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