Like he'd say, yes, that's what
makes something true. That's so stupid these you are. It's cult.
If you have a disagreement, that's what we're doing tonight. Disagreements.
Please don't ask me the FAQ's.
Speaker 12: Hello, yop, Sorry, that might be.
Speaker 2: A ridiculous question, might not be worth your time.
Speaker 61: But because it might seem a little eye but I've
been trying to do a lot of research on what
the Church fathers thought on the biblical canon, and something
a lot of Protestants point to is Letter thirty nine
or from Saint Affinatius, where interestingly enough is canon is
closer to the Protestant with the.
Speaker 4: Exception that's well, that's the New Testament, and he's got
Old Testament books that are not the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you just don't explain.
Speaker 61: So he lists the Old Testament canon first, and then
he lists the New Testament, and then interestingly enough, at
the end he lists some of the Jutero canonical books.
But what I find particularly strange is I don't know
why he puts the Judo can in a separate section
when he cites them all throughout his works.
Speaker 4: I don't quite get that, because oftentimes it's been classed
as second canon, so works that are not as important,
and even the Orthodox Church like Roman Catholics and people,
they love to cite the Catechism of Metropolitan Filaret because
when he lists the canon, he lists what is the
non deuterocanonical list, and then like two questions down he says,
and we also hold to the dudocanonical books. So they've
always been classed as second canon. But that doesn't mean
that they're not part of the canon, because they're a
separate class. So it's just's like a Protestant thing where
they do this. But by the way, like, if you're
a Protestant, why are we supposed to follow Anthonatius like
says who.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind?
Speaker 61: On top of that, and as a protest of myself,
I got to be honest with you, this ain't a
fun thing to admit.
Speaker 2: But another one they go to is sinks Thrill of Jerusalem.
Speaker 61: But if they actually read the whole passage, he doesn't
include Revelation.
Speaker 4: I don't, yeah, exactly, because there's hotly disputed books that
take a long time centuries for the church all over
to except so obviously the church is not operating on
solid scriptura for those centuries. James White admits that the
Church wasn't operating on solo scripture in those centuries and
his debate with Trent Horne, so thank you exactly. So
therefore solo scriptura is not the ancient church's position.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's just one last thing.
Speaker 61: Sorry, It's just that I was reading some Saint Augustin.
Speaker 2: And my account might be off.
Speaker 61: But in the City of God, I think he quotes
the Dudo of Canon roughly forty eight comes and again,
like you know, reform to Bros and Lutherans, they love
aughust him, but they don't like his canon. And I
just think that's kind of arbitrary, like how did you
get original Sin right and the Trinity right?
Speaker 2: But he got the canon wrong?
Speaker 4: Well again, in the Protestant position, it's completely arbitrary as
to why we're supposed to pick this or that church
father's canon. And if you're a consistent Protestant or a
Classical Reformation Protestant, all those people don't have the Gospel
anyway because they taught salvation by works and they didn't
believe been sola fe day. So why are we listening
to all these heretics about where the cannon comes from?
It's just all the whole position is stupid. But thank
you for the questions. I appreciate that, and I plugged
your investigation on those topics. It's open debate. So it
looks like we've whittled down to three people who always
ask theological questions. I'm not mad, I'm not fussing at
you guys, but tonight is for people who disagree. And
no matter how many times I say that, you guys
will then ask me a orthodox I f AQ question.
Does anybody disagree? You go to the head of the line.
It's only been three hours. I thought that this prominent
Roman Catholic dy was gonna come where's he Let's see
if he replied he said, I'll pop in three hours ago,
I'm gonna tell him to come hurry up, Come on, dude. Uh,
somebody said, is this your U bitcoin lightning address? No,
this is just the regular native segue. Uh, it's not
the lightning address. Anybody else? All right, Well I don't
see anybody else here. We go, Jayhawk? What's up in?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I disagree with.
Speaker 33: Your stance on pride being a godly attribute.
Speaker 4: What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: What that? I say that?
Speaker 33: The tone, the prideful tone in your voice.
Speaker 4: Well, you sound pride right now.
Speaker 2: Well I never.
Speaker 4: Claimed I wasn't, but o, So pride's okay for you?
Enough for me?
Speaker 2: No, it's both. It's bad for both of us.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, then take the mode out of your own eye?
What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 4: Are you trolling or I don't understand?
Speaker 2: Well, you just sound a bit prideful, that's all.
Speaker 4: Okay. Do you have an argument?
Speaker 2: Be more humble?
Speaker 4: Okay, that's really pious, man, raw race, you gotta mute.
Speaker 2: Okay. Sorry. So I'm Orthodox and I have two questions.
Speaker 4: I hope I'm not doing a questions man, I'm not
doing that. Catholics cargus. Look where people who disagree.
Speaker 2: Hey, I don't disagree, but I'm an Orthodox in choir.
Speaker 56: And this guy asked me, is it seems kind of
like a dumb question, but he said, if God is
fully uncreated then and he's like transcendent, then how.
Speaker 2: Does he interact with us if we are created? Essentially
Maybe it's just a dumb question.
Speaker 4: That's the purpose of the essence center the distinction. It's
a good question. And if you read read letter two
thirty four of Basil and he addresses that very question. Oh,
let's uh, here'll tell us more about your humility. You
have to unmute, Jayhawk. You have to unmute.
Speaker 2: Uh. I you were cutting out so I didn't even
hear what you said.
Speaker 4: Sorry, well, you requested to come back, so please enlighten
us about your virtue.
Speaker 2: Oh I did. Oh my mistake. I didn't mean to
request to come back.
Speaker 8: Okay, casey, hey Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 34: It's an annoying question to ask.
Speaker 11: Ask anyway, Okay, quick question, Thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 33: Though, when can we say, uh that the Orientals were.
Speaker 62: Officially out of communion?
Speaker 33: And it's it's kind of just a question that connects to.
Speaker 4: Tonight, right, So tonight I said, we're doing debate, so
it's people who disagree, So please don't ask me the
orthodox I f AQ questions. I'm not mad at you.
I'm just saying it's for people who disagree. Cody clearest talent, Okay,
here's my claim. If you believe the witness of the
resurrection is enough to believe in the resurrection. I never
argued that evidentialism, so it has nothing to do with
your terrible Book of Mormon argument. DC would work at
three dollars, Thank you so much, William Die. Three dollars.
What's the refutation of Darwinism of ninety percent being identical
to apes and DNA? Well, I mean that small percentage
of difference is very close. For example, we're very close
to lizards, and I'm pretty sure there's a pretty big
difference between us and a lizard, even if it's only
a three percent difference. Anonymous, five dollars. What's the best
argument against two god gospel heresy? I don't know what
you mean, like dual covenant theology. I don't know what
two gospel heresy is. If you believe in solar scriptura, Uh, well,
I would just argue the canon. But the two gospel heresy.
You know, in the first hour I was giving arguments
about the continuity of the scriptures, So these people believe
that Paul taught a different gospel to the Gentiles. Paul
appeals in the Gospel of Relatis to being the same
gospel taught in the Old Testament. Jesus says, Abraham believed
in him, so the idea that there's two gospels is ridiculous.
Paul says, all of the covenants are yay in him
to the Corinthians. Cook's MC seven, your pink shirt is
on fire. Why are you mean he's joking? I appreciate that.
Spikes Begel seven three three zero. Can you list material
refuting dispensationalism. I mean, we did a four hour live
stream with Jimbob on that I need to get these
arguments together against evangelicals. Go to Jimbob's stream and watch
me and Posh dissecting it for four hours. Hypatios five dollars.
Thank you for calling Mormonism a cult. That guy needed
to hear that it is a cult. I'm sure there's
many well meaning people, so I'm not saying that I
hate you or something like that, but it is clearly
some it's a I mean, I mean, if you believe
that the wacky tales of all of the Mormon stuff.
I mean, Lucas ten dollars is the Western right heretical.
It's not the right that's heretical. It's that many people
want to bring in all the Roman Catholic doctrines that
are heretical. Mark ten Dollars, I know Arabic some I'm
convinced Mohammed was some spiritual title that was given. It
is rendered in MHMD and without vowels. Yeah, okay, I
don't have any position on that. Maybe that's true. It
is a title like Christ. Yeah, I know people are
arguing this. I don't know enough about this position to argue,
and I think it's I mean, it's like trying to
argue I disprove Jesus as a historical person. Let's just
argue the text itself and then, I mean, that's an easier,
more accessible, clear contradiction between what the Koran says and
previous revelation. That's the easiest argument. I mean, if you
try to go into these historical I'm going to disprove
the existence of Muhammed, You're just going to be spitting
scholars back and forth to infinity. Christen ten Dollars, thank
you for continued slang opposition. Thank you, CHRISTI appreciate that. Cody,
what's up?
Speaker 2: Man? What's up? Jake? Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Huh? Do you have a disagreement or debate?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I wanted to bring up, like the Mormon point
of view and just I wanted to like get.
Speaker 63: Some some thoughts from you, not saying that I want
to like, actually, I'm not saying I believe that.
Speaker 2: But I'm just saying, like, I just want to represent
it for an argument.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Mormon friends or something.
Speaker 63: I have a history of being in Utah, so I
like whenever I was out there, I kind of got
brought in back into.
Speaker 2: Christianity just from being interested in what Mormonism was.
Speaker 4: Okay, but Mormonism isn't Christianity. Do you understand that or
do you think it is.
Speaker 2: I don't think that it's Christianity, knowing what I know now,
but I used to think.
Speaker 63: I used to think it was, like you know, because
they kind of tricked you almost they put like Jesus
Christ on really big bold letters.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean that just shows that the terminology is
what is not what mattered to what it means.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's true. What do you think about. But what
do you think about Joseph Smith and what he saw?
Speaker 4: I mean, I think Joe Smith was a notorious con man.
What do you mean?
Speaker 2: Okay, I got you.
Speaker 4: I mean he obviously cribbed all of the temple rituals
from Freemasonry. Yeah, what do you What do you mean? Yeah,
you didn't know that. I'm not being I'm not being
a bothole. I'm saying like, had you not heard that before?
Speaker 2: I've heard that before.
Speaker 4: Do you think it's true or you haven't looked into it?
Speaker 2: I'm not a Mormon. No, I don't believe that. I'm sorry,
I know that that. Yeah, I agree with you, bro.
Speaker 4: Okay, So I mean if he's cribbing the temple rituals
from Freemasonry, I mean that's kind of from the outset,
tells me that this is like not a legitimate religion.
Speaker 2: Yeah exactly. But what do you think about all the
prophets that came afterwards? I claimed to have visions from God?
Speaker 4: Are you trolling? I mean, how would that prove? Why
would that prove Moism?
Speaker 2: No? No, Jay, am I bad. I'm not trying to troll.
Speaker 63: I'm just bringing up point of views that Mormon people
bring up to me, and I just want to hear
what you have to say about that.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I mean, there's a million conment in
the world that claim to have visions from God. So
how would that prove Mormonism?
Speaker 2: I gotcha, And you just got to practice discern man.
Speaker 4: I guess well, I mean, I think there's going to
be obvious indicators and that it's not true. One of
those would be Well, let's just go with the simple
biblical argument, like there are no profits, as we argued
to the Mormon earlier on. And if that's the case,
as we saw Luke sixteen sixteen, the prophets were until
John Oh, then there's no office of Old Testament prophet anymore,
as Hebrews one says, he has spoken to us in
these last days by his son. Formerly he spoke to
us through the prophets again Hebrews one, Luke sixteen sixteen,
there's no new prophets. The faith was once for all
delivered to the saints Jude three Epicurus. So we had
an ancient philosopher joining us. What's up, Epicurus? Nope, yeah, yeah,
I'm mute. Hello Hello, yes, sir, hello hello Hello, No
sound bro you can't hear me. So again, Beloved, while
I was with you, our found it necessary to write,
very deligent, to write you concerning our commonsalvation, necessary to
write to you exhorting you to content our honesty for
the faith. Once were all delivered to the Saints, not
once we're all delivered to the Latter day Saints. Once
we're all delivered to the Saints. So if it was
once we're all delivered at this time in the days
of the Apostles, then it's not an ongoing thing. Once
for all, there's no new faiths, there's no new profits.
The law and the profits were until John and you
heard the Mormon have the melt down. When we actually
went to that text.
Speaker 6: You're making that up. There is no text.
Speaker 4: You're making that up.
Speaker 8: It does not say that.
Speaker 4: And then when we read it, you were added to
the text. When I literally just read the text.
Speaker 15: Gabriel, Gabriel Gabriel, h uh huh, question.
Speaker 2: Uh of a Catholic theology.
Speaker 64: So okay, the Catholics, I believe, when it comes to
the nature of God, they see, they deny, they deny.
Speaker 2: The essence uh energy, essence distinction. Okay, So when it
comes to the Eucharist.
Speaker 64: Therefore, if they think, when it comes to transubstantiation that
that is God in his absolute essence, that all.
Speaker 2: Bows my mind.
Speaker 64: How do I respond to this, because to me, that
would be the equivalent of saying that God as he
is and his absoluteness outside of Kevin's basement.
Speaker 4: I know they they do not say that it's the essence.
They don't know what it is. And they'll say, uh,
it's a well I take that back. They will agree
with us that nobody knows what God's essence is and
that we don't eat that. But then they say it
is a created grace that you're partaking of, So you're
eating a creature. So which is a contradiction because God
isn't a creature. There's no uncreated God. I mean, there's
no created God.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 64: Have you ever read the Catholic dogmatic theology of a
Joseph Pole or try to pronounce I have not. Oh, okay,
he's one of the only kind, like theoligin of seen.
Speaker 2: Have the book on the Attributes of God. Now when
it goes to say it and I don't put it
with me, actually have it in my kindle. I can
look it up.
Speaker 64: But it's Uh, this is the point that confuses me
because okay, so they for them to deny essence, energy's
distinction and for the creative grace, I just I don't
understand this creative grace stuff because I can't in them.
Speaker 4: It's because they have a presupposition about divine simplicity and
they can't admit that you're partaking of an energy. So
and it's not the essence, so it has to be
a created grace. And Aught says that dogmatically.
Speaker 64: Okay, so that Lily, God would be the guy to
see how they define created goods.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's a created substance. It's going to be created
accident in the soul. And by extension, the Council of
Trent says that what you are given in baptism is
the righteousness, not that God has, but that He makes
you righteous with which is a creature. So God is
creating a supernatural accident in the soul. That's the grace
that you get. And presumably the uchris would be the
same thing. That's dogmatic that's in Aught gives you about
five propositions as to what grace.
Speaker 2: Is, and the term accident is an Aristotelian.
Speaker 4: Right, but it's specified in Aught. He gives multiple propositions.
One of the propositions is that it is not God,
it is not his uncreated life. It is a created
thing in the soul, an accident in the soul. Okay,
so this is how silly. Their position is correct?
Speaker 16: Right?
Speaker 64: So, and the major contention would be that by believing this,
this interrupts a life of giosis.
Speaker 4: Well it's not theosis, yeah, it's it's another creature, Kalama says.
And when he's debating about this very point, he says,
how can another If arianism is wrong because a creature
can't save you, then created grace is wrong because it's
just another creature trying to save you. Please make us humble, Bro,
you're back. You have to mute. Why do you keep
coming back? If you just want to talk about how
humble you are?
Speaker 2: Don't make stuff up.
Speaker 4: I have a question, though, how am I making stuff up?
Speaker 2: Did you say how holy?
Speaker 4: I was humble? What humble?
Speaker 2: Oh? You said holy? No?
Speaker 9: But I have an honest question, and I'm asking, well,
well before that, I got a two questions, but let
me just ask this.
Speaker 2: Other one is what's the difference between.
Speaker 41: Prophesizing and being a prophet.
Speaker 4: Well, prophesizing isn't a word, so that's one difference, okay.
Speaker 2: And then also what exactly do you expect the debate
to be about?
Speaker 4: They can be about any of the topics listed in
giant bold print in front of your eyes.
Speaker 2: So, like, can you give some examples of debates.
Speaker 4: Any topic relating to Islam, Atheism, rom Catholicism, Protestantism, gnostic, Mormon,
Toe's witness, literally the things listed in giant bold in
front of your eyes.
Speaker 65: It's just funny because it sends all that versus you correct,
like like you're holier than thou.
Speaker 2: It's just it's a funny title.
Speaker 4: Why would that make me holier than now? Because I'm
doing debates? Earlier? You said debates make you arrogant, So
wouldn't it make me more arrogant than them?
Speaker 2: Said that said it was the tone, and I used
the word pride.
Speaker 4: Not arrogant, So tell me the difference between pride and air.
Speaker 2: I think arrogance is more of a modern word. So okay,
but yeah, they're very similar, but I don't know if
they'd be exact.
Speaker 4: So, so prophesizing is prophesizing, Well, you're a linguistic scholar.
You should have known prophesizing asn't a word.
Speaker 2: Why are you being sarcastic because.
Speaker 4: I'm always sarcastic as part of the stick.
Speaker 10: A.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you never heard of this. You're the linguistic scholar.
You're gonna tell me the origin of pride and arrogance?
You don't know the word stick is.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean I'm a linguistic scholar.
Speaker 4: No, you said that the word arrogance is a more
modern term versus pride, and I mean.
Speaker 2: No, I'm I am one to admit my ignorance.
Speaker 4: Well, it sounds like this sounds like virtues, like you're
piety signaling. So you originally came here to talk.
Speaker 2: About how what you're talking about.
Speaker 4: But no, the first thing you said, Boomer, was that
I was prideful and you were humble.
Speaker 2: I never said that. But let's just get off that
for a second.
Speaker 41: But no, it's more seriously about the whole profit prophesizing.
Speaker 4: Word that's something.
Speaker 15: Okay, so.
Speaker 4: It's called it's not prophesiesing.
Speaker 9: Okay, well you know, okay, Well what's the difference not
a word? Well, the word that you said, yeah, yeah,
Well I'm just being honest.
Speaker 2: Like I don't know.
Speaker 4: That's okay, that's fine, go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 2: I said, yeah, what's the difference.
Speaker 4: Between the office of a prophet in the Old Testament
sense of like giving new divine revelations or somebody who
speaks like as a preacher preaching against the generation's evil
or something like that. I mean, what I I'm saying
is that in the context of earlier in the debate tonight,
before you got here, we had a Mormon who was
saying that Joseph Smith is a new prophet, so he
gave new revelations. And one of the easy ways to
just cut that off right away is to say, no,
the New Testament teaches that when the Messiah comes, there
is an end to the Old Testament office of a prophet,
and that's why Jesus says that John was the last
of the prophets.
Speaker 2: But it's still possible to.
Speaker 4: Well, not in the sense, not in the sense of
there being new divine public revelations. So the when Paul
says in Galatians one that there's no new Gospel and
no new revelations, it's it's finished.
Speaker 65: But as far as any type of like prediction, it's
all like like nostradamins for example, that's all.
Speaker 4: That's all just fake yes, fake endgay, fake endgay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right.
Speaker 65: I just I just wanted to hear it spoken words.
I mean, and that's what I figured in my mind.
I just wanted to hear someone.
Speaker 4: Else say it. So thanks, Yeah, I agree with you.
It's open for him to debate tonight if you disagree. Sam,
what's up? I thought this Roe mcllay did was going
to come. He's like a journalist or something. Where's he
Let's see. I guess he's not gonna come.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 4: Sam?
Speaker 2: How's it going?
Speaker 45: Jay?
Speaker 22: A big fan recently got into your stuff from the
the debate you had with the Fresh and Fit.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to ask a question.
Speaker 22: Let's say someone's getting new into Islamic apologics apologetics. What
are some books they recommend or some videos they recommend
for someone looking.
Speaker 4: Into the topic become Orthodox. Don't worry about trying to
become an anti Islamic apologist, because there's no point in
doing apologetics if you're not going to be in the
Orthodox Church. Okay, I mean, I'm not trying. I'm not
trying to be rude. I'm just being straight up, being honest. Zachariah,
what's up? A good question, man, I appreciate it. Welcome,
glad to have you over here. David says, for five dollars,
praise to Yakub he has created us. Wait a minute,
I thought Yakub created us to be with the devils,
aren't we? So I'm not going to praise Yakub for
making me a double So I don't know about that, David,
Jake Burne, it's one dollar? Are we only saying the
Lord's prayer? Because to pray like this is to not
go babbling like pagans When I pray my morning prayer
it seems like babbling. Well, Jesus himself did wrote prayers,
so you know, praying the psalms is not babbling. Or
or just because the prayers are wrote prayers, does it
make them babbling? He says, vain repetition, so it's not
inherently run to have repetition. Zacharie, what's up.
Speaker 2: Hey, j I kind of had a question.
Speaker 56: I don't know if this is like on topic per se,
but I have a friend who pro proposed the idea
that Satan is a relatively new Judeo Christian philosophy that
came from when I came from Babylon, when the Jews
were free from captivity.
Speaker 2: So I don't I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean, Satan, Satan is in Satan is in the
Book of Genesis, so that precedes Babylonian captivity. So how
would he be a philosophy that's Babylonian.
Speaker 56: Yeah, I mean that, that's what I said, and I
just didn't know if that was what you would say.
Speaker 4: Also, No, I think that, Yeah, I mean, I mean,
there's not just Genesis. There's other texts that mentioned Satan
prior to the Babylonian captivity. But usually when people say this,
they're just repeating what some liberal scholars said. So I
don't even know if that's even in vogue amongst liberal
scholars anymore. Maybe it is, I don't know, but yeah,
I think you could look at just look up the
references to Satan. Satan appears in the Book of Job
so that's probabor to the Babylonian captivity. Uh, and Donnis,
what's up man? We had a wild night tonight. Shout
out to Tristana, shout out to Father Deacon, and I
shout out to Rachel. Shout out to Donatas shout out
to all you based homeboys and homegirls. In the chat,
you guys missed some Mormon madness. So I think it's
about the It's about the first Mormon that we've had
to actually come debate. It was wild that guy was like,
that was exciting, and it's interesting because I don't I
don't remember there ever being a Mormon to come debate
that I can recall. And Donnis, what's up? You have
to unmute man?
Speaker 2: Hello? Hello, Yeah, okay. I had a question. I'm Greek Orthodox.
Speaker 45: I had a question on an objection about the Council
of Trullough canon one oh one?
Speaker 4: Is is this the one about community in the hand?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean I don't even understand why this isn't What
is this supposed to be objection to? Because the Church
can determine at different times, in different places how to
apply the canons. So didn't Luigi are responded to what
he said?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: Luigi? In his video he responded to Voice of Reason,
if that's what you're referring to. Yeah, yeah, Luigi, I
have it on my wall. Look at Luigi's response and
he talks about I think Price's translation is the is
Luigi's response, So, but good question. Mexican. Wait a minute,
I'm double O seven. This is Mexican double O seven
A bro about the I'm literally about to smoke you, Bro.
I barely smoke you because I got like a license
to kill or whatever? Barely bro? A do you barely?
Do you barely got a license to kill?
Speaker 2: Bro or what?
Speaker 10: Not?
Speaker 2: Really just a fan.
Speaker 66: The question is I've been feeling a pool towards Orthodoxy.
I've been with Catholics in the past. Franciscan has Benedictines Dominicans.
Speaker 15: They have like a.
Speaker 66: Day prayer, like the Liturgy of the Hours. I'm just
wondering if being Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Is like the prayer, similar to.
Speaker 66: Like the prayer lifestyle, is it's similar to like the
way your church practicing.
Speaker 4: There's some there's some similarity except and there's also some differences.
So I remember the Liturgy of the Hours and all
that when I was a Roman Catholic.
Speaker 10: And.
Speaker 4: I remember doing that. It's really going to depend on
like where you're at in your Orthodox life with your
spiritual Father, where he'll advise you on what kind of
prayer role and so forth. But there are some similarities.
But obviously it's not going to be the same types
of Roman Catholic prayers. But good question. Retweet the goods.
Retweet the goods. If you want to support the stream,
you can do so via a stream lives. Also heading
over to chalk dot com the best in supplementation. We
love chalk dot com. Do you want to unmute? I
can't read your Sanskrit or whatever your name is?
Speaker 2: Hey boy, did you hear me?
Speaker 4: Merely? What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't.
Speaker 67: I'm pretty sure you because I've seen you in No
Kyle's videos. A. Yeah, I'm guessing at the g W
people and Johoway's witnesses. Yeah, but you being like, do
you like guys see the Bibles?
Speaker 2: Afrlone long? Do you guys?
Speaker 4: Is what I can't hear? You see the Bible as what?
Speaker 67: But do you guys believe in the Bible as like
ultimate authority or do you guys.
Speaker 2: Kind of go with tradition on certain fans as well?
Speaker 4: They all work together, so the Bible or necessity tradition,
and the Bible and tradition necessitated the bishops and the church,
so they're all they all work together. There's not like
one of those that's the authority.
Speaker 67: But like if someone in your church was teaching something
that was like condemned, you, guys wouldn't actually listened to
that personal right.
Speaker 4: So there would be multiple authorities that he's going against,
namely the Bible and the tradition and the bishops.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, So that's where like you kind
of disagree with the Catholics. Yeah, didn't you say that?
Luigi responded to Voice to Reason? Are you going to
debate Voice of Reason?
Speaker 4: I didn't make the video response to Voice to Reason.
I DM voice. I DMed him and he ignored the
DM so.
Speaker 67: Because I was just wondering if you were a debate
because it kind of misrepresents people.
Speaker 4: I do agree with that, and he never responded to
the d M. So I don't think he's interested in
a debate with me. Oh that's an awsome question, bro, Yeah,
good questions. Appreciate that. Rickle Pickle, Rickle Hello, yeap.
Speaker 2: Yo bro? Sorry Gay? Yeah, yeah, Hi Jay.
Speaker 68: I'm another nominational believer in private scriptural and I had
a question about the biblical condens So from another nominational perspective,
I believe in the sixty six books Candon I wanted
to ask you a question as an eph believer, what's
your like do you have any ment? Also look into
concerning like canonization the earliest kind of the church, Like
when was scripture colonized?
Speaker 2: How many books?
Speaker 4: Like what is the Yeah, it's not it's in the
Orthodox view, it's canonized by Trollo really late. So that's
the ecumenical council that lists the canon.
Speaker 68: Okay, so a late kind is where you get support
instead of an earlier kind of correct, All right?
Speaker 2: Cool?
Speaker 68: So would that also include like traditions that came late
or is that only like when the when that council
took place, that's when all of the things that would turn.
Speaker 2: It departs were ratified. So like, does that include later
works from.
Speaker 68: Like eight hundred and seven hundred or were these things
done as writings that primarily came from the early church
in the first country.
Speaker 4: Well, the canon, the canon would be the Bible. So
what do I don't understand what you mean?
Speaker 2: Like how much how many books would be in that
is what a masket like? Right?
Speaker 4: So the Orthodox Bible is kind of basically the canon
that the Roman Calloic Church has because the Eastern Church
and the Western Church had to do or canonical books.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, so basically the same ones. Do theyre aquicol?
So do you have this seam the paper for writings
as well? Like, okay, cool, all right, I'll take a
look into that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm trying to think of I've done debates with
Protestants on the canon. Look up the debate that we
did with Dale the Protestant and then the debate I
did with Pedro the Protestant. Those are debates where we
talked about the canon. And I've done a lot of
talks on the canon. I just can't think of specifically
what they were. Were titled meme Rose, what's up?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 4: I think tonight might have been my largest numbers because
but that was probably people being dumping their their chat
into my chat. I think we hit seventeen Do we
hit seventeen hundred tonight? Max?
Speaker 2: What's that? Man? Hey? Good hearing a cool question.
Speaker 30: So what are your views on the Virgin Mary like
a she perpetually version?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Or wait? What scripture? What scriptures show that.
Speaker 4: Zeko forty four that the Prince who is the Messiah
exits the temple and the door remains shut and he
miraculously goes through it and it never is opened.
Speaker 2: So when he knew or not, what does that mean, Joseph, Yeah, Matthew, and.
Speaker 4: That means what Jerome explains in his letter against Silvettius,
that Jesus says, I'm with you till the end of
the world. Does that mean he's not with us after that?
Speaker 2: No? No, No, to know someone like in the concept of.
Speaker 4: It says he knew or not till. And I'm saying
the whole debate hinges on till doesn't necessitate that after
till it happened.
Speaker 41: No, But what about judges Mans twenty five when they say,
but the men were not markets.
Speaker 2: So the man said his conquentye and brought her fourth
onto them.
Speaker 4: And they knew her because you not hear what The
debate is not over whether it's the debate is over
the word till in.
Speaker 2: That text, And I'm asking if I knew her, how
does he know her?
Speaker 4: The text it says that he did not know her,
and then it says till right.
Speaker 2: I knew her?
Speaker 4: Not right, And what's the rest of it?
Speaker 2: She had with her first one?
Speaker 4: So till so till does not necessitate that he did
know her after That's what I've been saying. So so
the same word till is used when Jesus says I'm
with you till the end of the world. Does that
mean he's not after?
Speaker 2: No, No, he was talking about he was talking to
something else. But this is context.
Speaker 4: Do not understand what the point is, so you can't
grasp the argument.
Speaker 2: I completely grasp to trust me, I do this all
day with Catholics.
Speaker 4: Well then hold on. If you do this all day
with Catholics, then you would have already heard this argument,
would have known what tills about.
Speaker 2: I understand. I'm just trying to build in my argument.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Well then hold on, then you don't know
actually know this argument.
Speaker 2: Yes I do.
Speaker 18: I'm building my argument about her not being a virtual version.
Speaker 4: Well, how does the prince exit the door and it
never is opened?
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with merit?
Speaker 4: Well, how do you know that? What door does the Messiah?
The prince exit?
Speaker 2: What door does the Messiah?
Speaker 4: What do you mean how do you know it doesn't
have anything to do with Mary? You didn't even know
what you don't know what verse on the target?
Speaker 2: What's the verse?
Speaker 4: Could I cited it at the very beginning. I read
it to you, he said, Ezekiel right forty four. Correct
the door that the Messiah exits that never opens.
Speaker 18: Ezekiel forty four the Messiah.
Speaker 2: Let me see, I'm trying to figure out because I
can't find them.
Speaker 4: You can't find it, equal forty four. I thought you
deal with this every day with Catholics.
Speaker 2: Oh, I never heard this from a Catholic right now?
Speaker 4: Well, okay, but did you hear the till argument or
was that the first time you heard it?
Speaker 69: Yes?
Speaker 2: No, no, no, it's still arguments.
Speaker 53: It's it all on void honestly, because the whole context.
Speaker 2: Is he knew her not so anyways.
Speaker 4: But but why did you stop there and not read
the rest of the verse when I asked you? So
you're just assuming your positions he knew her, not till. Oh,
so it does say till, so you intentionally so this
whole time you intentionally didn't say it. So you intentionally
didn't say till when you knew it was there.
Speaker 2: But he knew her.
Speaker 4: After it doesn't say that. Okay, So why does he
have kid what why brothers of the lord that brothers
of the Lord can mean cousins. You know that since
You've dealt with this all the time with Catholics.
Speaker 41: Yeah, I know, but it's funny that you guys keep
switching what the Bible says.
Speaker 4: So all right, but the Bible doesn't tell you that.
That's your interpretation of it, assuming your.
Speaker 2: Position, But it doesn't that.
Speaker 4: They doesn't say that. It doesn't say his his biological children.
That's your interpretation.
Speaker 2: You mean you mean when he was going fast, they
weren't his brethren.
Speaker 4: All of the Jews called themselves brethren. Jews called themselves
brethren all the time. That doesn't prove your position. By
the way, how do you even know what the Bible is?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 4: How do you have the right Bible?
Speaker 2: Well? I know the King's Ampible is the most fruitful Bible.
Speaker 4: So that's the Wait, how do you know that's the
right one because.
Speaker 2: That's the most fruitful and that's the.
Speaker 4: Most fruitful Bible. What does that even mean?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sure you know I shall know them by
their fruits.
Speaker 4: Right, So the your subjective idea of what the fruits
are is what tells you the right Bible, and it's
the King James Bible.
Speaker 2: Do you know anything about King?
Speaker 4: I know all about the history of the church, and
let's talk about it.
Speaker 2: Christians are the Church. You're not a Christian, you're an Orthodox.
Speaker 4: So please, okay, where where was your Where was your sect?
Before the king James?
Speaker 2: My second started with Jesus?
Speaker 4: Okay, and who believed what you believe in the first,
second or third century?
Speaker 2: Here's a lively Peter was a lively star.
Speaker 4: What are you even talking about? Who believed what you
believe in the second or third century? Give one person,
I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't I follow the vibe. I don't follow what
men do.
Speaker 4: So so you didn't have any representative in those centuries.
Speaker 2: Right, well, representative, my representative.
Speaker 4: Jesus, pro well, Jesus said that the church. Jesus said
the gate. Jesus said, the gates of Hell would not
prevail against the church. And so you set the church
up at his first advent? Where was your sect in
those centuries since the gates of Hell didn't prevail against it?
Speaker 2: I'll tell you when when he said and on this frock.
Speaker 4: Where was your sect in the second or third century?
It was right there would I just you're that stupid.
Your sect was in the second or third century when
Jesus said that in the first century.
Speaker 2: I'm a boring again.
Speaker 4: Where was your sect in the second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth century?
Speaker 2: What sect?
Speaker 64: I don't follow?
Speaker 4: So you don't have any representatives? Do you even understand
the arm Can you even understand? You don't understand the
argument I'm making?
Speaker 69: You follow me?
Speaker 2: I follow what the Bible stays?
Speaker 4: Do you understand the argument I'm making?
Speaker 16: You understand that?
Speaker 4: So you can't restate my argument? You're incapable of it.
You don't know what the word it is, so that
you don't even know what the word incapable means. So
this is a complete idiot, Matt. My new standard is
that if a person is literally incapable of restating what
argument I'm making, it's time to move on. Matt.
Speaker 2: Hey, Jay's going by.
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 28: Uh, I guess I'm.
Speaker 2: About what.
Speaker 4: You're cutting out?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 4: I can't.
Speaker 70: Oh, I'm sorry. Something better is still pretty bad. So
I guess on that last topic about where our sect was,
because I'd be considered a non nominational Christian. Also, I
guess our argument would be is that I would say
I don't think the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church
in hole, like just because you're a member of that church.
That doesn't mean you were a guaranteed salvation or you're
actually a.
Speaker 4: Follow absolutely nothing to do with answering the question at hand.
Speaker 70: So I mean so, so, I guess my My answer
would be that the universal Church.
Speaker 4: The answer is that you guys are incapable of understanding
the question. Can you restate what the argument is?
Speaker 2: I guess, I guess No, I guess I couldn't.
Speaker 4: So did Jesus set up a church?
Speaker 8: Yes, okay?
Speaker 4: Did he say that the gates of l would not
prevail over the church that he's setting up, Yes, okay,
But we're to believe that it's truly non denominational Christianity,
which didn't exist for centuries until the present. What last
sixty years? And so did the gates of l prevail
against the church throughout those centuries?
Speaker 11: No?
Speaker 15: And how is that not?
Speaker 4: How is that the case when there were no non
denominationals for that all that time period?
Speaker 70: I would say the entire time period, it would be
non denominational.
Speaker 2: Just because you were titled.
Speaker 70: Under that church and you attended the church didn't mean
you were part of christ church, would be my argument.
Speaker 4: I mean, are you still are you? Are you serious?
Or are you trolling? I mean, I like so you
think so so the people So, the people at the
Council of Nicea were non denominational Christians, even though they
call themselves Orthodox Catholics. Yeah, okay, okay, I mean I
feel I feel you're a retard. This is that's so
stupid it's not even worth replying to.
Speaker 16: So.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Alfanatius had a strip mall, and uh, you know
a lot of people felt like he was a bishop,
but actually there was an ancient Alexandrian strip mall where
he rented out.
Speaker 58: Uh.
Speaker 4: They didn't have uh, monster trucks back in those days
like the non nominational churches today. They had horse truck
rallies instead of monster truck rallies. And that's what the
true Christians were up to. What's up, unmute, good evening, Jay?
Speaker 2: Yeah, can you hear me? Just fine? Yep? I have
like a shower thought question if you have a second
for that.
Speaker 4: This sounds gay? What do you want?
Speaker 2: What are your thoughts on? Like dinosaurs?
Speaker 4: Show that I don't want to hear nothing about you
in the shower magnum. What's up that dude's got a
crush on dinosaurs? He's in the in the shower fantasizing
about dinosaurs and m's come talk to me about that.
What's up, man, I'm mute. T rexes t Rex is gay.
If you notice, t Rex is always holding his hand
like the guy. Dude, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey just had a question.
Speaker 71: Got a friend who's a Roman Catholic and he was
trying to tell me that.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: What is that him in the background, bitching like a
little kiddie.
Speaker 69: Franch.
Speaker 18: Well, he was trying to make the point that Judaism
could be trace back to Isaac and that Islam could
be trespect to Ishmael.
Speaker 4: So I think, well, we don't even know that. So
you know, if you listen to a lot of samsh
Move's debates, he'll actually question the Muslims on that assumption.
And but there's no actual proof of that.
Speaker 71: So no, I mean that's what I thought, because I
really heard no evidence to like support that.
Speaker 4: But just but even if it was the case, what, look,
how what does this have to do with us?
Speaker 15: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I think he was trying to argue that, like the whole.
Speaker 71: A discussion that you've had with Uh, can't.
Speaker 2: I think of his name right now?
Speaker 4: You're under cat. You're under cat attack?
Speaker 69: Bro yea.
Speaker 4: Is that cats in the background, No, that's my daughter children.
Oh my bad, like a cat. Watch also said that
Haitians coming, dude, watch out. Good you better put some
uh some some lie or something on them kiddies. They're
gonna get cooked if you coat your cat and lie
and a Haitian won't eat it.
Speaker 2: Well, good thing I don't have any cats.
Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Speaker 71: Yeah, so, uh, trying to remember that guy's name, that
Catholic that he debated a while.
Speaker 4: Back, Gay Gayerson, Yes, that's it.
Speaker 71: Yeah, but he was trying to argue like a, I
don't know, like that generic god that.
Speaker 4: You all worship and or not you but you mean
the guy that called in like a couple of days ago. No, No,
he's like Trent Horne. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, yeah, okay,
what about there we go?
Speaker 71: Oh I think he has probably been like watching some
of his content.
Speaker 4: So, oh, I see your friends gotcham Yeah yeah.
Speaker 71: Yeah, I just kind of want to just ask that
kind of just gonna.
Speaker 4: Work, Like I'm sorry, I've totally got I've totally got
distracted here, Like uh yeah, Game Gamers is the festival
I'm just in a totally silly mood. I think I've
gone into total like insanity mode now because we've had
so many like crazy goofy goofy things tonight. Remember head
over to chalk dot com. He have his microwaving his cats.
Speaker 9: Bro.
Speaker 4: That was a microwave beep and that was cats. That
was no kid, that's a Haitian putting them damn cats
in the microwave. Bro, for real, for realm he's microwaven
pussy Burger's over there?
Speaker 2: What what.
Speaker 8: I have?
Speaker 4: Terminal brain rot? Are you kidding? I'm on point, bro,
and I just have to piss really bad. That's the
only thing that's happened over here. Like, I think I'm
going insane because my bladder is is.
Speaker 5: Why are you get give me the kitty? I want
the kitty, Dudes, Like, are you trying to hit all
my wife?
Speaker 16: No?
Speaker 5: I want the kitty the pit mean Dina, you want
my wife's kiddy? No, I want your cat, Bro, I
want Dinah.
Speaker 4: The what's up? Yo yo yo yo yo, sir.
Speaker 2: Uh. So there's been some drama lately. There's this brother.
Speaker 23: Who's been doing apologetics against Islam for a few years. Okay,
it's now like because he's on the verge of hyposthesizing
and becoming Muslim.
Speaker 4: Have you killed No, I haven't heard of those.
Speaker 2: I don't want to Holt the guy. That's the reason why.
Speaker 23: He wants to ampostesize is because he he's like he objects.
Speaker 2: To the Islamic dilemma.
Speaker 23: Like I don't agree with him, but I like, but
I kind of like play devil's advocate for his position
and see how you would respond to it.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, before we go out, Like, first of all,
that's not the only reason to not believe Islam, Like
I mean, zombie Thelma is just one of the many arguments.
So like, I can't found him a person becoming convestive
of Islam knowing these things. But go ahead. His argument
is that like.
Speaker 23: In his view, there's obviously passages in the Quran, who
he says are like corrective in a very specific sense against.
Speaker 2: Like a biblical verse.
Speaker 23: So like he would cite the verse which says that
like a law created the world.
Speaker 2: And heavens in six days, and this did not make
him tired.
Speaker 23: It goes something like this, and he will say, like
this is obviously a correction to the Genesis account than
God's resting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but nobody and but nobody in Christianity believe that
he was literally tired. I mean, that's that's stupid.
Speaker 23: But like I guess he will say, like, this is
an objection to the idea of God resting, and therefore.
Speaker 4: It must be like, Okay, but does he know that
all the stupid ship in the hot eaths about a
lot having gonads and wearing a cloak and being a
blonde boy with gold hair. I mean, does he know
any of that? Does he think that's more rational than
where he's at?
Speaker 2: That's a good question. I guess I tried to reason.
Speaker 4: With him, Well did you reason with him about these
dumb hadiths?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 23: I tried to reasoning with him about like because like
how do you they will do? You know how I'm
gonna x Muslim myself? Okay and Muslims like compartable.
Speaker 2: I was like, there's like a cogniti to this one
that's going to cause still.
Speaker 4: I mean, if there's saw hold on, if there saw
he don't you have to believe him if you're unless
you're gonna be a she or something.
Speaker 23: It's sort of a gray zone where it's like you
can reject the particular hadif and it doesn't make you like,
this doesn't kick you out of Islam.
Speaker 4: Wait a minute, a minute. But my understanding is that
they have to have some akida and that will necessitate
you having some position like you can't, can't, won't they
say that your shirt If you're like picking and choosing
hadith that are considered sahi.
Speaker 23: Uh no, at worst, it's simple. And this goes to
like a problem with Islamic epistemology. Okay, there isn't a
canon of what hadiths are really sahi. It all comes
down to like the opinions of scholars, and every hadif
scholar has his own collection of haddief that he thinks
is a hai, and like you know, there's like ten
thousand hadif.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, Well, even if he can slide past this,
like I mean, there's enough stupid stuff in the Qur'an,
like I mean, the Kuran mixes up Bible stories and
gets them out of whack. So even if he thought
that like the statement in Genesis was like a corrective
to the idea that God rested I mean, Gregor Paloma
says that God resting is is a proof of the
essence synergy distinction. So I'm surprised this person who's supposed
to be Orthodox doesn't know that.
Speaker 23: Yeah, and I wanted to get to that, like I
think this like the long of dilemma.
Speaker 2: As you said, it's a great argument, but it's not
the only arguments.
Speaker 23: And the other side like if you want to go
down the road and say that, Okay, No, the kron
actually super strongly thinks.
Speaker 2: The old scriptures are corrupted. That's a whole other can
of worms, like why.
Speaker 23: Would God allow scripture to be corrupted for two thousand years?
Speaker 4: Well, and he says that, I mean, the early Muslim
said interpreting the Koran that all his words cannot be corrupted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 23: And the verse they always cite to show that the
Qur'an is preserved, it actually doesn't say that the chron
is presently says that scripture is preserved.
Speaker 2: We will preserve the scripture is what it says.
Speaker 4: Okay, So the assumption is that we're not told what
that is, so that could be anything. Is that the
point you're making? In other words, scripture meaning the Bible,
or that it's ambiguous.
Speaker 2: They will read it. That's the qurana. But there's nothing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but it's ambiguous, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, I can give you the words. I can google.
It's square.
Speaker 4: What's what's the reference.
Speaker 24: The town's verse fifteen nine?
Speaker 4: Is this a prominent person or a lesser known person
that we're talking about?
Speaker 2: The guy who's leaving. Yeah, I guess it's around like
one thousand followers.
Speaker 4: He's strictly on Twitter, can can You don't want to
say who it is?
Speaker 2: Al fin Lundi is what he is? Like you in
the alphawds?
Speaker 24: Uh?
Speaker 23: His Twitter at is at Al fin Landi, like Al
the Arab plagued and fin Lundy like.
Speaker 4: I don't even know who it is. So that's fine.
Oh so fifty nine said fifteen Yeah, I'm not familiar
with the person. Fifty nine says that A certainly we
who have revealed the reminder, and a certainly way who
will preserve it? So is the Arabic scripture there.
Speaker 2: If they will read it us. This is the This
is like the super important verse from Muslims.
Speaker 23: This is where they take the idea, the theological idea
that the crime is preserved.
Speaker 8: And will be preserved.
Speaker 2: Okay, and it's a pretty ambiguous words like we sent
down a reminder and we will preserve it. What is
the reminder?
Speaker 4: I see, Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's ambiguous.
But now so was he is he trying to use
this this I don't understand, Like what what does this prove?
Would you would your would this guy? Would he go
talk to Sam Shamun or Christian Prince or somebody?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 23: I tried to try to commit them to go in
this date you here, but he even.
Speaker 4: Wants But well he can, he should go. He can
have a conversation. He doesn't have to have it to date.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I'll.
Speaker 23: Uh talk to him, but yeah, plant, I can't talk
to another thing about like.
Speaker 2: Towh and Islam?
Speaker 4: I miss I missed that.
Speaker 23: What can I just talk about other things about Islam?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm gonna have to. I'm gonna move on. I'm
not trying to be rude to you, and we'll come
back maybe, but I'm gonna somebody has come in as myself.
So Jay Dyer, what's your argument? Go ahead and me
unmute you have to unmute me. Oh hey hey Jay, hey, j.
Speaker 72: So you think that Catholicism is false because we think
Muslims will worship the same God or or that's a
reason why it's evidence.
Speaker 4: Of the false Well, not that you think that you've
dogmatically stated that more than once, right, Yeah, that we've
dougmated so.
Speaker 72: And one of the things that you bring up to
prove that is that they deny the incarnation, therefore they
deny the.
Speaker 4: Father, right, Because, well, there's many reasons why that's the case,
one of which is that the word God is a
generic reference and it doesn't have, without a conc or
an intentionality, any specific reference. So how do we know
that it's the same God just on the basis of
the term God. But I argue more specifically that the
texts of the Vatican two nosertat Limagentium state that they
also adore the same God and have the faith of Abraham.
And they do not have the faith of Abraham. Because
the New Testament many times over, every time it talks
about the faith of Abraham, it specifies that it is
the Triune God that Abraham worshiped and that Abraham believed
the Gospel. So the faith of Abraham has to be
faith in Christ. There is no faith of Abraham. That's
Muslim option or this Jewish option.
Speaker 61: I see.
Speaker 19: So, so you may be open to saying that they
acknowledge the same God even if they don't have the faith.
Speaker 2: But they don't have the faith, well.
Speaker 4: I mean, as a Satanist can say I acknowledge one God.
Does that make a Satanist the same as us because
he's a monotheist.
Speaker 19: No, I'm just asking you because a lot of times
people say we.
Speaker 2: Don't worship the same God. We don't, okay, And and
your reason for.
Speaker 4: Saying that is, well, this is the reason that That's
the reason that I just gave. And there's many other
reasons too. For example, Muslims exclude many essential attributes. Did
you know that?
Speaker 2: Yes, I understand.
Speaker 19: Well, I understand you know you have a specific understand
Are the Orthodox have a different view of God's nature?
Speaker 2: And is that energies and everything? No?
Speaker 4: No, No, I'm saying that on your position, you believe
in attributes that are essential to who God is that
Muslims exclude. So how is it how how even on
your own position, is it the same reference?
Speaker 19: I would say it's the same reference in the same
way that the New Testament assumes that Jews acknowledge the
same God, despite.
Speaker 2: Them not acknowledging the sun.
Speaker 4: But does Jesus operate that way when he debates with
the Pharisees on this very question in John five through nine,
Because it's pretty sure Jesus says, you have never seen
him nor known him when he argues with the Pharisees
over this question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he says, they haven't seen him or known him.
Speaker 4: Oh, but it's the same God.
Speaker 2: Well, they have a they have a zeal for God, right.
Speaker 4: But not according to knowledge, so it's not the right God.
By the way, in the New Testament, you can distinguish
between a conceptual idea and a relationship. So knowing God
in the sense of a relationship, which that term is
used specifically for no in the sense, and it's the
same term that's used for husband and wife to know,
versus having an abstract conceptual knowledge of something. Let's give
another example. Mormons say that they believe in Jesus Christ.
Do they believe in Jesus Christ like us?
Speaker 2: They know that Jesus is different?
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, so then that disproves this whole natural theology approach.
Speaker 2: Do you think that.
Speaker 72: You're the way that you do you so you're okay
with saying that they try to honor God if based
on that, it's not wrong to say they try to
honor God but ignorantly, because that seems to be with
Saint Paul's it.
Speaker 4: Well, well, whether Saint Paul's said that or not in
Acts seventeen is one thing. But the problem is that
Vatican two says, and the Catechism as well, that they
have the faith of Abraham and that they adore God
like us. An adoration in your theology is specifically worship,
which is just simply not true. So I Vatican two,
if they specified, for example, that they have an abstract
conceptual knowledge of God or they seek to do this,
it doesn't say that, it says that they actually do it.
That's the problem.
Speaker 19: Okay, So you have the issue with the faith of
Abraham and at the term adore being applied to Okay.
Speaker 2: Correctly, All right, well I appreciate that.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Interesting, I thought that was going to turn into a
really nasty Roman Catholic interaction, but that was a fair interaction. Echthelion. Yeah,
I mean, when this comes up, I think that Roman
Catholics could have gotten around this if it had not
said faith of Abraham in I think e limgentium. Let's
go to limitgentium on that. And if it had not
said adoration, because those are really you know, let's see
like it said, like right here it says the Muslims
who professed to hold the faith of Abraham. So right
there you might could say, well, but there it doesn't
say they do it. It says they profess to. But
then it says along with us they adore the one
immerciful God, which is identifying it as the same reference.
You see how that is where it it's difficult, And
then that's not that's just lumin Gentem sixteen. All show
in Nora Tata says that they take pains to submit
to God's decrees, just as did Abraham, who who with
whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself,
submits to God.
Speaker 2: So you have.
Speaker 4: Both of those things there with us they adore God,
they have the faith of Abraham. In Nos Tante and
I think the way the Catechism phrases the catelic catechor
it basically just summarizes the way these two documents speak.
But anyway, that's not even the only problem, because it
says the same thing about Hindus, and that one I don't.
I don't see how in nosratate like, I mean, how
does the Hindu worship God in love? Trying to find
the Hindu statement, here's Buddhism. Thus, in Hinduism, men contemplate
the divine mystery and seek it through philosophical inquiry, blah
blah blah. They seek freedom from anglish and through ascetical
practices and profound meditation, a flight to God with love
and trust. I don't I don't see how you can
say that, because it's the way it's worded. It says
through the I mean, Hinduism is totally demonic. So in
their ascetic practices, which are like self harm and all
this crazy stuff, they're not actually attaining to God. But
this says they're seeking meditation and flight to God with
love and trust. And I don't see how that how
you could say that excilion, because it's not saying in spite,
it's saying in Hinduism. So in other words, in the
false religion they're doing this, it's not saying in spite
of their you know, idolatry and false religion. They're groping
after God. That's you know, Act seventeen is the way
Paul words it. This says in Hinduism, in Islam, and
as even Tim Gordon admits now he thinks the worst
position is the Jews. He says, what's said about the
Jews here is the real impossible position to admit because
of the previous Catholic tradition on the perfidious Jews is
the liturgical statements. He says. The way that Luminingentie Minister
Tat speak of the Jews is even more difficult. Okay, well,
whatever position you want to take on that, I think
that really they're all wrong headed. Do you want to
speak excilion?
Speaker 2: I do? I do.
Speaker 26: So I've just had I'm a Protestant, previous Protestant who's
now an Eastern Orthodox, just started catechy in two weeks ago,
and I've been having every time I meet up with
one of my old Protestant buddies, they want to debate
me on why you know, they want to convert.
Speaker 2: Me back to Protestantism.
Speaker 26: Sure, and uh so I recently had a conversation with
my buddy Omar, who.
Speaker 4: You most could become mother and equal three.
Speaker 26: He actually is he actually is an ex Mohammedan, but
he's a Protestant now, and uh yeah he was.
Speaker 2: You know, me and him were kind of going back
and forth.
Speaker 26: We're having an argument, and so basically I just want
to kind of present to use some of the arguments
he was making to me that I was having a
hard time responding to, not because they were sound arguments,
but more just because they were just difficult to respond to.
They're like, so I'll give you an example. One of
his arguments was like about the invisible church, right that
you know, the the church that Jesus Christ said up
was something that you know, we can't see, feel or touch.
It doesn't have you know, some structure or place to
go to, but is just you know, it just exists,
like kind of like the last color.
Speaker 2: Was saying, you know, it's the right.
Speaker 4: I mean, I used to be I used to be
a Protestant. I know the invisible church doctrine what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Right, So, like, how do I respond to that kind
of argument?
Speaker 4: Well, simply put, the church is identified in the New
Testament as the Body of Christ, and christ body was
a human body, it wasn't a spiritual body. That's Gnostic
in Christ's body in Paul's analogy, has to be as
one and unite it as his physical body. So they
have a Gnostic Nestorian ecclesiology. When they say that there's
this invisible body that doesn't exist, it's an actual this too.
The Donatists are their first to teach a an invisible
church because of their purity doctrine. So their idea is, well,
only the pure that do not commit sin have the
grace and have the sacraments. So yes, they're notice.
Speaker 2: Also, what's this just dawn on me the other day?
God is not a god of confusion. And what this
does is it it blurs the boundaries.
Speaker 18: You can't actually, for us, the church militant ever identify
where the church is. So it could be over that.
Do you see how problematic that is? Who to say
it could be the And of course.
Speaker 2: This is exactly where humanism comes at. That's just the
next step. Well, where we.
Speaker 18: Say that the Hindus not worshiping the same you know,
the boundaries they are invisible.
Speaker 2: We could and that's also Jay, you.
Speaker 18: Were trying that into the gnostic But you know, narcissism
connection with the uphol is to what blur boundaries. It's
all boundaries. So I think it's important that we point
that out. So you've got a god a confusion that.
Speaker 2: It's going to basically be like set a store. It's
like you can never actually tell where the church is.
Speaker 18: We're gonna blur the boundaries, and now we're gonna have
always people being confused and ending up in Hindu cults
and stuff and and Muslims because we're all, you know,
who knows where.
Speaker 2: The church is? Right?
Speaker 4: And remember Paul says in Ephesians, right, the church is
there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body. I
mean not I mean if it's invisible, then that then
Paul's really pointing out something that doesn't do anybody any good. Right,
If it's visible, then like Father Decan saying, oh, that's
the one that we can recognize, that we can identify.
Speaker 26: Yeah, And that was kind of my argument to him,
was like, you know, where where are the bishops in
this so called invisible church? You know, where are the deacons,
where are the presbyters? Where is the authoritative like structure
that was set up and handed down?
Speaker 2: Because it was.
Speaker 26: Weird, like he did actually admit that he believes in
the handing down of the like laying on of hisns
and you know, the sort of Apostolic succession that we
as Orthodoxy might affirm.
Speaker 2: He's like, oh, yeah, I believe in that. But then
when I'm like, okay, so where did that go?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, you can't believe in that and not
apply it to history, because it's a historical thing, just
like just like in numbers eleven, it's an actual historical
Israel that Moses is laying hands on people and the
spirit is being passed on, right, and he.
Speaker 26: He was his argument was like, well, you know, eventually
it got you know, subverted, and then people took over.
Speaker 4: Who were like, you know, anyway, well then then the
gates of alper bail against the church. Yeah, so this
is all the same kind of right, And we brought.
Speaker 18: Up earlier in this Twitter space saying ignacious.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to member his letter to one of his
letters forgive me says and.
Speaker 18: Remember he's writing under apstock authority at the time, Saint
John and Polycarp.
Speaker 2: That the church is where the bishop is. So I mean,
what is the Protestant going to say about about that?
They don't have any bishops.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, I keep in mind you got your body.
There's kind of being inconsistent because there aren't any Protestants
that actually believe in a laying on of hands that's
historical that passes on the Holy Spirit. There's Protestants that
believe in laying on of hands, like the laying on
of hands of elders and Protestants and Presbyterianism and stuff,
but they do not believe that there's a transmission of
the gift of the Holy Spirit that's generation to generation.
That that's not something Protestants don't believe.
Speaker 18: And I would suggest to Father Pomazanski in the Orthodox
Dogmatic Theology talks about this.
Speaker 2: It makes a really good distinction.
Speaker 18: So basically, in Protestant the laying on of hands is
a democratic election, and they do not believe any that
is supernatural. Yeah, if there's any supernatural grace, it's uh
or charisma that's conveyed through an authority or office. Because
in Protestantism mean I remember as a Lutheran.
Speaker 73: Even the pastor they're basically elevated laity. It's like a yeah,
you might be called to is lady be an administrator or.
Speaker 2: Something like that. But nobody's above any other. It's just
a call. There's no actual authority. There's there's no real
priesthood either.
Speaker 74: There's no chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout
designed to take your performance to the next level. Chad
Mode is for natty beast. Alpha's only whether you're hitting
the gym, invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling,
burning the midnight oil, logging on your coworkers, or getting
banned from Facebook, chad Mode gives you the competitive edge
you need. It's as simple as mixing one or two
scoops of our fine paw into water or juice, providing
you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of
sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you the
extra edge you desperately crave. Chad Mode stands out from
the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring a clean
and effective formula. Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle, blue
dye and sucralose further tanking, they're already low testosterone levels.
Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok
peasants pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab
made caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave.
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic
registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and
organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power
of organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose of chad
Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a
half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy. Alongside essential vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you
to fire your boss and mog on anyone who opposes you.
Chad Mode will give you a dominant and aggressive edge,
like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the gazelle is
a TikTok Jim Zoomer macro guzzling sucralose on the daily
edging to TNF videos. Whether you're seeking a high potency,
junk free pre workout or a better way to kickstart
your day, chad Mode has you covered.
Speaker 69: It's not just for men Chad, the Christians baptized is saints?
Speaker 18: Why because the word saint to set aside is something holy.
But you mean there's not a different notion of the
word say too within that the ones who finished the race,
the ones who are theosis? Like why do why am
I push into thinking that words just have one meaning?
Which is exactly why they have obviously father can only
have one meaning and call no man father, And I don't.
Speaker 75: Know exactly I'm gonna have some theories why why they
struggle with this the idea that words could have multiple
meanings in different contexts. But what's your thoughts perhaps on
because I'm sure you've you've come across this. Words only
have one meaning. It means this, it means the word
means what it says, and it says what it means,
and it means what I obviously, whatever I say, not
what you say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are you asking me? Yeah? I'm just curious.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think mostly it's.
Speaker 26: Just due to like preconditioning and training from like Protestant
churches who sort of espouse these things like when Jesus
said to call no man father, he meant to call
no man father, you know, And it's like, well, they
make an exception for like your actual blood relative father,
but other than that, you know, it's like some you know,
sort of like dictation that he's making, like, oh, don't
ever call anyone else father. So I don't know, I
think it's just like I honestly think it's just due.
Speaker 18: To like bad training from Protestant There's another one that
I found too, call no man Rocca fool.
Speaker 2: Bible says calls all kinds of people full.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a good example. Yeah, Solomon calls
people fool.
Speaker 2: Rabbis Well, yeah, well I'm wondering too.
Speaker 18: So with the Reformers, you get kind of nominalism, and
you've seen stuff like this, and I'm wondering, if you know,
it's kind of I'm just speculating here, and it kind.
Speaker 2: Of keeper level. Do some of those philosophical errors perhaps
condition influence them in a way to be conditioned to
think of Well, obviously words just have one me.
Speaker 18: Because I believe in uniucacy and nominalism, and not that
these people are actually conscious of that, but the Reformers
definitely were.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, good questions. I'm going to move on here.
I appreciate that. So we're taking people who disagree tonight.
So it's people who have arguments disagreements. Mark. By the way,
here's the quote that Father Deacon was referring to. It's
ignacious Epistle to the Simernians, and it is chapter eight,
nothing to be done without the bishop. Where the bishop is,
there's the Eucharist, there is the Catholic Church. Yes, it's
exactly thing too, Mark, You and I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Thanks?
Speaker 35: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So I'm like.
Speaker 76: Like a Calvinistic, like Baptist kind of perspective, and I
don't have like an argument per se, but I just
kind of wanted to talk about like concupiscence.
Speaker 2: And yeah, just because basically, so, yeah, basically.
Speaker 76: I've been learning more about even just the Reformed and
Lutheran understanding. I know there's even like some differences between
different individuals and whatnot, But it seems like, at least
from what I can surmise that for the main difference
between the worth that the Worthodox position denies that concupisence
is sin.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because James says that desire when it has given,
when it is consented to, gives birth to sent So
the desire is not the sin. The consenting to the
passions is what the sin is?
Speaker 2: Right, Okay?
Speaker 76: And so then and then I so one thing that
I'm wondering is like, is I mean I read though
I actually have a copy of like the Orthodox Study Bible,
and I was looking at the some of the passages
on Roman seven. So I'm wondering, what is kind of
what is the understanding of the language of indwelling sin.
Speaker 2: If it's not like you know, you're saying it's it's
not it.
Speaker 4: So it can't be a literal thing that dwells because
everything that has existence or being is created by God,
and we know that God is not the creator of sin,
because it would be the Manichean position to say that
there's a substance or a thing that exists that is
called sin. So it's a man It's actually a Manichean position, right.
Speaker 76: So yeah, And so one thing that I've seen is
I've been studying more of the at least some of
the Protestant people talking about it, is that they deny
that position. Like in the Book of Conquered, for example,
there's like a section about different like controversies that arose,
and one of them, it's called the flaking controversy where
the sky. Basically he was a Lutheran and he was
articulating that position that you just explained that that humans
in their substance are actually sinful and that you know,
we're made in the image of Satan after the fall
of crazy stuff, and that's like denied by the Lutherans.
Speaker 4: Well, but even if they deny that, that doesn't mean
they're consistent because if you deny that, but then you
think that there's this thing called a law of sin
that's at work in you, then if then that means again,
sin is still something that's part of your nature. How
can sin be something that's in nature?
Speaker 76: Okay, okay, so kind of so am I So, just
to clarify what you're saying, you're saying that even if
they say that that they say it's just accidental, they're
being inconsistent because of the way they talk about it.
Speaker 2: Is that kind of what you mean?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean yeah, I mean conceivably any specific individual
Protestant could have all manner positions. But in the case
of Lutherans, I mean they understand their theology at times
departs from Luther himself, because Luther said man is an
ass that's ridden either by God or by the devil.
If you read Bondage of the Will, Luther basically says
that we're just basically sin machines. That's all we do
is sin. It's even more radical than Calvin's told a
privity position. So, I mean they can say one thing,
but I think the key issue to refuting this is
not so much worrying about like going into Roman seven
or whatever, because Roman seven for us, as Paul, is
using an analogy of something that's a law that's at
work or a principle that's at work in my members,
meaning that I have this tendency to go against God's
law and to do things that are wrong. But that
doesn't make my nature or my body bad. It just
means that I have a tendency to commit an action
of will that is a sin. For us, sin is
not a state of being. It's not a thing. It's
always an act of the will against the good or
against God's law. That's all I can ever be. And
so the Church Father's it's defined sin as somethody that's
a privation. It's not a thing, because anything that has
being or substance is something that God created. Our Nature's created.
We have a being, we have substance, we have a will,
we have desires, and God gave us those things so
they could never inherently be sin. And I think that's
the point that that we see sin as an action
of the will and not a state of being.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, Yeah that makes sense. So yeah, okay.
Speaker 76: Another another thing that I was kind of curious about
along the same lines or just trying to get understand more,
is okay or yeah, basically I know you it's your
guys view that that tendency to sin, even though it's
not sin itself, it's not something that like inhres and
in our substance for that proclivity to sin that happens
because of the fall, right, yes, okay, okay, and so okay, yeah,
that was just clarification I want, okay, So, and I
know that it's your guy's position that you deny like
any kind of imputed guilt from Adam correct.
Speaker 4: Right, guilt cannot be a state of being because guilt
has only had through individual actions or what we call
actual sins. So we agree with the Roman Catholics on
this point that sin is an action of the will,
is not a state of being. Okay, it could never
be something that you inherit. In fact, that's why Ezekiel
says that the sin the father should not be put
to death for the sense the son should not be
to put the death in sins of the father.
Speaker 76: Yeah, okay, And I wanted to bring up that Ezekiel
eighteen passage because because I know that the Orthodox kind
of talk more about death as like something that we
all will die because of Adam sin, even though we're
not all guilty because of Adam sin.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 77: But I guess what I'm wondering is, how does that
if like the way that at least kind of going
off that Ezekiel passage, it makes it seem as if
like death is a penalty for people committing sin.
Speaker 2: So how do you understand the fact that everyone dies
even though not everyone is guilty.
Speaker 4: Well, in the same way that if a mom has
a child and she's you know, she drinks alcohol, the
child hat well, it can be born with fetal alcohol syndrome,
but he's not guilty of sin. So he has the
consequences of the mother's sin, but that doesn't mean he's
guilty for the action of the mom's sin. Even though
he experiences the consequences. If somebody poisons my talent with
fentanyl in the water and everybody becomes drug addicts, it's
not their fault. They are not guilty of being drug
addicts because someone because the effects of somebody's sins hit them.
So in the same way, we feel the effects of
adam sin, but we're not guilty for his sin. We
are guilty for the sins that we individually commit. But
great questions. I appreciate that we're going to move on
to dominic if you want a full treatment of like
the Protestant Calvinist position. Again, as we talked about earlier
in Tonight's Dream, I did on my clips channel a
really lengthy two part discussion with Sam Chamoun on Calvinism,
and I did one with Church of the Eternal Logos
on Calvinism. Go ahead, dominic dominic Cabralukay, Yeah, I'd like.
Speaker 2: To discuss free grace theology. Okay.
Speaker 41: So Roumins four is kind of contradicting James too, because
you see it says if Abraham were justified by works,
he had went off to glory, but not before God
for what saved the scriptures.
Speaker 2: Abraham believed God.
Speaker 4: You're just why do you assume it's a contradiction. Maybe
it's your interpretation that's wrong.
Speaker 2: But because it says on verse four and now to
him that works there, So.
Speaker 4: It's your interpretation that's wrong. It's not a contradiction, it's
your inter utation.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 41: I see what about Romans four or five that says
the unrighteous.
Speaker 4: That count on.
Speaker 41: Don Jesus Christ will his faith is counted for righteousness.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but faith, according to Paul, has to be living
and active and working through love to count. So what
kind of faith are you talking about?
Speaker 41: Well, I mean just basically a working faith that I
would say is okay. So I would say the basis
to be saved is at least having faith in Jesus Christ,
because you know, everyone knows the Ephesians two a nine
it says, you know, no.
Speaker 4: Yeah, But so all of this is right, But all
of this is just based on the Protestant picking and
choosing of certain verses to ignoring all the other verses.
Where when I'm asking about what kind of faith, Paul says,
faith worketh by love. That's what counts. The faith that
is working. So it can't just be this mental rational
notional faith, believing that you know, Jesus is the Savior,
and he imputes grace to me like Protestants think. Because again,
in many places, Paul specifies that his faith working. So
Paul himself says, it's faith that works by love, which
is exactly what James is saying. So it's not there's
no contradiction. I'm mad. What's up?
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: I can't?
Speaker 78: All right, I just had a quick question regarding the Trinity.
If that's okay with you? So Stovias Hippo when he
says in on the Doctrine Book one, chapter five, at
the Father and the Son.
Speaker 4: Cold on the Trinity or in Kridean on Christian Doctrine,
which book are you satting on?
Speaker 79: The Christian doctor in Gridian on the on the Doctrine
in Caridean, Yes, okay, go ahead.
Speaker 78: So when he says that the Father and the Son
the Holy Spirit each at individually substance would just be
talked about first substance or second substance, I.
Speaker 4: Don't know what you mean first or second substance. I
don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, like Arizona metaphysics, he puts the primary.
Speaker 4: Augustine is not going to be using Aristotelian metaphysics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so no, this is what it means. Going to
hypothesis of three persons.
Speaker 4: He's not going to be using Aristotylian metaphysics.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The metaphysics he's using, No, it's not.
Speaker 4: Okay, what is it based on platonism and neoplatonism?
Speaker 2: Okay, so tell me what this means? Three three companies?
Speaker 4: Hold on, Let me let me where I'm at the
Encoreadian Which chapter?
Speaker 2: Uh, it's going to be book one, chapter five?
Speaker 4: Does it start moreover? The mind has been imbued with
the first elements of faith? Is that what you're talking about? No,
because you're talking about different work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's on the doc three. That's that's the work name.
Speaker 4: Okay, I got it.
Speaker 78: So would you name these three coupley substances would be concrete,
dre abstract.
Speaker 8: Let me let me.
Speaker 4: I'm going to hold on. So chapter book one, Chapter five,
The Trinity, the true object of enjoyment.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming it you should talk about ecept the three
of them. They're try you. It goes about pyr coursis
was about consequentiality?
Speaker 4: Does it? Does it begin? The true objects? Of enjoyment
in our Father, son and Holy Spirit?
Speaker 2: Is that it? I'm pretty sure? I mean, do you
have it?
Speaker 4: Or I don't understand?
Speaker 2: It's not with Marna, So it's care to ask you? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Ok, fair enough? Okay, so I have it pulled up.
And then what's the question?
Speaker 78: Yes, I was asking, so the three the three couple
of substances, right, so you know obviously some people can
interpret diferent right, So I was wondering what the correct
the pradition is like? Would it be concrete through substances
or to be abstract through substances?
Speaker 4: It's neither one because that terminology isn't applicable to the trinity.
There are three hypostases with one essence, so that it
has nothing to do with abstract or concrete.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are you with what concrete is? In?
Speaker 4: Whose philosophy? You keep asking about Aristotle? And Augustine is.
Speaker 2: Not influenced by the basic is the basic categorism met
pphysics of who of Aristotle?
Speaker 4: Why do you keep asking Aristotal questions when he's not
influenced by Aristotle and.
Speaker 2: The Plato and Ariosota they complement each other, for.
Speaker 4: Example, but Augustine is not influenced by Aristotle. So it
has nothing to do with that. You said, that's hypostasis
in Christian theology, is not. The closest equivalent is Aristotle's
notion of the individual the agent.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the agent. So we see the three hypotheses,
the unified to one agent.
Speaker 4: Or no, three agents with one essence.
Speaker 78: Three agents, one essence. And would you say that your
God's peer act. No, you wouldn't say about peer act.
Speaker 4: Now we're not a Riskitilians like, so you're trying to
Are you a Muslim that's trying to understand this stuff?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, so but you have no idea what you're dealing with.
You're trying to import these ideas from systems that you
have nothing to do with what Augustin is talking about.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I'm an only ext Christian went to
Christian academy.
Speaker 4: So that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about
because you went to a Christian academy for sure. So
well then if you knew, if you knew Christian, then
you would know that that Orthodox are not going to
say God's.
Speaker 78: You hold a Parlemist rights. So in chapter seven Deeds
of the Hunt of the chapters, we said that God
is in natural beings. I mean, that's his energy. The
mythics would be slow down.
Speaker 4: I've read one hundred fifty chapters. What slow down? What
are you say?
Speaker 2: Chapter seventy eight, what about you the chapters?
Speaker 78: He says that God I mean is mythics because the
energy can be normally referred as to God as well.
God is the nature of all beings, meaning that's his operations.
Is nature, and just obviously Tellio's nature, he substantial nature,
essential nature.
Speaker 4: To slow down and stop trying to play word games.
Speaker 2: Is games.
Speaker 4: I'm pulling up one hundred fifty chapters and you're reading
it super fast.
Speaker 2: Which one chapter seventy sir?
Speaker 4: What seventy eight? Yes, sir, God's nature is utterly remote.
This is talking about apathetic theology. So what's your point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so so you go to apathetic theology, right, and
so with God is a nature of all beings.
Speaker 4: God is not the nature of beings. So you have
no idea what you're talking about. You know, we're not pantheus.
No he's not. No, he's not the uncreated nature is
not the nature of created beings.
Speaker 2: J He says in chapter seventy I have it in
front of me.
Speaker 4: It's talking about God's uncreated nature, which is not the
nature of created beings. No, no orthodoxy thedox person believes that.
That's ridiculous. Why are you saying this? You think we
don't know our own theology?
Speaker 78: No, No, greg good pelancy obviously offer Koreish exideal if
you see that teleological nature of God's identical to all
beings of nature.
Speaker 4: No, it's not the nature of God is not the
nature of created beings.
Speaker 2: Hey, do you have the crew translation I have?
Speaker 4: Like you know, you don't know the correct You're a Muslim?
What are you talking about? I have it in front
of me right here.
Speaker 2: Listen, I'm a Muslim, but I but you have no idea?
Speaker 4: What Christian do you think? The Christian theology teaches that
God's nature is the nature of creative beings.
Speaker 2: It's not what I'm teaching.
Speaker 4: I have it in front of me. He does not
say that as well. Well, but yeah, but you guys
are commit takia and lie. So that's that's not what
he says.
Speaker 2: As I committed correct as who holds I do?
Speaker 4: Here we go with the Arabic bullshitting out the Arabic
term then nobody that doesn't impress of anybody over here.
We don't care that you spin out Arabic terms.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, sir, but you hold to antitosis. Correct.
Speaker 4: Every nature is utterly remote and absolutely estranged from the
divine nature. The very first sentence in this paragraph refutes
this idiocy of what you're saying.
Speaker 78: Okay, okay, so okay, yeah, So if you go down,
he says, this too is a wisdom of goodness. And
simply all the erycip of God or of God will
also the saint's falling theology. And since the God also
called the nature all of beings as.
Speaker 2: He of all that you partake in the methics.
Speaker 4: Of it is, you're not you're you're not even you're
not even reading it. You're like spitting your It says
he is the very listen. It says, he is the
very being of beings, and the form in the forms
as the primal form in the wisdom. That means he's
the source and the archetype of the created or order.
Speaker 2: So is essence identical to nature linguistically?
Speaker 80: Yes, okay, so God's essence is the same as his nature.
I never asked you just asked me if it was
the same.
Speaker 4: What do you mean You never asked so, So.
Speaker 2: It's telos identical to essence teleos.
Speaker 4: That's purpose, dude, what are you talking about? No, purpose
is not nature, dummy.
Speaker 2: Yes, telogical nature tilos.
Speaker 4: No, you don't even know. There's no such thing as
teleos teleological nature. Tilos is purpose. No, there's not. You
don't even. You don't know these terms, dude, You have
no idea what you're talking about. What do you think?
Do you listen? Listen to me, I'm telling you are theology.
Telos is purpose. It's not a nature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not a nature. Nobody said it's a nature.
Speaker 4: You just said teleological nature.
Speaker 2: Teleological nature. You just said that actual purpose.
Speaker 4: There's are you not teleos? You don't even you're not
even saying it right. Oh man, God's nature is not
a teleological nature.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay.
Speaker 4: Seventy eight verse, The very first sentence says, the very
first sentence, the very first sentence says that you're lying
about all this passage. You're lying? Why are you lying
about this past?
Speaker 10: Like?
Speaker 2: What do you like?
Speaker 4: Who told you this? So your your control f searching?
You haven't actually read this word? Yeah, it's in front
of everybody. It doesn't say that God's nature is created nature.
It says the very first sentence says the opposite of that,
I don't care what you have in front of you.
Speaker 2: The what.
Speaker 4: Nobody cares what you have in front of you?
Speaker 2: All right, sir, sir?
Speaker 35: Question sir, sir?
Speaker 2: So so your correct obviously.
Speaker 4: Is so this is the dumbest like, so is this
your new plan of attack? But let's talk about Islam first.
You want to talk about Islam? You just want wanna
You want to go through text that you don't even understand.
You don't want me to talk about as long? Now wait, sir, wait, sir, wait, sir?
Does it say yeah, I know it like I don't
know Calciton. Yeah, he is not nature because he is
beyond all nature. Do you see that you just said
he you just said he has nature.
Speaker 2: I'm on my phone. I can't see your life stream,
but I have the skin right here.
Speaker 4: I'm reading. I don't want to talk about the skin.
I'm reading it to you right here.
Speaker 2: Translation, Sahi, you.
Speaker 4: You think these are these are hot deeths?
Speaker 15: How do you know?
Speaker 4: You don't you don't know our theology? How do you
know you have the right translation. I'm I'm at a
freaking Orthodox website. What are you talking about. We're not
gonna listen to you lying Muslims about our palam Mos.
Come on, hi, sir.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to ask you a quick You're
just trolling.
Speaker 4: You're a lying troll. Give me, give me a break.
You're a lying troll.
Speaker 2: No, don't kick me.
Speaker 4: You want to qush to You don't want to just
ask questions. You came here to lie. So you didn't
know what you thought as you thought Augustine wasn't Aristotilian.
You thought Augusta wasn't Aristotilian first, and now you're saying
that you thought that you thought Gregory Palamas says that
God's nature is the nature of all creation?
Speaker 2: All right? Did do you hold a physicism? Sir?
Speaker 4: Of course?
Speaker 2: Okay, So why you say that you didn't You didn't
know what that was.
Speaker 4: I didn't say I didn't know what that was. It
means two nature's uh huh?
Speaker 2: Okay, so you holted it. Of course.
Speaker 4: Saint Cyril teaches the communication of properties. Every Orthodox person
believes that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's Western theology.
Speaker 4: No, it's not. It's from Saint Cyril, You retard. St.
Cyril is not a Western theologian. It's from Cyril. You
said it's Western theology, so you have no idea what
you're talking about?
Speaker 2: Are you saints of Eastern.
Speaker 4: It's the stupidest shit I've ever heard, Dave Saint Cyril
of Western theology. Please clip that. That's the stupidest Muslim
ever who thought he was being sophisticated and smart by
talking fast and spitting out a bunch of terms that
he thought I didn't know, Like I didn't know what
community castio modius. Did we lecture through Cyril over here?
Like we've debated the Orientals? You think I've read tons
of Cyril? What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I'm you, hey, Ja, what's up?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey? Hey? I was just gonna ask a question.
Speaker 58: Maybe disagreement, I don't know, But what's the Orthodox view
on libertarian free will?
Speaker 2: Would would you say? We hope to that?
Speaker 4: I mean, we believe in the Patristic sense of free will?
So I don't know if that translates to quote libertarian
free will and some Enlightenment model.
Speaker 2: Okay, what about so mean? And I've heard that the Patristic.
Speaker 58: Version of free will is the idea that you can
choose between multiple goods?
Speaker 2: Is that greg?
Speaker 4: I mean, that's the argument of Saint Maximus about the
Escaton for why free will is not a something that's
just about the fallen state.
Speaker 58: What do you think about the argument that free will
seems to entail, or at least the ability that our
actions needed can for our actions to be morally praiseworthy,
that you need to be able to choose between good
and evil.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure that it's necessary, because Adam and Eve
could have continued in a state of innocence without evil
and been virtuous.
Speaker 2: But they still would have had the choice.
Speaker 58: That's kind of the point, Like the choice of choosing
a path heath.
Speaker 4: Of evil is no, But I'm saying that. I'm saying
that even if they had not had the option or
the ability to choose evil, there could still be virtue,
and there would there would still be the good because
there won't be the possibility of choosing evil in the Esketon,
So it has to be connected to multiple goods.
Speaker 2: You don't think that that possibility will be there.
Speaker 4: In the Escaton. Yeah, No, that's totally heretical. How would
there be evil in the Escton.
Speaker 58: Well, the explanation I've heard primarily, you know, and I'm getting.
Speaker 35: This primarily from prose, since scholars all admit is that
you're the you have a.
Speaker 2: Certain kind of character, character character.
Speaker 4: I mean, the Bible is very clear that there's no
evil in the escton. God will be all in all
death and hades are destroyed.
Speaker 58: There's no evil, right, but there would just be no evil,
but there would still be the potential basically.
Speaker 2: In the same way that you.
Speaker 58: Said, like, you know, how there is a difference between
something being potential and actualizing you know.
Speaker 4: The Well, no, there's no potential for evil. And the
reason that there's still free will is that free will
is not a choice between good and evil. That's the
fallen mode of willing. Free will is a choice between
multiple goods. That's this is Maximus's whole argument against people
like Origin.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I thought that was interesting because I know that
a common rebuttal to that is God, you know, that
would make God not possess free will. So I was
just kind of curious.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, that's that's another way to Yeah, that's another
way to argue it. And also, if you read free
choice in Saint Maximus, Chapter five discusses this whole issue.
I think very well from Saint Maximus. Okay, yeah, and
that's online. You can find that very easily, are you.
Here's a smart man dark plus seventy seven to one dollar.
If any man wants to follow me, I will be there.
They will be my servant. If any man serve me,
he will honor my father. KJV Bible believing Christian don't
follow men like you do, Ring Kisser. Hey, you're just
an idiot. So there's even sillier review to give me
a dollar agent zero five dollars Boomer Hillsdale College professor impersonation.
But wait, what does a serpent do that?
Speaker 7: What is it?
Speaker 4: Because that's what it's like, what a serpent does by you?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 27: Yes?
Speaker 81: Do you think that the Epistle of Barnabas was written
by the Barnabas in the New Testament.
Speaker 4: I don't have any hard position on that.
Speaker 82: It's possible, okay, because I had heard that orthodox fold
that the Epistle of Barnabas is an authoritative, authentic text.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's not in the canon scripture, but it
might be from Barnabas.
Speaker 2: It might be from what it might be.
Speaker 4: From Barnabas, but that doesn't make it part of the
Canona Scripture. Okay, I mean, I got.
Speaker 2: I thought that it might have been, so really question about.
Speaker 4: It because ideas, Yeah, I think it does. It does,
and that's why probably why I didn't make it into
the canon.
Speaker 81: Okay, all right, I guess I had heard some misinformation
then about the Orthodox belief on the epithotic Thank you sure.
Speaker 4: I mean, we have the same New Testament canon as
Roman Catholics and Protestants, so not really in terms of
the books, there's not a difference there. So this is
for people who disagree. We've been going for almost five hours.
You who's you? Who's You'll notice this paragraph in one
hundred and fifty, chapter seventy eight says absolutely nothing like
what this goop Paul was saying. I mean, the very
first sentence is saying that God's nature is not created nature.
If God is a nature, then all the other things
are not nature. That's because of apatheticism. Then he quotes Maximus,
which is the and the capped dotions that things around
God those are the energies, and he says that if
you understand that, you don't know the essence, but you
know the energies, then your theology would be and you
will be in line with the saints. That's the essencenaries sinction.
God is the nature of all beings and referred to
as such sense all participate in him and receive their
constitution by participation. This is Maximus's teaching of Matexas. But
notice not by participation in his nature. So God is
the nature of all beings as their source, and since
they participate in him, giving them being, but they do
not participate in his nature. So this is where he
was misreading it. Thus, he is the being of beings,
the form of forms, because he is the source, prototype,
archetype of the created world. He is not nature, however,
created nature because he is beyond all nature. So these
people who don't have any proficiency in understanding the complexities
of palamos the essence inari distinction, confuse and jumble this
up and make God into a creature. You whose what's up?
Speaker 56: Hello?
Speaker 2: Well you can hear me because right now it's ringing,
I can here. Okay, So I don't know will this.
Speaker 59: Be some type of topic or a question, because it
still confuses me as.
Speaker 2: A type of soiluation of humanity. I'm alsort of description.
But my question is what about the Mennonites.
Speaker 69: They are like.
Speaker 2: Protestants who are cut off from.
Speaker 7: The world, like they don't have any excess on the electricity.
Speaker 4: On I don't know, Yeah, there'll still be.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 23: My question is will they lose their solution when they die?
Speaker 4: If yes, why well I don't. We don't judge individual people,
but we can say that that group their profession of
faith is heterodox. So it's not my position to I
damn that Ezekiel over there and his buggy and Carr.
I don't know their destiny, but I do know that
they have They're a dumb cult. I can tell you
that for sure. Bleak. The Mennonites at my dad's house
used to steal his mail all the time. I mean,
excuse me, the Amish at my dad's house used to
steal his male. I don't know why. I guess they
thought they were gonna get a Playboy magazine or he
was gonna get gold bars to us. I don't know
what they were looking for, but my dad used to
complain all the time because the Amish would steal his male.
So they're not pious, saint saintly people. They're a dumb cult. Bleak,
what's up. I'm not being mean when I say that.
I say that because I don't want people to beat
in that dumb cult. Only people who live in the
South or around Mennonites and Amish actually know how stupid
this whole thing, this whole thing. A lot of people
who don't have that. Oh they're like bathed and they
don't do vaccines. Yeah, but like the essence of life
and knowing God is not do you have milk and butter?
And do you not take vaccines? Because the well, by
the way, the women are actually super unhealthy. They're all
like five hundred pounds, so they're not actually healthy because
they don't take back scenes. And by the way, they're
a crazy cult. They have their own mafia and all
their own nonsense and their own peedo stuff. So do
not be fooled by the appearance of piety amongst Amish. Bleak,
what's up? I don't know why you're thumbing down, boomer Mom.
It's a stupid cult. Like do you not know about
the Amish? You don't know they're a dumb cult, boomer mom, Jan,
I don't know why you're thumbing down. I'll bring you
on if you want. Bleak, get on, mute.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 4: We haven't had a y mom tonight, so you know
why moms can come on and drunkenly tell me why
I'm wrong. Bleak, you have to unmute. Okay, whatever, you
don't have have to thumb down fifty times? Dude, what
do you want?
Speaker 2: Can anyone hear me?
Speaker 8: Hello?
Speaker 4: Yep?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 15: Do die?
Speaker 2: Or is this our Muslims allowed in here?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 35: I just have some questions. I think I save a
false prophecy in the Gospel of Matthew.
Speaker 2: Can you address it? What in Matthew Chapter twenty seven,
verse nine through time.
Speaker 4: If you could read it out loud please, I'm getting
it and pulling it up, no problem, Matthew. What'd you say?
Twenty seven?
Speaker 2: Yeah, first line through time.
Speaker 4: That's what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet. They took
thirty pieces of silver, the value which was priced, and
they gave it as the price of the potters field.
That one.
Speaker 35: Yes, I want to see where that's located in the
Gulf in the US or not the GOLs, but Germuth.
Speaker 4: In the Book of Jeremiah, it might be misattributed in
the masoretic texts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it must be. I mean it has to
be in the uh like you know, the Book of Jeremiah, right, not.
Speaker 4: If this is from the masoretic text.
Speaker 2: Okay, so where would it be from? M h.
Speaker 4: It's referring, I think, to Jeremiah's purchase of a field.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 35: Yeah, but the problem is when you go into that
passage you're going to, it doesn't mention it mentioned a
different amount of shuckles.
Speaker 2: Therefore it is not the same event.
Speaker 4: It's well, the second verse, the second section is the
Potters field. So is that what you're talking about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the first one I gave you? How many
shuckles did that talk about? Thirty?
Speaker 4: Yeah? But what I'm saying is this is probably a
difference between the subtuage and the masoretic text.
Speaker 2: Is what I'm saying.
Speaker 35: I mean the subtu in Mazaruta, can I get like
numbers like wrong? Can they contradict to numbers? It's kind
of crazy.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, because it's too it's different translations in different orderings.
And we don't go by the maz We don't go
by that, so you we don't go Why do you
keep interrupted? Me, I said, we don't go by that.
Speaker 2: It's not a translation, it's a reception.
Speaker 4: No, the sebtusion is a translation. It's a Greek translation.
Speaker 35: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, it's a Greek translation,
but it's known as a reception okay of the So,
Jay Dyer, why name regardless? I mean, what do you
want to call you?
Speaker 15: Why?
Speaker 4: It's just weird to repeat my name.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not repeating your name.
Speaker 4: I'm calling you are repeating my name. He keeps saying
my full name.
Speaker 2: Okay, j Should I call you Jay? Call you Ja?
Speaker 58: No problem?
Speaker 2: Okay, Jay.
Speaker 35: So we read in the Gospel, it's not the Gospel
the Book of Jeremiah or try.
Speaker 4: So, what I'm saying is that the second phrase is
a reference the potter's field. That's Zachariah. Accue me. The
the potter's field, which is the second reference in verse ten,
that's from Jeremiah. But the first reference is from Zechariah.
And so he's just including being both of those references
under Jeremiah. So the second reference, it says where it says.
Speaker 35: To be Jeremiah, because Jeremiah is a different amount of.
Speaker 4: Well, he can say Jeremiah the prophet and then he
can include both verses as if the two comment on
what Jeremiah is talking about. So it's not wrong to
say Jeremiah if it's such a quote from Jeremiah and
Zachariah to class them both under just saying Jeremiah, because
this is because the the.
Speaker 2: So can you read the Jeremiah verse?
Speaker 4: It's thirty nine six to nine about the purchasing of
the field.
Speaker 2: Can you read the verse? Can you read the can you? Yeah?
Speaker 4: I'm looking for it?
Speaker 8: Hold on?
Speaker 2: Are you lugging? I think he's lugging?
Speaker 4: It's it's it's where Jeremiah talks about purchasing the Potters field,
the purchase jugging.
Speaker 2: Is it me lugging?
Speaker 44: Or is it you?
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Hold on? Yes?
Speaker 8: Hold on?
Speaker 2: Can anyone hear me? Am I audible? Hello?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Am I audible? Hello?
Speaker 4: Yes? You're audible?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 2: Am I audible? Can anyone hear me? What hell is this? Hello? Okay?
You can hear me? Can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 2: And someone put the thumbs up if they can hear me.
Speaker 4: It's because there's a difference between the numbering in Jeremiah
in the Mazat text versus a septuagent. So Jeremiah the prophet,
they will they took the thirty pieces of silver, and
the valued him who was priced, and they gave it
to the children of Israel, and they gave him the
potter's field, as the Lord directed me. So that is
a citation from Jeremiah. The first part is a citation
from Zachariah. So it's not false to say that it's
from Jeremiah when it's classing together the events and explaining them.
The potters field from Jeremiah thirty six or give me
thirty nine, when he buys the field, it's the Zachariah
text that mentions the payment. So it's Zechariah. Somebody mentioned it.
What is it Zecharia?
Speaker 10: What?
Speaker 4: Yes, it's a composite prophecy. It's combining two season saying
that when Jeremiah was talking about the purchase of a field,
that's a partial fulfillment of the death of Judas. The
other fulfillment is the mention in Zachariah.
Speaker 65: Of the.
Speaker 4: Thirty pieces of silver. Yeah, so Zachariah eleven twelve to thirteen,
thirty pieces of silver, that's the first part of the
verse that's quoted. I'm getting tired. My mind is mush.
But it's right here. Thirty pieces of silver that's from
Zachariah that we just read and gave them. For the
potters Field, as the Lord directed me, is from Jeremiah.
So he's just combining two prophecies and saying Jeremiah. So
it's not false. But I'm trying to find that which
section of Jeremiah that is. I just read it. But again,
the reason that I'm having getting confused is because in
the septuagen the numbering of Jeremiah is different. So it's
wherever Jeremiah talks about the potters Field, and I just
read it. I just don't remember which verse it is.
Here it is Jeremiah Potterfield eighteen to twenty one, is okay.
So he's summarizing the sections of Jeremiah where Jeremiah purchases
this field, and he's saying that is in part of
fulfillment of the field, where it's a partial prediction of
Judas is what I'm trying to say. So it's eighteen
to twenty one. Where is it the Jeremiah purchases the field?
Speaker 2: Is that not it?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Okay? The reference is Zecharai's words it's connected to
Jeremia's ministry because Jeremiah's name was on the scroll. In
those days, books didn't exist, and so it was common
for shorter writings to be attached to longer, more major writings.
That way, you didn't have a tiny scroll for a
short writing like Jonah or Obadiah. Truthfully, we don't often
know today when we read which had multiple contributors, and
so we often referenced the name on the cover. So
the passage is a combination of two reference is namely
both namely quotations from both Jeremiah, who had experience buying
the potter's field on two different occasions Potters and Pottery
Jeremiah eighteen and nineteen, and the quotation from Zachariah eleven,
which is the was what the first part of the verse.
But I was just reading in Jeremiah where he's talking
about purchasing something. Doesn't it say something like the Lord
instruct me to go buy a field. I'm trying to
remember I've just read this, And the only reason it's
confusing is because, as I was saying at the beginning
of the stream, the references in the Orthodox Study Bible,
the chapters are all different in Jeremiah. So it takes
forever to find the reference to the field. There it
is go to the potter's house. I'll give you a message.
Or is that just eighteen eleven? There it is thirty
two six to nine buying the field. That's what I
was trying to find. But it's different. It's not thirty
two six to nine in the Orthodox study. By Well,
that's why I was confusing. So thirty two sixty nine
there it is. Jeremiah said, the word of the Lord
came to me, son of Hanahmel, your uncle will come
to you saying the field and Anathoth. So that's where
Jeremiah is told to go buy this field. So all
of this, so all of this for the last like
thirty minutes, was just this bunch of nonsense. So because
ancient scrolls would write one letter or one name at
the top, and you combine the prophecy together and say
that it's the prophecy of Jeremiah. So you're just linking
what Zechai says to half of the verse, which is Jeremiah.
So it's a big nothing. Bleak. Do you want to
try again? Bleak? I'm you, Hm, why do you keep
going if you don't want to umute ude, don't get it.
Southern reconciliation. Helloh, you don't have your MIC's turn your
permissions turned on because it won't add you. Jace the
last one. I don't see anybody else. Here's another. It's like,
right when I think nobody else is coming, somebody else
pops in.
Speaker 2: I'm mute, Heydri, can you hear me? A big fan
of yours? And Sam's think you.
Speaker 83: I kind of had a I thought about Orthodox evangelism.
I know there's a lot of like Protestants who go
out in the streets and kind of say like repent
or dies.
Speaker 64: So this is right.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that, but it's it's it's debate days, so
we're not we're doing open form if you have debate
or challenge or opposition burn what's up?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 27: Yeah, I just was wondering, do you have any idea
what that guy's talking about with the fruitful, fruitful Bible.
This is Jake Bernitz, by the way, that I sent
a super trap but you didn't address it, but it
was on tag. But that guy keeps talking about we
use only the most fruitful Bible.
Speaker 2: I don't know what kind of argument that it is.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, okay, let me scroll down here. I missed
a couple of super chats here, Casey Cardenas five dollars.
I'm sorry about that earlier question. I meant to say,
as a hypothetical disagreement about the cannonation of Isaac Isaac
the Syrian. Now he was in communion with the church
is our view, so he wasn't out of communion. Jake
Bernards ten dollars. What are some books on tag specific
to Orthodoxy? There aren't any?
Speaker 2: Oh, there aren't.
Speaker 27: Oh, okay, well, because you make the argument in a
very specific way, so I'm really trying to understand it
so I can like properly portray.
Speaker 4: It, right people, Yeah, there's not one. Really, It's just
kind of stuff that Father Deacon and Ias and I
have been arguing. Now, he's got a lot of papers
in the discord that you could look to that kind
of go in that direction.
Speaker 27: Okay, Well, I was also wondering, what are some like
books for like underlying philosophical topics that I need to
know for that specific argument.
Speaker 4: I would say, look up Bonson's book Always Ready. You
could look up an argument or a book like a
Ultimate Proof by doctor Jason Lyle. Those are good ones.
So we're doing people who disagree tonight. It looks like
we're about about out of people, that we're about out
of options here for disagreeers. So you only can come
on if you disagree. So please don't come on here
and ask me a bunch of orthodox fake questions.
Speaker 2: What.
Speaker 33: Yeah, I was calling to disagree about tact But that's
why I kip Okay, So one of the claims that
you made about classical theism, I'm just trying to explain
why I have a disagreement classical theism is you can
pause it other gods. It doesn't lead to just the
Orthodox god exception.
Speaker 4: Right, That would be one critique of it. Yeah, it's
it's not just I mean, it's rather that there's a
fallacy involved, like the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 33: So my disagreement on tag was that, like, couldn't you
make the same exactly? I mean, I think you can
make the same, So I'll put it that way. I
think the fact that Greg Bohnson until they're the ones
who first.
Speaker 4: Well, that's that's that's a no, that's the genetic fallacy.
The fact that people make that argument has nothing to
do with like the source of an argument, not to
do with whether it's true or false. So we refine
that argument to say it's better fitted to the orthodox perspective.
So you're just committing a genetic fallacy. I mean, as
a classical theist, you commit genetic fallacies all the time.
If you think that you can just go to Aristotle's God, right,
could I argue that it?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 4: Can I argue what if I said this? Aristotle is
a pagan, So your classical theist arguments are false. It's
a fallacy. Aristotle is the source of this, has nothing
to do with others for false.
Speaker 33: Okay, I just thought that your critique of classical theism
as an argument is that it can be used for
other guys.
Speaker 2: Is that not your argument?
Speaker 4: The argument is that it doesn't specify who or what
it's talking about, and so it's a deficient argument. And
you're confusing that with the fact that somebody who's wrong
or has a heterodox position is using a transcendental argument.
That's two different things. You don't see that I'm saying.
Speaker 33: Okay, I get I do get what you're saying, but
what I Okay, so you can tell me, I'm wrong.
But what I'm saying is the fact that these two
these two arguments can be used for any paradigm is
kind of what defeats it.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm That's what I'm getting at. I don't
know if it.
Speaker 4: Can't be used for any paradigm, that that's the point.
Speaker 33: You're saying, the transcendental argument cannot be used validly.
Speaker 2: For other paradigms. Correct, Okay, yeah, I guess that's where
I disagree.
Speaker 4: Okay, how can it be used for other paradigms?
Speaker 33: Well, I mean, well, okay, so then that's why I
would say, Like if Greg Bahnson formulated.
Speaker 4: I just answered that. So you don't You don't understand.
Speaker 2: You asked me to demonstrate the Okay, the.
Speaker 4: Fact that a person who's wrong uses an argument does
not mean that the argument can therefore be used by
any position. You don't see the difference between that.
Speaker 33: I understand that, I understand it.
Speaker 4: But then then you restate the position.
Speaker 33: But then isn't it on you to demonstrate how he's
using it invalidly?
Speaker 4: Absolutely? I do it all the time.
Speaker 33: Okay, But if you but then you appeal to the
orthodox paradigm. But that's Is that refuting the argument like
on philosophical grounds or is that just disagreeing.
Speaker 4: With Yeah, the argument is that Greg Bnsen doesn't have
a specific, correct trinitarian doctrine to ground the transcendental argument,
and so when he appeals to things like it answering
the one of the many, it doesn't work because his
trinitary theology is bogus. So a correct trinity theology solves
that problem.
Speaker 33: So you don't see you don't see that as tangential
to the transcendental argument.
Speaker 4: I guess how would it be tangential when all this
time I've been arguing that the orthodox trinity is the
transcendental argument.
Speaker 33: I see that as in my mind they are different categories.
Speaker 4: But okay, I you know, I mean, have you not
listened to how I've been arguing it.
Speaker 33: Of course I have, Yes, I have.
Speaker 4: Well, then you just didn't get it because I've said
for how many years now? Do you have to have
a specific trinitarian God?
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm just.
Speaker 33: I'm trying to say that in my mind, there's a
distinction between the private revelation and the philosophical.
Speaker 4: Argument, Like revelation, what are you talking about?
Speaker 33: Okay, Well, does Greg Bonson not have a different private
revelation than someone who's.
Speaker 4: What are you talking about private revelation? I don't know
what that means, no idea, what you're talking about? What's
a private revelation is?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 4: What offense? What are you talking about?
Speaker 33: I'll explain, No, revelation doesn't Isn't that part of any
anyone's conversion? Like I'm not trying to say anything crazy here, genuinely,
I'm saying, revelation is a part of anybody who professes
like Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, or they.
Speaker 4: Have different doctrines of revelation, but that's not private revelation.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 33: So okay, so throughout the word private.
Speaker 2: Then just revelation.
Speaker 4: Okay, Okay, So I'm.
Speaker 33: Saying I just said private because it's different for everybody,
So like Greg Boson or whatever.
Speaker 4: So what I'm s how can it be different for everybody?
Speaker 33: It's different, meaning if you have a different paradigm, it's different.
So you, as an Orthodox Christian have a different revelation
than Greg Bonnson does if he's a Baptist or if
he's a Protestant, and your orthodox right, Well, the factors
into the transcendental argument.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you're misunderstanding. Look, it's not a different revelation.
There's only one revelation, but people have misappropriations and misunderstandings
of that one revelation. There's not different revelations. There's only
one divine revelation, which is the depositive faith. And the
fact that people get things wrong doesn't mean there's different revelations.
That means they're making mistakes.
Speaker 33: Okay, But okay, so but people claim to be Okay, well,
people claim divine revelations, and so you would say they're
just wrong when they claim that.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, everybody has to say somebody's right and somebody's wrong,
So everybody has that view.
Speaker 33: So but I'm talking specifically about revelation. That's that's why
it's it's kind of important.
Speaker 4: Every position that's Catholic, Orthodox Protestant has to say that
there's some specific finality, defined body of what's divine revelation
and that the other positions are incorrect. It doesn't mean
there's different revelations, but.
Speaker 33: The claims are different. That's all I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: The different So that just means that just means.
Speaker 4: That just means somebody is wrong.
Speaker 33: But when it's when we're talking about revelation, it's not
like a logical question or it's not like it's just
something that's revealed, right, Like, how do you argue.
Speaker 2: That that's the whole?
Speaker 4: No, that's so you've been disagree with it, so you
have no idea what so you don't understand these positions,
so you're confused. So No, the fact that something's the
fact that something's revealed does not mean that it's illogical
or that it doesn't relate to logic, and not even
the Roman Catholics of that position.
Speaker 33: Wait, I you're saying that, I'm saying it's it's necessarily illogical.
If someone is saying I'm not.
Speaker 4: Saying that, you said, how does it even relate to logic?
Of course logic is grounded in revelation. That's our perer,
that's our position.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 33: But and so all I'm saying is that on a
transcendental argument from my perspective, everybody claims that, So there's
no way to DeLine in.
Speaker 4: You're confusing claiming something with it being the case. Those
are two different things. The fact that they claim it
is irrelevant. You don't understand that.
Speaker 33: Okay, So you're saying the fact that they claim it
doesn't make it true. Right, So I understand that you're
repeating that. I understand that.
Speaker 4: But then you go back to arguing like that doesn't
the case and I didn't say that, So you're.
Speaker 33: Well, all I'm saying is that they exist different these
different claims exist, and that there's no way to do
there's no The step after that is to argue, well,
my revelation.
Speaker 2: That's why I brought up revelation.
Speaker 4: This is the point where you're misunderstanding is that we're
not stuck in that position. You can use logic and
reasoning to fetter out which position is fall which one
is true. For example, rag Boson's trinitarian theology does not
work to do the grounding that our position does.
Speaker 2: That's the point, okay, But.
Speaker 33: You don't you don't see how this is just okay,
all right? When we're when you argue on that level,
there's no way to distinguish.
Speaker 4: I mean, of course there is. What do you mean,
how else would we argue how else would we argue
against how else would we argue against a Muslim? If
you can't distinguish on the trinitarian level, which ones which
true and falls.
Speaker 33: I didn't see on the trinitaryarian level.
Speaker 4: I just made the argument on the trinitarian level.
Speaker 15: What do you mean?
Speaker 2: Fine? Okay, I thought you were responding to what I said. Okay,
so I was okay, all right, all right, I'm.
Speaker 33: Willing to let it go.
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is helping you.
Speaker 33: It really isn't.
Speaker 4: It's helping me, Like I think you're the one that
isn't helping man. I'm just trying to be mean.
Speaker 33: No, I agree, I'm not trying to be I'm just
trying not to frustrate anything.
Speaker 2: But it really is a disagreement. So that's why.
Speaker 4: But it's a disagreement because you don't you don't understand that.
It's like you think that you can't argue paradigms. Is
that what you think?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think that.
Speaker 33: I think that the transcendental argument demonstrates how everybody has
a paradigm. But I think that's all it does.
Speaker 4: No, that's that's what you're misunderstanding because you haven't listened
to me. You said you did. I've argued for years
now that it requires a specific type of God in metaphysic.
Don't you understand that Christianity presents a specific trinitarian metaphysic.
And when I say that, you said Christianity. Yes. And
when I say that, you say, you can't argue that.
Why would you think that? I've been arguing this for years.
Speaker 33: The one, so, the one in the many is the
only the only thing that sets it aside.
Speaker 4: I know, of course, not where are you getting I
mean no, I mean.
Speaker 33: As a response to what I'm saying as a response.
Speaker 4: Now, that's just one example of where Bonson fails. Bonson
fails on the nature person distinction. He fails in the
essence interrodustinction. He has the absolute divine simplicity position of
a Roman Catholics, and so that makes God unknowable. All
of these things would contribute to why his trinity fails
to do the grounding work. Do you know what I
mean when I say that.
Speaker 33: I believe I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Yes, I do believe.
Speaker 33: I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you have to have the metaphysics, so well,
then that answers your dilemma.
Speaker 33: Okay, all right, all right, I can see that point.
Speaker 4: Yes, I'm not like it, but you seem like you don't.
So you're just saying that to not have an argument
or something like that.
Speaker 33: Well, no, I know, I mean I'm working it through.
But yeah, I am working it through. What can I
say like it to me? Again, I'm trying to I'm
just trying to explain that the paradigm level argument is
just everybody claiming their paradigm. So it's all circular. Because
you did mention that there's internal You've missed.
Speaker 4: You've missed the entire point of TAG, which is to
compare and dispreparadigms by internal inconsistencies at a fundamental level,
which make knowledge and metaphysics and ethics impossible in that system. So,
if you want me to be precise with Monson, Bonson's worldview,
even though he admits TAG doesn't work to do the
grounding work that he needs it to do because the
that he wants to ground it in is unknowable, untouchable,
doesn't interact with the world ultimately because it's the Calvinist deity.
Speaker 2: So that's.
Speaker 4: One example, and that's why it doesn't work to do
any one in many grounding. Sure, you don't Okay, yeah,
go ahead. That's what I've been saying for years now.
Speaker 2: No, and I've been listening.
Speaker 33: I just don't like how these all tie together. Like, look,
the transcedental argument is just one argument. That's how I
see it.
Speaker 2: But you're stating it on a much way.
Speaker 4: You said you've been listening to me for years. I've
been making this point for years.
Speaker 33: Okay, so yeah, almost, Okay, so I'm just slow then,
but I'm like, I do, I do feel like I'm
me I'm understanding the transcendental argument.
Speaker 4: It's listen, maybe this is what help. It's an argument
for a paradigm. It's not an argument for an abstract
thing like conceptual reality or universals. It's an argument for
the entire paradigm.
Speaker 33: Okay, could I just ask you a question that clarifies. Okay, listen,
if someone can make an argument, can that argument be
used for different for different traditions, or for different things.
I mean that in my mind, that's.
Speaker 4: Just it doesn't matter, so you keep confusing things that
are irrelevant to whether it's true or false. So that'd
be like saying, I mean, could a Mormon use a
cosmological argument? And does that make the cosmological argument useless
because Mormons use it. You see how silly that would
I'm not saying.
Speaker 33: Use the form of the argument can still be valid
in my opinion, That's what I'm saying, the form of
the argument.
Speaker 4: No, No, you're missing the point, the fact that if
a Mormon and an atheist and a scientologist use the
cosmological argument, that doesn't make the cosmological argument relativized to
the systems. It just means that somebody's are all three
are misusing it incorrectly and they're inconsistent. Do you see that?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 33: And again this is where I would disagree. I would
say they're using the argument, they're just plugging in different
values for what you then, what.
Speaker 4: The transcenental argument is actually that you have to give
a count for cosmology and causation itself. You say, so,
it's a bigger picture than that. It's an argument for
a paradigm. It's not an argument for Do you understand
when I say it's an argument for the entire Christian
paradigm that includes Christian metaphysics. I don't think you're understanding
that it's an argument for a paradigm, not for a
peace of the worldview.
Speaker 33: No, I think I understand a paradigm level argument.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: No, not a paradigm level argument. The argument is for
the entire Christian paradigm, right, for that's what I.
Speaker 2: Meant by okay, excuse me, I take that back.
Speaker 33: A paradigm okay, argument for the paradigm.
Speaker 4: Yes, I understand that answers your question. So, in other words,
if a person uses something from my paradigm like teleology
or causation, that doesn't make my paradigm relativized, and it
doesn't mean I can't disprove them because they're using elements
of my worldview.
Speaker 33: So I'm not saying it invalidates you using the argument.
I'm just saying it doesn't do the work of all
the work that someone would want it to do.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 4: But that's because you misunderstand what the argument is, thinking
that it's only half of the job, which is just
saying that there's a paradigm level thing. It's also the
positive case of presenting the Christian paradigm in Christian metaphysics.
That's the other half of the argument. You can't just say, well,
I believe that everybody has presuppositions about ethics, metaphysics and uh,
you know, knowledge and the other positions are inconsistent. That
doesn't prove your position. You also have to give the
positive case for Christian metaphysics, Christian ethics, and Christian epistemology,
and that is only found in the worldview. That's why
it's an argument for an entire worldview.
Speaker 33: When I hear the transcendental argument, I do see. I
just see it was what you first stated.
Speaker 4: That's that's that's that's what I've been arguing for your Well.
Speaker 2: I understand.
Speaker 33: I just that's why I'm disagreeing, and that's why I
was debating it.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I understand, Okay, fair enough, that's okay. Yeah,
I've got some other talks where I think the Phaser talk.
If you go watch that one recritique phase, I go
into why it's got to be more than just the
negative critique. Also, be sure to read the Manion paper
I think you would do well to read, because Manion
in that paper of the Contingency of Knowledge, he talks
about why, even if you just disprove the other world views,
you also got to do the positive work to present
you your position, because just a negative critique is not
enough to justify your position. Jack. Oh he dropped right
when I'm adding him. You there, bleak, bleak, Hello, can.
Speaker 2: You hear me, sir? Amazing?
Speaker 11: Okay, it's so stupid, I'm okay. So I never spoke
on the next space before anyway.
Speaker 62: So you said, I believe you said that Gnostics and
I'm talking about the Christian Christianity, A Gnosticism and Christianity.
Uh all believed across the board that Jesus didn't have
a real human body, that he was ephemeral or some
kind of a No.
Speaker 4: I said, I said, docitists believe that. I'd say all gnostics.
Speaker 11: Oh okay, Oh, that's what I was going to say,
because I thought you just said gnostics.
Speaker 2: Didn't believe that. I didn't hear that.
Speaker 4: When when are you talking?
Speaker 7: Uh you?
Speaker 2: That's what I was going to say, you know the quatism?
Speaker 4: Are you talking about the interview with a pastate prophet?
What are you talking about the interview of the pastate prophet?
That's the last time I remember talking about.
Speaker 2: That, No tonight, you said it earlier time.
Speaker 4: I don't remember that coming up tonight.
Speaker 2: Oh well that's why I requested to speak, because that
you did say that.
Speaker 4: When I took it.
Speaker 11: I didn't catch the doquatism reference. How do you pronounce
that headism?
Speaker 2: How do you u?
Speaker 4: It's in English? Everybody says docatism, but it's docatism, I
guess with the k or the hard seat or whatever.
Speaker 11: Yeah, doctism and so yeah, because you know there's there's
different sects of gnostics, rostics correct, And of course the
Valentinians did not believe that Jesus was solelya ephemeral you know, spirit.
Speaker 2: Human divine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, correct, you're right out of body.
Speaker 11: Because they didn't believe that the Christ's entered was born
as you know, that Jesus wasn't born with as Christ,
that he was imparted with the divinity of Christ, if
I understand that correctly.
Speaker 2: So that's yeah, is that basically you know?
Speaker 4: That's yeah, that's all you wanted to get to. I
agree with you on that.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, well thanks for taking my taking my ex
cherry here, so all right, bye.
Speaker 4: Bye, Thanks Jack. What's up?
Speaker 8: Man? Jack?
Speaker 6: Hello?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? How are you? Man?
Speaker 4: I don't even know right now. I'm kind of like
in I'm in I feel like I'm in a dissociative state.
What's up?
Speaker 2: All right, doing good, but you look like a little
bit tired.
Speaker 4: Hello, I mean with it. We're going on six hours,
so what's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
Speaker 59: My question is actually before that, I was surging I
believe the God. I was surging to religions, like I
searched Catholic, Catholic religions or Christianity or Islamic or a Buddhisim.
Speaker 2: At that at that point.
Speaker 59: I realized something in the Quran. It was it was
really interesting. I just want to mention about that because
my question is related with this information.
Speaker 35: Uh.
Speaker 59: Yeah. When I started the Quran, I I read some
I read some academic writer and they was mentioned about that.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 59: Like Smarianism, Aztecs Babylon or Judaism or Genesis Talmud or
gold Muskatonic, Katonical and Apercle Gospels.
Speaker 2: Uh, and like history after.
Speaker 59: Religions me trilogists like astronomy, Madison, physics, okay, what trilogy
or just a second uh, just like.
Speaker 7: Egypt.
Speaker 4: And my question is that, like you're not going to
read a whole encyclopedia entrance and then tell me to
hold on. I think my mind is about mush. I
don't think I can go on anymore. Uh, thank you guys.
A lot of fun tonight, Wild I'm spent on mush. Everybody,
have a good night.