Speaker 1: And you can come and smash me. Calvinists making a
Speaker 1: big fuss. James White can't stop talking about me, and
Speaker 1: I did. I posted my thirty minute roast. Forty minute roast,
Speaker 1: so you can go watch the roast. Indiana, what's up, man? Come,
Speaker 1: let's chat about our exchange. You got an a mute.
Speaker 2: Yo?
Speaker 1: Hey are you there? Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I can hear you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I was perfectly cordial to you. When I
Speaker 1: asked you if you wanted to debate. You said, I'm
Speaker 1: not interested in representing a position in a debate for him,
Speaker 1: but you're open to a conversation. And I asked you
Speaker 1: a couple of times if you'd like to chat. So
Speaker 1: where did I do anything like what you accuse me of.
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I came on here to publicly apologize, humbly admitting
Speaker 3: that I was wrong. I misrepresented our conversation. I deleted
Speaker 3: the tweet, not as a I'm trying to hide what
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 2: But I did.
Speaker 3: I misrepresented and I exaggerated our conversation.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't have done.
Speaker 1: That fair enough. I will take it down because you
Speaker 1: were well.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have to do that.
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean I didn't come here to be
Speaker 3: like to try to cover my ass or anything. But
Speaker 3: I you know, there comes a point where you do
Speaker 3: make a mistake online and you gotta come up and
Speaker 3: you gotta admit that you that you overstepped your bounds.
Speaker 3: I was a little agitated because and you know, secondarily,
Speaker 3: you know, uh, I don't know. I get a lot
Speaker 3: of d ms from people who I don't know if
Speaker 3: they're affiliated with you at all, and I'm not going
Speaker 3: to assume that they are, but a lot of just
Speaker 3: horrible dms, and they're.
Speaker 2: All telling me to debate you.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: And that just the horrible thing as I hear it
Speaker 3: come coming in my dms. So uh, And I apologize
Speaker 3: for allowing that to bleed over into you know, me
Speaker 3: talking about you on a public forum.
Speaker 1: That's all good. It's forgiven and forgotten. You can if
Speaker 1: you anytime you'd like to have a conversation about the
Speaker 1: topics the issues. It's an open forum. It's there's an
Speaker 1: open door there. I would also say that if you post,
Speaker 1: you know, the Instagram stuff calling out Orthodoxy, you have
Speaker 1: to expect pushback. I can't speak for all the people
Speaker 1: that DM you or what the comments are My comment
Speaker 1: on your post, you know, going after Relics was just
Speaker 1: would you like to have a debate about this? And
Speaker 1: that's just my default modus offerande for everybody.
Speaker 2: Gotcha? Gotcha? No? Yeah, And I.
Speaker 3: Respect that I don't know, I'm not super familiar with
Speaker 3: a lot of your content. So again, another apology, you know,
Speaker 3: just like making a blatant, you know statement about you know,
Speaker 3: questioning your Christianity because I really don't. I haven't taken
Speaker 3: the time to go over everything that you post. So yeah,
Speaker 3: I'll take some time to look over you know, your
Speaker 3: position and more in depth. And yeah, i'd definitely be
Speaker 3: down to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah we can, we can. It can be friendly. We
Speaker 1: don't have to be adversarial. It can be exchanged back
Speaker 1: and forth. It's fine. We do that often. So it's
Speaker 1: entirely up to the guest or the people that come on.
Speaker 1: If they want to have a heated exchange, I'll do that.
Speaker 1: If they just want to have a conversational exchange, we
Speaker 1: can do that as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Again, I know I already apologize, you already forget me,
Speaker 3: but I just want to say so sorry, Like I
Speaker 3: really like embarrassed because honest, and I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 2: Like when I was typing that, I actually was thinking.
Speaker 3: I was like, I think I might be exaggerating a
Speaker 3: little bit, and I still posted it anyway, So that should.
Speaker 2: Just you know that I feel I definitely feel shame
Speaker 2: in that.
Speaker 3: So but yeah, all right, everybody, I'm not going to
Speaker 3: take up much of this.
Speaker 2: You know, space or anytime if you want me to
Speaker 2: stay up here.
Speaker 3: And you want to hear my opinion on whatever we're
Speaker 3: going to talk about, but if not.
Speaker 1: I'll just it's up to you. Like, so we can
Speaker 1: talk about the principle behind relics, we can talk about
Speaker 1: what your issues are with Orthodoxy, or we can say
Speaker 1: for another time, it's balls in your court.
Speaker 3: Well again, you know, I'm not super familiar with the
Speaker 3: major distinctions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I mainly I don't
Speaker 3: know if y'all people focus see what I post, I
Speaker 3: mainly focus on Catholicism because that's where I'm what I'm
Speaker 3: more familiar with. I have you know, half my family's
Speaker 3: Catholic grew up in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: You know, Catholicism is all over the place.
Speaker 3: Orthodoxy, I've just it's like that's just within the past
Speaker 3: year and a half, I've really even understood that there
Speaker 3: was a distinction between the two. So and as far
Speaker 3: as I'm concerned, is there a distinction between you know,
Speaker 3: what Catholics believe about relics versus what Orthodox believe about relics.
Speaker 2: You know, is there something different there?
Speaker 1: Well, we would believe, I mean, there would be some
Speaker 1: level of distinction between what we would say about relics
Speaker 1: and what a Roman Catholic would say. We do not
Speaker 1: disagree about the reverencing. Yeah, somebody was calling you. We
Speaker 1: don't disagree about the reverencing of the relic, but we
Speaker 1: do disagree about what's going on there and how that happens.
Speaker 1: We believe in the doctrine of the energies, which is
Speaker 1: that God's uncreated energies permeate his creation, and in particular
Speaker 1: in a special way. The uncreated energies and power of
Speaker 1: God are present in his physical spatial dimensions and locations
Speaker 1: that are sanctified, so churches are still holy. In the
Speaker 1: New Testament, Peter talks about the Holy Mountain where the
Speaker 1: Lord was transfigured. That lets us know that places can
Speaker 1: still be sanctified. There was the pool where people would
Speaker 1: go in in the Gospel John to be healed, where
Speaker 1: an angel stir the waters. There can be you know,
Speaker 1: holy pools even and in the Book of Actual, notice
Speaker 1: that when Paul, they take clothes from Paul's body and
Speaker 1: they heal people and it drives out demons. And this
Speaker 1: is on the principle of Elijah's bones that resurrect the
Speaker 1: person who falls into the tomb and the body touches
Speaker 1: his relics and he's resurrected. So we believe that the
Speaker 1: bodies of the saints are endued with the power of
Speaker 1: God because we become little arcs of God, and they
Speaker 1: do have that power. Roman Catholics do believe in these things,
Speaker 1: but they believe in a created grace, which is very
Speaker 1: different from uncreated grace in the Orthodox Church. But yeah,
Speaker 1: we do believe that the relics have power to do
Speaker 1: these things.
Speaker 3: Interesting, no, yeah, and that's something that is undeniable. You know,
Speaker 3: when you read the scriptures, reading acts, it's like, oh,
Speaker 3: handkerchief is taken away to heal people. Where my concern
Speaker 3: is is when you are presented with these you know,
Speaker 3: vague stories. You know that there's not like a distinctive teaching.
Speaker 3: You know, there isn't a formula that's presented to us
Speaker 3: from apostolic.
Speaker 2: Witness on uh the on the activity of the spirit
Speaker 2: through physical objects.
Speaker 3: We just hear that, you know, like for example, the
Speaker 3: woman who who.
Speaker 2: Just touched Jesus's uh clothes, right, Like, what would I like?
Speaker 2: Is that like.
Speaker 3: Is that something I would formulate doctrine off of? Or
Speaker 3: is that like like was it because she actually.
Speaker 1: Touched is well, it's a great example. That's actually a
Speaker 1: great example because or was it faith?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 3: So is it like like for example, when Jesus talks
Speaker 3: to Nicodemus says, the activity of the spirit is like
Speaker 3: the wind.
Speaker 2: You know, it goes just like the wind.
Speaker 3: You can't see it, but it you know, it's powerful
Speaker 3: and you can effects in the same way. It's like,
Speaker 3: how can we formulate like solid, concrete doctrine on these vague,
Speaker 3: you know, spiritual experiences that we're seeing, you know, in
Speaker 3: the first century church and acts. You know, the spirit
Speaker 3: is extremely active. People are being filled with the spirit.
Speaker 3: So I guess my concern is, like, are we making
Speaker 3: like false correlations?
Speaker 2: There was it the faith of the people bringing the.
Speaker 3: Handkerchief that was where the power was or was it
Speaker 3: the actual handkerchief because it was you know, touched by
Speaker 3: Peter or Paul or whoever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me address that. So it's not in our
Speaker 1: view it wouldn't be an either or there's a relationship
Speaker 1: of synergy that goes on there, because for example, in
Speaker 1: the Gospels, you know, there's a place where it says
Speaker 1: and he Christ could not work many miracles there because
Speaker 1: of their lack of faith. It's not that Christ didn't
Speaker 1: have the power. It's that God has determined and decided
Speaker 1: to have a reciprocal relationship with human beings and creatures
Speaker 1: such that he won't if they don't have faith. So
Speaker 1: the power would not have gone out of him had
Speaker 1: the woman not had faith. You're right about that. But
Speaker 1: we can know some of the doctrines because if I
Speaker 1: recall and I'm going for a memory, but I think
Speaker 1: the word there is dunamis, which is the Greek word
Speaker 1: that Paul uses when he talks about the energy and
Speaker 1: power dunamis innergaia that's at work in him, and he
Speaker 1: says it is the power of God at work in
Speaker 1: him to do according to God's purpose. So what is
Speaker 1: that power of God. I mean, is it an actual
Speaker 1: essence of God? Is it the divine persons? Or is
Speaker 1: it a divine energy. Well, thankfully we know because in
Speaker 1: Corinthians Paul says in the in the chapter thirteen where
Speaker 1: he's talking about the spiritual gifts, he says that the
Speaker 1: twelve and thirteen he says that the spirit apportions the
Speaker 1: gifts as he wills, according to his inner gaia. So
Speaker 1: these are energetic gifts. So this is a New Testament
Speaker 1: doctrine of the uncreated energies, and no church teaches us
Speaker 1: except the Orthodox Church. There are no churches that teach
Speaker 1: the uncredited energy doctrine. So Relics themselves points to this
Speaker 1: principle of divine dunamus and inner gaia. And it's not
Speaker 1: just scant examples we have. For example, in Hebrews thirteen,
Speaker 1: Paul says that the New Testament Church has an altar
Speaker 1: from which we eat, that those who serve in the
Speaker 1: tabernacle have no right to eat from. So Paul calls
Speaker 1: the New Testament alter a altar that we eat from.
Speaker 1: And in the earliest records of the Christian Church, after
Speaker 1: the Death of the Apostles, you can read something like
Speaker 1: the Martyrdom of Polycarp where they are collecting his relics,
Speaker 1: where they are reverencing the cross, even from that early
Speaker 1: of the day. If you go to Rome, you can
Speaker 1: go into the catacombs and you can see images of
Speaker 1: Christian iconography. You can see altars underneath the city of
Speaker 1: Rome in the catacombs. So the early Church had all
Speaker 1: of these things on this sacramental principle, which is why,
Speaker 1: for example, Jesus spits in the dirt and he makes
Speaker 1: clay to heal a guy's eyes. I mean, Jesus could
Speaker 1: have just thought and willed the guy's eyes to be healed,
Speaker 1: but he chose to use stuff physical matter. That's what
Speaker 1: Paul says. The cross is the instrument of our salvation.
Speaker 1: That's why in the Orthodox Church we honor and revere
Speaker 1: the cross.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Now, again, where my concern lies is how do you
Speaker 3: set up an objective formula for use for putting this
Speaker 3: into practice, like because like we've already established like there
Speaker 3: isn't necessarily an exact consistency with you know, divine objects,
Speaker 3: right like Jesus heals without dirt, Jesus heels with dirt.
Speaker 3: Jesus heals the nobleman's son without even being there, but
Speaker 3: then he could physically to Lazars. So there's you know,
Speaker 3: there's obviously not a lot of consistency there. But I
Speaker 3: would argue that this is like Jesus using content text
Speaker 3: or like there's context is key in these in these scenarios,
Speaker 3: and it's not so much the actual physical objects.
Speaker 2: It's you knows words.
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's think about in John three, right, Jesus
Speaker 1: says that the bronze serpent was put up on a
Speaker 1: pole in the Book of Numbers to heal the Israelites
Speaker 1: when they were being bitten by the snakes, and he
Speaker 1: likens the cross to that very thing. So there's a
Speaker 1: continuity here of objects having the ability to be endued
Speaker 1: with sacramental grace, energetic, dunamous power. And that's not a
Speaker 1: principle that goes away in the New Testament. And I've
Speaker 1: already listed several examples, but there's many more. There's oil
Speaker 1: is used in the New Testament, bread and wine are
Speaker 1: used in the New Testament. These are physical means of
Speaker 1: grace that are premised on the incarnation itself. Jesus took
Speaker 1: on a human body, which is the image of God
Speaker 1: and in a in a created sense, so God doesn't
Speaker 1: have a problem with created things, but Protestants tend to.
Speaker 2: Hey, can I add real quick this was brought up.
Speaker 5: I thought that russelled me the point I never thought
Speaker 5: about this that if you notice Christ's miracles in the
Speaker 5: order of time, they become more and more incarnational.
Speaker 2: That it starts like just you know.
Speaker 5: Uh, proclaiming that you know, you're you're, you are healed,
Speaker 5: and then it each miracle that happens gets more and
Speaker 5: more incarnational.
Speaker 2: It's the touching, it's.
Speaker 5: Going, it's putting the there's a chronological order of thens,
Speaker 5: spitting into the mud and putting into the deaf man's ear,
Speaker 5: which itself is a pedagogical lesson. So he's taking people,
Speaker 5: you know, from the power of God's commands to then
Speaker 5: teach that it's by touching and becoming one physically with
Speaker 5: my body that actually heals.
Speaker 2: And of course it's a both.
Speaker 5: And it's not simply your faith that saves you, for example,
Speaker 5: or vice versa, simply the power of Christ that saves you. It's,
Speaker 5: for example, in the confession, if you don't have faith
Speaker 5: and you're receiving the divine energy of Christ forgiveness. He's
Speaker 5: not going to force it on you that your lack
Speaker 5: of faith can prevent you from receiving the healing graces
Speaker 5: of Christ. So I would say it's a both, and
Speaker 5: it's not simply well, the person just had faith or
Speaker 5: Christ just said something. It's incarnational, it's tangible, it's sacramental,
Speaker 5: and it requires one's faith to receive that.
Speaker 2: M hm.
Speaker 1: Another brief point while you're thinking, is that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, the guidance the Holy Spirit kind of leading
Speaker 1: us and letting us know the parameters of where this
Speaker 1: is and is inappropriate. You know, Jesus says that he
Speaker 1: promised the Holy Spirit to the church, right, So he
Speaker 1: says that in John when he sends the Spirit and
Speaker 1: acts to a Pentecost, there's the assumption, I believe that
Speaker 1: the Spirit really will lead and guide the church into
Speaker 1: all truth. I will not leave you as orphans, I
Speaker 1: will not forsake you. I will be with you until
Speaker 1: the end of the age. That promise didn't go away.
Speaker 1: Right with the first and second century Church fathers like Clement,
Speaker 1: polycarp Ignacious, et cetera. They express the same faith as
Speaker 1: what was handed down from those apostles, and in those
Speaker 1: writings we already see the acceptance of and the veneration
Speaker 1: of the bodies of holy men.
Speaker 2: Wait, waitch writings, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Martyred him a polycarp Okay?
Speaker 2: And then also did you mention is martyred?
Speaker 1: So these are people that were taught by John the apostle,
Speaker 1: for example polycarp.
Speaker 2: Ei.
Speaker 1: There anything else you want to discuss, I'm thinking, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fine. I mean, there's a mean here's another classic.
Speaker 1: If you look at Joshua seven in the Masoretic Text,
Speaker 1: it points out that when Joshua in verse six, it says,
Speaker 1: Joshua tore his clothes and he fell to the earth
Speaker 1: on his fake face before the ark of the Lord
Speaker 1: until evening he and all the elders of Israel, and
Speaker 1: they put dust on their heads. And most Protestants who
Speaker 1: are sort of iconoclastic would have tremendous problem with Orthodox
Speaker 1: you know, prostrating before the cross or bowing and venerating
Speaker 1: icons and this kind of stuff. And yet it's a
Speaker 1: very principle from the Old Testament itself, as Joshua prostrates
Speaker 1: before the arc.
Speaker 3: Well, so, so, yeah, I've heard that argument plenty of times,
Speaker 3: and the context of that is not.
Speaker 2: Venerating the arc, it is it is he's lamenting.
Speaker 1: Well, then why is he falling down towards the arc?
Speaker 2: Because the arc was.
Speaker 3: The where the presence of God was made manifest.
Speaker 1: But isn't in the physical objects with images on it?
Speaker 2: Exactly? And who? And who?
Speaker 1: So they were bowing down to images and.
Speaker 2: In the New Covenant. What is the image of the
Speaker 2: living God.
Speaker 1: It's the person of the logos.
Speaker 2: Jesus, Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: And so would you vow before his physical body?
Speaker 2: I would? I would bow before Jesus in the.
Speaker 1: Flesh, yes, okay, which you.
Speaker 2: Know, got a picture of him.
Speaker 1: Well, wait a minute, is his body created.
Speaker 3: His Yes, his body was formed in the wound marries wound.
Speaker 1: So you're bowing before a created thing.
Speaker 3: So okay, So are we saying that Jesus is a
Speaker 3: created being?
Speaker 2: The body of created is absolutely okay? Well yeah, so
Speaker 2: I'm bowing before Jesus.
Speaker 3: So okay, wait, are we separating Jesus flesh from his deities?
Speaker 1: That we're doing is not at all. In fact, if
Speaker 1: you read the Council of Ephesus, this is the very
Speaker 1: argument that Cyril uses against Nestorius to prove the deity
Speaker 1: of Christ and the real presence in the Eucharist, that
Speaker 1: there's only one divine subject, because he says in the
Speaker 1: in the Canons of Ephesus, you, if Jesus was a
Speaker 1: mere man, you would be eating the flesh of a
Speaker 1: mere man, and that would be cannibalism. But he argues
Speaker 1: that you're eating the flesh of the god man and
Speaker 1: that that's what deifies you. So it's the Protestants that
Speaker 1: would reject Ephicus on this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, No, I do reject real physical presence. I
Speaker 3: do believe in real presence. The spirit is real, and
Speaker 3: that's a that's a whole other topic in and of itself,
Speaker 3: but which I don't know if you guys.
Speaker 1: Did Jesus deify the human body that he took.
Speaker 3: On, Yeah, his resurrection body was his glorified.
Speaker 1: Body, right, So so God can make matter dea form
Speaker 1: and transfigured.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean at the transfiguration he was appearing in
Speaker 3: his glorified state, you know, after the resurrection, he was
Speaker 3: in his resurrected So.
Speaker 1: He only does that too Jesus's actual body, or does
Speaker 1: he do it to our bodies too?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I believe our resurrection body is going to be you know,
Speaker 3: renewed in.
Speaker 2: A you know, something that is distinct from what it
Speaker 2: is now.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, So when John six talks about you must eat
Speaker 1: my flesh and drink my blood to have life in you,
Speaker 1: is that not talking about the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: So I believe John six does not point us to
Speaker 3: the Lord's table.
Speaker 2: It points us.
Speaker 3: To the cross, and the Lord's table subsequently points us
Speaker 3: to the cross. So I'm actually I just finished a script.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna post a video soon. A lot of people
Speaker 3: have been like in my DMS. I don't know if
Speaker 3: y'all know the YouTuber. His name's how to Be Christian.
Speaker 3: He posted a video.
Speaker 2: Like a long time ago, and I.
Speaker 3: Made the mistake of arrogantly, you know, you know, saying like, oh,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna make this reply whatever whatever. And you know,
Speaker 3: he quote tweeted me for months and months and months,
Speaker 3: and me being a procrastinator and you know whatever, Long
Speaker 3: story short, I put it off. But I finally finished
Speaker 3: the script. I'm gonna make a video on this. So
Speaker 3: I've been studying through John. And if you take the
Speaker 3: Gospel of John and you read it as from the
Speaker 3: perspective of John. Jesus preaches the gospel with a specific formula. Right,
Speaker 3: John six is not this separate chapter that's unrelated to
Speaker 3: John two or John three, or John four or five.
Speaker 3: You know, Jesus is very consistent in his in his preaching.
Speaker 1: What does any of that have to do with the
Speaker 1: presence in the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: It has to except we're talking about John six, are we.
Speaker 1: Well you're talking about the logical sequence of the Gospel
Speaker 1: of John in this formula, But what does that have
Speaker 1: to do with the real presence in chapter six?
Speaker 2: So well, you're saying that John six is like proof.
Speaker 1: That I'm saying is one example, because when he talks
Speaker 1: about it, it offends a lot of people who walk away,
Speaker 1: and he says, is this a hard teaching? Now, if
Speaker 1: he's just teaching a spiritual presence that's identical to the
Speaker 1: Old Testament conception of the sacrament, so there would be
Speaker 1: nothing offensive or weird about that. Why didn't he stop
Speaker 1: them from walking away?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 3: So, so never in scripture do we see people understanding
Speaker 3: correctly and then walking away from Jesus.
Speaker 1: It's always, but it wouldn't be a hard teaching is
Speaker 1: what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. They they did not understand the spiritual truth.
Speaker 1: But he says, this is a hard teaching. If it's
Speaker 1: a it's the if it's the Old Testament understanding of
Speaker 1: the sacramental presence, which is largely symbolic in John heart,
Speaker 1: it's not a hard saying.
Speaker 3: In John six, what was the first statement that made
Speaker 3: them quote.
Speaker 1: Grumble, I don't have it pulled up?
Speaker 2: What when he told them this offers his flesh?
Speaker 3: No, when he said that he came down from heaven,
Speaker 3: that was the first thing that made them grumble.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 3: So when he's saying this is a hard saying, they
Speaker 3: were confused about the entire him coming down from heaven.
Speaker 2: How are you the bread? How are we going to
Speaker 2: eat your flesh? Like?
Speaker 3: None of this makes sense because they were thinking, and
Speaker 3: let's look at the words of Augustine, for example, they
Speaker 3: were thinking carnally.
Speaker 1: Augustine taught the real presence. When he talks about carnally,
Speaker 1: let me think I've read thousands of pages of Augustine,
Speaker 1: so let me explain what he's talking about. He's saying
Speaker 1: that by eating carnally, it's not that there's no physical eating.
Speaker 1: They thought they were going to get a free meal.
Speaker 1: John six. The grumblers are thinking, you've been feeding people
Speaker 1: with bread and with loaves and fish. Where's our free meal,
Speaker 1: Jesus saying, I'm not talking about a free meal of
Speaker 1: loaves and fishes. I'm talking about eating the true bread
Speaker 1: that comes down from Heaven. Guess what. That's the passover
Speaker 1: the Pasca. And if you look at Hebrews thirteen, the
Speaker 1: passives that I mentioned earlier, when Paul we believe Paul
Speaker 1: wrote this. When Paul talks about the animals that are
Speaker 1: sacrificed by Israel at the tabernac on the temple, he
Speaker 1: says that those animals do not have the grace to
Speaker 1: profit those that eat of it. But we have an
Speaker 1: altar that we eat from, and our high priest offering
Speaker 1: is what does sanctify us? And verse twelve says that
Speaker 1: it is his blood that you're partaking of. So Paul
Speaker 1: calls it an altar with a sacrifice, and it's the
Speaker 1: blood of the high priest contrasted to the symbolic sacrifices
Speaker 1: of the animals. And you're telling me that, no, Jesus
Speaker 1: is just teaching the symbolic view of the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: which is a contradiction from what Paul's saying in Hebrews thirteen.
Speaker 3: No, I believe in a real body and real blood,
Speaker 3: that really blood, really died on a real cross at
Speaker 3: a real point in time.
Speaker 1: What is Paul talking about what happened on the cross?
Speaker 1: Or is he talking about the altar that we.
Speaker 3: Eat from When he's talking about the blood of Christ,
Speaker 3: He's talking about what happened on the cross, because that's
Speaker 3: where Jesus is.
Speaker 1: I just read to you the passage where he's contrasting
Speaker 1: what we eat from what the Jews eat.
Speaker 2: All right, well, let's read it then.
Speaker 1: I just read it to you Hebrews thirteen. Do you
Speaker 1: want me to read it again?
Speaker 2: Let me pull it up. Let me pull it up.
Speaker 2: Hebre's thirteen. Where are we at?
Speaker 1: Verse nine?
Speaker 2: Alrighty, all right, hold on yesterday today?
Speaker 3: Do not so verse nine? He said, yeah, do not then.
Speaker 3: Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.
Speaker 3: But it is good for the heart to be strengthened
Speaker 3: by grace, not by foods which have not benefited those
Speaker 3: devoted to them. We have an altar from which those
Speaker 3: who serve the tent have no right to eat.
Speaker 1: Okay, down to verse thirteen.
Speaker 3: All right, therefore, let us go to him outside the
Speaker 3: camp and bear the reproach he endured.
Speaker 1: Thirteen. Now two thirteen. You're skipping the verses that are
Speaker 1: the most important.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Speaker 3: For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought
Speaker 3: into the holy places by the high priest as a
Speaker 3: sacrifice for sin are burned outside of the camp. So
Speaker 3: Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify
Speaker 3: the people through his own blood. Therefore, let us go
Speaker 3: to him outside the camp and bear reproach, Bear the
Speaker 3: approach he endured.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then the next verse.
Speaker 3: Okay, For here we have no lasting city, but we
Speaker 3: seek the city that is to come through him. Then
Speaker 3: let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God.
Speaker 1: That is do you know what that word is there?
Speaker 1: What is the word eu charistia? Do you know what
Speaker 1: most Protestant scholars admit about this passage that.
Speaker 2: Means thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: It means offering, which could be thanksgiving, or it could
Speaker 1: be a ritual service or ceremony. The entire past is
Speaker 1: about the superiority of our eucharistic offering and meal that
Speaker 1: we eat versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle
Speaker 1: the animals. Okay, so you're removing the contrast and you're
Speaker 1: literally you're literally saying that it's equivalent to the Old
Speaker 1: Testament symbolism.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not.
Speaker 3: So how does this when you take Jesus's words into
Speaker 3: consideration when he says God is seeking such people to
Speaker 3: worship Him in spirit and in truth, and then the
Speaker 3: New Covenant, the law is going to.
Speaker 2: Be written on our hearts. We're transitioning to the truths
Speaker 2: of the spirit here.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what you think that means. Because
Speaker 1: God gave the church a liturgical worship service that's not
Speaker 1: recorded in the New Testament, and all the Apostolic churches
Speaker 1: have it. So I don't know what you mean by
Speaker 1: worshiping in spirit and truth because we think that means liturgy,
Speaker 1: because that's how God always was worshiped throughout the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: Okay, So I mean right here he said, you know,
Speaker 3: sacrifice of praise to God. That is so he defines
Speaker 3: it the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.
Speaker 1: It's in the context now, it's in the context you're
Speaker 1: doing a false either orger it means hold on, no,
Speaker 1: it doesn't it's a false either or the whole context
Speaker 1: is eating and you're saying, no, it's really just about
Speaker 1: spiritual praising. Is this that the megachurch in the first century?
Speaker 1: Did Paul go to the megachurch where they were praising
Speaker 1: with their lips and I didn't have the Eucharist?
Speaker 5: And by the way, spiriting truth doesn't mean not a
Speaker 5: visible there church. It means the Holy Spirit, okay, the
Speaker 5: spirit of truth.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, so it is.
Speaker 5: In a visible manifest visibly in a visible body.
Speaker 2: And like.
Speaker 3: When Jesus says God is seeking such people to worship him,
Speaker 3: what's the context?
Speaker 1: You just keep assuming the evangelical spiritual low low, low
Speaker 1: church interpretation of all these passages, which you not demonstrated.
Speaker 1: I'm giving you counter evidence to that low church symbolic interpretation,
Speaker 1: and you're just restating the symbolism. All right, but you're
Speaker 1: not let me talk so because you just keep restating
Speaker 1: that it's a symbolic thing.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've used the word symbol once.
Speaker 1: Okay, you call it quote spiritual, which in your mind
Speaker 1: as an evangelical is contrasted to the physical or the flesh.
Speaker 1: But that's why I keep making the point that that's
Speaker 1: what well, that's what Paul is contrasting to the Jews
Speaker 1: who eat at the temple the Tabernacle in a carnal way.
Speaker 1: He's not saying that the way to eat non carnally
Speaker 1: is not with your mouth, because he says we eat
Speaker 1: at an altar. You don't have an alter.
Speaker 2: Okay, So.
Speaker 3: When Jesus says in John six, he says, come to me,
Speaker 3: and you will never hunger.
Speaker 2: Believe in me, and you will never thirst.
Speaker 3: So when Jesus says that, he says, you will never
Speaker 3: hunger and you will never thirst when you come to
Speaker 3: him and believe, believe in him. Why then, so I
Speaker 3: know why I continually partake of the elements of the
Speaker 3: bread and the wine. I know why I continually do that.
Speaker 3: But why do you continually partake If Jesus says you
Speaker 3: will never hunger and you will never thirst, why then
Speaker 3: in your tradition do you have to continually because bro
Speaker 3: hold on because in your theology that sacrifice does not
Speaker 3: perfect you, because sin can still make you fall away
Speaker 3: from grace, and therefore you need to come back to
Speaker 3: the throne of grace and reobtain.
Speaker 2: What has been lost. And so when Jesus says, come to.
Speaker 3: Me, and you will never hunger, and believe in me,
Speaker 3: and you will never thirst, right, you're negating those.
Speaker 1: Wordstation hold on then jumping down.
Speaker 2: Look, he says, gnaw my flesh. That must mean.
Speaker 3: That he's going to start this whole liturgical process of
Speaker 3: calling him down from heaven into a wafer and his
Speaker 3: blood is made present.
Speaker 1: Catholics, we don't have wafers.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, whatever need I mean?
Speaker 1: You say whatever I mean? Roman Catholics use a judaized bread,
Speaker 1: So it's that matters, all right.
Speaker 3: Point being, I don't know. I mean, we're jumping all
Speaker 3: over the place here.
Speaker 2: Well this was great because I remember this was brought
Speaker 2: up once. I think it hormly. Why went to church
Speaker 2: once I read some of the Bible. Isn't it enough?
Speaker 2: You go get him Jesus, You go get him Jesus.
Speaker 2: Why do I need to go to church again? Why
Speaker 2: do I need to know?
Speaker 1: This is just like an overly simple reading of.
Speaker 2: Catholics a life source.
Speaker 5: And if you said from him in a different way,
Speaker 5: like so, yes, of course you will never first, when
Speaker 5: you're with me, do all kinds of things that separate
Speaker 5: us from God's powers?
Speaker 3: Okay, So when Paul says that nothing will separate him
Speaker 3: from the love of Christ, I mean, is that nothing?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: You have to balance passages with other passages. You can't
Speaker 1: take one verse and squeeze every verse into that verse.
Speaker 2: Because exactly I agree.
Speaker 1: But let me let me I agree.
Speaker 2: Listen, six in a vacuum, you can't read John.
Speaker 1: I didn't take it. I went immediately to a eucharistic passage,
Speaker 1: and he was thirteen to help explain it. I didn't
Speaker 1: take it in a vacuum, and I argue that it
Speaker 1: was only John six.
Speaker 2: The person read from John's perspective.
Speaker 1: I don't know that you have John's perspective.
Speaker 3: Consistently in John's gospel.
Speaker 2: Jesus is very consistent.
Speaker 3: In John chapter two, he uses the earthly metaphor of
Speaker 3: a temple being destroyed to represent the spiritual truth of
Speaker 3: the resurrection of his The people who were there were
Speaker 3: confused because.
Speaker 2: They were thinking physically. But the disciples, yeah, you just
Speaker 2: keep it.
Speaker 1: Listen, you're making an assumption. Listen, I know what you're doing.
Speaker 1: You're contrasting spirit. Listen, it's a false dilemma. You're contrasting
Speaker 1: spirits of flesh.
Speaker 2: Number let me talk.
Speaker 1: I already know what you're doing. It's not a good
Speaker 1: argument you're contrasting. No, it's not. It's a gnostic view.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to tell you. That's why you're out of
Speaker 1: a chord with what the Church always thought about this.
Speaker 3: What is gnostic about my view? Mike, I see you
Speaker 3: laughing out there, bro, I'll block.
Speaker 2: You, bruh.
Speaker 1: What's gnostic is that the passages about spirit are not
Speaker 1: contrasted to body or physicality. It's Holy Spirit. And every
Speaker 1: Protestant does this gnostic anti matter reading into these texts.
Speaker 1: I know. I used to be a Protestant. When I
Speaker 1: read Romans, Paul talks about the body of the flesh
Speaker 1: fighting the Spirit. I assumed that that was physical body
Speaker 1: fighting the Holy Spirit because somehow quote immaterial things are
Speaker 1: better than physical things. And that's a gnostic heresy.
Speaker 3: Okay, No one is saying that immaterial things are better.
Speaker 3: What we're saying is that is fallen and needs renewal.
Speaker 3: The first coming of Christ, Why is there a second
Speaker 3: coming of Christ? The first coming of Christ is to
Speaker 3: deal with our sin, and what did sin do? According
Speaker 3: to Ezekiel, the soul dies from sin.
Speaker 1: So the first body and the soul dies. So I
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, through Adam, all flesh dies because because all sin.
Speaker 3: So yes, the flesh and the soul die. But jesus
Speaker 3: first coming was to make us born again in the spirit,
Speaker 3: and this.
Speaker 1: Is and that happens through baptism, water.
Speaker 2: Baptism physical. Okay, sure.
Speaker 1: Now wait a minute, so you're saying sure, now there's
Speaker 1: water that's used as a medium of regeneration. You're saying
Speaker 1: sure to that you agree with that.
Speaker 2: No, I don't. But you're I mean, you're just shifting.
Speaker 2: What argument do you want to focus on? You want
Speaker 2: to jump in?
Speaker 1: No, I'm making another point that physical things like water
Speaker 1: are mediums of grace. That's why an Acts two, it says,
Speaker 1: repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins,
Speaker 1: and then it says that thousands of them were actually
Speaker 1: physically water baptized.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Cornelius receive the spirit without water.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that God can't send his Holy Spirit
Speaker 1: and do it in that way. But in Acts two
Speaker 1: thirty eight, as well as Titus three. It specifies that
Speaker 1: the labor of baptism is the labor of regeneration? Does
Speaker 1: Titus three not say that?
Speaker 2: Repeat yourself?
Speaker 1: Does Titus three not call the labor of baptism the
Speaker 1: lavor of regeneration?
Speaker 2: I'll have to go study that I'm not gonna do.
Speaker 1: And that's the same thing Peter's talking about in Act two.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit can't move outside
Speaker 1: of the presence of water, but the normative means by
Speaker 1: which regeneration occurs is through physical water. So throughout all
Speaker 1: of this, your war is against physical objects, and all
Speaker 1: of your interpretations are that somehow quote spirit is anti matter.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, got it.
Speaker 3: That's your interpretation of what my position is.
Speaker 1: Is that not your position?
Speaker 2: Back to what I was saying, John three, So you're.
Speaker 1: Not gonna address any verses. You're just gonna do a
Speaker 1: walk through of what I already addressed.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, yes, because you're you're shifting the you're shifting
Speaker 3: the goal posts.
Speaker 1: No, bringing up further examples is not moving the goal post.
Speaker 1: That's a different fallacy.
Speaker 2: You gotta let me were I told.
Speaker 1: You, you're a you're walking through. So when you say, okay,
Speaker 1: Jesus's body is the true temple and you destroy the
Speaker 1: other temple, that doesn't help your case. Jesus' body is physical, No.
Speaker 2: I yes, I agree.
Speaker 3: The physical body of Christ was necessary, was absolutely necessary,
Speaker 3: because just as sin came into the world through the flesh,
Speaker 3: it had to be destroyed in the flesh.
Speaker 1: How does this prove your low view of sacraments.
Speaker 2: I don't have a low view of SACRAMENTO.
Speaker 1: Yes, you do. By definition, you literally do.
Speaker 2: I believe that communion is worship.
Speaker 1: Is water, baptism regeneration.
Speaker 2: I believe that I.
Speaker 3: Am regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior.
Speaker 1: To water baptists. Then you have a low view of
Speaker 1: the sacraments. By definition, baptism is worship. And is it
Speaker 1: the labor of regeneration according to Titus three five, not
Speaker 1: by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according
Speaker 1: to his mercy. He saved us through the washing of
Speaker 1: the labor regeneration.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the and he Peter describes the waters as what's
Speaker 3: not doing the washing there?
Speaker 2: It's the spirit.
Speaker 1: Now he says that it's not washing your body. He
Speaker 1: doesn't say it's not water.
Speaker 3: He says, yet not by a washing of dirt off
Speaker 3: your body.
Speaker 1: So not taking a bath. Water baptism is not a bath.
Speaker 2: So he's made a distinction that, No, he's not.
Speaker 1: It's not a bath, it's water baptism. Do you think
Speaker 1: when you're taking a bath at night that that's the
Speaker 1: same thing as a baptism. So that's what Peter's talking about.
Speaker 1: He's not saying that there's not a presence of the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit to regenerate you at water baptism.
Speaker 3: I didn't say that the Holy Spirit was not present
Speaker 3: in baptism.
Speaker 1: You said that it's not regeneration. You just said that.
Speaker 2: I believe that.
Speaker 3: I believe that the Christian is regenerated by the Holy
Speaker 3: Spirit through faith prior to baptism.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, But the Bible doesn't say that. It
Speaker 1: continually links it to the celebration of the sacrament.
Speaker 2: It doesn't use that exact wording.
Speaker 1: But should No, it doesn't. My examples that you won't
Speaker 1: talk about literally link it to baptism.
Speaker 3: Cornelius, I mean, dude, I mean you're saying, oh, but
Speaker 3: that's just an exception like that.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. The Holy Spirit can move, the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit can remove.
Speaker 2: You're taking the work of God and saying, no, that's
Speaker 2: an exception. No, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm dealing with all of the passages, and that's that's prior.
Speaker 1: The thief on the cross is prior to the institution
Speaker 1: of water baptism and Acts two as the normative means.
Speaker 1: I already said normative. I didn't deny the possibility the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit doing and moving.
Speaker 6: People.
Speaker 1: Stop interrupting me. You're new to all this, man, make.
Speaker 2: The distinction of normative means of grace.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're done.
Speaker 2: When does that? When does it make that distinction?
Speaker 1: So you okay, you literally think that using terminology that
Speaker 1: helps to clarify is not in the Bible itself. Is
Speaker 1: the word trinity in the Bible. No, but so that's
Speaker 1: a double standard. You're using the double standard.
Speaker 2: It's perfectly laid out. No, I'm just saying, like, where
Speaker 2: are you establishing that?
Speaker 1: You said that there's no example. All the examples I'm
Speaker 1: giving you acts too, where it says repent and be
Speaker 1: baptized for their mission of sins, and then they're water
Speaker 1: baptized in next two right, and then but.
Speaker 2: And then it says John baptized with water.
Speaker 1: But that's the Old Testament they did it. Or what
Speaker 1: do you know? When is when is Jesus' baptism instituted?
Speaker 2: When he sends the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 1: No, at the end of the Gospel, when he says,
Speaker 1: go forth and baptize all the nations, that's when he
Speaker 1: institutes it. Before he stopped interrupting me, he shut up.
Speaker 1: He says it is a trinitarian ritual action, and that's
Speaker 1: what they do in Acts. Matthew twenty eight is talking
Speaker 1: about water baptism. You didn't even know that.
Speaker 2: No, I know what, Matthew.
Speaker 1: You know you said baptism was instituted at Pentecost. You
Speaker 1: said Acts two. It's Matthew twenty eight, not Acts too.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, yeah, all right. I was confused by.
Speaker 1: Your question, the obvious question that everyone should know when
Speaker 1: was baptism instituted? You were confused by that? How would
Speaker 1: you be confused by a basic question?
Speaker 5: All right, I'm sorry to ask a question about normative means.
Speaker 2: It's established that so you can't appeal to cases.
Speaker 5: Prior to the institution of baptism is possibly Norman means. Now,
Speaker 5: as jab pointed out, that can God send the Holy
Speaker 5: Spirit and save somebody apart from the normative means, sure,
Speaker 5: but Protestants always take an.
Speaker 1: Exception of the rule to be the example.
Speaker 2: To be the example, then I can do that.
Speaker 5: It's exactly the same analogy of saying, well, could I
Speaker 5: say there a terminal cancer without going to a specialist
Speaker 5: in the hospital. It's like, yeah, but okay, maybe there
Speaker 5: was a case or two where that happened. Like why
Speaker 5: in the world would you build a whole therapy on
Speaker 5: not going to.
Speaker 2: Get healed because you could be healed apart from the
Speaker 2: normative means? That's Protestantism for you. It's crazy. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: even if you found the.
Speaker 7: Cases, do we're exception to the rules after the institution
Speaker 7: of baptism, you're going to base a rule on the
Speaker 7: exception to the rule and put yourself in that sort
Speaker 7: of danger. That's just seems crazy to me.
Speaker 2: Call me crazy, Okay, we will.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, and I and I I understand that, like
Speaker 3: we're in agreement that we disagree with each other, and
Speaker 3: I'm just trying to, you know.
Speaker 1: Have a well, no, it's been a great conversation.
Speaker 2: And yeah, and I have apologize that we're getting a
Speaker 2: little right.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can shift a little bit because we're going
Speaker 1: to disagree there. Maybe a more fundamental question would be,
Speaker 1: how do you know what the word of God is
Speaker 1: in terms of the canon of scripture, and what is
Speaker 1: your basis for it?
Speaker 2: The Cannon conundrum Protestant nightmare. Yeah, so, I mean.
Speaker 3: I would say that the recognition of infallibility does not
Speaker 3: require the possession of infallibility. The simple historical fact, and
Speaker 3: this is a historical fact that I think we should
Speaker 3: all agree on, is that neither Jewish reception of the
Speaker 3: Old Testament nor early Christian reception of the Scriptures.
Speaker 2: Happened through means of infallibility. Period.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just contradict yourself within like three sentences.
Speaker 1: You just said that.
Speaker 2: Just take apart my statement.
Speaker 1: Please, it's the first thing you said, which was confused.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you mean by infallibility can happen
Speaker 1: through What did you say? How did you phrase it?
Speaker 3: Recognition of infallibility meaning recognizing God's word does not require
Speaker 3: possession of infallibility, meaning that.
Speaker 1: I have so Mouthew, so mouthe, you might not have
Speaker 1: written Matthew's Gospel.
Speaker 2: I'm not answering that's a that's.
Speaker 1: A you're not going to answer it.
Speaker 2: It's like, like, I don't understand.
Speaker 3: I don't understand how to answer that question.
Speaker 1: Well, it's an important question because it underdoes the assumptions
Speaker 1: of your argument. So why would you I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't at least attempt to answer it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a topic that I'm not well studied on.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, Apostolic authorship is very important for inclusion into
Speaker 1: the canon, and Matthew's Gospel doesn't tell you that Matthew
Speaker 1: the Disciple wrote it. So guess where you get that
Speaker 1: knowledge from. Tell me tradition, got it? So you're relying
Speaker 1: on tradition? Is that also perhaps wrong?
Speaker 2: All right? Well Acts seventeen eleven.
Speaker 1: You're not so you two quote fallacy. You're asking me
Speaker 1: a question when I asked you a question. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: two quote way fallacy. All right, whatever, all right, whatever,
Speaker 1: So you don't think fallausy is matter. I don't understand
Speaker 1: why you just blow past this. I asked you a
Speaker 1: question and you say I'm not going to answer it,
Speaker 1: and then I'm gonna You're gonna ask me a question
Speaker 1: that's called a two quote quay fallacy, and then you
Speaker 1: say whatever.
Speaker 3: Okay, uh, well, ask the question again, what are we
Speaker 3: saying here? I told you I'm not an expert on
Speaker 3: how we have determined how math that Matthew wrote the
Speaker 3: Gospel of Matthew.
Speaker 1: The only way is through tradition.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to speak on something i'm not an
Speaker 3: expert in because I will make myself out to be
Speaker 3: a fool. And I don't intend on I don't intend
Speaker 3: on doing that. And I see all you guys laughing
Speaker 3: in the and you know out there, why don't you
Speaker 3: come up here and you know, tell me why we
Speaker 3: have every single book of the Bible, you know.
Speaker 1: All right, So look, let's just stop there, because I
Speaker 1: don't want us to go in a bad direction. We
Speaker 1: can go and study and read and you can look
Speaker 1: into the question if you want, and maybe we can
Speaker 1: come back, and we don't. I don't want this to
Speaker 1: go in like a sour direction because well, you apologize,
Speaker 1: you're you're a good dude.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, I want to say. I want to say
Speaker 2: one thing. Sure, all right, guys, come on like y'all hear.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about the chick.
Speaker 2: Look, you can't look at a chance, just don't. Yeah,
Speaker 2: all right, Well, so how do we determine what scripture is?
Speaker 3: And my simple answer, and I know this isn't going
Speaker 3: to satisfy uh, the people who are listening, but proposed say, okay,
Speaker 3: say you have something, you're proposing something to be the
Speaker 3: word of God. Say, look, I have this is I'm
Speaker 3: calling this the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew wrote it. It's
Speaker 3: the Word of God. And i've you know, I've never
Speaker 3: seen it before. I haven't studied or anything. What's my first,
Speaker 3: you know line of action?
Speaker 2: That That's why I was pointing to Acts seventeen eleven.
Speaker 2: So you have.
Speaker 1: Proposed, so you're begging the question because we don't know
Speaker 1: yet that Acts is actually part of the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm just using what happened in Acts as an
Speaker 3: example of what could be done to determine what is
Speaker 3: the Word of God.
Speaker 1: But that example is assuming the thing in question, because
Speaker 1: we don't know yet that that's even allowed in the canon.
Speaker 1: Maybe Acts, maybe, Luke. You know about like the pseudonymous
Speaker 1: Gospels and the you know, Gnostic Gospels, the false Gospels, right.
Speaker 3: There are objective ways in which we have found them
Speaker 3: to be unreliable.
Speaker 1: And I'm not I understand that. But I'm just pointing
Speaker 1: out that just because there's a name mentioned like Luke,
Speaker 1: or even if it said Matthew, like, it doesn't tell
Speaker 1: you that that's authentically the disciple of Jesus. It might be.
Speaker 2: You know, we're getting off topic.
Speaker 1: So no, it's not on topic. It's perfectly on topic.
Speaker 2: Okay, we have proposed, we have proposed word of God.
Speaker 2: This is proposed to be the speech of God.
Speaker 3: You take what you know to be the speech of
Speaker 3: God and measure it against what is proposed.
Speaker 2: To be the speech of God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you have the apostles coming to the church in
Speaker 3: Berea and its preaching the Gospel to them.
Speaker 1: And then this doesn't work as an example because acts.
Speaker 1: You don't know that Acts is the word of God.
Speaker 1: So you're using a thing in question. So it's begging
Speaker 1: the question. Can I give you an example of what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about? If you scroll down on my wall,
Speaker 1: you'll see an old tweet that I retweeted called Protestantism
Speaker 1: and solicripture refuted. And what I do there is I
Speaker 1: use the Baptist textual scholar Lee McDonald's list of the
Speaker 1: debates about the canon and the different church father lists
Speaker 1: into fourth, fifth, sixth century, and you'll notice that whether
Speaker 1: it's the New Testament or the Old Testament, there's variation
Speaker 1: amongst all of these different lists. So what I want
Speaker 1: to know is whether it's Origin or whether it's Chrysostom,
Speaker 1: or whether it's Athanasius's list or Serial of Jerusalem's lists.
Speaker 1: How do you, as a Protestant know or what do
Speaker 1: we do to determine amongst these church fathers who are
Speaker 1: not Protestant, which one is the right list?
Speaker 3: Exactly what I was saying, you know, take the what
Speaker 3: we know to be the speech of God, which.
Speaker 1: We're using the Book of Acts, and the Book of
Speaker 1: Acts is not known yet to be the word of God.
Speaker 1: That's the thing in question.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, okay, so how how do we know,
Speaker 3: I mean what.
Speaker 2: The earliest.
Speaker 3: Testimony of the church, I mean the apostles themselves handed
Speaker 3: these letters letters off to someone, right, yes, yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but you know we don't have onograthha.
Speaker 2: Right, no, yes, yes, I know, I know.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how do we know the authentic from the
Speaker 1: non authentic ones? Do you know what the earliest list
Speaker 1: of canon of the canon.
Speaker 3: Is the earliest not necessarily, But I do know that
Speaker 3: there are lists prior to you know, the Council that
Speaker 3: everybody loves to reference in like what three eighty three
Speaker 3: eighty three or something like that.
Speaker 2: There were plenty of lists prior to that.
Speaker 1: I don't know about plenty of it, but they're from.
Speaker 3: A handful a handful, and funny enough, most of them
Speaker 3: were closer to the Proian canon.
Speaker 1: No, that is completely false. You're totally wrong. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've got them pulled up. Do you want to look,
Speaker 1: you want to walk through them and see that that's false.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't say they were exactly.
Speaker 1: But no, they're not even close to the Protestant canon. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's just simply not you. I've got Canon eighty five
Speaker 1: of the Apostolic cannons pulled up right here. This is
Speaker 1: one of the earliest. The other earliest is the Canons
Speaker 1: of Laodicea and the canon that's listed in the Apostolic
Speaker 1: Canons from the three hundreds. It includes oh oh, the
Speaker 1: Deutero canon that is not the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you got one.
Speaker 1: No, this is not one. This is canon law, church
Speaker 1: law for the church in general, having a normative canon.
Speaker 2: Where is this originating from? This is just church? Everyone
Speaker 2: in general is agreeing on it.
Speaker 1: Of the church that follows the Apostolic canons. Correct, it's
Speaker 1: the earliest, it's the Let me finish, it's the earliest.
Speaker 1: Let me finish. It's the earliest collection of canon law
Speaker 1: in the churches in the three hundreds.
Speaker 3: Okay, and then you have plenty of testimony after that
Speaker 3: saying that the canon is second tier canon, a distinct
Speaker 3: good for edification but not for faith.
Speaker 1: And no, that's not true. What does Athenians say that
Speaker 1: the deal canon is for?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: He says it's for the Catecumans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I haven't I have said that. So I
Speaker 2: can't speak on.
Speaker 1: That because, well that refutes what you just said. Athenasian
Speaker 1: is not just one guy. What is is what is St? Augustine?
Speaker 1: What does Augustine say about the drill can.
Speaker 2: He affirmed the exactly right.
Speaker 1: So is that now, two guys?
Speaker 2: What about Jerome?
Speaker 1: What about Wait a minute, no, serial Jeralism, Serial Jeruism
Speaker 1: doesn't have the Protestant canon. He doesn't help your case.
Speaker 1: You have one, No, he doesn't. You have one? Church Father, Jerome,
Speaker 1: Why are we supposed to follow Jerome Jerusalem. No, he doesn't.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have your canon. He does not have the
Speaker 1: Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he included Baruk.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's not the Protestant canon. And I don't think
Speaker 1: he has revelation if I recall. So, how does how
Speaker 1: does Cyril Jerusalem help your case?
Speaker 2: Old Testament that's no, no, no, it's not.
Speaker 1: Just the Old Testament. It's both the New Testament and
Speaker 1: the Old Testament. It's the canon.
Speaker 2: That's what. That's what where we differ here that you're wrong. No,
Speaker 2: the Old Testament that's I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about the canon. That's not just the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. There's differing New Testament lists. Athanatius goes to
Speaker 1: Rome to convince Rome of Hebrews and Revelation because they
Speaker 1: didn't think it was canonical. Cyril of Jerusalem does not
Speaker 1: have Revelation in his canon. Okay, so that doesn't help
Speaker 1: your case.
Speaker 2: I'm aware that there was debate on.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how do we know which one's right we follow?
Speaker 1: That's my question.
Speaker 2: Again, back to what I said earlier.
Speaker 3: You test what is proposed to be the speech of
Speaker 3: God with what is known to be the speech.
Speaker 1: Of God, and you're referring to the Book of Acts,
Speaker 1: which is in question.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, well, I feel like I'm not really
Speaker 3: getting myself anywhere. But let me ask you, how do
Speaker 3: you determine what is the Canada Scripture?
Speaker 1: Well, for the Orthodox Church, the highest authority is an
Speaker 1: ecumenical council.
Speaker 2: Okay, so a bunch of dudes that just decide.
Speaker 1: No, not a bunch of dudes. It's the church fathers
Speaker 1: with Apostolic succession, who have the gift to the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit given to them. Does Paul say that the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit's transferred the Lanyon of Hands to Timothy?
Speaker 2: Uh? Yeah, absolutely?
Speaker 1: Oh but you think that that's not true because you
Speaker 1: don't believe in Apsoltic.
Speaker 2: Succession, not in the way you defind it.
Speaker 1: Now, I just said what happens in the in the
Speaker 1: in Timothy, So what do you mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Paul also says that after he leaves.
Speaker 3: The church, false Christians will infiltrate the church successfully.
Speaker 1: No he doesn't say successfully the church. No, No, he
Speaker 1: does not. He says that they will enter.
Speaker 2: The church away, the disciples draw away.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean the destroy the church. The gates of
Speaker 1: Hell cannot prevail against the church.
Speaker 2: Never said that, never said the gates of hell prevailed.
Speaker 1: But if they infiltrate and subvert the Church, then the
Speaker 1: gates of hell prevailed.
Speaker 2: You have this line.
Speaker 1: Now you're changing, so you don't want to address you
Speaker 1: throw stuff out.
Speaker 3: Is this line of succession that you have? Is this
Speaker 3: list of men? Is that an infallible list?
Speaker 1: It's it's not a question of infallibility list. It's not
Speaker 1: a question of infallibility. If I know that the Testament
Speaker 1: stop interrupting me. Athanasius says, for example, that at the
Speaker 1: council and I see the Holy Spirit spoke through those fathers, right,
Speaker 1: So I don't have to accord to the councils when
Speaker 1: they state something about the scriptures the same status of
Speaker 1: divine revelation. I would say, divine revelation is infallible. But
Speaker 1: I don't believe that divine revelation is restricted to written texts.
Speaker 1: And you do. But when when Peter and Paul preach,
Speaker 1: they call it the Word of God, do you believe
Speaker 1: that it's only written or believe that the preaching is.
Speaker 3: Also I believe, Yeah, the apostolic testimony oral written.
Speaker 1: The okay, So is there an oral thing that's passed on.
Speaker 3: No, we're not told that oral tradition would be passed
Speaker 3: on infallibly.
Speaker 1: Now, no, is it whether you think it's infallible or not,
Speaker 1: is that it passed on at all?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, the oral tradition has always passed on.
Speaker 1: Okay, And was what about one of those things being
Speaker 1: the authorship of.
Speaker 2: Matthew Like I said, that's not something I'm.
Speaker 1: Because it refused you, because it refused the point you
Speaker 1: just made?
Speaker 2: What point? And how does it refeet the point?
Speaker 1: It's apostolic tradition that Matthew the disciple wrote the Gospel
Speaker 1: of Matthew. Okay, that refutes the point you just made?
Speaker 2: What and what point? What did I say? That being
Speaker 2: refuted here?
Speaker 1: If you can deny the oral tradition and that we don't,
Speaker 1: we're not bound by that, then I'm not bound by
Speaker 1: the claim of the church that Matthew disciple wrote Matthew's Gospel,
Speaker 1: and I can throw out Matthew on your position that
Speaker 1: all right? That yeah, okay, well there we go. Good job.
Speaker 1: That's where Protestant leads to chopping up the protests and
Speaker 1: leads that's what Luther did. By the way, when Luther and.
Speaker 8: And notice to the confusion as we always see the
Speaker 8: two categories between normative what's binding, and an epistemic category
Speaker 8: of infallibility.
Speaker 2: So uh St Paul says, you're too old. He's speaking
Speaker 2: about normative, right.
Speaker 5: So it's a separate question, and we can answer that
Speaker 5: whether the oral teachings and the written teachings are infallible
Speaker 5: or not. But that's a separate question. Is it binding
Speaker 5: on you? Do you have to hold it? And Saint
Speaker 5: Paul obviously says you do. I had to be bound
Speaker 5: to a line of succession.
Speaker 1: Yes you do. Yeah, Paul just said, And I gave
Speaker 1: you one example of this oral teaching, which was that
Speaker 1: Matthew the Disciple wrote the Gospel of Matthew. And you said, no,
Speaker 1: I don't have to believe that, and fine, throw it out.
Speaker 2: Okay, see you cut me off.
Speaker 1: That's what you said.
Speaker 2: That's not what I said.
Speaker 1: That's what you said. What are you talking about? People
Speaker 1: just heard you say it. Fine, I don't accept that.
Speaker 2: That's not what What did you say? Okay? You said,
Speaker 2: oh so yeah, you know, so you can just.
Speaker 3: Throw out the idea that that Matthew wrote the gospel.
Speaker 3: And I was like, yeah, that's what you just and
Speaker 3: then you cut me off. You're like Lucy, He said, yeah,
Speaker 3: you cut me off, you put words in my mouth.
Speaker 1: No, no, I'm stating that.
Speaker 3: You say, oh, just like Martin Luther cut books out
Speaker 3: of the Bible. Martin Luther actually never took books out.
Speaker 1: Of No, he actually did. He removed the dual can
Speaker 1: no in the German New Testament. He changed words, and
Speaker 1: then when he translated his Bible it does not have
Speaker 1: the duro canon. I've read six of Luther's books.
Speaker 2: And the first edition of Who.
Speaker 1: Cares about his first edition? If the tradition later on
Speaker 1: is that he says, I want to punch Moses' teeth out,
Speaker 1: and I don't care about the law, and he doesn't believe.
Speaker 1: He says that Maccabee's is not scripture because it doesn't
Speaker 1: preach the word of God and includes prayers for the dead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree on what basis that?
Speaker 3: Well, first off, that it doesn't it doesn't align with
Speaker 3: the testimony of scripture.
Speaker 1: Again begging the question, the question is how do you
Speaker 1: know what's in scripture? And you're saying that Matcwbees isn't
Speaker 1: scripture because it doesn't align with scripture.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, scripture isn't one book, So.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's totally totally dishonest. Get out of here with
Speaker 1: that nonsense, Mike, Mike, I'm mute.
Speaker 6: Hey, Jay, what's up, sir? Oh wait, did did Indiana
Speaker 6: get booted?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 6: Man, Okay, Well I was I was just gonna say.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know how you came to, you know,
Speaker 4: get him in his face because he agreed to debate
Speaker 4: with myself being moderated by Jake growth Nak about you know,
Speaker 4: solo Scriptura's hatred of Mary. So I was just gonna,
Speaker 4: you know, warn you about the type of guy that
Speaker 4: he is. And I came in a little late, so
Speaker 4: I guess you guys are having a good discussion and
Speaker 4: that it morphed into something.
Speaker 1: Well we've already gone for an hour, so it's I
Speaker 1: gave him one out, I give another out.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's he's a total dishonest actor.
Speaker 4: If he doesn't have chat, GPT or his notes in
Speaker 4: front of him, he can't talk.
Speaker 6: The dude is a total snake in the grass. But
Speaker 6: you know, kudos to you for.
Speaker 2: Having him on.
Speaker 4: He he literally blocks or you know, runs away from
Speaker 4: any other debate so I'm glad to see that at
Speaker 4: least he spoke to him.
Speaker 1: Well, he also says that I'm not in a position
Speaker 1: to debate, but he's right to debate.
Speaker 6: So no, he's he's in it.
Speaker 9: I don't even understan and how anyone who could hold
Speaker 9: full of scripture can give an interpretation of what he
Speaker 9: believes a passage from a scripture means doesn't make any
Speaker 9: sense to me. But you know, I enjoyed your talk
Speaker 9: with him, as I enjoy pretty much a lot of
Speaker 9: the things that you do.
Speaker 6: So I just wanted to say that, and I wish
Speaker 6: he was on here because I did.
Speaker 4: I did challenge him to a boxing match, and I
Speaker 4: said that if he won, I would leave the Catholic
Speaker 4: Church and go to whatever church he worships at Quip.
Speaker 1: I actually was thinking too, because he initially before he apologized,
Speaker 1: had lied about what I said and then he apologized.
Speaker 1: So I'm not gonna go that route, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to offer a boxing match as well. I'm not kidding.
Speaker 6: No, the dude.
Speaker 4: The dude says that he finally, Oh, I finally you know,
Speaker 4: have a script to debate how to be Christian.
Speaker 6: That's been easily six months in the works.
Speaker 4: I don't I don't know of anybody who needs six
Speaker 4: months to prepare for a simple debate on either a
Speaker 4: space or YouTube. He's full of He's full of bs.
Speaker 4: I mean, he posts pictures of you know, the Virgin
Speaker 4: Mary on the shoe, you know, of people with with
Speaker 4: the title saying, oh, look at this ship that I
Speaker 4: stepped in.
Speaker 6: I just I can't stand him, and I wish he
Speaker 6: would have been here so I can confront him in person.
Speaker 2: Lord of Mercy. I can't imagine on Judgment Day what
Speaker 2: Christ is.
Speaker 5: Going to be, what Christ is actually going to say
Speaker 5: to people who I.
Speaker 2: Mean, if you dissed somebody's mother, that's worse than dissing.
Speaker 2: We'll come on in.
Speaker 5: Anyways, I thought that was a way out here.
Speaker 1: But again, thank you for doing what you do, and well,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I mean, you're welcome to stay and
Speaker 1: we can have a conversation about Rome if you want.
Speaker 4: I I defer to someone better than me.
Speaker 6: Obviously I'm not going to get into that.
Speaker 4: But yeah, but always again, appreciate you and I'll see
Speaker 4: you know, I'll keep listening a stay for only about
Speaker 4: five more minutes.
Speaker 1: Okay, welcome everybody. We had a good conversation there for
Speaker 1: over an hour. If you would like to support the stream,
Speaker 1: you can do so via the superchet function there. Superchets
Speaker 1: are also pinned there. You can do it also natively
Speaker 1: with YouTube. If you would like to call in, you
Speaker 1: can call in through the x space right here. Here
Speaker 1: is the xpace link to call in. And let's do
Speaker 1: a little brief look at this before we go to
Speaker 1: the next person in line. Looks like we got quite
Speaker 1: a few people in line. So this is Lee McDonald's
Speaker 1: book where he lists the canon from various Old and
Speaker 1: New Testament lists from various church fathers. I recommend every
Speaker 1: Protestant who's interested in this question to read Lee McDonald's
Speaker 1: book because it's one of the best, as well as F. F.
Speaker 1: Bruce's book Kennel Scripture that admits, from the evangelical perspective,
Speaker 1: the absolutely indispensable aspect of church tradition in determining not
Speaker 1: just the canon, but the authenticity and authorship of the
Speaker 1: various manuscript copies. This is so key because so many
Speaker 1: Protestants when they hear this argument, they think, oh, you're
Speaker 1: just saying that I need infammable decisions to know what
Speaker 1: the Bible is. No, no, no, it's not just a
Speaker 1: question of normandive authority about a binding canon. It's also
Speaker 1: a question about the authenticity and authorship of disputed texts
Speaker 1: versus pseudopographa and varying lists amongst the church fathers. So
Speaker 1: here we have Leemacdald. This won't take but a second.
Speaker 1: Here we have Lee McDonald listing the Old Testament books
Speaker 1: in the Eastern Church in the fourth and fifth century,
Speaker 1: and you'll notice there is some variation with Athanasius, basically
Speaker 1: including elements of the Duduro canon. And Athanasius says that
Speaker 1: the Dudo canon is for catech humans to read. So
Speaker 1: even if we and we don't have a problem in
Speaker 1: the Ortho our church with the phrase dujuo canon, you say,
Speaker 1: but it's not just a question of the Duro canon,
Speaker 1: as we'll see, it's also a question of the authenticity
Speaker 1: of the Book of Revelation, which Athanasius has a key
Speaker 1: role in determining as canonical by convincing Rome. So the
Speaker 1: East convinces the West of the canonicity of the Catholic
Speaker 1: Epistles and Revelation. According to Lee McDonald, you'll notice that
Speaker 1: Barrick is included in most of these lists. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I think it's Melito's list that James White
Speaker 1: tried to refer to in the trent Horn debate, and
Speaker 1: Sam Schimun pointed out that James White was dishonest and
Speaker 1: wrong about Melito's list. It's also I'm pretty sure it's Malito.
Speaker 1: It's either the Vincentian or Melito's Melito's kN I'm not sure,
Speaker 1: but there's a video that Shimune has on that. By
Speaker 1: the way, Epiphanius, you'll notice that it's pretty much as
Speaker 1: dressed bar as well, you'll notice that Ruth is in
Speaker 1: Judges are sometimes also not included, So for example, some
Speaker 1: of these lists will have Ruth, some of these lists won't,
Speaker 1: so you can see they're quite different in their inclusion
Speaker 1: and exclusion. Now, yes, I admit that these aren't the
Speaker 1: most essential verses you see, but none of that really
Speaker 1: are books. But none of that matters in regard to
Speaker 1: the Protestant idea of the final, completed, fixed Word of
Speaker 1: God as the only soul authority or final authority for
Speaker 1: the church. You see, if we come over here to
Speaker 1: other lists, here we have pseudo crystalstom pseudo Crystalism, including
Speaker 1: syric you have Tobit over here included, and some of
Speaker 1: these are just ancient, varying ancient lists. Okay, we're gonna
Speaker 1: We're gonna do several of these. This is still Old Testament.
Speaker 1: If we come over here to Hillary, this is the
Speaker 1: book of the Old Testament in the Western Church in
Speaker 1: the fourth and fifth century. So Hillary, one of his
Speaker 1: uh textual lists, has also Tobit first and second Asdras
Speaker 1: and the Epistle of Jeremiah. If you come over to Jerome.
Speaker 1: Jerme is the only church father that lists explicitly the
Speaker 1: Protestant canon and then the next list. There's some other
Speaker 1: This is Augustine's list of the Old Testament canon. It
Speaker 1: of course includes the Dual Cannon. And why did Augustine
Speaker 1: have this list, Well, Augustine agreed with Pope Damas's list
Speaker 1: at the Council of Rome. Council of Rome is a
Speaker 1: regional council around mid you know, mid three hundreds, late
Speaker 1: three hundreds, and it's maybe around four hundred. I for
Speaker 1: get the exact day, but it's very similar to kind
Speaker 1: of what you see in the Apostolic Canons, except the
Speaker 1: Apostolic canons also have a differing list, as we'll see
Speaker 1: in a second. Here's Augustine's list, and then next to
Speaker 1: it is the Council of Rome that we're talking about,
Speaker 1: which is very important in the West. There's another Council
Speaker 1: of Hippo that includes the duoconomical books, and then the
Speaker 1: Codex Vouticanus includes the deuconomical texts. Codex Sinidicus has wisdom
Speaker 1: cyric as well. Codex Alexandrinas also includes duoconomical texts. So
Speaker 1: let's look at New Testament books. Eusebius's list. It's unclear
Speaker 1: if the Eusebius included the Book of Revelation, and it
Speaker 1: includes the Diction and the Epistle Barnabas. Clement's list includes
Speaker 1: texts that no one else included as canonical, such as
Speaker 1: Pistol Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, revelation of
Speaker 1: Peter Cyril of Jerusalem, who I mentioned to that guy
Speaker 1: does not include the Book of Revelation. So this is
Speaker 1: this does not afford Protestants any evidence or help. And
Speaker 1: you can see it right there. He has the correct
Speaker 1: New Testament, but he does not include the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 1: We have Athanasius's New Testament canon and it is the
Speaker 1: full accurate New Testament canon that again he helps convince
Speaker 1: Rome to accept. When it comes to the Book of Revelation,
Speaker 1: and I think the Book of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,
Speaker 1: there is the Mumpson list, and it looks.
Speaker 10: Pretty acrobat doesn't have the Book of James Epiphanius. I
Speaker 10: don't know why Epiphanius would include Wisdom of Syric, Wisdom
Speaker 10: and Syric in the New Testament.
Speaker 1: That's pretty odd. But it looks like the Apostolic Canons,
Speaker 1: which is what we're looking at right here. They do
Speaker 1: not have the Book of Hebrews or the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 1: But the Apostolic Canons, which had a wider acceptance, especially
Speaker 1: in the East, did include the Deutero canonical text. And
Speaker 1: that's why it even trump's an individual church father's opinion.
Speaker 1: But it's not even final because we don't include the
Speaker 1: Letters of Clement, and we do not include and it
Speaker 1: does not include the Book of Revelation. So do you
Speaker 1: understand we're walking through the actual historical process of the
Speaker 1: lists and how much variation of differentiation there is. Now,
Speaker 1: there's not a whole lot of differentiation or variation on
Speaker 1: the Gospels. Okay, it's almost always the Catholic epistles, Pauline
Speaker 1: epistles to a degree, And I mean if paul wrote Hebrews,
Speaker 1: I'm saying in the Book of Revelation, and the inclusion
Speaker 1: of books that no one ends up really accepting, like
Speaker 1: clement and so forth. The Apostolic canons include two Clementine
Speaker 1: letters and the Apostolic Constitutions apparently, which is odd. Gregory
Speaker 1: of Nazian Zeus's list does not include Revelation or Hebrews.
Speaker 1: And the African canons include the Acts of the Martyrs,
Speaker 1: which I don't think anybody includes. So then you have
Speaker 1: again Canon eighty five over here. Now, when Trollo meets,
Speaker 1: Trollo says, we affirm the canons of the previous councils,
Speaker 1: and we affirm explicitly the Carthaginian list of the canon.
Speaker 1: The Carthaginian list, going from memory is pretty much the
Speaker 1: Council of Rome lists. So essentially, by the time of
Speaker 1: Trollo and Trollo is affirmed by the seventh Ecumenical Council,
Speaker 1: you have an affirmation of what is pretty much the
Speaker 1: identical canon to the West in terms of the Council
Speaker 1: of Rome and Augusta and Pope Demasis. So there's not
Speaker 1: a whole lot of differentiation. I think some people, even
Speaker 1: John Damascus for example, still includes in his canon list
Speaker 1: Clement the Letters of Clement. So the Orthodox view, because
Speaker 1: we don't believe in soul scriptura, it's not as rigid
Speaker 1: as this Protestant idea of you have to have this
Speaker 1: like completely you know, walled off canon that is not
Speaker 1: in any way sort of flexible. And the Orthodox shirts
Speaker 1: there's more flexibility here because we're not proponents of soul scriptura,
Speaker 1: so we don't believe that all these they're all heretics.
Speaker 1: They didn't get the infallible word.
Speaker 2: Of God right.
Speaker 1: Well, I've noticed Protestants take Revelation twenty two and they say,
Speaker 1: if you take away from the Word of God or
Speaker 1: if you add to it, you're a part of the
Speaker 1: like of fire. So all the church fathers who were
Speaker 1: debating and try to figure out the canon, I guess
Speaker 1: they're all on the lake of fire unless they got
Speaker 1: the canon right. It's just silly and it's totally divorced
Speaker 1: from history. Last thing, I'm saying on this is the
Speaker 1: one of the key things that surprised me. I don't
Speaker 1: remember if it was. I think it was in the FF.
Speaker 1: Bruce book, but I'm going for memory is the admission
Speaker 1: that liturgy played a really important role in the formation
Speaker 1: of the Biblical canon. And a lot of Protestants have
Speaker 1: never heard that. When I was Protestant and debating and
Speaker 1: studying these issues, I'd never heard this that was new
Speaker 1: what liturgy. Yes. In fact, the daily readings or electionaries
Speaker 1: in the ancient sees and churches had a very important
Speaker 1: role in figuring out the tradition of the Church in
Speaker 1: regard to authenticity and authorship of many of these texts.
Speaker 1: For example, if an ancient apostolic see say Rome, say Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: if they had cited a text or had been if
Speaker 1: a text had been read, and it went back as
Speaker 1: far as anyone could remember and as far as other
Speaker 1: church fathers had given witness to say you're an as
Speaker 1: say Clement, say Ignatius, say they cited a text. Those
Speaker 1: were good pieces of evidence that that's probably authentic. But
Speaker 1: it's also the liturgical cycle and the liturgical readings that
Speaker 1: help the church determine from the third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
Speaker 1: seventh centuries, what the normative canon would be. And if
Speaker 1: you understand that, and that's why I brought the mouth,
Speaker 1: the example of that guy and the authorship, it's not
Speaker 1: just epistolic authorship. There's other things that go into it,
Speaker 1: like liturgy that devastates the Protestant solid criture position snack,
Speaker 1: what's up, man,