Speaker 1: The the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the.
Speaker 1: The the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 1: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 4: The all right, what's up? Welcome everybody.
Speaker 5: It's been a while since my good buddies have joined me.
They are a lot cooler than me.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: They don't like me anymore.
Speaker 5: I'm I'm washed up, some might say. But I've talked
them into coming back. I sent them all fifty five
bitcoin each and they've decided that they're willing to talk
to me again.
Speaker 4: They're going to help me revive my career. On the internets,
I have David Arrhon, the one, the only David Aarhon
King of refuting the Keith Hizites.
Speaker 5: And I have with me Kai of Orthodox Shahada, our
beloved brothers Kai and David.
Speaker 4: And today we're going to do part four where we.
Speaker 5: Get into some of the confusion around a couple key
terms such as in hypostatized, in hypostatization, composite hypostasis, and
some other things.
Speaker 4: Guys, how are y'all today?
Speaker 6: I was doing very well until you started speaking, so
thank you for that moment of silence for a little while.
Jokes aside, it's good to be back. I had a
long hiatus just general, just long hiatus, and just recently
I decided to come back and to make videos again.
I guess a lot of like monopsis stuff happened in
a row.
Speaker 3: Like we continue doing the stream right now.
Speaker 6: I made a video quite recently on how scripture teaches
two Natures in Christ. So I would definitely highly recommend
all of you to check that out. It's only twenty minutes.
There's a lot of I will say, new evidence, so
to speak, a new way of looking at the purchasing writings,
because we looked at Philippines two five to seven in particular,
and once you kind of understand the argument, I will
say it's very very air tight that Saint Paul teaches
two natures in Christ and at the Council of Culclum
really only repeats actually what Saint Paul is teaching, and
there's pictures basis for that. So yeah, I had a
decent stream with Clethi Antiquity as well. So yeah, as
I said, good to be back, I'll have a Yeah,
I'll have a video.
Speaker 3: I have two videos.
Speaker 6: That's available in early access of Pitch and it will
be uploaded sometime soon. One of them is also on
similar to this topic. It's on conceptual distinction in Christology,
which is also very relevant, and I will highly recommend
all of you to get ready for that. Basically it
will also be like fifteen to twenty minutes, but I
think it really gets to the heart of conceptual distinction,
which spoiler alert, it's basically distinction without division.
Speaker 3: That's basically actually.
Speaker 5: Exactly same stuff going on with in the Trinity as well.
When we make these types of distinctions Christology and Trinity
reflects back and forth. And that's also going to be
a key point in refuting iven off side errors, is
the lack of reflexibility between Trinity and Christology. But I will,
by the way, have linked below David's more recent video
that he did.
Speaker 4: It was really good and go ahead, David.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's that's just all of the all of the
news that I had to be clear.
Speaker 4: Essentially, Kyle, what's up? Catch us up on you as well?
Speaker 2: Hey, Jay, how's it going, David? Nice to see you guys.
We haven't done this for a while. People were saying,
when are you guys going to keep doing the streams
and then the the monophysites. They're like, oh, look they're
not providing responses. Yeah, it's like, oh, we've got them.
They got no way to respond. No, we just have lives.
We just have lives. Just to share a little bit
there with the audience. So God willing in February will
be welcoing we welcoming our first child. So that and
just everything around that. How life is pretty much centered
on getting that stuff going. Now, maybe I can just
maybe bring to everybody's attention because David's not really hiding it,
but I think congrats are in order David.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, yeah, congrats for Congress for what exactly
that is going to be.
Speaker 3: In the next that is going to be the next Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well you've you've shown your hand on screen several times,
so those astute watchers have been paying attention this one.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I'm happy for these.
Speaker 5: Bros too, because, like you know, when when Discord first
kind of got kicking off in twenty seventeen eighteen, we
had a round of these bros that showed up and
they ended up now being kind of what you know,
we envisioned through God's grace, creating this sort of army
of people to do apologetics. And it's not just that
they've advanced intellectually into these issues theologically, but they've also
become actual you know, chads. These guys are doing things
in life the right way. I'll leave it to David
to announce all the things that he wants to announce.
Speaker 3: No, I think just I let the secret expose itself.
Speaker 6: I don't like to talk about it about it basically,
but yeah, a lot of good things have happened during
my hiatus. So my hiatus wasn't for anything bad, I'll
say that much. Well, and it definitely wasn't because I
was scared or anything like that.
Speaker 3: It's nah. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 5: So today, like we said, we're going to talk about
a couple of the hot button terms and topics around that.
Speaker 4: David's going to go.
Speaker 5: I got about a fifteen minute section where he's gonna talk. Obviously,
KAI can talk as long as he wants as well,
about whatever he wants. I'll kick it off with a
great quote by Saint Maximus. Christ is not hype by
hypostasis mortal and immortal immortal, nor is he powerless and omnipotent,
visible and invisible, created and uncreated. But he is the
former by nature and the latter by hypostasis. And this
point I think is great for kind of laying out
the distinction not between not just between nature and person,
but also the fact that we can continue to have
a diophysite and a diothelite discussion of Christ even after
the incarnation and resurrection, et cetera, without that distinction causing division, separation,
or some you know, weird Nestorian end result. So do
you want to go first, David, or do you want
to Yeah, Ky, do you want to kick it off?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 6: Yes, First of all, that quote is incredibly important. I
mean it's from the twenty fourth Oposculum of Saint Maximus
the Confessor, and to kind of kick it off with
both as an introduction, particularly symmetrical and asymmetrical Christology. If
you don't know what these mean exactly, I'll explain them,
so it's not an issue, and particularly its teams in
the writings of the Fathers, in especially of Saint Kurrila Alexandria,
and I'll start with kind of like the asymmetrical Christology,
which is what we see with Saint Antanacius especially is
on the incarnation and Saint Kurila Alexandria to give an
example of this. Their main Christological paradigm and explaining the
union between divinity and humanity is what's in the literature
referred to as the logo sarkx model or in English
is the word flesh model. And you will notice in
those two words you have the word which refers to
the subject, and then you have flesh, which does not
refer to any subject. It refers to kind of an
impersonal human nature. And especially if you look at the
writings of both of these things that I mentioned and
the general Christological teams, they will oftentimes speak of the
flesh being the instrument of the Word, as the Word
is acting in the world, like all of his divine
activities are done through the flesh as an instrument. So
that's something that Saint Currole particularly says quite often. So
that's asymmetrical Christology. It's the relationship between the hypostasis, the
person right that is united to an impersonal nature, in
this specific case, the Word of God, who is united
to an impersonal human nature. So this is the fundamental
basis for what we will say the divine hypostatus of
Christ even after the incarnation. It specifies that it's the
word of God.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: There is the one and the same Word of God
who prior to the incarnation, you.
Speaker 3: Know, the world was created through him.
Speaker 6: He descended and spoke to Abraham in Genesis eighteen. In nineteen.
It is he that judged Sodomon Gomora for example. It's
that word of God who also walked in the garden
in prior to the fall, and the one like abrahams
always day and he was glad.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Christ says, it's this one.
Speaker 6: I'm the same person, right, So that's kind of the
basis of it. And then there's this symmetrical future, which
is talking about the kind of union of the two
natures and in some way resulting in a composition. This
is what we will call composite hypostasis.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: The two natures form a.
Speaker 6: Composite hypostasis in the sense that they are you can say,
like parts of a whole.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: The person of Christ, being fully divine and fully man,
is composite by hypostasis. This is stated by you know,
Saint Justinian, say John Damascus. Various different saints, very different
fathers use this terminology, particularly to oppose composite nature. So
they will argue that Christ is not a composite nature
that is formed of divinity and humanity, but rather he
is a composite hypostasis. To make the case that he's
not kind of like a third nature or kind of
like a new again forming nature, but the person that
unites divinity and humanity in his own person. And especially
in the writers and Saint Cureity, you see this, particularly
with his mere physics from the nature, that the one
incarent nature, that the one nature that is incarnate, right,
and that qualification is very important, and he himself says,
is it's important because if he didn't make that qualification,
Saint phil says, then or critiques then or the criticism
against us will be correct because it will go against
kind of like the human nature aspect of Christ. And
it's stating that the two natures are individual, they're not
divided from each other. And that's a different subject. But
I want to kind of continue on the on the subject.
So the main question that you can typically get, and
before I get that, some other quotes I would also
like to support this, like Saint Demetrius and Nilois says,
the hype stage of the Word of God was not
united with another human hype stasis, but through the incarnation
he formed for himself a human nature that he assumed
and included in his eternal hype stasis. Eternal hype stasis, right,
that he include it in his person. I believe this
is from his experience of God. Volume three from Satan Sulfire,
George Floroski says there's no human hype stasis in Christ.
I don't recall the exact quote, but an important question
that people kind of have in regards to this. Okay,
at one hand it's composite, and one hand it's divine.
How does that make any sense?
Speaker 3: Right? How is that supposed to make any sense?
Speaker 6: And I would like to invite people to kind of
consider the two different aspects in the sense, so starting
with composite hypostasis, when we're speaking about the natures composing
the it's not as if the person is a result, right,
like coming out as a result of the union completely,
because then you will kind of have actually an historic
Christ that with a composed hype state is composed of
two hypostasis, and these two hype statis is also being
in some kind of like a purely external union, as
if there are two subjects united by grace, like the
Prophet and the Holy Spirit, for example, but rather you
can take of them as like material parts. When I
say material parts, and I mean like they're physical, but
rather they're the wattenness, right, the answer to what is
that particular for example subject or that particular thing, because
he's the god man, right, he's divine human, he's fully God,
he's fully man.
Speaker 3: And in terms of.
Speaker 6: In terms of this kind of question, the divine hype
states in this sense, and I'll use like kind of
aerosolent terminlogy because it is useful in the sense and
it kind of gets into the distinction. The big question is, Okay,
there are the two natures that are united, but over time,
like how do we make sure that this thing stays
identical over time?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 6: Like identity of time. This is the case for even
human persons. But it's also important in the case of
the composition. And the word hippokemonon will be used here,
which is transit as material substrate. Again, it might give
you different and wrong ideas, but because it's typically usedul
like essences like human nature, divine nature, and things like that.
But hippokemonon very simply is kind of this. It's the
substance that persists in a thing true change and it's
basic essence, and it's not something like even when we
talk about human beings, right created beings which change, the
hippokemonon will be the substrate of that thing that doesn't change. Right,
it's it will be like for rational beings, it will
be their identity in that sense.
Speaker 3: And so it is in that sense we speak of.
Speaker 6: The hyposthesis of Christ, because it's the same word of God,
it's the same person. This is the reason why we
refer to the Virgin Maria as the mother of God,
but not the mother of Man, or not even the
mother of Christ.
Speaker 3: That should be an important question.
Speaker 6: It's not just that the person that's born is divine
by nature, but the person that's born is a divine person.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: The reason why, for example, Anthropotokos it's heretical, it's because
it will suggest a distinct human person in Christ, and
even christo Tokos is rejected by Saint Kile because first
of all, it's too vague, and second of all, it
again does not consider the person the identity the subject,
but rather the result of the union of the two natures,
which will be the name of the union of the
two prosopa as we see in the union of the
two persons, whereas hypostasis, properly speaking, is the separate existence.
And how is the separate existence of Christ characterized right
by being begun of the Father. That's why we call
him divine hypostasy, because his separate existence, his unique mode
of being is that he's begotten of the Father, which
is in his divinity right. And even you know, Saint
Paul speaks about I think Romans one three and one four.
He talks about kind of the power of God announcing
like his divinity in that sense. And yes, another quote
that I want to say before I like finalize this,
and this is from Saint John at Damascus is against
the Jacobites. This is quoted by Johannes zak Kuber's book
The Rise of Christian Theology and the End.
Speaker 4: Of I was about to quote it, yes, yeah.
Speaker 3: Page two ninety seven.
Speaker 6: Saint John says, he basically says, there's a distinction between
the hypostasis.
Speaker 3: And what exists in a hypostasis.
Speaker 6: So this is the sense like the hype says the
hippo keemona, right, like the fundamental thing that doesn't change,
whereas even things like essence, the properties, energies, they're all
and high posthetized. So there's hypostasis, and there are things
that are and high posthetized in a hypostasis.
Speaker 3: And these things are you.
Speaker 6: Know, as I said, essence, veil, energy, natural properties, so
on and so forth.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 6: This is very fundamental because when we speak about that
person of Christ, the hype stats of Christ.
Speaker 3: Both compound and simple and in what senses?
Speaker 6: Is that the personal aspect of the hype says none
other than the word of God.
Speaker 3: It's none other than him. It's the personal level.
Speaker 6: And the composite aspect is again the material, the whatness,
that he's fully divine and fully human. And very critically,
they are made one, made what in what sense? They're
made one in the in the unique mode of existence.
That's why Christ is the teanthropic hypostasis right. It reflects
the unique mode in which he exists. For excep say,
the Unitysterireaupaca in his Ford Letter speaks about.
Speaker 3: The new divine human tandric energy.
Speaker 6: It's not to say that there's a terti quid energy,
but rather that divinity and humanity both in Christ are
acting in a unique mode, and for example Christ's walking
on water. Christ's human nature is elevated by the divinity
that it is united to, in which he is now
able to do a human act that will be impossible
on its own, but with the cooperation of the divine nature,
which actually Pope Saint Leo says this, that the forms
in Christ cooperate with each other.
Speaker 3: For Christ to do.
Speaker 6: That activity, right, it's a human activity done in the
divine mode. And this again, this unique mode, this teanthropic mode,
is one. That's what the two natures becoming one fundamentally means.
They become one in the hype stage of Christ. And
this is particularly specified by the Church Fathers after the
fifth and sixth century. So that's basically what basically like
kind of like a short description of the difference between
simple hype stations and composite hype stats in Christ.
Speaker 3: And like the relevant portions.
Speaker 6: Again, the Theotokos part, I think it's absolutely demonstrates the
point that I make it because again, if it was
just about the nature of the subject, I guess she's
the mother of the man too.
Speaker 5: But no, that's if it was just about the nature,
it would be fine to say christodo coost or something
like that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Chrystotokos because it includes both of the natures, right,
Like Nestor says, hey, it includes both natures. It's a
name that includes both natures, so why not use it?
And Saecreel said that doesn't hit on the identity of Christ,
which is what he's theos. That's why Theotokos, it's not
just that it's useful, It fundamentally missed. Chrystotokos fundamentally misses
the mark about the identity of Christ. And that's why
we call her the mother of God because the person
she gave birth to is a divine person.
Speaker 3: That's basically the fundamental.
Speaker 6: Reason we will we don't say sintetos, sinteto's tocos or
something like that toos, right, not a composite mother, but
mother of God. That's basically what I want to, like
briefly briefly discuss before we start with so the things
that maybe you want to present or maybe Kai wants.
Speaker 7: To present, well, I would just like to read a
couple quotes out of the zach Kuber bog because it's
it's really excellent, especially as you get into the latter
parts of it when you get to talking about Saint
John Damascus.
Speaker 5: And I forgot to turn my light on here, says,
I'm just gonna read a little bit of it. This
is not too lengthy, this kind of argument from Saint
John Amascus. He's saying would not easily apply to the
whole range of hypostaces. John's philosophy normally recognizes it is
a theory specifically geared towards human beings, or at least
towards rational beings. Perhaps this is the beginning of the
notion of personal existence in Eastern Patristic thought, but there
is little evidence that John was conscious of the additional distinctions.
Be that as it may, We can hear concern discern
about whether or not John Damascus was crucial for future
personalist theology or philosophy. John Demascus's individuality philosophy the theory
of individuality addresses the problem of the conception of the
hypostasis as identified. Excepting that the hypostasis is essentially independent existence,
the Damascene argues that the contingent origin of this existence
as and other equally contingent aspects of the subsequent history
of individuals, are what makes them unique. Interestingly, the identification
of the hypostasis's individual existence.
Speaker 4: With historical origin.
Speaker 5: Even permittive John Damascus to integrate the traditional notion of
the confluence of properties into his own new theory, arguing
that in subsistence of the human nature and the Logos,
John says, quote, even though his flesh was not without
characteristic properties, still the collection of these properties and the
coming into being of the composition of his flesh did
not happen independently, but in the hypostasis of the Logos.
The flesh therefore does not have its own hypostasis, but
only that of the Logos. So this is what I
argued many many years ago when this first started popping up,
is that if you read what John Amasco says clear
as day on the Orthodox Faith, especially when he talks
about the descent of Christ in the Hades, it's another
way to really kind of put a kill shot in
this whole argument, because.
Speaker 4: It shows that the.
Speaker 5: Hypostasis of the Word is the only hypostasis in terms
of that asymmetrical christology that David is talking about. And
if you read the Bathrello's text, there's multiple chapters that
also make this distinction between symmetrical and asymmetrical. All that
means is just viewing it from two different vantage points.
If we're talking about the decision of the Fifth Council,
though it specifies clear as day via the Edict of
Saint Justinian, that you have to identify the hypostasis properly speaking,
as that of the divine subject of the word. That
subject doesn't undergo substantial change. That's another key point that
because the Oriental so called Orthodox metaphysic doesn't recognize these
layers and levels to what we talk about when we
talk about Christ assuming a new nature, they cannot conceive
of that as of both and and it has to
be in either or so in the case of Christ
assuming a new nature, that can't be this asymmetrical relationship
between the divine subject, the logos, and the human fully
human nature, but not human person that he assumed or
human subject. They can't conceive of that. They can only
conceive of it as a tertium quid. Ultimately, and when
you start getting into we'll but wait a minute, doesn't
nature person, will energy, et cetera in the trinity reflect
into Christology. I mean, if Christ is the second person
the God had becoming incarnate, then clearly the relationship of nature, person, will,
and energy and eternity is going to reflect then to Christology.
But this is the point at which precisely because they
don't allow these nuance and layers in their metaphysics, they
have to say no and they have to end up
with a tertion quid position.
Speaker 6: I'd like to add some things in regards to first
of all, with like monophysicism, it's interesting because in a
sense they try to incorporate asymmetrical Christology because the two
hype states, only one of them is a prosopone, and
that's the divine hype system. But you have this kind
of confusion. For example, I believe in that there's a
one of it's their patriarchs. I think it was Theodosius
of Alexandria. There's a dispute called Agnote controversy, and it
was about whether Christ was truly ignorant in its humanity
or not. So there's a person called Timistius who claimed
that Christ will is truly Yeah, I believe he argued
that Christ was truly ignorant, and he argued that well,
since Christ has a tandric villain energy, he must have
had like ignorance in the human part of that will,
and Theodosius basically says there is no human part, there's
only the divine part. And it might seem like contradictory,
but if you read the theme on of Psychristology book
by I think Chestnuts was her surname that wrote the book,
she basically explains that like the self subsistent, the prosopic
act part of the divine hypostasis is what actually allows
the will and energy and even the nature to be enumerated.
So in the sense you have like divine only will nature,
and it kind of gets like a bit contradictory, so
to speak, like how do you actually because in Orto says,
I've explained you kind of had this harmonization. But the
harmonization seems to be a little lacking in terms of
some of the quotes. The one from far George Fluorosky
was from his Creation Redemption and another quote also from
the from zak Kuber that Saint John Damascus makes I
think it was. Yes, he says, it is therefore impossible
for that which once came into being independently to receive
another beginning of its existence. For hypostasis is independent existence.
This is an important quote because he's not just saying
that there cannot be another hypostasis that unite with a hypostasis,
because the definition of hype stasis that it independently exists.
Speaker 3: So you can't have.
Speaker 6: Two independently existing things becoming one independently existing thing.
Speaker 3: That that's a logical contradiction.
Speaker 6: But he also says, look, hype station's independent existence, and
it came into being independently. Now, in the case of Christ,
he came into being independently again as it came into
being not in the sense that he was created in time,
but that he's begotten of the Father. How did his
being is begotten off the Father? That's why, like you
actually have a justification for referring Christ as a divine
hype stasis on that level. So that's something I also
wants to add.
Speaker 4: Very shortly, Ki, what's up man?
Speaker 2: All right? Is it my turn?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: It seems like it's yes.
Speaker 2: All right, Okay, So this I'll try not to ramble
on for too long. That was a very good presentation, David,
very informative spot on one thing that I would like
to just maybe make explicitly clear because I see this
question pop up very frequently and it's really just it's
a good it's a really good question, but it's a
very simple, simple response to it. We always say, like,
for example, that Christ is a divine only hypostasis, but
yet we speak of two natures, and so a lot
of people kind of get confused, is like, what do
you mean divine only or that he's divine hypostasis? Just
in simple, plain language, all we're really referring to here
is that the hypostasis is uncreated, like it's it's a
divine hypostasis and that it is uncreated. It contrasts with
when we say human hypostasis, it indicates that it is created.
And now that's just a straightforward response that has a
lot of implications behind it though it's a simple response,
but the theology behind it, the metaphysics behind it, Like
when you say a human hypostasis, you have now things
that you need to take into consideration, like gnomic willing,
and so now that becomes proper to a human or
a created hypostasis, and you get into Saint Maximus and
what is the problem with Christ having a gnomic will?
And so why Christ does not have a gnomic will
while he doesn't have a human hypostasis, and then so
you'll run and you'll see this problem. It poses a
significant barrier for the Orientals to address this issue of
nomic willing when they claim that while there is a
human hypostasis in Christ, so they're not going to be
able to properly address nomic willing and whatnot. When you
say that the hypostasis of Christ is divine only, that
has the implications of well, it is eternally begotten of
the Father, and so what is the implication there? Well,
if Christ is only quote unquote one nature that the
Orientals want you to profess, well, if he's one nature
and there's two hypostasis, they're human and divine. So does
that mean that a part of Christ is eternally begotten
while another part is not eternally begotten? So we're safe
guarding this absurdity by making certain to say that we
have a divine only hypostasis in Christ. So that was
one thing I wanted to say there. Another thing that
I wanted to kind of talk about is so a
lot of you guys who have followed me on YouTube
with my community posts and sub stack over the past
couple of weeks, I've been putting out chat.
Speaker 4: By the way, while you're talking, your substacks.
Speaker 2: All right, all right, thanks, Yeah, I've been basically doing
them like every couple of days, every day, just trying
to keep up. But really I'm taking a metaphysics approach.
So this is really setting out the Orthodox metaphysical paradigm,
setting out the historian the Orientals, and really going into
great detail to help people understand where the objections are
from the Orthodox perspective and how to properly understand Orthodox metaphysics.
And it's very interesting because up until today the Orientals
have been completely silent. They have not responded. And somebody
posted in the discord Server just before we went live,
I suppose refutation on one of my articles. It was
the one where I'm showing Saint Basil basically using person
and hypostasis synonymously to refer to the same ontology because
he's basically identifying Jesus in his humanity as the divine person.
And I quickly glanced at the article posted and all
of this stuff. I'm going to respond to it thoroughly.
I'm just gonna let you guys kind of respond to me,
and then I will respond to you. But it's quite
laughable the level of stupidity that they've come up with
to refute. So, in Oriental Christology and Tritology, they make
an ontological distinction between person and hypostasis, and they do
this as a sleight of hand to preserve, allegedly preserve
Christ's or the Logos' immutability, so that when the incarnation happens,
nothing of the divine hypostasis undergoes any kind of change.
That's all absorbed by the human hypostasis. But to say
that there's only one person, the self subsistence of the
divine hypostasis is where the person who comes from, and
then the inseparability of the non self subsistent hypostasis from
the human side gets subsumed underneath this prosopic ontology. And
so basically what you have here is is that the
preincarnate Sun is not co extensive with the incarnate Christ.
Speaker 5: Is that because because that is that why they think
that in hypostatize means a substantial change in the logos.
Speaker 2: Well, they basically will give us the critique that they're
saying that the human nature does not have its own
respective hypostasis. And so if the divine hyposthesis is the
host for the humanity. The accidents are inhering into that
divine hypostasis, and therefore you're basically you have mutability in Christ.
That's essentially their their their argument.
Speaker 5: Well, but I thought that like when Agent came on,
he was arguing about Maximus's use of in hypostatized, he
was arguing for some form of third nature or tertion
quid because he thought in hypostatized means that he's no
Now that he's composite, that means some kind of substantial change.
So the critique was, why do you guys keep saying
that he underwent no change, which is what we say
in the liturgy, and yet at the same time he
underwent change by becoming incarnate. Well, it's just two different
senses of the word change. But what I'm asking is,
is this prosopic subsuming? Is this the same idea because
they don't seem to be able to conceive of different
types of change?
Speaker 4: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: I understand what you're saying, Jay, I don't know what
exactly their arguments are. I have thoroughly listened to to Aigan.
I'm just going to wait until we've put up out
all our stuff I'll see what.
Speaker 5: They're okay, but does their position seem to necessitate this
substantial change, right, because there's not a distinction between the
logos and the nature that he has the nature person distinction.
So when the logos becomes incarnate, does that necessitate some
type of subsuming or substantial change which leads to the
tertion quid.
Speaker 6: I think they will probably just just sorry for interrupting,
but I think they'll probably say change.
Speaker 3: Well, the divine.
Speaker 6: Nature doesn't change, the divine hype statis didn't change in
the union. Neither of the hype staces changed. They just united,
like the body and the soul is And that's basically
the main paradigm they use the body sould. They form
a natural union and produce another.
Speaker 5: Nature which you can sell distinguish the body and the soul.
Speaker 4: So they don't.
Speaker 5: They don't like to talk about the distinction after the union, right,
other than a purely conceptual distinction, And that's why they're
often called, you know, the the terchion quid argument is
usually made.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so they will say we're distinguishing them like in
the sense of like they are parts before the union, right,
And even those who speak of distinction after the union,
they will say we distinguished, we just don't call them two,
which is just kind of So Antioch actually makes this
argument against Sergius, who was I think he was like,
I think he was closed. Like Sergius was basically pretty
ut q in in many ways, and Serrus was trying
to correct him, and he one of the things that
he does say, I might I might try to find
a reference on like the page, but he basically says,
we do distinguish them, but we don't call them to
Like he does say something to that effect, I'll find
it too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if I can just continue there with the thing
that before, I lose my train of thought. So yeah,
So they're they're trying to refute this idea where we
identify person and hyposthesis as referring to the same ontology.
And so I look at this article that they put
out and I'm like, if this is the best that
you guys have, you have the lay that I give
you in my community posts of well, I don't want
to say it for jstream, but you know how I
refer to to the Orientals. So this is their argument.
I kid you not this is their argument. They say
something to the effect. I mean, they do their quote
minding as usual, but this is basically the crux of
They say, through which the person prosopone of each is
made to lie in a peculiar hypostasis. So the fact
that they say the prosopone lies in the hypostass therefore
they are not the same thing. And they try to
then back this up, and they say, well, if they
are the same thing, then let's just substitute one of
those terms back into the sentence and see how nonsensical
it sounds to say like, oh, through which the person
of each is made to lie in a peculiar person
or through actually the keypostasis of each is made to
lie in eight peculiar hypostasis. You see how nonsensical that sounds.
So therefore they have to be two different ontologies. You
can't just say the same You can't just make the
substitutions and say that you're talking about the same ontology.
Speaker 5: And for those that are curious, we went into the
metaphysical distinctions in some of the first couple installments in
this series, so you'll need to go back and pay
attention to some of that metaphysical discourse that we laid
out early on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what the Orientals what they don't actually understand
like they're trying. They're trying, but this is like, honestly
like the IQ's of Solafies trying to do metaphysics, like
they're trying. But you have to understand during this time
that the Cappadocians are writing that Saint Cereal is writing this.
This is where you have terms being used inconsistently across
the board with just about everybody, and everyone is having
difficulty trying to understand what everybody else is saying. Does
when you say hypostasis, are you talking about the nature?
Are you talking about the essence? Are you talking about? Like?
What are you talking about here? And so you will
often find in Saint Cyril he will qualify his terms
and say one term and then followed up with another term,
so that he kind of helps narrow down what exactly
he's trying to say, or he will rephrase something using
a different term to help you try and understand it.
And likewise the Cappadocians do something similar. I mean, you
can even find Saint Gregory of nauseanzis it exists in
a race. He will say hypostasis or person, you choose
whichever term you want to use. Like he's explicit in
that respect. Okay, he's very clear. But what the Cappadocians
are talking about here is they're talking about don't get
caught up in the modalist heresy. So when you are
talking about persons and hypostases, that you're not professing the
wrong theology to say one hypostasis but three persons, or
to say like three essences three hypostatis, Like how are
you going to be using your terminology? And so basically
what the Cappadocians are saying in a quote like this
that Saint Cyril follows in the Cappadocians, he's identifying that
the person. When you're talking about the person lying in
the keypostasis, it's referring to the same ontology. You're not
attributing this person to a different hypostasis. You're not identifying
this hypostasis with a different person, so that the person
is bound up to the hypostasis, not like you have
this hypostasis with a little slot that you then put
the person inside it. Because you know how we know
that this is absurd, even on the Oriental paradigm, because
if person is your unifying ontology of your two hypostases,
divine in human, and you are giving me this quote
to refute me, and you're saying that the person lies
in the hypostasis, so are you telling me then that.
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: The trinity? So then where is Christ's human nature being subsumed?
Is it being subsumed by the hypostasis itself? Because the
person is in the hypostasis? Like, you don't see how
You're whole entire metaphysics is breaking down. It makes no sense,
never to mind like how it impacts your trinity. But
that was just a side point. I mean, it's like,
I love that you guys are actually writing these responses,
I really really do, because it's allowing us to showcase
the level of your stupidity. Just keep them coming, keep
those quotes coming, because by the end of us getting
through all of the parts of these series, all the
articles that we're pushing and other stuff that we have
down the line, it's really going to settle this issue
once and for all. So yes, please do refute me
or attempt to refute me. But besides that, the other
thing that I wanted to get into was one particular
topic that I was starting to talk about in my
recent sub stack articles that is relevant to compsit hypostases,
and it's actually going to we talked about a little
bit more detailed in a future part where I have
it specifically set out for the oriental metaphysics. And this
is that essentially for those of you guys who want
more technical terminology, because you consume the Oriental stuff, and
all they're doing is they're just giving you quote minds
and just word solid They're not actually giving you stuff
substantively to understand what is it metaphysically that they're trying
to do with their system, and they are essentially their
paradigm is essentially a pollinarianism. Now they're gonna say it's
not and they're gonna say this and that and whatever,
and they will say, yes, we like we sorry, we
disagree with the apollina air in heresy. We reject this,
we reject that. But at the crux of how they
look at common in particular's metaph physically, it is essentially
a pollinarianism. And it is a pollinarianism because they take
nature and hypostasis to both be metaphysically particular And the
funny thing here is the Apollinarians, they make it an
explicit point to deny conceptantiality of Christ with Father and humanity.
They say, we cannot have perfect concepstantiality. And the way that.
Speaker 4: They perfectly they deny perfect.
Speaker 2: Yes, So the Apollinarians, the Apollinarians, they deny perfect consubstantiality
of Christ with the Father and with us in humanity.
They mandate that the divine human Christ he has to
be different because for them, being concept financial is to
divide Christ. The Apollinarian said that if we count two
and if we say that there's this double homousios, then
you have a divided Christ. And so their whole metaphysical
paradigm rests on denying consubstantiality in order to not say
that there are to Christ, to preserve a singular Christ,
a singular ontology. And the move that they do to
ensure this is to say that nature and hypostasis both
are metaphysical particulars. And that's why you have that famous
phrase that they say, one incarnate nature, one nature, one hypostasis,
one person, just one across the board, and you never
say two.
Speaker 5: Right, So this is why, this is why it ends
up in the John philipponas he is an error, right,
because every hypostasis is just simply an individualized nature. So
is this basically a nominalist move that there are no universals?
Speaker 2: Correct? Correct, this is one hundred percent normalism. And in
my metaphysics prime of my very first article that I wrote,
I basically said it, when you John Philipponis is not
doing anything different in the Oriental scheme than Severus. He's
just saying what Severs doesn't want to say. But the
paradigm itself logically leads to what John Philipponis said explicitly,
He's just taking Severs to his logical conclusion. And it's
basically nominalism. That's that is exactly what is It is nominalism.
And so then what ends up happening here is Apollinaris,
the Apollinarians, and you can read it there. Saint Justinian,
he quotes it in his book on the Person of Christ.
He's quoting one of the Apollinarians, which is very interesting
because the Apollinarians say, He's like, how can you guys
follow this formula? The one incarnate nature or the one
nature of the logos incarnate however you want to you
want to phrase it. He's saying, how can you guys
follow this formula when it was our father Apollinaris who
gave us this formula specifically to avoid two natures? And
but now this is very interesting is that the Apollinarians
themselves they say something very interesting. They're saying is the Cappadocians,
and they name the two Gregory's, they name Saint Athanasius explicitly,
and they say, these guys teach two natures. So how
is it that you guys are teaching two natures but
subscribe to this formula that Apollinarius gave us specific against
two natures. So one, this is telling us so that
we as Orthodox, we're actually reading the Fathers correctly when
we're quoting them for two natures. Right, So the Apollinarians
are actually siding with us against the Orientals and saying, yeah,
you guys are reading the Fathers the Cappadocians when they're
talking about two natures, you have them right, You actually
understand them correctly because we oppose them. So thank you
Pollinarians for clarifying that. So whenever now you see the
Orientals quote mine this whole mea feces and denying that
the Fathers speak of two natures and this and that. Well,
the Pollinarians themselves say, yeah, you guys are speaking.
Speaker 4: Well also two.
Speaker 5: It's important to remember the Apollinaris is the originator of
the logo Sark Christology, which shows that it's not really
issues of the terminology that's the main problem. I mean,
words in terminology can be a problem, but there's an
orthodox way to read the logo Sarks Christology that originates
in a Pollinaris, which is very helpful for explaining the
asymmetrical Christology versus symmetrical.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That shows that that's why you can't solve this issue
by quote minds, because a lot of these words can
be or ideas or concepts can be used in different ways.
And also a Pollinaris shows that there is a nature
person distinction in anthropology in the Church Fathers as well,
because some of the people who argue against us will
argue that not only is there not really a nature
person distinction in the Trinity, it doesn't exist in Christology
and it also doesn't exist in human anthropology. So, for example,
the Latinizers who want to argue that everyone is guilty
in atom they're not even understanding that. Their root mistake
is the failure to make a distinction between nature and
person in humans, to distinguish what's proper to nature versus
what's proper to the mode of willing, which personal. So
there's no way that it even makes sense to talk
about guilt by nature or natural guilt, because guilt is
only accrued by the mode of willing, which is personal.
So you have to make these distinctions or else you're
going to end up in some stupid heros and you
don't even realize it. And that's why I Losky is
one of the key I think insights. If you read
his books, when he talks about Apollinaris, he makes this
very point that a Paulinarius's mistake was actually to not
make the nature person distinction in Christ and in human nature,
because he replaces a trait of nature or property of
nature for the person or the subject. So this notion
of personal theology or on a personal ontology the subject
agent christology is once again crucial here because the move
that Apollinarius is making is to fend off a legitimate problem.
But the problem is that he goes into the opposite
extreme of thinking that the reasoning faculty is what is
the person. And you see this in William lane Craig.
William lane Craig today literally has the same position as
a pollinaris. And so just like with the Monophysites going
off in their heterodox error, William lane Craig repeats and
goes off in the same heterodox error. Why because he
thinks of personhood as a trait of nature, namely the
rational faculty, the reasoning faculty. And that's exactly what a
polinarius did. So the Church's rejection of a pollinaris that
constant to umber one.
Speaker 4: Is already the pre.
Speaker 5: Excommunicating of this stupid metaphysical mistake that you see the
Orientals making, as well as Kay's pointing out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's just a little bit more that I want
to add on to this, and then I'll just flip
back over to David. The idea here Now, this whole
Chritian quid argument, and the Orientals they think that they've
answered this, that they've provided a solution that avoids the
whole tertium quid. And I'm sorry to tell you, but
no you haven't. Okay, I've heard your responses to the
tertion quid argument, and it's absolutely idiotic, and it just
showcases you don't actually understand the paradigm that you follow.
You want to profess something, and you think that merely
professing it means that your metaphysical paradigm doesn't lead to it. Well,
it actually does. And so when you look at the
consequences of taking both nature and hypostasies as metaphysical particulars
and you want to combine them in some way, so
you have basically two options here if you let them
to mix, or you don't let them to mix. So
if you don't let them to mix, then you have Nestorianism.
You've got two metaphysically particular natures and you have two
metaphysically particular hypostasis and they remain, and that is Nestorianism.
They persist in whatever union you want to try to
put them together under. But then the other side here
is is you have to remember that according to the
Oriental paradigm, when you say that Christ is one incarnate nature,
that is one nature that has to be a metaphysical particular.
It's not a common it's not just a label. It
is metaphysically particular. And so when you have two particulars
come together and you're saying they are forming one particular,
then that is your tertium quid. That is some kind
of divine human hybrid. But now they're going to try
to get out of this, and they're going to say, well, well, no,
hold on a second. What we mean is that there's
this inseparability, and we can contemplate the differences of the
particularities and theoria. They're like, so all the properties are there,
but they're inseparable, and so this kind of like inseparability
is what we're counting as one. So it's like if
you think that you have a set, and so you
have the divine set, you have the human set, and
you're just kind of putting them together, and you're just
calling this new spectrum this continuum as one whole set,
and that is your one nature that is completely undivided,
but you can still see the differences in the particularities.
That does not work. That doesn't get you out of
your problem. Because your metaphysical particular nature subsists as one
name nature. That's how it has its subsistence. Because you're
saying that every hypostasis it cannot be a hypostatized or
Anusian meaning existing without nature. So if you're saying you
have only one hypostasis and it must have its own
usia or its own nature corresponding to it, then it
has to subsist according to that one nature. And if
you now have this one hypostasis that is particularly existing
in such a way, then that means you are breaking
consubstantiality with the Father and with humanity, because now Christ's
one nature is neither one of them. It doesn't matter
that you can pick out these differing particularities, because that's
not how the metaphysics works out. And Severus quotes or
not Severus quot David quotes Severus where he's basically saying
that when you speak of distinctions, that is a dissolver
of unity, So you can't speak of two natures.
Speaker 5: By the way, this was exactly what we've been saying
about so many heresies, right, So many heresies think of
the tonistic nonsense that if you speak of an essence
centered distinction that necessitates composition and division. It's exact same
here to distinguish, they somehow think necessitates division.
Speaker 4: I don't know why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, everybody who really wants to know the details of
this highly highly highly recommend David did a. I think
it's like a three hour long stream specifically on Severus,
providing the receipts the quotes where he's talking about distinctions
or disolvers of unity and stuff like that, and he's
talking about fel Xander's of Ma Bog as well in
his paradigm. It's in his refuting Oriental streams. It's unique.
Speaker 6: Yes, it's in the Yes, it's in the playlist.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he says duality. Is it dissolver of unity? Is it?
Speaker 5: Is it called David? Is it cultever? I'm trying to
pull it up to put it in here. Is it
severs of antiox and mea phys like christology and context?
Speaker 3: I think so, yes, I think yes, that should be.
Speaker 6: Yes, that's the Yeah, that's the updated one from well
updated the concert of five years ago. Yeah, that's where
I look at Severus, felix Ins and other Oriental Father's end.
Speaker 3: I also, Okay, did you finish, by the way, or.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just just about finished, so.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'll add some some stuff so you can finish.
Speaker 2: So yeah, So just just kind of wrap this up
there is so it's it's quite it's quite simple. You
just simply ask like a simple set of questions. It's
to the orientals. You basically throw them to this. It's like, okay,
so I'm actually gonna pull it up just read through
it because of the way that I formulated it. Let
me just put up my article here. So basically, you
ask the question, does the Father and Christ have the
same nature? Yes?
Speaker 3: What is that nature?
Speaker 2: Divine? Does Christ and we do? Christ and we have
the same nature?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 2: What is that nature? Human? So how many natures does
Christ have? Okay, you would think that the person with
some kind of intelligence is going to say too, right,
because that's obvious that it is too And when you
say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, that is
one nature that you're counting right there. And you're going
to have to count that as one nature because the
Father and us humans, we don't share the same nature
as the Father. Okay, the Father does not have any
human nature. So the conceptantiality that Christ has with the Father,
that's one nature. And then likewise with the human nature
that's a second nature. So you have two natures. But
the Orientals they will say one nature. They will do
some gymnastics following severus, Well, they'll say, well, we don't
speak of divided natures or something like that, and that's
kind of like going to get around the problem. Like, no,
it doesn't get around the problem, because I'm asking you
very simple questions with regards to Christ's conceptentiality. We're counting
the natures. So if you're telling me that as a result,
I have to profess one nature and I cannot say
two natures. I'm forbidden to say two natures, then that
means you're following that metaphysical paradigm of a pollinarius that
denies consubstantiality. And that is the eye of it where
the Orientals they want to preserve consubstantiality. That's what they
want to profess that, but they don't realize that their
metaphysical paradigm prohibits them. It's just the exact same how
Nistorius was saying, is no, I do not profess two persons.
There's not two persons in Christ. But we say no,
this is your paradigm. This is what you're holding as
metaphysical particulars. This is the logical conclusion. So if you
follow the Orientals in exactly the same way, it doesn't
matter what you want to profess. That is not what
your metaphysical paradigm teaches. You're following Severus. You're not following
Saint Cyril, You're not following the Cappadocians. You're following Severus,
who set up his own separate metaphysical paradigm that aligns
with the pollinarius.
Speaker 3: What's it all? Right? Yeah? I just want to add
some quick things.
Speaker 6: So in terms of the I'll give you the I'll
give you the quote that I was talking about in
regards to.
Speaker 3: Difference, but not speaking of two.
Speaker 6: So this is from Ian Torrence's book Cristolgia after Kalkadon.
This book has the letters of Severus to Sergius, the
Utickian that I was talking about previously, and he quotes
something from service. This is in page eighty three in
the book that I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: So we have the we have the receipts here.
Speaker 6: This is Torrance talk in severs turns that wants to
apply the insights of this example to Christology. First, he
refers to Kiro's defense against Andrew over the I think
I think he's citing Severus here, right. He says, it
is quite blameless to recognize that the flesh is one
thing and the only begotten another respect to their own natures.
But to recognize this difference is not to divide the
natures after the union. Just making sure like in the
case that actually that's from Saint Kirole. There's another one
where Sever's speaks about I think this is page one
hundred and sixty.
Speaker 3: So he says, this is Sever's.
Speaker 6: Talking for absolutely one hundred percent, you should not you
should confess immanual from two natures, divinity and humanity, and
not deny difference and particularity with respect to a natural
quality of the natures from which the One Christ is
brought together to an indivisible union. Right, So he says,
you can confess the distinction. But then he says, and
you should take it iniquitous to divide Christ into a duality.
Speaker 3: So if you speak of.
Speaker 6: Them as two, you're dividing the One Christ into a
duality of natures after the union.
Speaker 3: Basically that's so.
Speaker 6: It's kind of it's basically quite strange. And one thing
I liked from the article you're talking about kai is
one of the things that Saint Basis says, we must
therefore confess the faith by adding the particular to the comments.
Speaker 3: So we we speak of a particular thing.
Speaker 6: We add the common nature that it is a part.
Speaker 3: Of, so to speak.
Speaker 6: So he is the example of God, the Father, right,
so the common God and then the particular, you know,
the of fatherhood, God the Father. I mean this kind
of already explains orchestrage, because even if you are on
office site, you will have to say that Christ is
If he's doubly consubstantial, then Christ is in any any way.
And of course anyone will try to defend that. Anyone
who this Christ is God and man will try to
say is double consubstantial. He's consumpstantial with God, and man
simultaneously will say that he is part he's part of
both the common things where it's divinity or humanity, right,
he's part of both. Will try to indicate something regarding that.
But we said crisis in two natures. So we're naming
the common things that he's part of the commonalities. And
we're also speaking this is the word of God, the
particular word of God.
Speaker 3: Another thing. And this is very important.
Speaker 6: I talked about churchim quid, and I think it's important to.
Speaker 3: Actually explain, like what is the CHURCHI and cried.
Speaker 6: Of course, it's a third It's a new thing that
comes about as a result of the union of two things.
But how is it different from a natural union of
two natures, or how do we understand it.
Speaker 3: In what senses cetera.
Speaker 6: A key characteristic of churchim quids, and I think Jay,
you can back me up on this, is that it
has new emergent properties. And in the case of rational beings,
the emergent activities arising from the union of the things
that it is united from. It that there are two
things or three things or four things or whatever. Now
I'll try to find the exact page from the Okay, yeah,
I don't have the exact page, but this is from
the same book that Ian Torren's book Severus of Antioch
uses the example of valking on water as proof of
this new energy. Basically, this emergent new activity. If you
have a new emergent activity as a result of a
union of two things, that's a urch and quid. That's
how you that's kind of the definition of a chi
and quid. There's a third new thing because it's not.
Speaker 5: Well, the new energy signify the new nature, right, yes,
since energy sense energy follows and signifies nature.
Speaker 3: That that's okay, it's fixed.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Text twenty six, where he commentation on Saint Denis's Theoreaplica,
saying that christ as a new tangric energy, which we
previously explain rights. It's a new mode in which both
the energies operate.
Speaker 3: In the one price.
Speaker 6: He says, if you understand in the sense of abolishing
any duality, So there's no two wills, no two energies.
It's one and it's new in the sense of a
chim quid. Severus says here again, I don't recall the
exact page. I don't have the page number exactly, but
this is from again Ian Terence's book Christology after Kalkadilt.
This is one of the letters to Surgius the utik
in Monopseid. But he mingled the two, establishing that he
is indivisibly won the same sudden word, who on our
behalf unchangeably became a speaking as befits God and humanity. Thus, too,
it is often possible to see in his actions what
belongs to the character of God and what is human
mingled together. So kind of okay, so far it seems
good right, like he's talking about distinguishing the sayings of Christ.
But now this is the key part, For how will
anyone divide walking upon the water?
Speaker 3: What is he? What does he mean here?
Speaker 6: For to run upon the sea is foreign to the
human nature, but it is not proper to the divine
nature to use bodily feet.
Speaker 3: So here he's saying that.
Speaker 6: This activity that we're talking walking on water, it's needed divine,
it's needed human. And then it says therefore that action
is of the incarnate word, to whom belongs at the
same time divine character and humanity invisibly.
Speaker 3: This is turchi and quid. This is the definition of
a turchi in quid.
Speaker 6: Out of the union of divinity in humanity, you have
a third nature with its emergent properties, emergent activities that
cannot be found in either nature. Now someone might ask, well, David,
I mean Christ obviously walked on water, So how is
like is it your view churching quid too? No, Because,
as I've explained at the beginning of the stream for
those who might have missed it, the two natures are
cooperating with wonders. So the human nature is elevated by
the divine nature that is united in Christ. And as
Pope Saint Leo says, the two natures, the two forms
cooperates with one another. So the human activity, the human
energy is done in a divine manner. This is based
on the union of the two natures in the hype
stags of Christ. So the human nature in Christ is
elevated by the union of the divinity, which gives him
the ability to do so and in fact, like true
divine grace in a way like Saint Peter could also
welcome water. But in terms of like what's natural to Christ. Again,
the human nature was elevated, and this is kind of
the point of ascension. Yes, that you're all elevated, or
human nature becomes elevated by participation in the divine energies
of God.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the energy is here, the energies are crucial here.
Speaker 5: And I'm gonna let you continue to Just want to
interject this point because I've noticed in a lot of
the debates and discussions with the Monophysites and these people,
it's like they don't listen to what we are saying
about in what way and how the human nature of
Christ is deified. So the energies deify the human nature.
That's why the Six Council says, his humanity, his human will,
et cetera, were fully deified. So that's the way in
the sense in which there is a change in the
human nature when it's united to the logos h So
there is a real work, there is a real change.
It's not like we're denying that, you know, there's a
real union, because they're going to say that we're being
an historian. How can we be in a story and
when we think that there's a real deification of the
humanity of Christ. But that doesn't mean that the humanity
of Christ turns into the divine essence or the divine nature.
In fact, Saint Cyril denies that as well. Cyril says
that it's the uncreated grace and immortality that transforms and
transfigures the human nature. And he doesn't even in the
two Letters to Six Senses, he still speaks of even
after the incarnation to nature. So there's no problem for
our position when it comes to a real union and
a real deification of the human nature. Their position, because
of their lack of clarity on the essence inergiscinction, is
the one that actually doesn't make any sense of the
in what sense the Union deifies the humanity.
Speaker 6: Also, in this discussion that we can kind of speak of,
let's we can move to the modern examples of Orientals
who try to discuss this.
Speaker 3: It's there's a very interesting quote from a.
Speaker 6: So called Pope Sda amongst the Orientals, and he's one
of their recent bishops. He is like considered very important,
like he's highly revered. He's highly respected. So this is
not just like some bishop, right, this is not like
the metropolitan callistus rare fallacy that we see very often
though metropolit clists, where it does have like a lot
of good contributions of course, but like he gets treated
as if like he's like the one representative of Orthodoxy
or something like that. But Shanuda is someone that's actually
really important. He has a book, it's very short, it's
obviously to kind of explain Oriental Christology.
Speaker 3: It's called On the Nature of Christ, and he.
Speaker 6: Makes the argument that nature is the sum of natural properties,
which I mean that's yes, nature is the sum of
natural properties.
Speaker 3: So far, it's like really good, that's what we're saying.
Speaker 6: That's why we say Christ is too natures, right, he
has the natural property of divinity in humanity. That's why
he has two natures. But I'll read you the quote
to see where he goes wrong. The one incarrent nature
of God the word is not a third nature of
Jesus Christ, which, as we've explained that there are new
emergent properties and activities, so clearly it is a third nature.
But obviously they argue against this because the nature is
the sum of properties or qualities, and since the two
natures of Christ were united without mingling or change, then
the incarnate nature is the sum of the qualities of
both his divinity and his humanity.
Speaker 3: Do you notice what's going on here?
Speaker 6: Nature isn't just It isn't just like person in it
really is nature in the sense that we use it.
It's just that if nature is the sum of natural properties,
and christis divine and human natural properties, well they're both
part of the same set, right, And it's both part
of the same set.
Speaker 3: Of the one nature.
Speaker 6: And so the one nature is in a sense basically
a distinct essence from divinity and humanity. And so when
they use the body's soul analogy, they're really going like
full trodden on it. As the body and the soul
and the united formed human nature, right and as human nature,
there are certain activities like it that emergent properties and
activities as a result of the union of body and soul.
And it's it's it's it's a new nature, so to speak.
It's basically in that sense, like completely it's not an analogy,
Like it's not an analogy in the sense that there
might be some distinctions within a nag, right, like we
make the sun analogy, and of course there are some
disanalogies regarding the sun.
Speaker 3: Like the sun, it's a physical thing, for example, it's
a created thing and in this but here.
Speaker 6: Like it's basically completely, completely the same, like the analogy
is completely the same. You have divinity in humanity and
the form of new nature, a third new nature at
the end of this. And as I've said, and I
want to like I'm repeating this over and over again,
but it's a really important point. The defining aspect of
a urchi and quid is the new emergent properties and
the case of rational beings, new emergent activities. That's kind
of the whole. And if you're talking about a nature
or an essence, then yes, the monophysi Christ necessarily is
eterchion quid. But as I said, the quote that I
just gave from Pope Suda, it's from on the Nature
of Christ, where he he also makes arguments against against
Orthodoeskchristology in this in this.
Speaker 2: Work, if I can just add to that, the whole
tersion quid line of argumentation. This is something that is
within the monophoseie camp itself. When you read the Cosology
after Childsman book, the exchanges between Severus and Sergius. Sergius
basically he starts the whole process of the exchanges because
he's writing to this synod that.
Speaker 6: Has Sorry, Kai, can I can I just quirk something
I did make a mistake here the quote it is
not from Shnuda, Sorry, It's from metzpos and bishof Damiette.
Speaker 3: He's the Oriental.
Speaker 6: This is from his interpretation of the First Degree Statement
on Christology, paragraph eight. So it's it's a it's a
different work that I was refering. This is I'm refercing
Mitropolitan Bishop of damiet the Oriental monophside Metropolitan of course,
he's also an important figure in or in according to
the Oriental, so he's he's not a random bishop.
Speaker 3: He's also very important.
Speaker 6: But yeah, the nature is the South. Natural properties is
from Bishoy, not from Shnuda.
Speaker 3: So you can continue.
Speaker 2: Just want to correct myself, okay, Yeah, So basically what
Sergius is doing is is the Synod has put out
a statement of how to profess the monophside Christology accurately.
And Sergius is puzzled because he's basically writing to the
Synod and he's saying or to one one person there
whatever who's connected with the Synod, and he's asking basically,
it's like, I have a bunch of these people who
are from like the Orthodox camp, the like our our side,
who want to become Monophysites. So basically the Diophysites want
to become monophsites or miaphysites. And he's asking them, He's like,
how am I supposed to receive them? What are what
is the profession that I'm supposed to give to them?
Because what you guys, as a senator, are telling me
they already profess this. It's like you're telling me that
we as menophicites, we don't speak of undivided natures or
undivided particularities or undivided properties or whatever. It's like, we're
not making any kind of division here when we speak. Well,
when you ask these diophysites, they're saying the exact same thing.
They're not dividing the natures. So what is actually setting
us apart from them that we have to confess them
in a different way? What is the proper verbiage? Because
Sergius was a true monophysite. For him, he openly professed
the tertium quid and he's making exactly these arguments that
David is saying, is like, when you look at the
activities of Christ, Sergius is making this argument. He's like saying,
it's like, look, you're seeing Christ do what is not
natural to God, and that it's not natural to man.
He's doing some new thing that indicates that you have
indeed a new nature. So Sergus is telling us, look,
he's understanding the Apollinarian metaphysical paradigm. He's following it to
its logical conclusion and saying, is therefore it's not in
matter of speaking of undivided properties or particularities. We don't
even talk about undivided language. We have to profess one
nature in its actual reality, in its particularity and it's
particular because now this one nature is in itself a
new particularity that is neither the particularities of divinity or humanity.
It is something new. And so then that's what starts
this whole chain reaction between the exchanges between Severus and Sergius,
where you now have Severus doing just basically a bunch
of word solid, meaningless stuff, just trying to justify how
not to count two and say one, but at the
same time admit that there's two. So that's basically what
the entire exchange boils down to.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean the point about like the numbering, I mean,
I think Jay you guys also talked about like they
will invoke counting by division, right, and so if you're
counting two things, you're necessarily by nature dividing. But I'll
say that like shortly, like my take on it in
general is that conception distinction already solves that. When sink
Curl speaks about speaking of two united natures in theory alone,
that's actually what he's saying, is saying that the separation
is purely mental, but in reality there's like but they're
in reality they are distinct, right, And so the two nous.
The separation that will come about from it is only
in the mind. So it's not as I and the
Council of CalCon already says, the crisis acknowledged in two natures,
which is a mental activity.
Speaker 3: So it's hitting that trend. It was written by like
A Price.
Speaker 6: Richard Price notes thirteen of the eighteen draft writers, where
I think they were like in emphasis two and they
like voted with you screws and the other people like
none of them were like sympathetic to like the Antioquan,
like Nestorianish bishops, and they were all like against them.
So it's like these people that wrote and I will
say they probably are hitting on that trend as well.
Speaker 3: So it's to me it's it's a non problem. But
also at the same time.
Speaker 6: Especially when we're discussing these things today, right like we
also speak of like number things by distinction, and it's
and of course when we talk about the Trinity, I
mean that's the that's the most premier example. When we
speak of three persons in the Trinity, we're not dividing
the persons of the Trinity. And I know that there
are some fathers that speak of like indivisible division, and
that the person of the trinity are divided by the hypestasis.
Speaker 5: But yeah, people are so low to here they think
that that type of language means that you're like cutting
it up in the parts.
Speaker 4: It's just so exactly.
Speaker 2: I certain interject there was a kid you not. I
literally saw a comment recently that they're they actually created
a new counting method. So they're saying, is we count
the trinity, we use counting by division, but when we're
in the chrystological context and the nature's we count by composition,
which I have no idea of what that means. I'm
not that stupid to actually understand what that means. I
cannot fathom it.
Speaker 6: Then you man, you have to I mean, this is
kind of like Oham's Oarkham's razor becomes useful here. I mean,
if you have to make up a bunch of made
up nonsense counters exactly like just a bunch of counterintuitive
logical I don't know tools to save your system.
Speaker 3: Maybe the system is the problem. Maybe you should digit
the system and become Orthodox. And that's that right, Like.
Speaker 6: Because in Orthodox especially like may you speak about development,
like theological development. This is actually a positive example of
this because at the time of seeing the ask, because
the counting becomes by distinction. So when we speak of
two natures in Christ, we're counting by distinction, not by
like dividing or separating them from each other. And this
is why, like the language of conceptual distinction becomes like
phased out over time.
Speaker 3: And like you see less and less of it in
the Fathers. You see it sometimes you see it Maximus.
Speaker 6: And another thing about conceptual distinction, I mean, I guess
I'll add this to my video too, but like the
conception distinction is made about the body and the soul
as well, does that mean that the body and the
soul are not.
Speaker 3: Really distinct from each other obviously, Like not.
Speaker 6: It's just stating that they are wanting in reality, right,
Like they together are wanting in reality, And they're only
two in our mind in the sense of like divided things,
because the body and the soul are only divided in death.
And that's like it's an unnatural thing. It's by nature
it's supposed to exist together. So this kind of understanding
of like conceptualization is completely far off. Anyways, I A
I'll have a video coming soon in the future that
discusses that. But I just want that's great also too.
Speaker 5: I mean, everybody who doesn't have this book should get
a hold of Divine Energies and Divine Action, which is
a bunch of the collected PDFs from Bradshaw that we're
floating around forever Doctor Bradshaw, because this one has the full.
Speaker 4: Concept of Divine Energies essay.
Speaker 5: It's the very first one, and so he's going to
deal with conceptual distinct It's either that one or maybe
it's no, it's essence energy, What kind of distinction?
Speaker 4: Which is the second or third essay? Third essay? So
essen's energy? What kind of distinction is?
Speaker 5: You know something that in the discord we've dealt with
and promoted for seven or eight years now, and it's
in print.
Speaker 4: So guys, there's really no.
Speaker 5: Excuse unless you're just lazy and you're not going to
do the reading to you know, go and understand. For example,
Saint Besia Saint Basil says that distinction between nature and
person is catapanoya and if catapanoya only means mental and
not also possibly a real distinction, then you're not really trinitarian.
Speaker 4: So are we all modalists now? Begetting of the sun.
Speaker 5: Eternal begetting is also spoken of as catapanoya, the distinctions
of the person catapanoya. So you understand that this reductionist
idea to think that, oh that means only in the mind.
Speaker 4: Again, this is a stupid thing that we've been refuting
for like eight years now coming out as.
Speaker 6: Also also, do you know who is the one who
actually believed that about Epinoia and conceptualization?
Speaker 4: Is it Eunomius?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's you know it's.
Speaker 6: Position, And you'll you'll see this very clearly if you
read Saint gregoff Nissa's response to Eunomia's second book. It's
not against you know me spoke too of Sycregrinis. It's
response to Younomis's second book. It's on New Advent. I mean,
it's also in Saint Basils against you know means. But
Saint greg Nissa's like that entire book is all about
refuting that idea. So if you read that, you'll you'll
basically see exactly the points that we're making on this,
Like the whole book is about conceptualization being real, and
he basically says like he insults you know means for
suggestion that conceptualization only means something that's in the mind
that doesn't corresponder is not anality.
Speaker 5: And this is exactly what all these just retarded Roman
caloctomas have said against us, as well as the factions
of the retards in our own so called orthodox circles.
I'm not saying we're not Orthodox, but you know what
I'm talking about, the circles within so called Orthodoxy that
talk so much about conceptual distinction and all this stuff
over the years.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, yeah, kay, do you have anything else to add?
I'm just I think I covered pretty much everything I
had in mind so far.
Speaker 2: Unless yeah, yeah, no, I covered what I wanted to cover.
I know that I think you wanted to start wrapping
things up, So maybe we should just leave the other
stuff that I wanted to discuss until the next stream.
It's more the essence energies distinction and why it's specifically
relevant to Christology, not just in the Trinitarian context, but
specifically within Christology, and I think maybe we can just
leave that for the next stream.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think I think that's a that's a good idea.
What do you say, ja, Yeah, that's fine. I'll read
a couple of super chests. M J M kg says
for seven dollars. Wow, I didn't have this on my
bingo card this month. God, bless you guys, ch Jesus Christ.
Speaker 3: Excuse me, bless you, bless you. That's that's that's need love.
Blessing Kai Kai.
Speaker 5: You surprised me with your monastic beard. He was on
a few months ago and had a normal beard. H.
Brosey five dollars, Orthosowski two dollars. In Oriental Orthodoxy, when
they talk about this one nature of Christ, is it
created uncreated?
Speaker 3: I mean, that's a classic objection that I make.
Speaker 6: Essentially, the answer will eventually just boil down to interview,
is that it's both because they're both parts of like
the natural properties of both the natures that he is from,
So it's simultaneously created and uncreated. But I mean, of course,
when you make that kind of an argument, you're distinguishing,
you're distinguishing two natures.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it doesn't.
Speaker 6: And sorry, but remember bishop is quote that I cited, right,
bishofs quote He again, I'm very thankful to him for
admitting that nature is the sum of natural properties, right,
And if you have contradictory natural properties, like created an
uncreated then obviously they have to be distinguished into their
proper categories. This is just a clear example, a very
clear example of this. Now we might get an objection
about the body and the soul. I mean, this is
my personal take. I don't think the body and the
soul have contradictory properties. And that's that's kind of like
a different debate like that gets more into the mind
broad body problem in philosophy.
Speaker 3: But I don't think they are.
Speaker 6: I don't think their physicality is contradictory. Whereas with God
it is because God is on the present right, he's
beyond presence, so created presence, it does not match, and
the most obvious one being created or uncreated, that's clearly opposite.
That's there's clearly like some kind of a duality there,
I will say, And like one thing cannot be simultaneously
be both of them unless they are.
Speaker 3: Apportioned in their proper natures. So the answer both will
logically lead you to confessing two natures in Christ, but
of course they don't want to do that.
Speaker 5: Neckw ten dollars. Thank you for your time and your
hard work. Irrationally irri irritable, So.
Speaker 4: Thank you, guys, thank you.
Speaker 5: Irrationally, let's see, well, I'm five dollars, he says, thank you,
Thank you. Guys, want to remind you that I'm about
to have an interview here in about an hour. We'll
be right back with Alex Soren. We've been chatting. He
seems like a solid dude, and so I'm looking forward
to having a conversation about him with him about apologetics
in general. He's going to be debating some of the
Roman Catholics very soon, and so we're looking forward to that.
It's great to see so many dudes kind of stepping
up to the plate and getting out here and taking
on all this nonsense. So be sure and follow Alex
as well. We'll be talking, as I said here in
about an hour. So again, if you want to talk
about a debate, we can talk about that. But the
way that you guys act when it comes to trying
to set up a debate, you act worse than anyone
else that we interact with. So, I mean, we had
all the same stuff with Severn Zelot. This is all
a repeat of like twenty eighteen with David and Severn Zealot,
and now it's just a new.
Speaker 4: Person.
Speaker 5: So I'm gonna add Kai, is there ever a possibility
to debate with Aigan.
Speaker 2: I've given him my conditions. Basically, I want him to
commit to writing in a formal way. I've done several
of articles. I've got a lot of stuff that I'm
putting out there, so I'm not holding him to any
standard that I'm not myself subjecting myself to that I
want it committed in writing fully fledged out the whole
metaphysical paradigm. Explain the oriental position the way you guys
profess it, and you need to demonstrate from metaphysics how
the orthodox position is Nestorian. I'm on record putting out
what our metaphysical paradigm is. I'm on record explaining your
meta physical paradigm. I'm identifying the problems with it. I'm
showing logically how you run into problems with it. So
I expect the same as that, and when we're done
our entire nine part ten part series, whatever it is,
if something like that materializes, then I am open to
a debate. I know, maybe Jay, you are what.
Speaker 5: Is the reason Kai and I don't have a problem
with it, But what's the reason that you're wanting him
to put into two written form exactly what his position is.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the reason why I wanted an written, nice
formal structure is one I want people to be able
to consult this material before the debate where it's completely
clearly laid out, so we're not spending.
Speaker 4: Like so it's debates over meanings of words.
Speaker 2: Exactly, so we're not debating meanings of words, that we're
not talking past each each other. That it's not just
quote minds. And I guarantee you this debate will not
be quote minds because the debate is going to be
the metaphysics of the incarnation. So Egan, if you come
into this, you're debating metaphysics, So all that quote minding
that you're doing, it's not going to help you. I'm
going to be testing your intelligence. How can you reason?
Where is your logic? And you're gonna get slaughtered, buddy,
You're gonna get completely slaughtered. Okay, it's a metaphysics debate,
So you need to commit to writing so that people
can see it. We know exactly what the position is
and it can be something that's referenced in the debate
rather than us wasting time going over terms and trying
to define stuff and whatnot, but just kind of go
onto this. Please keep writing those refutations, keep doing the streams.
You're providing us with lots of gold. And with that
article that you guys put out today, please put more
out because I'm going to show you how your quote
mining makes you look absolutely stupid, not understanding the metaphysical position,
what the Fathers are saying, what your own position holds to,
and that it's going to really illustrate that you guys
have no substance. You just see this word me a
fesis and you think, now the Fathers teach me a
fesis according to your paradigm. They don't. They don't. Egan,
Come on, bring it.
Speaker 5: Eigan looks like aids incarnate. By the way, for those
that are curious, And I don't care about what you
think about what I mean. Uh, And I say that
because this guy's absolutely unhinged, like you can't oh. When
he called in, he basically just screamed and spurred out,
like you can't have a rational conversation with these people
that are back like five year olds.
Speaker 2: Jay, There's actually something very funny. Egan debated a Mohammedan
some time ago and would not give him the complete
audio recording of that debate, and he hid it from him.
And instead what he did was he just clipped certain sections,
made kind of this like sounds, and like just basically
tried to make the Muslim the Mohammedan look stupid with
just these clipped segments. But somebody, apparently from Egan's own side,
ended up giving the entire recording of the debate to
the Mohammedan himself, and he's uploading it now unedited, and
when you listen to it, this guy cannot answer some
of the most basic questions about Christology, about triadology. Of course,
he got angry that this got leaked because it shows
him as an absolute ignoramus, absolutely embarrassing performance.
Speaker 5: Well, let's not forget Yeah, I'm not surprised that at all.
Let's not forget too that roots of Orthodoxy was exposed
as a scammer, Like we said, Christ in Culture LARPing
as Orthodox and then admitting the other day on his channel.
So notice a repeat pattern two of not just being
absolutely totally out out to lunch. When it comes to
understanding these basic metaphysical terms and Christology and Batristics, they
also have to resort to scamming. I mean they're literal scammers,
just like their Indian cousins. Like they literally have to
do online scams, pretend to be Orthodox, and then after
a year or two of building up an audience, then
they admit, oh no, actually we're Orientals.
Speaker 4: Were cops.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's just classic scammery. I know the roots
of Orthodoxy, dude is supposedly Roman Catholic. But it's not
any better because the whole scam there was also to
you know, bring on Oriental Orthodox priests and deacons or
whatever under the guise of oh I'm actually uh kind
of interested in Orthodoxy, but it's all just Dowa.
Speaker 4: It's all Dawa tactics exactly.
Speaker 5: Are we surprised that this ethnic cult also does the
same Dowa tactics as their relatives.
Speaker 2: I go, of course.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Like the lead, the leaking of the full debate to
the opposing side, I mean, history repeating itself.
Speaker 4: Who did that?
Speaker 3: Like yeah, like like in the seventh century really reminded me.
Speaker 6: Of the seventh century of a sudden history history history
A buffs will know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: I think Kai got it, Yeah, I got it, I
got it.
Speaker 4: Jordan lofgrin five dollars.
Speaker 5: Did you see that Michael Knowles was with Ruseln and
they were arguing that the pope cannot be false if
the pope was false, when the pope would be false.
I did not see that specific section. I saw them
talking about Worth Bros. But I mean, I don't know
if you saw my debate with Ruslan. Ruslan is a
little uh. Ruselan is way over confident in his debate skills,
and he didn't do any good in the debate with me.
And he thinks he's going to go out here in
debate fwints or candae. I mean he's going to get demolished.
Missed a fist, sent five memberships. What's up man, Thank
you so much. Let's see we've got some more super
chats over here. We got Flavias says for ten dollars,
thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Flavia's chorro Mahicano. I think we I think I missed
this one last time.
Speaker 5: He says, nobody hates socialists more than I do. I'm
so anti social I don't talk to anybody. Oh, he's
got a zinger there, guys, remember and fall, remember to
follow Kai and remember to follow David Rhuan on their channels.
They are linked in the show description. I had to
Davey keeps changing the name of his channel, so I'm
gonna have to find the new name of the channel,
which I think is.
Speaker 3: Just I mean, it's just just.
Speaker 5: So it's like, you know, he's turning into like a
like a luxury brand, like a Gucci and now it's
just Dave David.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's actually a very accurate description.
Speaker 5: H extreme band, like the luxury bland brand of refuting
like dumb dumbs, right, Like this is David has the luxury.
It's the Gucci of refuting retards, right and absolutely, Kai,
what what's up next? Actually, what's up next for both
of you guys, And then we're gonna call it an
evening and then we will come back with Alex Soren
and I on a live stream here in a moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for now, I think I'm gonna stay with the
Orientals for a while. Yet, we still have a lot
to do. Maybe just kind of start doing these joint
streams a little bit more frequently so that you can
get through more of the more of the parts. I
have a lot more articles planned to write on them
and then just start flashing out a little bit more.
Speaker 5: Oh, by the way, Kyle, people are asking him chat,
what what is this? Can anybody go hear the Muslim
discussion where Aigan couldn't answer basics.
Speaker 2: I don't want to really plug his channel. I don't mind. Like,
if you want to come on the OS discord, I
can link it, but I don't want to just plug
the Mohammedan's channel live.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't mind me yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But it's it's really funny, like if you if
you listen to this, you will actually see like Aigan
has no idea what he's talking about. He gets demolished
by the Mohammedan and it's an he's an embarrassment, Like.
Speaker 5: Now, are you talking about your Orthodoxy Hata discord? Are
you talking about Okay, no, the or can you give
me a link in somewhere to this because I want
to put it in our discord for people to see,
but I don't want to promote the Muslim channel.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, okay in that case, yeah, I'll just give
it to you Jay. You put in the big server
and then everybody can just go and get it from
the big server. But the other thing that I do
have that. I'm it's in the works. It's actually been
in the works for quite a while. It's going to
be something quite substantive, something that's taken quite a while
to flesh out. And that's the Jihad and geopolitics. If
you remember Ji ran that idea about it.
Speaker 4: We talked about a bunch of books.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, So there's the reason why it's taking a
long time is because I'm I have to translate a
lot of the Arabic stuff myself. And this is going
into a lot of like the Islamic effect, the jurisprudence
of jihad, and basically looking at all of the schools,
making all the comparisons, and then putting it into a
geopolic political context. It's gonna talk about a lot of
like who created al Kaeda, Like I know the stuff
that you kind of go into j and so it's
gonna be kind of like a fusion now of two
separate interests.
Speaker 4: Can I join you for that because I know a
lot about that you. Can I join you? Or is
this something you're planning to do kind of just for
Orthodox Shota channel?
Speaker 2: Oh, you're gonna host it.
Speaker 4: We were doing this together. I don't remember what we
said because we talked about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well to to to be fair though, like I
pitched that idea to you Jay like a year and
a half, two years ago. It's it's been a while,
but the whole point was it was going to be
like multi parts on your channel that is going to
cover it from a lot of a lot of angles
and just kind of go into a lot of.
Speaker 5: You know, we got to turn that into a course
and sell the course like you know, have like half
I'm serious, like half half and half like I did
with Tragy and Hope, and then like we can you know,
actually he makes some money because nobody's super chats with
this kind of stuff because it's too it's too technical
for the normy mind. Uh So, but if you turned
into a course, then people feel like, oh, it's actually
something that you know I can find value in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm I'm open to that idea. It's there's a
lot of material. There's going to be a lot of
new content that is just doesn't exist in English. A
lot of people who talk about this stuff, Like I
know Robert Spencer, he does a lot of work with
regards to jihad, but he's limited by language, so he's
only accessing stuff that he can see in English and
then whatever somebody might want to translate for him or whatever.
The Arabic. I'm working directly from the Arabic sources, from
the picbooks. And it's got stuff in there that has
not appeared.
Speaker 4: Oh I bet, Yeah, I bet.
Speaker 2: And it's not just it's not so much just that
it's stuff of this that hasn't been said, but it's
the way that it's packaged. The Muslims themselves package it
quite nicely that makes it unambiguous. And how it's going
to really tie into the whole geopoliticization of Islam and
this idea of how you have the Mecan phase where
when the Muslims are not in the majority, when they're
not superior, so then they have to basically kind of
like infiltrate or whatever. But then when they do become
the majority or they've reached this momentum, now they actually
have a legal obligation right to fight. So it's not
like we're just going to peacefully coexist like Muslims in Britain.
They're waiting to reach that critical mass, critical momentum to
actually establish a takeover and that is what is mandated
by Islam. And it's very clear, like when you read
the thing, it's very when Muslims are able to fight
and conquer with Islam, they are supposed to break peace treaties.
For example, So you think that, okay, you've got these
Muslims on the one hand and non Muslims on the
other hand, these countries or regions, then they create a
peace treaty. Well, the only reason legally under Islam, the
only reason why a peace treaty exists is because the
Muslims are inferior. If they're superior, they're supposed to conquer.
But now if the treaty exists, and they now during
that peace treaty, whether it's five years, ten years, whatever,
however long it is, if they reach the point that
they can actually conquer you. Now, legally under Islam, Islamic
claus says they must break the peace treaty and conquer you.
And so when you can do that militarily, you have
this idea called them Mecan phase. And that was Muhammad
during his time when he was in Mecca and inferior
in numbers and powers, he said, don't fight, do not fight.
But then when he became the more powerful side from Medina,
he comes and he conquers Mecca, and that's exactly what
you see geopolitically happening with Muslims being spread over into Europe.
But now that ties into some of the stuff that
you kind of get into. Jays A's like, well, what
are the ulterior motives of let's say, the CIA, or
what's his name? The Hungarian? What's his that he funds sorrows?
Why would Soros want to flood Muslims into Europe and
basically make them the majority? Power dynamics, power politics and
stuff like that. Like that is all interconnected, and so
you have from the one side, the higher ups on
the geopolitical scene, and then you have the Muslims themselves
being mobilized and using their religion to kind of coalesce
into the same kind of end end goal. But like
I said, that stuff is going to take a while
before we get to be able to actually unpack everything.
There's a lot that I need to do and my
time is split now with the family and sure other ations.
Speaker 5: Guys want to remind you too to head on over
to chalk dot com c choq dot com. In the show,
description is the link for chalk and you can use
the promo co jif force to get forty percent off
all those great products that's J forty or you can
use the promo co J y four four l I
f E J forty four Life to get forty four
percent off all those great products including the ton Catalegue,
including the Seven Wonders, including the Ashwaganda and the pre
workout Chad Note.
Speaker 4: Also you can get access to my.
Speaker 5: Full philosophy course twelve lectures twenty four twenty six hours
worth of material, as well as guests shows doctor uh
An Anis, doctor Deacon, doctor Annis Soareum on epistemology, my
priest father Vladimir on aesthetics. That course goes to the
whole history of Western philosophy, and the link is in
the show description at the autonomy Agora marketplace.
Speaker 4: Be sure and follow Kai as a sub stack, which he's.
Speaker 5: Been updating regularly with a lot of excellent material reputing
Muslims and Monophysites. Also, be sure and follow the David
Irhan channel, which I'm gonna have to figure out exactly
where it is now because it used to pop up
under David Rhana doesn't now now it's.
Speaker 6: Just the.
Speaker 2: I as sure that I rambled on though, but I
do want David to tell us what he's going to
be working on.
Speaker 4: Oh I forgot him, Sorry, go ahead Vid.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, Well, contrary to I guess, like my recent
upload schedule is, I'll just continue uploading pretty much.
Speaker 3: A lot of things that generally what I want to
I want to do, So there will.
Speaker 6: Be I guess I'll there will be like it's a
it's a progress of like work in terms of like
the monophysite thing, so patients, you know, the patient is
always always rewarded. That's what I said in the stream
I did with Cleeve, so I'd like to repeat that
and just you know, videos about Orthodoxy in general is
pretty much the plan for the future. And more regular
videos maybe once per week, maybe once per two weeks,
so we'll see.
Speaker 3: We'll see in the future. But as I said, I'm
pretty sure I've gone back to regularly scheduled uploading.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Yeah, I'm glad to see it. Now.
Speaker 5: I want to remind you guys again, I'll be back
very soon with Alex Soren will be talking about apologetics
and his conversion Orthodoxy, so everybody be sure and follow
our guys