Speaker 1: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 4: The All right, what's up, y'all? Welcome It's another open
form debate, open Q and A. You got questions, you
got problems, you got challenges, you got a goiter, you
got I don't even know what goiters are, but if
you got it, you can call in and I'm gonna
heal you. Put your hands on the screen. We're gonna
heal your gout. We're gonna heal, heal all of your ailments,
your illnesses. And I'm joined with Nick the Apologist from
Fearless Truth.
Speaker 5: How you doing today, Nick, I'm good man.
Speaker 6: Good to see everybody here. Hope everyone's doing well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Nick and I've been talking about doing a stream
for a while because we did some uh streams with
God Logic debating a lot of Muslims and and those
did pretty well.
Speaker 5: So this is long anticipated.
Speaker 4: Nick's gonna join me today for the Q and A
and the open chats, and if you want to call
in with an argument, a question, a disagreement. It's all
open topics today. We're going to try to keep it
focused on theology. Preferably, we want to talk about Orthodox theology,
church history, the councils, patristics, apologetics. If you're atheist, if
you're agnostic, if you're a Muslim, if you're a Protestant,
if you're gnostic, if you're a pagan, whatever it is
you want to call in, you go right to the
head of the line and feel free to ask whatever
you want.
Speaker 5: I know Nick's been doing a lot of debates.
Speaker 4: With Muslims while we let people kind of roll in,
what's your what's your recent I know you debated that
was like a Muslim, what's that guy's name that you've
recently debated?
Speaker 6: It's some other one on in Spinal Philosophy channel.
Speaker 5: Yeah, what was that guy's name?
Speaker 6: Orthodox Muslim?
Speaker 5: That's it. Yeah, tell us about that bait debate.
Speaker 4: Give us a kind of rundown of how it went
from your perspective and where you thought his weakest points were,
and what what the crux.
Speaker 5: Of it was.
Speaker 6: Yeah, man, So we had we had two different debates.
Speaker 7: The last one was we were speaking about whether or
not you can you know, worship when the worship that
was given of Christ is going to be considered true worship,
actual worship, And he was trying to say no in Matthew,
it's the hypostatic unions never taught the worship there isn't
give him. And I tried to explain to him, like, hey,
you know, even if you look at the New Testament, right,
the word Proscono and the Greek, it's never used besides worship.
Speaker 6: Even when it's used with.
Speaker 7: With Cornelius, when he worships Proscanoe with Paul, I believe
it's Paul or Peter, one of the two. He says, Hey,
why why are you doing this to me? Don't do
this to me, right, do not do this? And so
that that was how that one went.
Speaker 6: That was really bad.
Speaker 7: And then the first one, which was a few months ago,
we were talking about the Trinity, and he was trying
to run it's seem like some sort of argument to
make us fall into like three gods, so to say, polytheism, and.
Speaker 6: We're arguing about what the monarchy is.
Speaker 7: He was saying that us, as Trinitarians, we don't believe
in the monarchy of the Trinity. Only certain people believe
in the monarchy of the Father. And he just has
no clue what he's talking about. Unfortunately, we kind of
see this with a lot of the Muslims nowadays is
that they don't study like Eastern Orthodoxy, what we actually
believe they have. They study the basic, watered down version
of Christianity. And then when they talk to Eastern Orthodox
apologists and I tell them things like, hey, they're one God,
not just because they're nature, but because they have the
same operation of action, right, they have the same energies,
they get real confused. I was talking to a Muslim
the day and I told them, yes, God has you know,
the one shared energy between the person the trinity. Dude
thought I was talking about like energies of a light bulb.
I was like, Bro, this is crazy.
Speaker 4: We'll be going back forth between the chat and between
the call ins chastity, you're the first call or what's
on your mind?
Speaker 5: Got I'm mute, I'm your dude. Can you can you
hear me right now? Yes, sir? What's up?
Speaker 8: Perfect? So, first of all, I want to say like,
it's an abso pleasure to speak with you. I just
like had a couple of questions. I'm recently coming from
the like eightheist side, but prior to that I was
pentecostal unfortunately, but like I was looking into returning back
to like orthodoxical I'm like an Ethiopian background, and I
was looking to going into to the Oriental churches. But
I've been reading and I've been looking into what you've
even said, and I've seen a lot of Sam Shamoon's stuff,
and he's kind of saying that Apostolic churches are kind
of equally, Okay, I just want to get your.
Speaker 5: Thoughts on that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we did a whole video of me and Kai
and David Arhon rebuking this idea, reputing this idea that
there's this sort of a generic Apostolic Christianity. If you
go to the Christians of the first thousand years, none
of them believed in a generic Apostolic Christianity. They all
believe that even though all the sides thought the other
sides are wrong, whether you're Orthodox, Oriental, or Roman Catholic,
they all believe that the other sides were not part
of the church. So there's no such thing as a
generic lowest common denominator, Oriental or shoot me, Apostolic Christianity.
So that's just fundamentally a flawed, nonsensical ecclesiology. Paul says,
there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism one body. You know,
if you look at the Niceno constant Politan creed, it's one, one.
Speaker 5: Holy Ethic, one holy Catholic Aposoltic church.
Speaker 4: So that church isn't the one that's divided amongst three branches.
Speaker 5: Or any of that kind of nonsense.
Speaker 4: So it's just fundamentally contrary to ecclesiology and to Christology.
Speaker 5: Nick, did you have any let me get nixed if
he has any comments on that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I was just going to say to
that point.
Speaker 7: I mean, this is kind of the whole reason why
as Orthodox Christians we don't take any other Eucharist as valid, right,
because we don't think that I mean, these other sex
they're not even like the other sex that I call
themselves Orthodox Christianity, right, like Oriental Orthodox. I mean, we're
very particular about how we administer the sacraments, and so
I think even just seeing that you can look at
the first one thousand years and see that they were
the same way and how they administered the sacraments. They
didn't see them as just some sort of open flim
that anyone could have, but it's rather something those inside
the church could partaken.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a great point, Like nobody.
Speaker 4: In the first thousand years Christianity practiced the sort of
open communion where everybody could commune.
Speaker 8: Right right, Yeah, And like so, like I done quite
a bit of research. I watched a couple of a
majority of the first part of what you Do with
David Orhant, and like, I think.
Speaker 5: You're completely right.
Speaker 9: I was kind of looking.
Speaker 8: To I'll be honest, kind of cope because I wanted
to go to that church. But it's pretty clear that
like it makes sense on every level with regards to
continue and the idea of like the one tra Churchill. Yeah,
like that's honest to come up what I just wanted
to ask and just like I just wanted to clarify
if there was any sort of like way to see
none any other perspective, but yeah, kind of answer what
I need.
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, I mean there's just there's just not really
because you know, it's what's orthodox ecclesiology or what's not
so And also I mean when eventually it's a little difficult,
but if you know the Christology, you know it's not
you don't have to go too far into the questions
to figure out who has the right Christology. And that's
why we've been doing that ongoing series with me and
Kai and David, which were about four or five parts into.
But Josh, what's up man? How you doing? And then
we'll go to Rick. Josh, I mean, hey you brother,
how you doing?
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me?
Speaker 5: What's that dog?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 11: Chill and Chilla.
Speaker 12: Hey, First of all, thank you for recommending on whatever
episode it was the.
Speaker 5: Book from Father Sara from Rose orthodox in the.
Speaker 12: Religion of the Future, great book, just finished it. So
I wanted to ask then, kind of keeping with that
track of literature, you know, or Orthodoxy and conspiracy kind
of meet any other reading recommendations along those lines.
Speaker 4: Well, Father spirit On Bailey has a book that's kind
of a follow up to that Orthodoxy and the Kingdom
of Satan, and it deals a lot with you know,
spiritual warfare, Zionism in g O's CIA, all that kind
of stuff plays into some of the chapters of his
follow up book. But yeah, I mean Orthodoxy and conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5: I'm not really I can't think of any other time that's.
Speaker 6: That's a niche topic.
Speaker 5: It's kind of hard.
Speaker 6: I was thinking about books like, I don't.
Speaker 5: Know, sure, Yeah, I mean that's what you just recommend.
Speaker 9: It's perfect.
Speaker 12: That's definitely putting something along those lines.
Speaker 5: That book.
Speaker 12: Similarly, just obviously you deal a lot of this when
you suggest books that the elites educate themselves with, you know,
like they're MA programs and whatnot, but more like an
entry level, you know, third person perspective. What about just
you know, CIA pampering with you know, like a progressive
Christianity and such.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I mean there's a book that John Adams,
who's in the chat, he's been reading and he's been
doing a book report on which is actually about the
relationship between American the American state, and evangelical liberalism.
Speaker 5: So I'm going to ask.
Speaker 4: Him in a moment to come up and recommend that
book because I can't forget, I can't remember the name
of it. But more specifically, David wim Hoff's book on
Henry Lewis and Time Life magazine and John Courtney Murray.
It's called The American Proposition. That's a very absolutely essential
text that's right here.
Speaker 13: Awesome, awesome, thanks so much, man.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's called John Courtney Murray, Time Life and the
American Proposition, and it's a Catholic lawyer named David Wimhoff,
who wrote giant seven d page book on the history
of and I mean it mainly focuses on Catholic liberalism,
but it also does touch on and explain like the
doctional warfare program using liberal Protestantism as well. So that's
a crucial text. But let me ask John what that
other text was. And then I mean, Nick, you're feel
free to hop in if you have any.
Speaker 6: Got nothing on conspiracy, that's all you.
Speaker 4: Well, this is yeah, this is like religious engineering, and
you know the state wanted to control the church. John,
what's that book that I've been listening to your podcasts
or your audios of.
Speaker 14: It's called From Bible Belt to sun Belt, Okay, by
Professor Darren DEUTSCHUK.
Speaker 4: Bible Belt to Sunbelt Professor Darren DEUTSCHUK.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 14: And then the another one is The Evangelist by Francis Fitzgerald.
Speaker 5: Okay, cool, those.
Speaker 14: Two together, if you read them together, the kind of
compliment each other.
Speaker 5: Awesome? All right, perfect, John.
Speaker 4: I feel free to stay up and chat if you want. Maddie,
what's up, what's on your mind?
Speaker 13: What I've got a quick thing to ask you about? Yes,
I see the mister or manifestation dude streaming himself. So
I jumped on his life and clipped it and asked
him about how he squares the vine sur pissy fall
into modal collapse, right, expecting to get some sort of
you know, at least some sort of defense, and his
whole thing was he didn't know anything. I'm not God
and I'm infallible.
Speaker 5: He didn't know anything about any of that.
Speaker 9: Whoh, he just talking ship Man.
Speaker 13: I said to me something like, you're the premise what
you're arguing from his domina?
Speaker 11: Your mother, your mother was doing muta with the she
and you, son of the devil, go back to hell,
you son of the devil while your mom does.
Speaker 5: That's all he knows.
Speaker 13: He's just he's just talking mat ship. And I was
saying to him, listener, if by this lane of arugumentation, right,
and if you follow Aquinas for instance, isn't he a
valuable being as well? Who is not God?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 13: So he was just basically pre loading his assumption about demonstrating.
Speaker 5: He was like, I don't need to demonstrated, do not God?
Speaker 9: You're infallible?
Speaker 5: Was bro?
Speaker 9: Fuck this?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Well, have you seen his clip where he calls the energies,
like he makes fun of the divine energies.
Speaker 9: He makes fun of the divine energies. But what's so
interesting is that last time.
Speaker 13: I spoke to him, he actually admits that we have
to make distinctions as human beings in determining the actions
of God. However, that doesn't attain to the idea that
God is a compartmental He's made up part. So I
was like, dude, like, distinction doesn't intel composition one, and
you just affirm the idea that there are distinctions in
what he.
Speaker 9: Can and can't do. And he was just like, you're
not God.
Speaker 5: You you're infallible.
Speaker 13: I don't have to take what you say because I
have to take what the entire church well.
Speaker 4: I mean, it has nothing to do with the question
of impallibility. So he's just deflecting because he doesn't know.
Of course, Daniel, what's up man? Thank you, Maddie. I mean, Nick,
do you have any comments on Catholic Paul? Just like
Sam shamun.
Speaker 6: Man I got any comments on it.
Speaker 7: I mean, if anyone's taking Tom Saquanas to be dang
there infallible though, that's a that's the first issue problem.
Speaker 5: Yeah, big issue Daniel. What's up man?
Speaker 15: Hey Jay?
Speaker 5: Just a quick question here.
Speaker 16: I come from a Baptist background, but now I'm acquiring
Orthodoxy after learning that PSA is most likely false.
Speaker 5: The only question I have is on Hebrew six.
Speaker 16: I feel like it makes sense under PSA because how
can it get be paid twice? But curious how under
non PSA, how you look at Hebrew six where it's
like impossible to renew those have been at lighten.
Speaker 4: Well, I think Hebrew six is talking about apostatizing to
Judaism and if you you know, if you apostatize, and
kind of like the passage that the only sin that
can't be forgiven is rejecting the call the Holy Spirit.
I don't think it's actually physically stating something against the
Holy Spirit because many people who've done that have been saved.
So I think Hebrew six and blashing the Holy Spirit
just talking about, you know, persevering an apostasy. So, but
what's that relationship that you're making between that and paying
the debt?
Speaker 5: Explain that to me?
Speaker 16: Well, I was just thinking because in like OCTI Verse fours,
as far as impossible for those who wants to enlightened
et cetera, and then that they would re crucify Christ. Essentially,
now if it if it DEA's been paid.
Speaker 9: It makes sense because you can't pay your debt. Twice
Christ re crucified to pay your.
Speaker 5: Debt again, right seriously?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Well, I think it's because it's because he's talking
about specifically going back to Judaism, and all of the
rituals of Judaism Paul is saying are fulfilled in the
ritual of Christ's death Berlin Resurrection.
Speaker 5: So there's one ritual that quote pays the debt that
we owe.
Speaker 4: But the thing that with the debt that we owe,
it's if you read palm Zanski's book, there's a section
in about the controversies in Byzantium where this comes up
with the deacon Setira Coos who tried to argue that
the payment was between the father and son. And one
of the things that comes up is, well, you know,
if you read the Psalms, God can't be paid by
created things. He says in the Psalms, I own all
the cattle. There is no animal sacrifice that you can
give that will pacify me, because I already own all
the animals. So God isn't placated by creatures, whether it's
the physical human nature of Christ or whether it's you.
Speaker 5: Know, the blood of goats and bulls.
Speaker 4: So the debt is a way of speaking of what
we owe to God and our lack in terms of
our sinfulness and missing the mark. It's not a literal
payment model that could ever even be exchanged, and you can't.
You also can't have a payment model from PSA between
one person and the Trinity and the other.
Speaker 5: It can't be a payment from the Father or from.
Speaker 4: The son to the Father because that excludes Holy Spirit,
and that's anti trinitarian, because everything in the Trinity is triadic.
So where is the Holy Spirit in this payment model
that you know, you have Anselm pioneering with, you know,
his satisfaction, theory of atonement and so forth. So the
debt payment model is there in the scriptures. It's just
that it's it's taken by the Protestants and by p
s A to be this nominalistic legal status and this
sort of you know, literal and infinite payment method exchange method,
which is just not even triadically possible. It's not ontologically possible,
given that God owns everything anyway, So none of it
really makes any sense when you actually get into the
totality of the theology, and I mean, what could you
pay God with?
Speaker 5: How has God paid off?
Speaker 4: In other words, if God is literally paid off, then
God is imperfect because he lacks. But God has no lack,
he has no need, so why would he need to
be paid off?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 5: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 16: And it looks like in regards to Hebrew sixth, then
is it fair to say that if a Christian apostheesize
and go to Judiaism, could be impossible to renew him
or that like hyperbolic language.
Speaker 5: I think it's a little bit of hyperbolic language.
Speaker 4: But what I'm saying is it's like the you know,
the sin of blast hum and the Holy Spirit. It's
not the that you if you literally went from Orthodox
Christianity Judaism you could never be saved again. I think
it's saying that if you think that's the route that
you want to persevere in and you die in that,
that's that's you're done. So because there been there have
been plenty of people who have apostatized and come back,
and we wouldn't say that, well, sorry, you only get one,
you know, apostasy you can never come back, because if
you think about it, that gets very difficult to actually
make sense of, Like, I mean, every sin is kind
of an apostasy.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: And so what exactly why would it be only the
sin of apostatizing. It would it be just to Judaism
or to any religion. I mean plenty of people have
been raised you know, Orthodox cradle Orthodox, they had years
where they went and partied or atheists and they came
back to Orthodoxy, right, So we wouldn't say that all
those people, oh no, you can't be saved. And there's
actually already a debate in the early Church with I
think the Novationists and you know, some of the Holy
Rollers of the first, second or third century. They were
actually arguing in this position that nobody could if they
were traded tours, which in the Early Church of traded
tour was a person who handed over the manuscripts of
the of the gospels if they had them. So that
was seen as a version of apostasy if you gave
up to the Roman officials the copies of the gospels
because they were rare, and and the debate was then well,
what about other sins, and some of the Novationists and
others said, well, if you are married and you commit adultery,
you can never be saved again, because it's not just
the sin of apostas, say they argue. They argue that
basically any sin, and this would eventually play into like
the donuts is controversy too. So what ends up happening
is that the Church in the early you know, third, fourth,
fifth century basically says, no, we're not you know, PERFECTI.
Speaker 5: We're not holy rollers.
Speaker 4: We live in a world where people are gonna send
and so when they come back, there will be you know,
penances that people have, especially if it's something like adultery,
and the penance for adultery in the early Church was
pretty severe. You'd have to like, you know, sit on
your knees outside the church for like a year during
the services, that kind of stuff. So, in other words,
the attitude of the church was that, no, it's this
is not a literal statement that any you know, leaving
of the faith at any point in your life means
that you can never be saved again, which is which
is how you'd have to interpret it. So and that
is literally how like the Novationists and other groups interpreted
this passage totally.
Speaker 9: Okay, thanks for that.
Speaker 16: I'll look over it with that mindset, and yeah, thank
you appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 4: I mean a lot of the sort of surface level
I'm not saying that you're doing this, but like a
lot of the very like surface level readings of the
text that Protestants have, Like it leads you to really
preposterous conclusions, and many of those conclusions are already inclusions
of heterodox groups in the first, second, third, fourth century,
like they did the same mistakes already.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's interesting because like things like like that debt repayment.
They think because PSA and processism takes it out so
bad that suddenly that we don't believe that there's any
sort of debt repayment.
Speaker 6: But we do. But then there's guys like RC. Sproull
right to go on and say that how.
Speaker 7: The Father turned his back on the Sun and how
this trinity was split for a moment in history.
Speaker 6: And they take it to a whole new level.
Speaker 7: So it's not that we don't believe, it's just that
they take things out of proportion a lot.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like all these terms atonement, debt, legality, like
all that terminology is true, it's in the Bible. But
the problem is that a lot of these people import
into that the Protestant, post Reformation, post Enlightenment meanings, which
none of the early Church fathers or medieval theologians thought
that way because like they weren't nominalists. Nominalism hadn't come
about yet. How could you have if you read like
Yustisia Day by Alstro McGrath, there's no way you could
have this, or Gabriel Biles or excuse me, Hiker Oberman's
book on medieval nominalism in Luther. If you read those books,
you realize that there's no way they could have even
had the Protestant psa model in their mind because they
didn't think in terms of the divorcing of the thing
and the symbol and.
Speaker 5: The reality or the word in the reality. Go ahead,
by the way, can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 17: So this is the exact argument is making. This is
why quote minding it's not.
Speaker 5: Going to work.
Speaker 18: You can pull all.
Speaker 17: The quotes from the fathers like we're fine with words.
Speaker 9: Words aren't the problems they're meaning.
Speaker 17: So when you have Augustinian and a lat kind of reformed.
Speaker 5: Views like you.
Speaker 12: Just poured that.
Speaker 5: It's hard to hear you can can you speak up
a little bit? Sorry, Okay, I'm skiing long time? Uh
those debating while he's skiing.
Speaker 17: Yeah, I was actually just thinking about that on the lift.
I'm like, has it ever been done?
Speaker 5: Debates? Ski the first.
Speaker 19: Anyways, this is something these people never get, and in
part it's because they're not philosophically trained. They don't understand
that there's these kind of presuppositions that are read into
these kind of words.
Speaker 17: So what good is it is? If you just keep it,
uh cherry picking and quote minding the fathers, It's like,
the words.
Speaker 8: Aren't the problem.
Speaker 5: I have no problem.
Speaker 17: We none of us have any problems with people language, atonement, guilt,
these different things.
Speaker 5: It's what does it mean?
Speaker 17: Does is it Augustinian kind of presuppositions? Is it denomenalism?
Speaker 9: For the reformers?
Speaker 5: They never answer these questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and uh, nikola that you say, so if you
want to do second last thing I want to point
out here is so if you go back to Hebrew six,
it says in chapter six. Now remember this is people
who want to go back to Judaism. I think that's
important for this context. He says, it is impossible for
those who are once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly Gift.
So that's baptism is enlightenment, illumination, and then the tastes
the heavenly gift is the Eucharist and it become partakers
of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the Good Word
or the powers of the age to come if they
fall away, to renew them to repentance, since they crucify
again the Son of God and put them to open shame.
That is I think a specific reference to Judaism and
Judaism's involvement in the Crucifixion. So I don't think that
this is just Paul saying that, you know, anybody who
ever falls away or doubts or you know, became a
seventeen year old atheist and then you know, like they
can never be saved again again.
Speaker 5: It's just it's just really an.
Speaker 4: Impossible interpretation, and it conflicts with what we see, you know,
in the in the life of the church anyway. So
I think what makes more sense is that Paul saying specifically,
if you guys want to go back to Judaasm, you're
basically re crucifying Christ, because all the symbols of the
ceremonies of Judalism Judaism are about the crucifixion of Christ.
Speaker 5: It would make no sense.
Speaker 4: But we got let's say people are attacking some of
the Protestant dudes to come in debate here.
Speaker 5: We got.
Speaker 6: Some we get some prize, some Muslim something.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if anybody disagree, you come to the headline.
Speaker 5: We're gonna go to all you guys. But uh, top kun,
what's up, dude? It's a crazy name. You want to
arm you? Dude?
Speaker 20: Hey, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Sir?
Speaker 20: Hey, I just have two questions for you. So what
is your assessment on the Fourth Crusade? Who do you
think was truly responsible there? And do you know if
all of the Orthodox jurisdictions have forgiven the papacy?
Speaker 5: Oh, I think the papacy was in the wrong.
Speaker 4: But I don't know anything about jurisdictional forgivenesses, I really don't.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I don't knowin it means by forgiven the papacy.
Speaker 20: Yeah, like like in the early two thousands, like the
papacy apologized, But I don't know, Like, what's the assessment
from the Orthodox jurisdictions.
Speaker 5: I have no idea.
Speaker 4: I mean it's a tough question. I mean that's more
of a you know, historical.
Speaker 5: Historian would be better at that.
Speaker 4: And I don't really honestly keep up with like a
lot of like the church politics type stuff, so I
really don't know.
Speaker 5: It's a great question, uh, laptop, what's up? Man. A
lot of those things.
Speaker 4: That are like gestures like that, they don't really mean
much anyway. It's all just kind of done for like
public consumption anyway, like the papacy saying.
Speaker 5: Oh, sorry about because the papacy.
Speaker 4: If you remember, they actually did an apology to the Templars.
Believe it or not, they issued an apology some years
back to the Templars, which I thought was kind of weird.
But maybe the Papacy agrees with the Gnostic Templars now.
Speaker 5: So that's what they apologize. I don't know.
Speaker 4: But guys who want to call in, you can call
in right there with the Twitter link. We got a
nice we got almost a thousand over here on YouTube.
You can call in right there on the X link.
And then if you want to support the stream through superchats,
feel free to send a superchat through stream labs pin
in the chat and also in the show description, but
you can also send.
Speaker 5: A super chat natively through YouTube if you'd like to laptop.
What's up, man, I'm you.
Speaker 9: Hey, say can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 2: I just have a question.
Speaker 21: Or I was listening to Molineu's live stream the other
day and he said at the end that he's going
to be debating you coming in March.
Speaker 5: Is that right, that's what's the plan. Yeah, we're having
a round two atheism debate with Molineu.
Speaker 9: Yeah, very interesting.
Speaker 21: Okay, I the last person arched over tell you how
to debate. But I've been listening to him for almost
like fifteen years. If there's any interest, I have lots
of notes of various videos he's made in timestamps and
his arguments and all of your interest in anything. We
just wanted to wish you good luck.
Speaker 5: Did you hear our first debate?
Speaker 22: Yes?
Speaker 21: Yes, I downloaded that. And to be honest, it seems
like you guys are more like a friendly convo and
he was trying to figure out seven from cold nuts,
so it didn't seem like a debate.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm looking forward to it's gonna be fun.
I mean he was, you know, civil and cool and
we had a good conversation.
Speaker 5: So uh, hopefully it works out. You know, you never know.
Speaker 4: A lot of time stuff gets planned and then it
falls through. But guys, if you want to support the stream,
you can do so again through super chats. Uh, everybody's
being stingy today, but thank you guys for the for
the meager super chats we got. We got a nice
hype apologist on the stream with us.
Speaker 5: He's over here. He's not mean, he's a nice guy.
I'm mean. See he's smiling. Where's the super chats at?
Speaker 6: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: I'm mute, dude. And by the way, if he got a.
Speaker 6: Nice shirt on today, what do y'all doing with you guys?
Speaker 5: Get nice and uh magnanimous. I will also perhaps share
the super chats with Nick. We'll see, Justinian, what's that
man got on? Mute man?
Speaker 9: Either?
Speaker 5: Good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: So nothing really on my mind right now, But just
to answer the question of the guy about, you know,
the Orthodox modern reaction to the papc's apology and to
the Fourth Crusade, I think Patriarch Bartholome, you back in
two thousand and four actually accepted the apology.
Speaker 5: Okay, I didn't know that. Yeah, just a minor thing. No,
that's cool, appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Like the collective wisdom of the audience and our audience
is like super high a Q, so we always get
like really nice solid answers and intel from the audience.
Speaker 9: Gesture by the way.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's a good point too, is like
when they do this kind of stuff, I mean, it's
really just for optics and like, like you said, humanist motives,
I think, is that what you're saying.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's a communism.
Speaker 4: I mean I saw a humanist. I think it's a humanists.
You're saying a humanist motives. Yeah, pretty much pretty much.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's I mean, I know I've.
Speaker 14: Heard so, I can't remember when it was. You remember
like years back, father Trenham had given a list of
stuff that needed to be corrected before the union could
ever happen.
Speaker 9: He gave like his own list of things.
Speaker 4: I know, I didn't know he did that, but but yeah,
there's a lot of those kind of lists like that.
Speaker 5: Going back to.
Speaker 14: On one of the lists, is that particular thing would
be the Fourth Crusader interest, you know that that would
have to be apologized for so or or that would
have to be corrected in some way. I'm going from
memory here, but basically I'm guessing.
Speaker 9: In the academic world of whether it would be.
Speaker 14: I don't know anything about Orthodox academics, but in Roman
Catholics is an academic that's still like a debated thing
with the Fourth Crusade.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I appreciate that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I need to We should probably do like a
deep dive eventually on you know, the Crusades and Byzantium,
because we've never really done that on this on the channel,
and it'd be fun to do.
Speaker 5: Paul, Yeah, now, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: We had to do a little bit of bagging, a
little bit of ling, a little bit of panhandling and
grifting on the channel, and then we got some super
chats role and we'll read those in just a second.
Speaker 5: Paulse what's up man? Hey, Jay?
Speaker 9: I remember a couple debates to go.
Speaker 16: I forget who was that you're debating, but you kept
going back to observable sense, trying to get some common
sense into.
Speaker 5: The guy that you're debating.
Speaker 16: But I would encourage you to not forget the unobservable
power of unobservable nonsense.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm not sure which debate was that?
Speaker 4: The debate with Jake where we were debating empiricism and
he was trying to argue that even to me, it
was an empiricist and God's an empirical being with a
body and all this nonsense, or was it a different
debate exactly nonsense?
Speaker 5: How you nailed it? Well? Thank you? Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean Jake is kind of a nonsensical person and
when it comes to a lot of this stuff, and
I think, Nick, you've had some interactions with Jake. I
think the chat is pointing out that you got Jake
to admit that there's ninety nine ontologies in God.
Speaker 5: So what was that debate and how where'd that go down?
Speaker 7: So basically, what was good he heard? I guess that
I was like the top Trinity apologist. I never said that.
I don't know where you got that from. But he
was like, oh, this God logic teacher, so and so
he's like, let's set up a debate. I was like,
of course he wanted debate LPT CAUs the only thing
he knows. I said, you know what, fine, we can
do LPT, just you know. I emailed him, asked for
some times. He's being a prima donna about it, wouldn't
like email me back. I was like, we don't need
to email about this whatever. And then eventually one d
that went live and he said, you know what, I'm
just gonna pop up on his live and try to
catch him by surprise.
Speaker 6: He came up my live, tried to press me on
the LPT.
Speaker 7: I refuted it, and then I ran a consistency argument
because he said, well, don't you believe at the attributes
in God and the energies are ontologically distinct?
Speaker 6: I said, no, do you believe that? He said yeah.
I was like, so your guy has ninety nine ontologies.
Speaker 7: He's like, yeah, he has multiple real ontologies. I'm like, wow,
isn't that something?
Speaker 6: And then I pressed them on.
Speaker 5: I was shocked.
Speaker 6: I really thought he was better than this.
Speaker 7: I pressed him on some random stuff because he was like, yeah,
there's a real distinction.
Speaker 6: I was like, how are you using real distinction here?
Speaker 7: Are you using like a sort of Eastern sense of
real distinction or using like a scholastic like major minor
real distinction And he didn't know what the difference was.
He didn't know what the difference between a form one
real distinction was either, and so it just kind of
exposed him of like not knowing what he's talking about
at all.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I remember when we did our debate and he stacked
up the books that he had read, and he was
trying to brag that he had done a way more
research and orthodoxically than I did on Islam. And I
was like, all those books look absolutely brand new. They
don't look like they've even been touched. Dude, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I think he bought the book there, he literally said.
Speaker 7: When I was sitting there in the debate, I was like,
what's the difference in real formalistinction? He was like, I
have a You could hear him like, get up from
the desk. He's like, I actually have a Scholastic dictionary
right in front of me. You don't think I know
what that is. I'm like, no, yeah, I don't think
you do.
Speaker 6: Can you tell me?
Speaker 7: And he just started throwing ad homs at me and yeah,
I don't think he reads, Yeah, it was I don't.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 4: I mean he'll read a little bit, he'll read a
paper here and there, really what he does. I've noticed
Jake's strategy is to basically, anytime there's a debate between
say a Catholic and Orthodox, or an Orthodox and a Protestant,
he'll just go and like write down the best arguments
that say a Protestant made against an Orthodox, or a
Catholic made against an Orthodox. And if he's debating an Orthodox,
he'll just use those arguments the Protestants and the Catholics
use against Orthodox.
Speaker 7: So well, you'll notice too if he's debating Orthodox and
anytime he debated an Orthodox, I'll give you one hundred
dollars if he doesn't do it, if he doesn't.
Speaker 6: Appeal to Bo Branch. Oh, your buddy, Bo Branson said this.
Speaker 7: I'm like, dude, Bo Brixton is not your home yet, right,
I keep bringing him.
Speaker 5: Up well, speaking of homies, like it's funny.
Speaker 4: He was rating Christian Apologists and he went to me
and I thought for sure he was going to put
me in the garbage here, and he was like.
Speaker 11: I'm gonna put Jay up at the top because you
know what, you know what he goes at the top.
Speaker 5: He's elite, tire. Even though I think I won the.
Speaker 6: Debate, I couldn't believe she was going below me, right,
I thought, in.
Speaker 4: The trash can, dude. But all right, so we got
a couple of super chests. Readose, then we'll go to
the next call. Let's see, Mattie says, Nick, Muslim Lantern
is live calling out Christians.
Speaker 5: So yeah, if guys, if you guys are in the chat,
the way to do.
Speaker 4: This is to get hit up Muslim Lantern in his
audience and tell them give them this chat, this link
to the space on to call in.
Speaker 5: Mattie says, again, do the Crusades.
Speaker 4: That would be a great lecture series. Yeah, we'll see.
It's it'll take me a lot of time to do it.
Speaker 5: But Gamer, go ahead. Did you want to say something
that gamer tend Jay. I have a question unrelated to
the stream.
Speaker 4: I recently discovered you, and I find Orthodoxy has a
consistent worldview and it's coherent and it's very inviting. What
is the Orthodox position on stabs and what are the
good resources for that?
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't think the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 4: Is going to give you a position on private moral
you know, like medical choices, but I would say that
I mean, unfortunately, we saw a lot of bad advice
in the last coof period years. So I mean, I
would say the church was half and half on specifically
the experimental coof stabby. But I think many solid Orthodox
people would have a disagreement with stabbys that come from
a cell line related to you know, boarded fetal tissue
type stuff. But I'm gonna leave it at that because
we are on YouTube. But Knees Script says, for two dollars,
I'm broke. We gave all of our money to Alex.
Do you mean Alex Jones, Alex O'Connor, Alex Sanders. I
gotta wonder which Alex man suko twenty dollars Nick is
that homie? He got that wicked jake to admit all
I has ninety nine ontologies exactly.
Speaker 5: That's a good add mission, by the way.
Speaker 7: And they're also admitting when I was debating the Orthodox
mism of the day, they admitted their God is spatially extended.
They've been admitting that rather rather often lately, that you
could literally take a rocket ship up to their God
if you had a powerful enough one.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's he's a he's a dude, like the Mormon God,
the Father, like he's like he's like a buff you know, dude,
Like my song says.
Speaker 5: He's got confuses me? Is the a told body? Baby,
he's got a very tone body.
Speaker 7: I think he's like elastic man though, because they always say,
I say where is he?
Speaker 6: They just say you point up?
Speaker 7: But I'm like, if I'm on this side of earth
and you on that side of the earth, you go off?
Speaker 5: Is he?
Speaker 14: Like?
Speaker 5: Rap?
Speaker 14: Yeah? Like?
Speaker 5: What uh? Is it? Who is it? In Fat and
Fantastic four? Is it the chick the one that stretch you?
I forget?
Speaker 4: So they worship the fan allah is the deity of
Fantastic four?
Speaker 5: Landing fifty dollars, Thank you so much, Landont Jay. Yeah,
that's a fat super chat. I appreciate that. Zane twenty dollars.
Here you go, boy, got that Wiga laugh, twenty dollars.
Speaker 4: Nice Raven says for five dollars, can you actually heal
my gout?
Speaker 5: If you can? That's cool.
Speaker 4: Yes, put your hand on the screen and say a
prayer to h Saint pat Robertson and it will heal
your gout?
Speaker 9: Is it?
Speaker 6: Mister fantastic?
Speaker 9: Is that who it is?
Speaker 6: I think it is?
Speaker 5: Is that who stretchy? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think it is.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it is. Okay, let's see Griff, two dollars. Thank
you so much, Griff.
Speaker 4: Our favorite super chatter here, Banana up the butt says
for ten dollars, Jay, you should read Edwin Hunt's book
about the.
Speaker 5: He was always giving me book recommendations. They're gonna write
that down about the Peruzzi family.
Speaker 4: They're one of the founders, and they're one of the
funders of the Crusades, and all the conflicts need funders,
as you've discussed for years.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I didn't actually know about that, so I should
check that out.
Speaker 4: The twenty nine system twenty dollars. Ecumenism, more like Cukumanism,
pretty much taint nothing twenty dollars. Is it problematic for
ruman Catholics when they call Saint Photius a heretic despite
his communion with Rome until his death, meaning that you
could be a practicing Catholic and unknowingly a heretic, Well
they would, I mean, if you're a trad They were
going to argue that. But the problem is that since
Father de Vornik's work and since John Paul the Second,
they have rehabilitated the three Great or the Great hierarchs. Right,
So Photius, Marcovaphesis and Gregor Palomas are now considered saints
within the Roman Catholic communion. So that's the key sort
of contradiction. To really grab the Roman calm, I can say, look,
you guys are totally inconsistent.
Speaker 5: Griff two dollars.
Speaker 4: When you're gonna do that Resident Orbital gameplay stream? Uh, well,
you know, I tried Cyberpunk and it was a little
weird because I didn't remember the controls. But I did
play a bunch of Cyberpunk yesterday, so now I've got
the controls mastered, so I might do another Cyberpunk stream.
But when the new Resident Evil comes out, I will
GameStream that Anthony five dollars.
Speaker 5: It's a swoll dude with turbine floating in space.
Speaker 4: Allah, I'm going to no, I just I ain't got
around to it.
Speaker 5: That's fine, Yeah, I heard of everybody's been saying I
need to play that one wink three dollars.
Speaker 4: How would you respond to the idea that Jesus's sacrifice
was purely for guilt over creation because the Father saw
the creation as evil. No, that would be totally gnostic.
And again, like creation is declared good in Genesis, right,
so why would God need to be placated or reconciled
to the created order because the creat order is evil.
That's sounds like a more gnostic version of PSA.
Speaker 5: All right, let's go.
Speaker 4: To Baby what's up dude, Baby Moon, You're on the
air with Jay and Nick.
Speaker 23: Hey, Jay, So I've just started listening to you a
few months ago, and oftentime we'll hear you talking with Protestants,
or let's call them debates, which sid I'll turn into
much debates, but you'll often refer to where did Protestant
get their account of the Bible? And you just never
really get pressed past that. So I'm not here to
press you on it. I'm not a position to baate you,
but I've always wanted to.
Speaker 5: Hear the answer to the question. So if we go
back to.
Speaker 23: Say Martin Luther, as if we consider him kind of
pre eminent reformer, right, so I would I would lay
it out as, Hey, he wasn't trying to disregard everything
about the church, right, it was about a reformation, not
a not a scrapping of total church doctrine. So where
the canon of the Bible would have just fallen over
with him. So I mainly want to hear what would
be your answer to that objection.
Speaker 4: Well, the problem is that Luther didn't agree with the canon.
So the canon that was already normative in the West
and the East included the Deutero Canon, and Luther specifically
didn't want the duerocanonical text because he thought they quote
taught against the Word of God and against the Gospels.
So for example, if you have you know, prayers for
the dead, if you have you know, texts to talk
about the necessity of works, those Luther saw all of
those texts within the Duro canon as problematic, and so
he had a specifical, specific theological motivation.
Speaker 5: And I've read like six Luther books.
Speaker 4: So I'm not I'm not pulling this out of my butt,
Like this is literally what he argues. Like in his Commentaryngulations,
he says that anything in the Old Testament, even that
doesn't quote preach Gospel of Free Grace, he has a
problem with. He says things like he wants to punch
Moses' teeth out. So ultimately Luther's problem isn't even with
like the issue of you know this or that verse
in you know, the Deutero canon. Luther's problem is more
so the any of the texts in the Torah or
anything that he thinks teaches quote law and works.
Speaker 5: So there's a pretty.
Speaker 4: Radical dichotomy position in Luther between grace versus works, law
versus grace, et cetera, free will versus you know, grace.
Speaker 5: Those are all radical dialectics in Luther.
Speaker 4: So so the answer is that Luther specifically didn't carry
the cannon over he rejected the canon that was normative.
Speaker 19: Okay, I think this.
Speaker 23: Is this is a very fair answer. I thought you
might go that direction since he rejected some of the books.
So let me go back and say, what if I
removed Martin.
Speaker 9: Luther from now we take his.
Speaker 23: Like finite objections out and just look at the reformers
as a body who did ultimately carry I mean, most
of the canon over rights section of it.
Speaker 4: Well, no, I mean most of all the Reformers are
pretty united in rejecting the duro canon.
Speaker 5: I mean except for us High Church Anglicans. Like High Church.
Speaker 4: Anglicans didn't really think the duo canon was a big deal.
Speaker 5: That didn't make a huge deal about it.
Speaker 4: But uh, and that's part of the reason why the
Duduro canon the apocrypha is in the sixteen eleven King
James version. So, but the rest of them, Calvin rejected it, uh,
you know as Wingley rejected the dud So like the
other quote reformers. And that's the problem with saying that
there is this body of reformers. They disagreed with each
other and killed each other over things like infant baptism,
So there isn't really in my view, well.
Speaker 5: There's not really a body of there's not a body
of reformers.
Speaker 4: There's a bunch of people who you know, reform, but
then they go to the point of really I mean again,
and like Father Josiah says in his books, like some
of the what the reformers are saying is correct. It's
just that their answers of like you know, low church
stuff and rejecting quote rituals, all the stuff that they
go towards goes way further than what Orthodoxy would have
considered a real reformation.
Speaker 23: And what would you say that would have been if
what would Orthodoxy have considered quote real reformation.
Speaker 4: Well, all the main issues that we would have with
the papacy and with you know, Roman Catholic ecclesiology and
Roman Catholic.
Speaker 5: You know, they had a lot of these excesses that.
Speaker 4: You know Luther talked about when he was critiquing Tetsul
the monk, and you know they have indulgences and the
merits of the saints, all those things Orthodoxy would disagree with.
Speaker 23: Okay, Well, Jaylas said, I knew I was gonna be
a softball question.
Speaker 9: So I appreciate you taking that.
Speaker 4: Great questions pretty should always happy to answer those. I
appreciate you having a good attitude, not being a jerk.
You were cool about it, calling what's up man, Nick?
If you want to say anything on Protestant Church history
or Luthor, feel free and.
Speaker 6: Hopefully we get some opposition in here. Man, I think
that we must have ran through them.
Speaker 4: I think I've run through all the ops. That's what
I was trying to tell you, Like, I don't expect
many more. I remember the last some of Muslim.
Speaker 5: Came in here.
Speaker 4: Man, It's probably eight months since a Muslim came in here.
Speaker 5: Colin, what's up? You want? I'm mute? Are there?
Speaker 3: I was looking to clarify some of your views in
the flood and possibly.
Speaker 9: Debate you.
Speaker 5: There you go. Okay, so do you think.
Speaker 24: That so you say that it's a global flood, do
you think that it killed everybody?
Speaker 4: I mean, I think we're we're intended to think that.
I mean, unless there was some something that we're just
simply not told. I think the text gives us the
impression that, yeah, everybody but Noah's family.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 24: So, I mean, I guess your point that every myth
has the story. But if you think of even like
Native American myths, in order for that to be a myth,
it would have to have survivors, you know, in the culture.
Speaker 4: But the point of our view of how that happens
is that when Noah's sons repopulate the earth, we find
out very early in Genesis that Noah's sons already, you know,
engage in quite a bit of wickedness. So what happens
is as the earth begins to repopulate.
Speaker 5: That you get this idea that.
Speaker 4: The nations fall back into all the same problems that
they were already involved in with idolatry. So, in other words,
that seed story immediately gets tainted with false revelation. And
that's why we would say that pretty much I did
a I'll give an example. I did a talk specifically
on this topic of what's true in ancient religions from
Genesis forwards. So in other words, we have revelation and
we would say in scripture that kind of looks back
at the you know, ancient world and the the you know,
pre flood prediluvian world. But there were civilizations and cultures
after the flood that would have maintained this sort of
basic body of knowledge that they had of Okay, yeah,
my descendant you know, Noah, my great great granddad, Noah.
You know, he was with the family in the in
the boat and they made it through the great deluge
and then the gods came down and helped, right. So
in other words, it's the post Noaic descendants that would
have tainted the mythology, tainted the story with mythology. And
it's not just the flood that shows us that or
he loves Okay, it's not just it's not just a
flood that shows us that.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: If you look at this interview that I did with
the serfham Hamilton some years ago, we actually got into
how even pagan religions or world religions, like even some
of them maintain and I don't mean this in a
Zeitgeist type of thing, but I'm saying like they have
seeds of truth, right, they have the seeds of the
original you know, to.
Speaker 5: Adam at Man and Woman.
Speaker 4: They have the seeds of you know, some of these
Genesis stories in a very corrupted, paganized way. And the
answer to that is that, yes, the descendants of Noah
that had that that then fell back into idolatry and
sort of mixed up the stories with superstition. That's that's
I don't know why you left. But anyway, David, what's up? Hey,
what's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 20: Jay?
Speaker 9: I just wanted to say I've been listening to you.
Speaker 25: For a long time now, and I'm I'm an Orthodox
at catechuman and I saw you Ron.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to say thank.
Speaker 25: You for a lot that you have been able to
share and produce with YouTube channel.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 25: But other than that, being a catechumen, I have some
conversations with some of my friends who are Protestant.
Speaker 17: And I had to admit that I don't.
Speaker 25: Actually know the Orthodox Church's view of like tribulation and
like post tribulation and pre tribulation.
Speaker 9: So I was wondering if you could comment on that.
Speaker 5: For me real quick.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's not like a set view of how
we know everything's going to go down. We don't have
this like seven year you know, premillennial rapture type eschatology
or whatever. So I mean partial preterism is the norm
amongst most of the Eastern Church fathers. You can look
up at an audio book that's from Jordanville Monasteries called
Apostacy and Antichrist, and that will kind of lay out
the basic structure of what most of the elders and
saints and church fathers say about the end times. But
I've found that video that the way that I think
this is, while it's almost fifty thousand views, me and
Saraphim Hamilton talked years ago about the seeds of the
of Christ in the in the pagan religions, and this
would apply obviously to the Noah story too. So there
is that link right there in the chat. Nick, did
you want to say anything on any of that?
Speaker 7: Not on that I was gonna say though about the
previous conversation you had about the flood, whether or not
it's global or local, it doesn't really it doesn't really
change anything in Orthodoxy, right, Like, I mean, it doesn't
say it was local and it wasn't global, like that's
what science came out with. It wouldn't really change anything
in Orthodoxy. There's a good book on how they line
up with that. It's called Navigating Genesis by Hugh Ross.
He's an astrophysicist. Goes into how it can be either
local or global and it wouldn't matter either way.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I remember reading that book years ago. I've read
other Hugh Ross books. My one criticism of Hugh Rocks
Hugh Ross is yeah, he's a theistic evolutionist, which I
would that perspective, but yeah, uh yeah, I think I mean,
even yeah, if if conceivably it was local, would that
necessarily be a problem I have.
Speaker 5: I don't think so, but I'd have to I did
to think on it more.
Speaker 4: But let's see eating three dollars apart from the Orthodox
Church granting autocephally to excuse me, apart from the ep
intending to grant autocephally to the Church of Montenegro that's
done for the state department, has nothing to do with
because of church stuff. There are talks in Bosnia about
forming a new Orthodox Church of Bosnia. Well, that's what
they do when they divide up these countries in terms
of like the Color Revolution style stuff.
Speaker 5: The religion is part of it. So that's what this
is about. Second actuality three dollars, Jay.
Speaker 4: Are you familiar with King Gillette? He wrote books and
he's the founder of Gillette Razors. He was a famous internationalist. No,
I didn't actually know that. I was rewatching the Anthony
Sutton lectures and he mentioned that these are some of
the first texts that would mention, oh, corporate fabian socialism. No,
I actually should read that, because I didn't.
Speaker 5: Know that he was.
Speaker 4: I didn't even know that mind accents a dollar. He says, yes,
thank you. Mind tech t r says two dollars. Orb
so orbs are twenty bucks. Alex is for fifty dollars.
Speaker 5: Do Matthew McConaughey voice and tell me why space is
faking gay? I tell you right now. I take my
linking up into space one day and and man, I
just found I felt like I was just gay as
hell when I was up there. They was trying to
touch my butt. It's all just that big black holes
and I know this black hose A bunch of gaye.
Conquistador bro, Is that so good?
Speaker 6: That's crazy?
Speaker 4: Conquistador five dollars. If Orthodoxy is the fullness of the Church,
why did God allow Spain to evangelize the New world
to Catholicism? What about these other peoples and cultures before Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: Does Orthodoxy except to reject the black legend about Spain?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean you could ask that same question about
I mean, if you were a Roman Catholic, you could say,
why did God allow Orthodoxy to you know, permeate all
these other countries that Rome. Didn't God allow Protestantism to
become the norm in you know, the Protestant Reformation countries.
I mean, we don't know the divine providence and why
God allowed or didn't allow, But really none of that
has anything to do with proving which ones true or false.
It's a it's a very terrible line of argumentation. I'm
not trying to be mean to you. I'm just saying
I wouldn't I wouldn't. This doesn't prove anything. It's kind
of that, you know, the Roman colities love to go
in this line of you know, like, oh, we conquered
this and that and we beat the Muslims here and there,
therefore we're the true church.
Speaker 5: Well that's a double edged store.
Speaker 4: That's a stupid argument because you realize, like the Muslims
are now conquering the Roman Callolicy church. So I mean
the Rome is saying that Muslims and Christians worship with
the same God and they're gonna have a you know,
Abi Dhabi faith center. So wait, does that now mean
that Rome isn't true? If you use that line of argmentation,
it's just a bad line of argument. I don't know
what the I don't even know about the Black legends,
so I can say what that.
Speaker 5: Is, Suco five dollars. You got to have soar in
Cleaves antiquity jay on an ai ed edit where you
all go to Agartha with Yakoub.
Speaker 4: That sounds fun. Make it go ahead and make it
in Christo's five dollars. This is a Orthodox Patristics question.
What's the understanding of the Melchizedic typology versus theophany? Yeah,
I've never understood. I mean, Malchizedic, as far as I
know in the Orthodox Church, is a specific person. It's
not a theophany of Christ. The only reason people think
this is because it says that his generation and his
lineage is unknown. Well, that just means that Genesis didn't
tell us that on purpose so that he would be
a type of Christ. It doesn't mean that he is Christ.
He's not a theophany of Christ. Dinko five dollars. I
was agnostic. I was baptized Roman Catholic. I'd like to
go back to Christianity. If is an Orthodox church. Should
I stay Roman Catholic or go Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 14: What you think?
Speaker 5: What does he think? What do you think we're gonna
say you gotta be Orthodox? Man, No, you don't. Don't
become a papist? Wink three dollars? How would you respond
to that idea that? No, we did that one? Okay.
So I'm just trying to catch up on some of these.
Speaker 4: Rachel Wilson shout out to Rachel since fifty dollars.
Speaker 5: Sew Boy says, it's your birthday, Happy birthday. It's your birthday, right, So.
Speaker 4: Everybody sing the two Chain song to me about big
booties and whatever. I forget what he sings about in
that song we go. I think I think Kanye is
in that song too, but or he references Kanye.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: It's not technically my birthday, but it is coming up
very soon. So but you're basically, uh, way right, trying
to docs me, dude, trying.
Speaker 6: To do birthday docs is crazy.
Speaker 5: It's tomorrow. Tomorrow's actually taking me a birthday. Xeno fun?
What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 5: Xeno fun? What's up?
Speaker 4: By the way, we got a nice crowd of almost
twelve hundred if you would hit like and share it.
Speaker 5: What's up? Hey, Jamie, both of you guys, can you
hear me? Yeah? Hey Jamie, go ahead, I need a espresso.
Is about when Jesus doesn't know the hour?
Speaker 26: Do you hear some responses to that like that he
knows in his human nature, he knows it in his
divine nature, but not his human nature.
Speaker 5: And I think some fathers have explained it that way.
Speaker 26: But I've heard some of these Muslims recently talk about
like they're saying, that's the agnote heresy.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, this has been answered a million times over.
I don't know what.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I'm gonna put in the chat a really
good article over an Orthodox apologetics website right here.
Speaker 5: It's called was Jesus Ignorant of his Second Coming?
Speaker 4: There is the link right there, and basically if you
look at other places in the Gospels, this is the
way Saint Basil answers it.
Speaker 5: In his letter two thirty six, you know.
Speaker 4: He says things like, yeah, Jesus says, there's no one
good about the Father.
Speaker 5: You know, there's no one no one knows the son
about the Father.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, does that mean that no human beings know
him or that the Holy Spirit doesn't know him?
Speaker 5: Uh? It's just rhetorical language that's intended.
Speaker 4: And Jesus does this all the time where he says,
you know, if your hand caused you to sin, cut
it off. He's not literally telling you to cut your
hand off. It's a it's a turn of phrase.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: So I think Basil's explanation is the most because there's
other passages that say explicitly he did the Sun knew
all things.
Speaker 6: So yeah, the disciples directly to Jesus.
Speaker 4: Hold on one second, on second, hold on one second.
Speaker 5: Let let Nick go ahead and reply.
Speaker 6: Nick, I don't know if you can hear me, but
can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Guess?
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, Yeah.
Speaker 7: What I was gonna say was you even see in
other parts chapters where the disciples literally say we now see,
you know all things, I think not say heresy isn't
even just saying that Christ doesn't have some sort of knowledge,
just saying that he doesn't know things in virtue. If
you say, oh, you know, he doesn't know anything in
virtue of his human nature, the divine nature doesn't transmit
knowledge to the human nature, because we say he knows
things not in virtue of his human nature, but in
virtue of his divine nature. And so the muzzles will
trying to conflate that and say that there's you know,
h some sort of symmetry with saying that he doesn't
know something with the ignota heris e. But they just
misunderstanding in the first place, because the issue was more
about the fact that they were collapsing the two natures
into one and then saying that one nature didn't have
this knowledge.
Speaker 5: So right, that's what I kind of thought.
Speaker 26: I kind of thought there was like it's saying that
his knowledge of it isn't natural to his human nature.
Speaker 9: But I think they're confusing what the ignota Harris he is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, appreciate that. Good questions, you know. Fun Let's see
if I disagree, we're looking for some of the ops.
If you disagree, raise your hand. I know it's all
these blank gas profiles with no pictures. That's always the
people who disagree because it's people that were that were
that were blocked.
Speaker 5: They had to make it. Yeah, so JT, what's up?
Speaker 4: I see you got no no profile image, so you
got to be hater?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 10: Uh?
Speaker 9: Hedgey Nick? I just had a question about.
Speaker 5: Uh, you've.
Speaker 27: You've talked a lot about.
Speaker 2: Paradigms and paradigm level arguments, and I wanted to ask
you if you think when people have a hard time
understanding the arguments, is the problem like an inability to
step outside of their own paradigm you think, or like
just assuming that it's not straight up dishonesty.
Speaker 4: I think it's a combination of things. I think people don't,
you know, they're trained to think in little you know,
stack the box on the other box. That's sort of
the foundationalist model of how everybody most people think since
since the Enlightenment or even even maybe earlier than that,
so they don't really think about holistic systems level thinking.
I also think that we had a guy called in
a few months ago, and he was making a good
argument that even psychology, you could take it with sort
a grain of salt, but he was argument. Even psychology
kind of studied and figured out that a lot of
people literally can't even think at.
Speaker 5: A systemic level.
Speaker 4: It's just kind of a there's like an IQ tier
that people that are sort of under that are unable
to get to.
Speaker 5: And that lines up with a lot of my experience.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know, ultimately some of the problems are
obviously spiritual, but you know when you ask, for example,
we did that six hour stream where we asked all
the Muslims to just simply restate the example or the
you know, the cannon conundrum argument, and they literally couldn't
even restate it. You know, that's the whole point of
that meme. How would you feel if you didn't have
breakfast this morning?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: So there's something there too, with I think a barrier
to whether people can do sort of abstracted thinking and
then abstracting from abstractions.
Speaker 5: Another level above that.
Speaker 4: So all of those things I think contribute to why
it's very hard for people to understand, you know, paradigm
thinking or paradigm level arguments.
Speaker 2: Nice. I mean, do you like, would you say, I
mean this is just the plans with like would you
say there's a love of it where people.
Speaker 9: Are some people are literally too dumb. I mean you
said that, I don't know if you're just.
Speaker 5: So that's essentially what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's saying it in very simple terms, and
I mean I'm not that doesn't mean those people can't
be saved, but it's like, uh, you know, certain certain
types of arguments, I mean, even the classical arguments, like
a very you know, complex version of the Kalom cosmological argument,
which I don't think is a very good argument, but
I mean there's an obvious an IQ barrier for some
people to You're not going to go down to Somalia
with the eighty IQ people and like convince them of
God's existence or Christianity through some you know, wild Kalom
cosmological argument. They don't know what you're talking about. This
why the elders when they go and convert some of
the tribes, like they realize that a lot of these
people have very low IQ's and they will actually say,
I just basically give them katechisis of three points. There's
one God, that Jesus God, and you can't have ten wives.
Speaker 5: Pick one.
Speaker 4: That's the literally that's like the katechisas of like some
of the tribes. They don't sit there trying to convince
them of you know, the you know, eternal manifestation versus
you know, the filioquay.
Speaker 5: John, you want to say something, Well, even.
Speaker 14: If you think of it on a simpler level, think
about how there's people on the political level that can't
even see with outside of a paradigm, much less the
philosophical or the theological. Yeah, and like it's it's very
hard for even just an average American if you were
to Like the thing you and I joke about is
that why do you have books that you disagree with
on your bookshelf? Because nobody goes and reads opinions that
are opposing, and they don't go read other people's books
to understand the opposite end of the spectrum.
Speaker 9: It doesn't even.
Speaker 14: Enter into their mind to do that in any sort
of subject. It really doesn't even matter what the subject is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, one thing about college that was good was being
forced to read all these people that I never want
to read. Otherwise I probably would have never read David
Hume or I don't know, you know, Hans Gottimer or
any of these, you know existentialists like Sartra, like being
forced to read and understand those positions was actually it
was laborious and a lot of times it was boring,
but it was actually good in the long run to
be exposed to and to understand the ops positions. And
that's ultimately what makes you, I think, a good you know,
That's what Aristotl said. An educated man can state a
position without necessarily agreeing with it, and you know, uneducated
people unfortunately can't do that.
Speaker 5: So well.
Speaker 14: Another thing too, Sometimes sometimes like something you're opposed to
will have elements of truth in it, and then somebody
might say to you like, oh, well so and so
talks about that, that makes it good. And then but
you're able to formulate an opinion that says like, well, no,
just because someone might say a good thing here doesn't
make the entire.
Speaker 4: Philosophy exactly right exactly Christos, what's up, man.
Speaker 27: Jay, I'm just wondering what your like kind of view
is on like the fallibilist position of like I know
them saying that they don't need to give a justification
because it's not necessary and it's too much explanation, do you.
Speaker 9: Know what I mean?
Speaker 5: I think the problem with that is that it kind
of begs the question. It's like, well, why ought we
believe fallibilism? Right?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean if and if positions don't require justification,
I think we're in a worse a worse state.
Speaker 5: We're in even worse hot water.
Speaker 4: Because then we don't really have any way to adjudicate
between good positions bad positions.
Speaker 5: Good paradigm is a bad paradigm.
Speaker 4: So I think it's it's more of a cop out,
kind of like pragmatism. We had somebody calling a couple
days ago, but why what's wrong with pragmatism? Like, well,
I mean it doesn't tell you. It's basically just copping out.
So I see it the same type of thing going
on with any position that would say, well, uh, you know,
justification is not I mean, I don't think we have
to expect like Descartes level of you know, perfect, omniscient,
absolutely indubitable, uh you know, certitude, because I don't I'm
not sure that any position can actually.
Speaker 5: Provide that level of certitude.
Speaker 4: But I would say whatever, the highest level of certitude
is something like a transcendoal category I mean, which is
necessary to have any knowledge, Like I would say, that's
the highest type of perfection. And if we're not going
to go in an out route, we're going to go
in the in the route of saying, you know, there's
just not really justification.
Speaker 5: It just isn't possible. I think it's just even a
worse position. So and if that's the case. If that's
the case, then why are you even debating? Right?
Speaker 4: Like, how are you going to how are you going
to argue that position and debate that position?
Speaker 27: It's actually matic, bro I spoke woman when it got
done to the point of, okay, both our words us
could be illusions.
Speaker 5: Now what well?
Speaker 4: Yeah, And if if at that point, then you've done
your job as an apologist, because that's reducing the positions
to absurdity. If if the world views are illusions, and
then we're not debating at all.
Speaker 5: Josh, what's up? Man?
Speaker 4: By the way, guys were joined today by Nick from
Fearless Truth. His channel is linked in the chat in
the show description if you want to go follow Nick
for his uh many debates and apologetic.
Speaker 5: Works over there. What's up? Josh?
Speaker 4: So are people joking that Joe, I'm looking, I'm not
seeing anything on that trolling.
Speaker 5: What's up, man, Josh, what's up dude?
Speaker 28: You Jay, I'm just actually new to being Catholic. I
left being a Presbyterian.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry here, and.
Speaker 28: Uh, anyway, I was wanting to I've been listening to
some of your stuff. I'm just trying to wrap my
mind around some of the ideas. Okay, So what do
you or does Eastern Orthodox who like on nature and grace?
Is it pretty close to Catholics like.
Speaker 4: Or I mean, we do believe in a distinction between
nature and grace, because you would have you know, Grace
is uncreated and nature is created. But you know the
Roman Catholic Church, Grace is a supernatural creature, it's not uncreated.
So that's a huge fundamental difference between us and the
Roman Catholics. But we do believe there's a distinction between
nature and grace for sure.
Speaker 28: Okay. And what about something like the Council of Orange.
Is there is that somewhat close to y'all's position or not?
Speaker 11: Really?
Speaker 4: Well, the East never had to deal with the issue
of operant grace from Augustine because the East never accepted
the Augustinian presupposition so there was never this idea of
you know, operative and cooperative grace. There's really just grace
was always seen as operative. And one of the reasons
for that was because of Christology. Christology mandates that, I
mean from the councils, that Christ's human nature has the
same identical nature that we have. So if he has
the same nature as us, and he has two wills
and two energies, there can never be a point when
human nature loses its own will and energy. If it
has its own will and energy proper to it, then
synergy is always the case. And the problem with the
Augustinian position of operant grace is that that kind of
it's hard to understand how that doesn't negate synergy because
operant grace means that grace becomes the overriding cause, that
moves you to believe, that moves you to repent, et cetera.
So I know it's not Calvinism, but it's still hard
to it's still a form of monargism because it doesn't
recognize synergy at every stage.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, resource to get into you know, looking at
the sanitarium and crystological being able to look at those yeah,
you know, Dogmas and then abstract from that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's two. There's two books, right, there's two books.
Speaker 4: I would say read Saint Cyril of Alexander and The
Christological Controversy by mcguckan, uh, and that will kind of
iron out a lot of the problems in Western Christology.
And then I would read Free Choice in Saint Maximus
because he can trast the anthropology and the the mode
of willing between the Augustinian view of Christ and Man
and the Orthodox few of Christ and Man. Both of
those books are absolutely essential, I think to show the
difference between the two in terms of Christology and anthropology.
Speaker 5: Uh, Sword, what's up? Man? And Nick? Did you want
to say anything on that?
Speaker 6: I was actually gonna recommend the Crystalagio Controversy.
Speaker 4: Too, So yeah, that book's really good. Sword, what's up?
Speaker 5: Sword? You gotta umu?
Speaker 4: Dude, you unmuted, but you didn't turn your mic on.
Speaker 5: So if you turn your mic on and come back,
I'll go to you. See what's up? Everybody's being so
generous because it's my birthday.
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 4: Hey, yo, five dollars, Jamie, give me an espresso? Destroy
Bonu Klein something I don't know. Twenty dollars, sorry about
my name. With Norse Pagans, the religion is based on race.
I'd actually argue it's based on tribe because it's not
even They didn't really have a conception of race the
way that we think of race nowadays. But I think, yeah,
it's definitely tribal. For example, there are no Indians in Valhalla. Well, yeah,
you're not going to put the you know.
Speaker 5: Rival tribes in Valhalla.
Speaker 4: According to the worldview, wouldn't it imply that every religion
has its own like each each tribe or race has
its own religion.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But I think what you realize is when you debate
with Pagans and you get into it, they don't really
believe it to be real. It's more of like a
social factor that binds them, and it's just kind of
a bunch of myths and stories that kind of supposed
to inspire you to be.
Speaker 5: Heroic or whatever.
Speaker 4: They don't really typically believe in ontologically speaking, all of
these gods and Odin and whatnot, many of them, I mean,
there's some that do. But anything you want to say
on neo pagan type stuff, nick.
Speaker 6: I could care less about Norse paganism.
Speaker 4: Bro Neo Perry ten dollars, Happy birthday, Thank you for
what you do. Thanks man, stay Sys three dollars. The
Nestorian Church evangelized China. This is one hundred of years
after Nestorius the gospel was shared. But if used much
with Buddhism and Taoism, well, I would say that Nostorianism
isn't the gospel.
Speaker 5: But I get what you're saying.
Speaker 4: Do you have any thoughts on how heresy caused that
religion or Christianity to disappear in that region? Well, again,
I think if you break off from the church from
the source, even if you have the Bible and you
know they have these things that are true, you know
what if Jesus says that, you know, if you're not
if you're not grafted in to the branch, you're gonna
wither and die. And so that's what we see with
a lot of these you know, churches and sets and
history that that die out is that you know, the
gates of Hell ended up prevailing over that domain or
that religion.
Speaker 5: See what's up you on?
Speaker 12: I'm your Hey, I got a question.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 12: I'm sure you've heard this multiple times, but I'm having
a hard time raving my head around it.
Speaker 21: And I'm an Orthodoxic Christian myself, but.
Speaker 14: I'm just struggling with the question of if, if, if God.
Speaker 22: Is all knowing and all powerful, then then what would
be the point in creating beings He would new are going.
Speaker 9: To hell anyways in the end, Like, it just seems
kind of cruel to me. I'm I myself would rather
have just never.
Speaker 5: Been born if I knew that I was going to
go to hell and the end. Yes, I guess my.
Speaker 4: Question well, I mean, I think you the difference between
Western Christianity and its emphasis on predestinarianism, whether it's a
Gusts and Aquaintness or Calvin like, they all stress predestination
and the direct causation of the divine decree. With Calvin,
for example, the difference is that I think in the
Orthodox conception, God created out of his own goodness, not
because of any need or any lack, or any vengeance
or vindictiveness. And in the Orthodox view, the only thing
that sends you to hell quote unquote is your own
actions and your own free will. So the difference is
that we stress the responsibility of our own volition versus
you know, worldviews that stress the causation of God.
Speaker 5: So the direct causation of God. So I would say that.
Speaker 4: It's still better to exist than to not exist, because
God created those beings with the potential to be with him,
and he didn't do that because he lacked, you know, anything,
or needed anything.
Speaker 5: He did that for the creatures themselves.
Speaker 7: So I think a good point too is that when
we see like the story of Lazarus and the rich Man,
like we see that the rich Man, he isn't sitting
there bagging saying I wish I would have changed my life,
I wish I would have done this. We see him
still doing like the same sins that he was doing
on earth. He was still treating Lazarus like a servant
even when he was in hades at that point, right,
So he's non repentant even when you die. So I
think that we have to understand that people in hell,
like a lot of people have his notion that the
people in hell are going to be like, oh.
Speaker 6: My gosh, like exactly now I want Christ. No, it's
not the case. They're still continuing sitting.
Speaker 7: That's that's why hell is eternal, because they're put in
such a and it's such an unrepentant state that they'll
never return.
Speaker 6: There's no there's no chance from never return to Christ.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is the point of that C. S. Lewis book,
Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If you never read it,
I recommend it because the point of the book is
that in in this fantasy fiction, like there's a bus
that takes people from Hell to heaven, and the people
from Hell that go to Heaven absolutely hate it. Everything
about Heaven just makes them miserable.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: It's it's a tortuous thing, and they would rather be
away from God than in God's presence because they've already
decided that they don't love God. So it's it's a
very different conception of hell than the sort of you know, Latin,
you know Dante's thing where you're thrown into lakes of
fire or you're frozen in a giant pool.
Speaker 5: Of ice or whatever.
Speaker 4: Like, it's a very different conception because it's basically saying,
you really excuse me, it's a it's a great divorce,
not marriage. Marriage of Heaven Hell is the universalist book
that C. S. Lewis is writing against. Thank You, Thank You,
Chat and the Station five Dollars Day. I was watching
the debate with Tim Gordon. At one point he said,
it's one point he asks you if in the Orthodox frame,
where you could worship an energy of God without worshiping
his essence.
Speaker 5: I didn't can't catch your answer.
Speaker 4: So it's a silly question because it's assuming that these
things are distinct parts. God doesn't have parts. God is
fully present in every one of his attributes. So if
I'm worshiping God, I am worshiping all of his attributes
by necessity. There is no conception of I worship the
mercy of God. And that's ironic because that's exactly what happens.
Speaker 5: In the Roman Catholic position.
Speaker 4: They have mercy, divine mercy Sunday, where you're focusing on
what's their faces, you know, mystical visions of Jesus's heart
or with the Sacred Heart type stuff. So they actually worship,
they worship the parts. It's the Orthodox Church that worships
the entire whole Godhead. And the whole thing about the
essence inergy sinction is that the essence innergy distinction itself
presupposes divine simplicity.
Speaker 5: This is what people don't understand.
Speaker 4: The energies all come from and proceed from a single
divine essence because there is one energy.
Speaker 5: The energies are also.
Speaker 4: Many, but they're also one, and so there's a perfect
unity in multiplicity within God. Basil says the energies of
God are infinite. Infinite is many, but he says there's
also one energy.
Speaker 5: Right. John Mascus says the same thing in Book one.
Speaker 4: So God is one and many, and that undermines and
that gets rid of the dialectical thinking of Roman Catholicism
that you're either worshiping the divine essence or you're worshiping
these many supposed parts or energies. No, it's just like,
think about me. This is the Cappadocian analogy that they make.
I am fully present in every action that I'm doing.
If I'm riding a bike, I am fully present in that.
If I build a house, I am fully present in
the action or the energy of building a house. I
am not the identical I'm not isomorphically identical to the
action of building a house. I am more than that
person Jay I engage in the action of the operation of.
Speaker 5: Building a house.
Speaker 4: But I, as the person or subject Jay, am more
than building a house. But I am fully present in
the action of building a house. So that'd be like saying,
do you acknowledge Jay or do you acknowledge Jay as
the building.
Speaker 5: Of a house.
Speaker 4: It's a false dilemma based on the dialectical thinking of
Rome John, where.
Speaker 5: You gonna say something nick niggas you want to John,
we'll go John in the nick say it again.
Speaker 4: I was saying it was yeah, yeah, excuse me, I
always get the history onic women mixed up.
Speaker 5: Niggas. You want to say anything about Roman Catholic Uh.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think that the thing is you can't
worship something without worshiping the thing it also subsists. Then
that would just be to separate the two. I mean
to say that that that would be to say that
there's like some sort of different existences within God, like
the point you made about there being one energy and
any at the same time, right, because they're going to
be united, but they're going to be distinct in terms
of multiple things, like the effect they give even and
so I don't think there's any issue with saying that,
you know, you worship the energies, you're worshiping God and
we don't. We wouldn't even have to use a term whole, right,
because hole is going to entail there's some sort of parts, right,
So we can just say that we worship him entirely,
worship him in his trueness, right. I mean there's no
there's no part whole relation there to actually distinguish them anyways.
Speaker 4: Also, you could turn this argument on the Roman Catholic
because if focusing on say, worshiping one aspect or one
trait or property, whatever term you want to use, if
that necessitates parts in God or that you don't worship
the whole God, you could ask that same question of
the Roman Catholic when it comes to the Trinity. So
when you are honoring the Son, are you therefore not
honoring the Spirit or the Father? I mean, it's just
a silly question. But Eugene says, I was not familiar
for ten dollars, I was not familiar with Nick.
Speaker 5: Glad to see him, cheers, thank you. Let's see Silvona's
five dollars.
Speaker 4: When you look at early Church father canon lists of
the Bible before Hippo in three ninety three, they're essentially
adhere to the Protestant list.
Speaker 5: No they don't.
Speaker 4: It's totally not true. I mean, if you're talking about
the New Testament. Yeah, there's a lot of unanimity. There's
a rephrases. There's a good degree of unanimity on the
New Testament lists if you look in three ninety three
of By the way, this is I covered this question
all the time, and this is there's several things we
need to fix here. First of all, in the Orthodox
or even perhaps in the Roman Calol mindset, we're going
to take concilier lists over individual church father's list.
Speaker 5: Okay, So if I look.
Speaker 4: At the Apostolic Canons and I see I think it's
Canon eighty five when it lists what the canon scripture is,
it is not the Protestant list.
Speaker 5: A canon's with the normative church law in the East
in the fourth century.
Speaker 4: If I look at the Council of Rome under Damasis, right,
that is the normative list in the West for the church.
Those are two conciliar lists. Both of those conciliar lists
in the fourth century include the Judro canon. Notice I'm
not saying that those lists tell us definitively the Old and.
Speaker 5: New Testament canon.
Speaker 4: I'm just giving them as examples of how we would
see the Snodol list above a particular church father's decision
or list. It's only affinacious really that lists in his
festal letter the New Testament that pretty much everybody has
as the New Testament.
Speaker 5: So you're unaware of the fact, apparently that.
Speaker 4: The books of the Catholic Epistles, Hebrews, the Books a
Book of Revelation, those were all very much doubted for
many centuries in the first, second and third century church.
Speaker 5: So you're absolutely totally wrong. You could read F. F. Bruce's
book on the Canon.
Speaker 4: You could read Lee McDonald's book on the Cannon, you
could read Jars Pelican's book on whose Bible which tradition?
All of those will actually refute your assertion. Cleaves and
two gooty two dollars, Thank you so much, bro, He says,
Happy birthday, shout out to Cleave.
Speaker 5: Everybody. Check out his channel and his apologetics as well.
Blue Pyramids five dollars.
Speaker 4: Ay, man, I got a question, how come you know,
like why and stuff? He's joking, happy birthday, foreign Why
do you Catholics and Orthodox always fight, Well, we don't
believe that Catholics have the Gospel or correct theology. So
just because we agree with a lot of people and
a lot of things doesn't mean that we're on the
same page. In the Orthodox conception, if you disagree with
one dogma, you're no longer Orthodox. So it's not a
question of like, well, Protestants are a thirty percent Orthodox,
so we're on the same page, or Runancalolics, or sixty
percent Orthodox, so we're on the same page. It just
doesn't work like that. It's a holistic conception. You have
to whole to all the dogmas, and Rome unfortunately has
departed on many many dogmas. So we got a lot
of people in the chat talking smack. You want to
argue with me and Nick, feel free to call in.
We got Protestants in the chat who disagree. There is
the the list right there, or excuse me, the link
right there to call in.
Speaker 6: Maybe you will finally get some hopefully not just common warriors.
Speaker 5: Yeah right, we got Welcome to the new members.
Speaker 4: I want to make sure I didn't miss a chat
over here in YouTube in the fifths and dollars. Where
do you draw the line in your acceptance of quote science?
I mean there is no line. I'm just very skeptical
about most normy science. I'm not anti science. I you know,
studied quite a bit of philosophy science in my college
underground grad you know classes, So I'm aware of science.
But I also know that you know, it's admitted that
many peer review studies, some even up to fifty percent
of per of you study, are fraudulent or are deceptive.
So I put scientific claims very low in my you know,
hierarchy of authorities. It's not that I'm against science. I
just I'm more of a skeptic. I'm more of a
human when it comes to that. I mean, I have
it reversed right. Most people are skeptics when it comes
to like religious claims. I'm more of a skeptic when
it comes to so called science claims because in the
modern world science is what we what we think of
as science is actually more of a weird kind of
pop religion. I assume that you accept some scientific discoveries,
of course, like I mean, you have to be a
complete retard to not accept some.
Speaker 5: I'm just gonna bite the bullets.
Speaker 4: Say, now, I don't believe in any scientific nobody, no
one has ever done any science, and there's never been
any scientific discovery. How about I just bite the bullet.
Don't you believe that God made the universe to be intelligible.
Speaker 5: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: In fact, that's why I argue that you got to
have transcendent categories to do science.
Speaker 5: So there you go.
Speaker 4: Twenty dollars, Nick, can you set up a monarchy and
energies talk between Jay and God logic?
Speaker 5: Twenty dollars.
Speaker 7: I mean, I don't even know if Avery hole is
like as saying a distinction or anything like that.
Speaker 5: Does Avery have any interest in orthodoxy? I know you
guys are buddies. Is he is ever mentioned or question
you about that?
Speaker 7: We we've talked about it a little bit. I'll tell
you more offstream.
Speaker 6: But yeah, we've spoken about it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 6: I don't know how much he wants public on that.
Speaker 5: Okay, JT. Jay? Thank you Nick, Thank you Jay. You're
very funny. Well, thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm glad that there's finally a dude that does admit
and think that I have a sense of him.
Speaker 5: There's one guy finally that they's so funny. One. I
am a full on science denier.
Speaker 4: I do not believe in science. I deny all six
million scientific discoveries.
Speaker 5: This is great, Uh, Leon, what's up? Man? That's a joke. Well,
because people won't get it, Leon Leon.
Speaker 4: Andie Stranger got some new whaz Leoni jokes?
Speaker 5: What's that? Leon? Where a man? I'm setting you up
with all kinds of residentvial jokes.
Speaker 4: Okay, Sword, Sword wants to try again because Leon can't connect. Leon,
you want to come back, Okay, we'll go to Leon
first because he connected.
Speaker 5: What's that man? Hey, brother, happy birthday? Thank you that.
Speaker 4: I just turned sweet sixteen. I got me a nice
cool grand dam out there.
Speaker 9: Let's go, man.
Speaker 5: I love it.
Speaker 28: So.
Speaker 15: My wife and I have been inquiring into Orthodoxy, a
lot of it thanks to your content. I had a
conversation with a guy who's a Church of God member.
I don't know if you know much about them.
Speaker 9: Yeah, they believe in like God the Mother and she's.
Speaker 4: Like an I thought you meant like Church of God,
a prophecy like the Pentecostals.
Speaker 5: You're talking about the woman that started a cult?
Speaker 6: Are you talking about the one that's like the Japanese woman?
Speaker 4: No, no hold on which one? Yeah, there's different one. So
there's a woman that went on.
Speaker 5: Uh, doctor Phil, now do you think you're the mother
of God?
Speaker 4: There's that woman and then there's another one that Nick's
talking about. Which one are you talking about.
Speaker 15: I think it's the lady on doctor Phil.
Speaker 5: So you actually so they actually have people that still
believe that.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I mean I've ran into like multiple guys just
going to shop and they'll kind of stop you and
ask you sit down and talk about the Bible, and
then they'll they launch a little attack on you. It
is kind of kind of creepy.
Speaker 4: But she's crazy. She passed away, and they still they
believe in her.
Speaker 6: Do you know what the name of the church is.
Speaker 13: That's what they were saying.
Speaker 15: I really didn't look into it much.
Speaker 6: I'm not I'm not too sure.
Speaker 4: It's hold on one second, Leon, hold on one second, Leon.
So he's talking about she was this hippie woman, this
hippie check who aim to like channel or get revelations
from God and then God turns out God's on mother.
I don't remember her name, but if you just look
up doctor Phil Mother God cult, you'll get the interviews
of a doctor Phil on her.
Speaker 5: But go ahead.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I guess my bigger question is just what's the
I guess orthodox perspective on eschatology. Not that they were
making me question, I was just curious to hear your
in simple terms, I.
Speaker 4: Guess, yeah, I just look up the there's an audio
book that's a short audiobook. It's called Apostles and Antichrist,
and somebody some years back read the entire thing on YouTube.
Speaker 5: So I think the book's out of print, but it's
a little book from Jordanville Monastery.
Speaker 4: I recommend that, and you can find Apostle an Antichrist
on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Sword what's up? You gonna try again?
Speaker 8: Hey?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I'm sorry for technical difficulties.
Speaker 14: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah? What's up? So?
Speaker 9: I have a question. I don't remember the churches of Christ,
and I have a lot of respect for the Orthodox faith.
Speaker 22: I have a number of friends who are Orthodox, So
I'm not trying to come at you guys from a
position of animosity, but I wanted to talk a little
bit about the idea of apostles and bishops and elders
and all of that, particularly with the idea of succession.
And what I like to do is to just give
you a premise and then just have you comment on it,
and then I'll be quiet and just listen.
Speaker 9: So the premise I would like to kind of paus
it here is.
Speaker 22: Would it be acceptable or correct understanding biblically to say
that the office of the bishop is a successor to
the office of the apostle, or is it specifically that
the bishop's elders, you know, those guys are individually successors
to the individuals that were apostles.
Speaker 9: Such that is just another name for apostle.
Speaker 4: No, I mean the apostles were a specific, unique role.
So there's no more apostles in the church. But I
mean there were many, you know, apostles, and that Jesus
sent out the seventy There were many apostles, you know,
in the Book of Acts and so forth.
Speaker 5: But that was a.
Speaker 4: First century reality. That apostolic succession does not mean necessarily
that the successors do everything and have everything that the
apostles said. For example, when you know Ignatius is teaching
an Antioch, he's the successor to the apostles, but he's
not an apostle, so he has some of those powers,
but he's not, for example, going to give new public
divine revelations. And that's why the early Church heresy of
the Montanists. The Montanists thought that there would be in
quote apostolic succession that included all the prophetic powers of
new divine revelations in the early Church determined that the
Montanous were heretics, because once the Apostles died, and once,
for example, Jude says in Jude three that the faith
was once for all delivered to the saints, there's not
going to be any new divine revelations. So appazot succession
means the powers that Jesus gave to his disciples that
are passed on include the preaching of the Gospel, the
administration of the sacraments, and the forgiving of sins. And
so Jesus, for example, Breedes and the Apostles, and he says,
whoever sins you remit, they're remitted. Whoever sins you retain,
they're retained. He says in Matthew sixteen, and in Matthew
eighteen to Peter and to the Apostles, the whole college,
that you have the office of the keys. You can
bind on heavn and bind on earth. As we know,
this has to do with authority and the forgiving of sins.
So that notion includes also, I think jurisdiction when it
comes to bishops ruling over certain areas. And we get
this not just from implication, but from Paul's Epistles.
Speaker 5: He says to Timothy.
Speaker 4: He says to Titus, I put you in charge in Ephesus. Timothy,
you don't lay hands on anybody too quickly unless you
find them to be good and approved men, because the
Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands,
Paul says to Timothy. So that's what we would say
apostolic succession means. It means the authority to preach, teach
the Gospel, administer the sacraments, and have the eucharistic altar,
et cetera. It's not new public divine revelations.
Speaker 9: So just to clarify, I want to make sure I
understand your answer correctly.
Speaker 22: You would accept them that the office of bishop is
more like a successor to the office of apostle because
they're not the same thing.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what apostolic succession means, correct Okay.
Speaker 9: Well I appreciate you clarifying. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And also, you see it, it's not new to the
New Testament. It's what you see in the Old Testament.
Speaker 5: Right. So, for example, Jesus is in Matthew twenty three that.
Speaker 4: Moses sits, or that the Pharisees sit in the seat
the Cathedra, the cathedral seat of Moses. So in the
Old Testament you have moses stallic succession, which Jesus acknowledges
in Matthew twenty three. He says that that's a real thing.
So apostolze succession. And then you look at numbers eleven
and you see the laying on of hands, and you
see the seventy elders, and Moses lays hands and passes
on his spirit to the seventy elders to help judge Israel.
That is typology that the New Testament is utilizing for
apostolic succession.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I was gonna say too.
Speaker 7: I mean even like it's where a lot of people
get apostles and bishops are like mixed up, because when
you see in the New Testament, Christ is talking about
you can go and handle snakes and do all these things,
and he's speaking directly to the apostles, and we see, I
think it's Paul, and who does end up doing that
and he's completely fine. And then that's where we get
these Pentecostal churches to day and think, oh, well, that's
you know, that carries down to the line today to
our pastors and bishops and now we can handle snakes,
and it's like, no, it's not for everybody. It's for
a specific set of people that were bishops, not just anyone, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, there was there were things that were unique
to the transition period between the Old and New Testament,
which is what's going on in the Book of Acts,
you know, like the miraculous example of Pentecost. And we've
covered this ad nauseum on my channel, refuting charismatics and Pentecostals.
That's a unique miracle that fulfills the Old Testament ritual
ceremonies of the feast of tabernacles, the feast of weeks.
Pentecost is the fulfillment of that, and it's a unique
miracle that reverses Babel. It's also referenced in the several
chapters in Isaiah that the apostles under the Messiah would
speak in a miraculous single tongue, and so it's a
known it's everybody hearing the Gospel in their own language.
That's the miracle. So there's nothing in the New Testament
that has anything to do with gibberish or Babel. And
also Pentecost isn't necessarily something that continues on, for you know,
the Church two thousand years later. However, there are people
who have the gift of tongues, which is known languages.
For example, in my parish we have people that know two, three,
four languages and they're able to translate the liturgical texts
into various vernaculars. That is the gift of tongues. It's
not gibberish. Tipper says, for ten dollars, what is the
best book on monarchical Trinitarianism. Well, really you just read
the cabin Docian, so you could read Gregor about the
first best book is Gregor of Nazianzis' five Theological Orations,
but also the rest of the orations too are very important.
Speaker 5: What's the best book on theosis?
Speaker 4: I mean, if you want more modern you can get
all of doctor bo Brandson's lectures and his PhD thesis
on monarchical Trinitarianism.
Speaker 5: Best book on theosis probably something like.
Speaker 6: I have a thesis.
Speaker 4: There's one though, that's really good, with Professor Manserritis's book
on Palamas.
Speaker 5: So it's.
Speaker 4: Deification Inification of Man or deification in Christ. One of
the Professor Giorgios Manzarides, and it's his little pink book
on Gregory Palomas.
Speaker 5: That one's really good.
Speaker 4: And then there's also Deification of Man by Paniotis Nellis,
and then Nick has a recommendation.
Speaker 6: I lost my book on the I'm going.
Speaker 4: That's okay, development of the OCA. What's the best book
on the development of the Liturgy of Saint John Christism. Well,
actually I only know of one book. I think Dvornik
has a giant book on that. Uh No, actually it's
not Devornick. It's another Uniate scholar. I don't know where
I got a hold of this monstrosity.
Speaker 5: Here there is.
Speaker 4: A gigantic Uniate history of the Byzantine Liturgy of Saint
John Christism by Cosimir Kucharek. That's one. But this is
like an eight hundred page, you know, scholarly text. You
might not want that. Another text, I would say that's
a little more accessible is Hugh Weiber his book Byzantine Liturgy.
Speaker 5: I think I have it over here. Let's yeah, this
one is more accessible.
Speaker 4: And by the way, this one is actually really good
for this is an Anglican scholar, Anglican liturgist, and this
book is really good for reputing a lot of Protestant ideas,
especially about all the early Church was low church. The
early Church didn't have any imagery. This book is actually
pretty good for reputing that. So those are my recommendations.
Buckle buckets. What's up, man?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's how's it going?
Speaker 29: First of all, Happy early birthday, Jay and Nick. Your
your discussion with Junior is some of the most entertaining
content I've seen recently recently, so that was fun.
Speaker 5: That is that the Muslim what's his name?
Speaker 29: Yeah, with aspiring philosophy that one I thought the conversation
was question for j I've been watching your content, I
would say for the past year, but.
Speaker 30: I really started to watch a lot more of your
philosophical content about philosophy and specifically about tag and I've
been seeing, like your debates and your videos that you
use a lot of David Hume and the problem of criteria,
and even.
Speaker 9: There it's kind of attack on.
Speaker 29: Cogito to kind of strengthen your arguments, and I've been
doing a lot of.
Speaker 9: Research and readings on that. I was just wondering if
you had any.
Speaker 29: More recommendations to help even further bolster my arguments.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think it's absolutely necessary if you
want to go in that direction to read W. J.
Wood's book on Epistemology. It's a really readable Christian version
of epistemology, and so he stresses virtue ethics and how
you can't really do secular epistemology because it's not going
to make any sense.
Speaker 5: So it's really good for that.
Speaker 4: A more technical graduate level manual is the Bonjour Text
on Epistemology, the Green Bonjour. It's usually used in grad
school for classes on epistemology, so.
Speaker 5: That one's really good.
Speaker 4: I mean, FDA has a lot of lectures and courses
that are free on his Channel and Patristic Faith that
you could do, but that really focuses on you know,
like certitude and epistemic questions. But I think it's really
important also to understand the metaphysics stuff too, So I
would say, you know, read like Coppleston's it's a whole series,
but you could read Coppleston's I forget which volume it
is on, like the Ancient Greeks, and then.
Speaker 5: Like you know, more modern stuff too.
Speaker 4: So the Coppleston series, I'm actually gonna buy the whole series,
only have like two volumes of it.
Speaker 5: I need to get the whole series.
Speaker 4: But Frederick Coppleston on anything, it's pretty good for overview.
Speaker 5: All right, do we have any oppositions? We had no
ops yet really so and we got here? Yeah. I
mean we've got twenty one people in the train.
Speaker 6: That's all I get.
Speaker 5: That's yeah.
Speaker 4: I think they've just decided that, you know, it's not
worth it to come over here. So now it's now
it's both of us are like, no, hell no, I'm
not doing it. Okay, here we got a guy who's
so Colin wants to come back about the flood.
Speaker 5: Okay, what's up calling your back? Go ahead?
Speaker 15: Yeah, sorry, I accidentally signed out last time.
Speaker 5: That's okay. I thought maybe you just left. Oh no, no.
Speaker 9: So yeah, I actually agree with most of the stuff
that you.
Speaker 4: Oh Colin, we're having a hard time.
Speaker 5: I can't hear you. Man.
Speaker 4: Maybe you need to get nearer to your to your
hamster wheels. Sensey, what's up? Man, Let's let's try some
of these randos here with no no pictures.
Speaker 5: Sense are you doing?
Speaker 9: Can you hear me, Jamee?
Speaker 6: Are you doing about it?
Speaker 28: Ay?
Speaker 10: I have a question every time that I speak with
Protestants when they try to justify a soldiership to a
Why is it that they always go to Second Timody
three sixteen.
Speaker 4: I guess because it's one of the few places in
the New Testament where you have explicit reference to the
text of scripture and inspiration.
Speaker 5: So they think that it's kind of a kill shop.
Speaker 4: But they don't realize that there's some really obvious problems
with citing that for soul scripture. First of all, all
it says is that scripture makes a man sufficient. Doesn't
say that it's absolutely sufficient for you know, for the
entire life of the church or for the Christian because
Paul says, you've got to do other things too, like,
for example, don't forsake the assembling. Okay, well, that text
doesn't say that I need to attend the assembly. So
does that mean that I could just take the Second
Timothy text and all that I need to, you know,
for the man of God to be sufficient for every
good work is to read the scriptures. Now, so it's
first of all, it's not this universal exclusionary statement. Secondly,
Paul is talking about the Old Testament there, so if
we're going to be consistent with that reasoning, then I
don't need the New Testament because Paul is telling Timothy
that he's known the scriptures from his youth. Well, what
he's known from his youth is the Old Testament. So
there is no canon of scripture yet Paul has there's
books that you know, Book Revelation hasn't been written yet,
so it doesn't prove sell the scripture. It just proves
that the scriptures are central and necessary to the life
of the Christian.
Speaker 10: And in this verse, would you argue that Paul teaches
what scripture is, not what books are scripture?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. When there's not a
there's not a ken yet. That's that's my point. What
the canon?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 27: Okay?
Speaker 10: And then one more question, if you don't mind on
this verse, if you press somebody on it and you
ask them, okay, was this verse before or after the canonization?
Would the process and have to thenvite the bullet.
Speaker 5: Well, of course it was written before the condonization of scriptures.
Speaker 12: So I know.
Speaker 10: But if you know, they're very hard headed, so they
like to use this, like you said.
Speaker 9: To apply to the Old Testament. But like you said,
when you actually go into the.
Speaker 10: Context, Like you said, this was referring to the Old Testament,
which you would agree with the.
Speaker 5: A two agent.
Speaker 10: So in the context of this, how can he be
referring to the New Testament when we have it even
oi of canon.
Speaker 5: Doing that exactly. Yeah, that's a double up good argument.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because first of all, it is the Old Testament
primarily Paul's referring to this so too agent, and then
which has the Doudro canon, which is not the Protestant canon.
And then secondly, yeah, there's not a New Testament yet,
Paul is still writing the New Testament. So absolutely, yeah,
I think those are great arguments. I mean Protestants are
always going to just be like, you know, well, you
know it still teaches soul scripture.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: The other thing too, is that there's other passages where
Paul also says keep.
Speaker 5: The traditions, like in Psyche of the Salonian.
Speaker 4: So you can't just take this one verse and not
also look at the other things that enjoin upon you,
other things that are necessary.
Speaker 7: Nick, did you have any comment, I mean, yeah, I
just think it's just going to begging the question. I mean,
if you're just going to say all scripture says this.
Therefore we must a buie by what scripture says. But
then you'll actually have some sort of justification as to
how they know what scripture in the first place.
Speaker 6: You in the question at that point as even scripture.
Speaker 5: So good point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how do we even know that that's you know,
part of the canon just because you know Paul wrote it.
And how do we know Paul wrote that other than
the tradition that the church hands down to Paul write. Okay,
here we have I think a Muslim. I mean, what's up?
You want to unmute.
Speaker 5: Pojay?
Speaker 25: What's going on?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 25: What's going on?
Speaker 1: Nick?
Speaker 5: But to see you again? What's up? Now? Hey?
Speaker 20: Quick questions for you.
Speaker 18: It's a it's one question, but it's in two parts,
and I'll be as the sink as possible.
Speaker 4: I'm a Christian by the way, Sorry, I saw I
mean I saw Arabic. I was like, Okay, we finally
got a Muslim.
Speaker 5: But yeah, I started to disappoint. I'm disappointed that you're
a Christian. I'm joking.
Speaker 18: So the question.
Speaker 15: I have is about Eed.
Speaker 18: I've been reading it a lot for the past couple
of months.
Speaker 9: I read the one hundred and fifty chapters.
Speaker 18: Read Basil's Letter two thirty four, read Saint johny Damascus.
Speaker 5: But I read a bunch of books on it.
Speaker 4: And did you read book three about Christology, because that's
where he really Okay.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I read book three.
Speaker 9: I believe that's chapter fifteen.
Speaker 18: And so the question I have, like, I have an
understanding of it pretty well, but I don't see any
church fathers explicitly stating that wisdom itself is an energy.
And the reason I ask is because you know, Second
Peter chapter one, verse four says, you know, that's a
crucial text for ED being partakers of the divine nature.
Speaker 5: But James chapter one, verse five.
Speaker 18: Says that if we don't have wisdom, we ought to
ask of the One of God, and then He'll give
wisdom to all who ask. And First Corinthians chapter I
believe this chapter I'm in the car drop. And First
Corinthians chapter one, verse twenty four, I thinks says Christ
is the wisdom of God. So my understanding of ED,
you know, we partake in the energies, not in the essence,
being that with parts and the wisdom of God.
Speaker 17: Would that be an energy?
Speaker 5: It is?
Speaker 4: And the answer to this question is an athinacious because
athenacious and a lot of times when he's refuting the Arians.
And by the way, I have a talk on this
specific question. It's on my channel. It's really old, it's
like seven years ago. Because Roman Catholics are trying to
use this argument that calling Christ the Wisdom of God
collapses energy or attribute into person. No as this gets
explained later in the Church Fathers, because we have to
understand that the reason that there's not explicit statements in
every first, second, third century Church father about every one
of these issues is that the issues aren't raised yet.
Nobody has really significantly questioned the essence inergy distinction until
you get mainly to Christology.
Speaker 5: Is where it really gets. It hits the nitty gritty.
Speaker 4: So what ends up happening is that remember, all of
the energies or attributes, they have a triadic movement they
proceed or move. This is called the energetic procession. They
proceed from the Father through the Son in the spirit.
So that applies not just to the generation of the persons,
but also the movement of the energies. And that means
that every energy or attribute you could also say the
Son is the love of the Father. Well, does that
mean that Jesus is love, because we also have statements
that the Holy Spirit is the love. Right, Well, it's
the manifestation in that sense, where the Holy Spirit manifests
the love of God, the Son of God manifests the
wisdom of the Father or the wisdom of God. But
just to in some passages equate person and energy does
not mean they're isomorphically like merged, or that they're subsumed.
There's still an essence energy to distinction. But it's not
wrong to call the Son the wisdom of God. And
you see this in the argumentation about this, and I
understand this because this actually tripped me up one time
back in about twenty fifteen. I was actually tripped up
by this question. I was debating a guy who in
the Leaving Orthodoxy and he was arguing with me, and
he said, why would we call the Son the wisdom
of God in Athenasius when wisdom is an energy of God.
And the answer is, you have to get later into
the doctrine of the procession and the manifestation of the energies.
Speaker 5: And that's the answer exactly.
Speaker 18: And okay, so then this goes into the second part
of my question.
Speaker 5: And sorry for you know, talking us out, but.
Speaker 18: It's to me, this is really interesting because I was researching,
you know, some some rebuttals and I was writing about this,
actually some rebuttals to Mark thirteen thirty two. Now Saint
Basil and I actually do look up like I actually
use some of those writings from on the Incarnation. It's
like in section fifty four where he talks about how
God became man so that man can become God, and
this goes into chaosis. What's really interesting is that Basil
in letter two thirty six, where he talks about he
gives like two really good reasons as to why Christ
does know the hour. The first reason he gives is rhetoric.
He says, you know, the term no man can be used.
Speaker 8: It's rhetorical.
Speaker 18: But then he says something really interesting, and he says,
he basically says that because of monarchical trinitarianism, Jesus does
not say that he knows the hour because knowledge starts
with the Father first.
Speaker 4: And yeah, well, everything that the son, everything the son
has is a dependent relationship on the Father.
Speaker 5: So that's correct exactly.
Speaker 18: So it started it started getting me thinking Okay, So
if that's going to be the case, then would this
also be a reason as to why Christ knows the hour,
because I mean, would you say that wisdom is synonymous
with omniscience?
Speaker 5: That's a good question. You'd have to actually look at
a lot of the patriistic like explanations and exegesis of
what exactly.
Speaker 4: Is the connotation of divine wisdom. I mean, sometimes they
describe it as like the plan of creation, sometimes because
of Proverbs seven and eight. Sometimes they describe wisdom as
I mean, sometimes it's even described as the Holy Spirit,
for example in Syric and in Wisdom.
Speaker 5: The Book of Wisdom, like.
Speaker 4: The Holy Spirit won't come and and bid it in
a soul that is unrepentant or impure, And so it
calls what dibides in you in one place wisdom, and
then another place the Holy Spirit. So we have also
the identification of wisdom with the Holy Spirit we have
in other places. Where As you said, Christ is called
the wisdom of God. So wisdom is an energy common
to all three, but manifests as every energy does, in
a unique way in each person. So the Father is
the source of wisdom. The Son would be a unique
manifestation of wisdom and the Holy would be a unique
manifestation of the wisdom of God. So I think that's
but I think you're right to point to Basil in
terms of monarchical trinitarianism there too. And I did my talk,
by the way, is called I am that I am
essence energy sant athinacious instead of a conscious cults because
this argument was actually a Diamond Brothers tradcat argument that
was used a long time ago. That well, Athanasius says,
Jesus is a wisdom of God, so wisdom is a
divine essence and they're all the same. They don't realize
how dumb that would be an at Trent. It would
be modalist like to so if you're going to collapse,
if Jesus is an energy and an attribute, and the
attributes are identical to the essence, then Jesus is the essence,
and now you're a modalist.
Speaker 5: It's really stupid.
Speaker 4: But so there's there's one more thing I want I
want to recommend to you. You should read Christis in
Byzantium by Papadocus if you haven't read that, because this
is very it's a very important book for eternal manifestation.
Speaker 5: And also you should.
Speaker 4: Read uh Florowsky's paper called Athanacious and the Doctrine of Care,
because he shows definitively that Athinatius teaches the essence in interestinction.
Speaker 7: And read aways the most solemn and specifically chapter seven
through ten, those are good for seeing wisdom as a person.
Speaker 4: Wisdom seven through ten, Yeah, exactly teaches the personification of
the spirit.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, because.
Speaker 18: I know inen on chapter seventy five, on the one
hundred and fifty chapters, Palamas explicitly states that I believe
he's like I said, I'm driving, but I believe he
says something to the effect.
Speaker 9: Of there's three realities in God.
Speaker 18: There is the essence, there are a tryad of persons,
and then there's the energy.
Speaker 4: So even by the way this is, this is, it
doesn't make any sense exactly. And I'm glad you mentioned
that because this is when you hear me always say,
Palamas talks about there's three planes in God, PLA and E.
That's the thing I'm referring to that right there.
Speaker 18: Okay, all right, guys, Well I won't take up too
much of your time, thank you so much, and I'll
get on those those.
Speaker 4: Are good job, man, you're doing really good reading there.
You're on the right, right, Nick, Do you want to
say anything about that?
Speaker 6: No, I'll just say Wisdom seven through ten.
Speaker 7: I mean it's it's really good for if he wants
to learn the personification portion of it. I mean it
literally calls wisdom like I'm the president. Omnistion says that
it was the one who rescued them in the flood.
So it's like actually action bearing someone that's doing something.
So I think it's literally the most clear thing ever.
And just a lot of people just don't read it
because you know, most people that convert the Orthodoxy come
from a Protestant background and they're never taught these books,
so I never think to look into them.
Speaker 6: Exactly when I read Wisdom Asylum, and I was so
mad that I was.
Speaker 5: You know that private.
Speaker 4: I was felt the same way because I went when
I became calvit I can do thousand and three, I
sat reading the Duo Can I was like, how, why
do why were we deprived of this? And then when
I became orthodox, I reread the Duro Canon and we
on my on my channel, guys, we do have a
lecture through the entirety of Serruk. If you want to
go back and find the the serrict lectures. Don says,
I'm a former atheist, I converted. H I'm a current agnostic.
I I have bought that Mind of God book that
you're recommended by Paul Davies.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a good book.
Speaker 4: I worked through the Prestocratics, Plato, Clement, Philo for my
first time.
Speaker 5: I've dabbled in some of Neoplatonism.
Speaker 4: What is the Church Father I should read first? Well,
I would say, if you're coming from an agnostic perspective,
I would start with something like Saint Athanasius's essay ad Gentees,
because it's a pretty good little apologetic against like paganism
and whatnot.
Speaker 5: And then I would read something like the hold on,
I want my camera here, I gotta get it straight.
Speaker 4: Then I would read, uh, maybe Fount of Knowledge by
John Damascus, because he gives a good kind of layout
of Patristic philosophy. But like I said, in terms of
triadic theology, I would not begin with August, and I
would begin with the Cappadocians, like the Five Orations of
Gregor Nacianzys. And that's a little book you can get
from Saint Vladimir's, so I would start with those to
get introduced to patristic theology.
Speaker 5: Zane for one hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: What's up man, that y'all are being generous now because
we've said it's my birthday. I gotta say it's my
birthday every time I do a stream. Now it's suddenly
gonna be a lot of birthdays around here. It's hold on,
we got a bunch more super chats on missed, let
me go back. It's GREASYAC, It's Grizzyac. It's twenty dollars.
God bless you both, Jay and Nick. Happy birthday, Jay,
Thank you man.
Speaker 5: Appreciate that guys are being really generous today.
Speaker 4: WEV man y'all's names, dude, Like, can't somebody just come
up with like a pronounceable basic name. Y'all come up
with the craziest names on here. Wev Citikulo twenty eight dollars.
Speaker 5: Jay. I love your videos.
Speaker 4: I heard you on Lord Valdemart say the PA N
D E M I C was PLA N Was it
all fake?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 4: I mean I think people got sick, people got something,
So I don't think everything was fake but I don't
think that a lot of what we were you know,
told and sold was real. Was all of this intentional
and also real?
Speaker 5: Yeah, to a degree.
Speaker 4: I'm not a virologist, so I don't know exactly how
that works, but I think that there was something going around.
I think it was. You know, well, we're on YouTube,
but you know you get the idea, Ja Juan, five dollars.
Speaker 5: What do you think about maaphysitism versus diephysitism? Well, we are.
Speaker 4: We are currently going through a massive lecture series on
my channel. If you type in Oriental Orthodoxy Refuted, you'll
get four or five installments that we've done so far,
and I think we're going to do eventually ten. What
exists after the incarnation? Two wills, two natures and two
energies in one single divine hypostasis.
Speaker 5: How are the operations in.
Speaker 4: Will different between the two? Well, one of them is
created and one of those uncreated.
Speaker 5: That's the difference. True.
Speaker 4: Five dollars, Jay, Nick, Where are all the Muslims and
the Mormons at get them in here? We're trying are scared. Listen,
you guys can be the recruiters. So you got the link,
Send that link to you all your Mormon buddies and
your Muslim buddies.
Speaker 6: So the link is in it on Twitter TikTok on,
I guess.
Speaker 5: The link is in the chat.
Speaker 4: Zain says for one hundred dollars, science isn't the problem
as in science itself.
Speaker 5: Rather it's a deduction method for the physical world. I
agree with that, sure, yeah.
Speaker 4: I think science is a tool for studying and understanding
the natural world, and that's it.
Speaker 5: So it's a limited tool.
Speaker 4: It can't tell you, for example, grand narratives of where
we came from and all this kind of stuff, and
that's where science goes outside of its bounds and becomes scientism.
Speaker 5: The problem with.
Speaker 4: Science is that they use a quote mathematical theory such
as multiverse or quote dark matter.
Speaker 5: By the way, that's all speculation.
Speaker 4: In metaphysics, which supposedly modern science and scientism is against.
They say it is true and that it exists and
almost purely metaphysical way exactly. That's the main critique is
that