Speaker 1: Them anymore. Ortho debo five bucks? Can you explain Exodus
thirteen two. Let's take a look. Exodus thirteen. Moses said
to the people, remember this day the Passover, when you
went out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
For by the strength of the hand of the Lord
he brought you to this place. No unleavened, no leaven
bread shall be eaten. So this is obviously God telling
the Israelites to keep the Passover as a remembrance right
feast of booths, of their sojourney in the wilderness and
being brought to the Promised Land. This is a type
of Jesus, as the Book of John says, who is
the ultimate true Passover, our passover that we partake of
in the Divine liturgy. So the change from the bread,
so to speak, is a sign of the New Covenant
being superior to the eating of a animal, a beast.
Now we're actually feeding on the deified flesh of the
God Man, as Saint Cyril says. So that is the significance.
Spiritually speaking, we've been brought out of the Egypt of
sin and into the promised Land of the Church. According
to Romans for the Church, is the true Israel, the
true Promised Land. It is not a patch of land
in the Middle East that all of this is about.
That was a type of the church. Nathan Nathan.
Speaker 2: Hey j hey hey. I had a couple questions, if
that's all right?
Speaker 3: Huh?
Speaker 4: So I read The Depification of Man by Georgios, and
in his book he says that for Palamas, the communion
of sacraments signifies union with the human.
Speaker 2: Nature of the logos of God.
Speaker 4: So I wonder if you could clarify this, because I
thought that, for at least almost theology, that the Eucharus
was the energy and not the nature. But I'm not
sure if I'm just being stupid and not understanding it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The deified flesh, as Saint Cyril says, is deified by
the uncreated energy. Cyril says that the uncreated life, light,
and immortality. John Damascus says, the same thing has been
communicated to the flesh. And so if you read the
two letters to six Census, what you are partaking of
is the deified flesh of the God Man. How is
the flesh of Christ deified? It's not by the divine essence,
and it's not by a created grace. It can only
be the grace of immortality, as Cyril says, that is
communicated to the flesh. So Cyril says in the Two
Letters Tosic Census, it is the deified flesh. It is both,
so you're partaking of the energized flesh of the God Man.
Speaker 4: Okay, And just to clarify, then, so obviously Christ being
two natures having also two energies, would it be then
to say that since it's in you're participating in the
energies of God, that it would also be the deified
energy because of the theology of defication, that we become
one with God.
Speaker 3: And his energy.
Speaker 1: Well, the only energies that God has are dea form.
God has no created energies. But you may be referring
to Christ's created human energy in his human nature, right,
So there's an interpenetration of the natures and of the energies.
The divine energies interpenetrate and suffuse the created human energies
in the incarnation. And likewise, the six Ecumenical Council says
that the God Man deified the flesh that he assumed
from the moment of his incarnation. That flesh was deified.
Cyril says that it was quote fully deified after the
resurrection to become the deified flesh of the god Man.
So what we are partaking of, Cyril says, is the
flesh of the resurrected god Man. But that's only possible
because the uncreated energies have communicated that deification power to
the human nature.
Speaker 4: Okay, and so then that would just explain why then
Georgios in his book refers to union with the human
nature rather than the energies.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also a union with the uncreated energies. It's
a both and and I mean, Saint Gregory Palomas says
many times that the Eucharus is another example of the
uncreated energies. So the fact that he says we're being
united to the human nature does not mean that we're
therefore not being united to his uncreated energies.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you, that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I'm not faulting you are criticizing you. I mean,
it's just it's not even really a controversial thing. If
you've read Cyril, and if you've read Palomas at length
valuable beings when Roman Catholics used that, go ahead, Oh sorry,
were you speaking about go ahead? Fine?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, freak.
Speaker 5: I just had a brain fart. The first question I
wanted to the first thing I wanted to.
Speaker 2: Say before I get to like, yeah, the.
Speaker 3: Question is hold on?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the you there?
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 2: Wait you can hear me?
Speaker 3: Fine?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: What is it?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have a question about Exodius twenty one versus
five Exodias.
Speaker 2: I mean Exodus Exodus.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, I suck.
Speaker 1: Hold on, that's fine, Exodus what Exodus.
Speaker 5: Twenty one five to seven? I'm like happing like a
weird Sam Sam Schremon was like talking about how that
it was in the context that they was talking about
that that women need to be with a man when
they would.
Speaker 2: Go out, not that it was.
Speaker 5: Not like, you know how like athies start with their
stupidity or whatever talking about with morality. But I'm like
having trouble with like how to answer this to like
a Christian, like somebody.
Speaker 2: Who actually cares. And I don't understand this.
Speaker 5: I I was wondering if he can help me understand it.
Speaker 1: If the servant plainly says, I love my Lord, my
wife and my children, I will not go out to
be free then his lord shall bring into the judgment
seat of God, and also to the door or the
door post, and they shall pierce his ear with an
ear ring, and he shall serve forever. So basically this
is saying that if a man shall sell his daughter
to be a domestic so this was basically indentured servanthood,
you could selp your daughter to be a slave or
your son. And so these are the laws about slaves,
and this is introducing certain principles of humanity that you
have to be treat your slaves in a humane way.
So the first one was that if his time of
indentured servantood is up and he wants to stay with
his master, he can do that if they judge that
it's fitting. That's Versus five and six. Seven. If a
man sells his daughter to be a domestic servant, she
shall not go out to be the maids. She shall
not go out as the maid servants do, meaning that
she has to respect that position that she's in and
she can't be like probably Sam's correct, they're going out
without oversight. You know, that could be dangerous or it
means that she's at a different social strata than other
maid servants. So she has limited privileges that others have.
But what would that have to I don't I'm not
faulting you, but like, so is there does somebody have
an objection to this?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: Because it's not being sold into like sex slavery, it's
talking about indentured servanthood.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, I already know. Like you and Sam Simnority
taught me like, if I'm ever debating some woke atheists
or a hardcore Pusslim, I would never like answer them
in like a way I would a Christian. I would
just beat them with the with their own beliefs pretty much.
Speaker 2: But that's funny anyways.
Speaker 5: The I just had like trouble understanding the verse.
Speaker 4: I just I was like wondering if I was messing up.
Speaker 5: Also, I had another question about the or not a
question about I had to look at statement. How do
you like like feet about the situation where David would
basically got sit up by Connor basically for like, I
have no idea why, Oh.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what happened. You're saying that David
uh uh cosmic skeptic didn't show up.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he didn't show up, like he said. Oh, I'm
afraid the Muslims are gonna attack me him, So you're
going to drop the whole debate even though you can
do it online.
Speaker 1: Oh I don't even know he did that. Why would
it so? If it's a Christian versus an atheist, what
do I have to do with Muslims?
Speaker 3: Wait?
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, Maam is Ford.
Speaker 1: If the debate was atheist versus Christian, what does that
have to do with Alex O'Connor being worried about Muslims?
Is that what you're saying? His excuse was, Oh yeah.
Speaker 5: His excuse is that he was afraid he's going to
be attacked. I think it was like a real life
like debate, not like a winning computer.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I mean attacked by who? Muslims?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Muslims.
Speaker 1: Why would they attack him if he's debating a Christian?
Speaker 3: Yeah again I think I mean.
Speaker 1: So it's a dumb excuse basically.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, I'm.
Speaker 5: Like, what do you This doesn't make sense? Like, I mean,
David wol like the only one who should really be
out of here, friend, he's still going to do.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, yeah, David would would be more
likely to be attacked by Muslim, then Alex O'Connor. But
now I didn't even know that that happened. But that's interesting.
Thanks thanks for telling me that that's crazy. Quiet, what's up? Quiet?
Speaker 7: Hear me?
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, no worries.
Speaker 3: I called him a few times.
Speaker 8: I was just wondering if I could speak about that
endingsured servitude comment.
Speaker 9: From the previous Sure, I'm not sure if you've read,
but obviously Paul Copen wrote, you know, the book He's
got Tomorrow Monster.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to emphasize for that blow that there's
no comparison between uh, you know, the chattel slavery of
more modern times and indentured servitude of the past. And
then if he does go into the Old Testament, peple
see that there was a number of protection that were
actually put in place for indentured servants.
Speaker 10: Absolutely the fact well, given the fact that they existed
for the purpose of paying off mostly debts between different families,
and if they were incapable of participating.
Speaker 8: In normal society like anyone else would who can make living,
then that's the type of work they would engage in.
Speaker 2: But if you don't mind, I'll just quote a few.
Speaker 8: So you've got Exodus twenty one point two, they sold
themselves in de servative for work for a maximum six years.
You've got the rest on the Sabbath obviously, Exodus twenty ten.
And you've got humane treatment Exodus twenty one to twenty
twenty one. And then the presy provision of resources and
that's Studonomy fifteen twelve to fifteen, even through things like
the protection against abuse and that's Sodas twenty one, twenty
six to twenty seven.
Speaker 9: I got this all written down because years ago I
used to debate with Muslims and they.
Speaker 8: Used to speak about things like slabor in the Old Testament,
even atheists as well. So just happens to have stuck
with me in my notes.
Speaker 1: But yeah, one of them, Quin, Yeah, thank you so much.
Quite those are really helpful elucidations there from those passages
in Exodus. Appreciate that. Yeah, you know. One reason also
that I also, oh, I got some of the moment
I hear. One reason I know a little bit about
this is that when I was a Calvinist, I was
in the reconstructionist camp, and reconstructionists are very pro Old Testament,
so they think there's a lot of value in the
you know, penal sanctions of the Old Testament, the Mosaic
penal code, et cetera. And so the case laws of
Exodus are typically used as examples of measured judgment in
terms of difficult you know, scenarios, or they're laying down
principles that you would apply across similar cases. And so
when people say, how come there's those weird laws, well,
some of those weird laws are case laws, meaning that
they're an example where the principle that underlies example is
to be applied in other cases, hence case laws. So
the spirit of law is the point there, right, and
not you know, kind of wild thing about For example,
I think there's a passage in Deuteronomy that talks about
putting a railing on your roof. It's like, oh, God
cares about railings on the roof. Well, the point is
that if you love your neighbor, you're gonna want a
railing up on a second floor roof so that he
doesn't fall off if there's a party up there. So
the railing is a principle of love. And that's just
one example, right, It's not that God is just obsessed
with you, you know, putting up fences and railings. But actually, ironically,
when you look at rabbinical literature, like they actually do
miss the spirit of the law in many cases, like
when they put up like they have this idea about
like certain things you can and can't do on the Sabbath,
and they go sort of insane with it to the
point where they will create light switches that don't actually
switch the light off, but like they open a way
for the current to stop, so you're not actually turning
off the light, you're moving a switch and you're letting
the light turn itself off. And there's similar rabbinic silly
things with toilets where you don't yourself flush the toilet,
but you allow the toilet to flush itself. It's just
so stupid, right, It's like literally, as the joke goes,
they're all tricking God, right, They're like, well, I'm not
doing the work because I'm tricking God, because it's this
machine or this contraption is doing the work that's missing
the spirit of the law. For the letter of the law,
the very thing that Jesus for beeksy pharisees for. And
there's actually quite a few humorous clips that are all
over Twitter illustrating these ridiculous rabbinic products. I'm getting kind
of tired. I know some of you guys are like,
really eager, but I might have to go ahead and
call it a night. Mister kool aid, what's up? I
didn't really realize Jimba was debating tonight, So I hope
he doesn't get annoyed that I'm streaming after he's after
his debate he's talking about I didn't even know that
was happening. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man, appreciate it.
Speaker 7: So my question is on the pre existence of souls,
how do you feel about that?
Speaker 1: Well, the one so called pseudo Christian theologian who proposed
that origin was condemned many times over, and the six
Ecumenical Council explicitly condemns his entire system, including the pre
existence of soul doctrin.
Speaker 2: So this leads me to my second question.
Speaker 7: Do you see Wisdom of Solomon as like the same
level of the rest of the scripture?
Speaker 1: Do you hold that's a different Yeah, we do believe
that it is canonical.
Speaker 7: Can you look at Chapter eight, versues.
Speaker 4: Nineteen and twenty.
Speaker 7: I feel like that kind of talks about pre existence.
Speaker 1: Of a soul, all right, as a child, I was
good by nature and received a good soul, and much more,
since I was good, I entered into an undefiled body.
Speaker 7: So I was not talking about the pre existence of
the soul. Or is that more along the lines of
Jeremiah one where it's like God's outside of time.
Speaker 1: Well, this might be a prediction a messianic but a
lot of the wisdom of Solomon is a prediction of Christ.
And Christ did pre exist and actually created his human
body and human soul. So this might be a prediction
of Christ because it's it's parallel with the passage and
wisdom or excuse me, and Proverbs talking about wisdom having
a house, which is both the Church and the human
flesh body that Christ created. So I would say, first
and foremost, this is Christ talking about entering into the
nature that he created when he became incarnate through Mary.
And I would say that the passage in Jeremiah that
you're talking about is God knows, but that doesn't mean
they pre exist.
Speaker 7: Okay, thank you, I appreciate it. And a quick thing
on all the like old earth people a good thing
for a few. What everybody thinks is like carbon dating,
that's like so official, just look up the stonders of Yorkshire.
The dripping well fossilizes teddy bears and like.
Speaker 2: Three five months.
Speaker 1: What is it? The dripping wet are you there, dripping
well of Yorkshire?
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, because it fossilizes bears from like three to
five months.
Speaker 1: Ah, the petrifying well.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah.
Speaker 7: So that kind of just like throws everybody for a
fucking move.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know what else does too? The fly geyser.
Have you heard of that?
Speaker 2: No? I haven't once that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look up the fly guy. It's over. It's actually close,
I think, to where Burning Man happens. And it's very
similar to what you're talking about, where you have this
calcite formation that's only like forty or sixty years old,
and according to all the Old Earth proponents, this should
take like a zillion years eleven million years to form,
and it's like literally everybody knows it's like fifty or
sixty years old. It's called the fly geyser g E
Y s E r f l Y and it's out
by where Burning Man is.
Speaker 7: All right, thank you, I appreciate it. Can I ask
one more question? It's just like a book recommendation for
like church history.
Speaker 1: Sure I would start with something like the Orthodox Church
by John Meyendorf. That would be a decent intro to that.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, as you see on the screen here, this
is the fly guys, and this Calcite formation, according to
old Enormy Scientism black science, man people, is supposed to
take eleven million years or something, and this one is
literally like a few decades old. The first there's several
of these. There's another one I think in nineteen sixty four.
I think the big one is the one from the sixties.
So there's actually multiple ones at this site. There's one
that is from nineteen sixteen, and then there's the famous
one here. Maybe that's the big one, I don't know,
But there's another one from the nineteen sixties that formed two.
So there's different ones that you can check out. Maybe
these actually look like two different ones. So but I
think the colorful one is the more recent one. But
whether it's nineteen, whether it's sixty or one hundred years old,
it's like it's still not eleven million years old. Okay.
And so he had a great point here. I didn't
even know about this. The petrifying. Well, ah would fool
carbon dating measurements. That's a good one. By the way,
does everybody remember the mini I'm going blank. My mind's
really tired. I'm going blank. What's the big what's the
big monument? The big damn open space? When you're driving
to California and you're you, you go past the Grand Canyon,
Mini Grand Canyon, I think it's in Montana. So there
was one that opened up overnight, zim. I remember that.
I've got it saved on my let me pull it
up over here on my pocket. I've got it saved.
I cannot think of the name of the It's like
a mini Grand Canyon that opened within like a couple
of days. I know somebody in the chow will remember
what what is it? Anyway, The reason this one is
relevant is that it shows that because they say, oh,
the Grand Canyon took exactly like twenty three point four
is ellion years before. It's like, no, how did this canyon?
That's like a mini Grand Canyon. It's like overnight. I've
got it saved, and I've I've brought this up many times.
I just haven't thought about in several several years. Many
it was in the local news story. When this open up,
it's not a sinkhole. It literally looks like a small
grand canyon. And I just cannot find it because I've
got I've got it saved. Let me try my bookmarks.
Let's try it over here. Oh, I found it here.
It does it is actually my what the hell? It
is literally my fourth bookmark saved. Here we go, ok
ron Minie Canyon opens up in Wyoming, not Montana, Wyoming
swallows up part of the Big Horn Mountains. This is
back in twenty fifteen, and this mini grand canyon just
literally just opened up overnight. So if a mini grand
canyon opens up overnight, it does not necessarily take a
zillion years for a grand canyon to form. And I'll
give you the article here and you can get the pictures. Guys,
don't remind you to head over to chalk dot com
the best in supplementation. Use the promo code.
Speaker 11: Jay for for Life J forty four life to get
forty four percent off all those excellent products over at
show sponsor chalk dot Com, the best in supplementation.
Speaker 1: To keep you full of your toxic masculinity, Juice your
toxic masculinity power your testosterone. That's the real source of
your manpower. And there's a male vitality stack here. The
normal stack is actually discounted. It's another twenty dollars off.
And so if you use a promo code J forty
you get forty percent off jy four zero. But you
can also get forty four percent off with JAY four
four la fe. Just use that promo code. It is
a recurring subscription model, so you can counsel any time
if you need to. But I think you're gonna want
chalk coming on the regular Ortho debo two dollars. Not
to be a dork, I asked about Exodus verse two,
not three. Okay, thank you. Let's go back over here
to Exodus thirteen. Consecrate to me all the firstborn whatever
opens the womb amongst the children of Israel, both the
man and beasts, it is mine. So they were dedicated
to the Lord Animal wise two and the firstborn right.
This is contrasted to the firstborn of Egypt, who are
presumably dedicated to the Egyptian gods, the pagan gods. God
is saying Israel's firstborn are mine, and you consecrate them
to me. You don't consecrate them to a pagan da
and you don't, like other cultures sacrifice your firstborn, which
many pagan cultures did. So God is saying that the
firstborn are special and there is a messianic prophecy because
Christ is the ultimate firstborn, the first fruits of the
new creation, as Colossian says. So this is a reference
to Christ ultimately, and that's the significance of this passage,
Jesus being the firstborn, the first fruits of the new humanity.
D saw, I can't even read that, dude, aka Trent.
I appreciate all that you do. Thank you for helping
me look back at Christianity. I went to a Lutheran
school and they never had any questions. They never never
had any answers for my questions. Well, thanks man, I
appreciate that. And thank you to the new members. We've
got a couple new members here. Joey gk One Saar,
I have no idea what currency that is. Do you
have anything to say about l and the claims that
the Hebrew God and thus Christianity takes from the pagan pantheon. Well,
I mean this is kind of I'm not trying to
be rude to you. What I know and I've argue
is that l is just the Hebrew word for d correct.
It's just like the word divine. Right. So if I
say Jesus is divine and somebody says, uh, you know,
Beyonce she divine, it's like, okay, does that mean that
Jesus and Beyonce are divine in the same sense?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Or if somebody says that, you know, the gods and
the Bible uses the term gods, it's not. It's a
generic term. They can refer to different different things. So
you're absolutely right. The screen pros up. Hold on a second,
I got to close some of these windows because the
computer is slowing down. Louis Trejo five dollars. I have
a lot of Spanish only speaking family members, like I
can't find an Orthodox Bible. Do you know of any
I don't know of an Orthodox Bible translated to Spanish. Sorry,
Quentin Dalton evening, Jam, I'm looking at Orthodox churches. Do
you have any tips from your journey from Protestantism to
help you choose? I would just look at I would
visit all the Canonic Orthodox churches around you, and then
choose on the basis of the priests. That's good because
any of the jurisdiction is gonna have problems. Luca Belvizo,
five Canadian How do I answer a traditional Catholic who
tells me that he doesn't have to adhere to Vatican
two because it is a pastoral council and it is
not dogma. I actually have addressed this in a video
that covers the topic, and in the notes to the
video includes multiple sources to prove that Roman Catholics do
have to hold to Vatican two. And so this is
actually a trad myth. The fact that it's called a
pastoral council has absolutely nothing to do with whether it
is infallible and binding, and there are multiple Vatican statements
to that effect. So this is the video right here,
was Vatican two infallible and are Catholics imploding? This is
from five years ago. And you'll notice here in the
description I have five documents listed, all of which prove
and show five times over that you do have to
believe in the dogmatic status of Vatican two if you're
Roman Catholic, and the fact that it's called pastoral has
absolutely nothing to do with its So this is a
trad cat myth that they vehemently adhere to many of them,
not all of them. And then the ones that figure
out this point becomes out of a contest, because right, well,
if you have to adhere to it, then I guess
it's a false council. So here is the video, and
underneath that video, Luca Brassei, Luca Belbizo are the five
examples here from Vatican documents proving that you have to
adhere to it. Let me check over here to make
sure I got the super chats. Let your rhythm twenty
dollars If pearls before swine applies to evangelicals that pride
parades with megaphones, knowing that the people don't know anything
about Christian theology. Basic it's not a good idea to
proselytize that way. Well, I mean, first of all, you
don't go out preaching without a mandate or a commissioning
to do so. Paul says, for example in Hebrew is
that no one becomes a teacher. No one just takes
the office or priesthood upon himself, but rather they are
called to it. This is why an Orthodox church are
not just a pastor, because you choose to be, so
you have to be ordained, and you have to go
to seminary and so forth. You say, so the evangelical
with a megaphone is probably doing more harm than good.
Proto Baldy one dollar, I've heard you mentioned a couple
of times things can be subordinate in different ways in
regard to the father and the son. Can you clarify
for this for me? I'm an Orthodox catechuman, Right, so
I mean a father and a son. Right, A son
is subject to a father in terms of authority and role,
But that doesn't mean that the father has more of
a human nature than the son has. Both the father
and the son have and share the exact same nature
without any degrees. Right, the father is not more human
than a son because he's a father. But the father
has a role that the son does not have. So
you can be equal in nature but not equal in role,
and that's monarchical trinitarianism. So hopefully that's helpful anyway, head
on over to chock get those products. You're gonna head
on over to the Jason Elysis. Uh So, here's somebody says,
tony yo one one six five dollars, there is actually
a good resource for Orthodoxy in Spanish is called orto
duso net. Is that a website or is that somebody's handle?
Speaker 12: Let's see.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this looks like a Orthodox site for Spanish
speaking people. So orthodoxa dot net hebro is like the
ortodoxa whatever I mean? Bro, they barely got it over here. Bro,
you better hurry because they barely got the Orthodoxy. Bro,
I'm just kidding. Ankza ten dollars. Here we go. I'm
trying to quit the stream, and here we go. Back
to the Islamic stuff. Isn't uh Quran five forty seven
saying judge by while Allah has revealed in the Gospel
meaning to adjudicate based on the Gospel for the people
at that time, not having to do with using the
Gospel to judge the Quran. Well, I mean you just
answered the question yourself by saying, adjudicate based on the
Gospel for the people at that time. Bro, what gospel
do you think the people of that time had? And
I'm not sure to be mean to you Muslims, do
you not know that we have the same Bible as
the Christians of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century had.
So your very answer in that statement, meaning to adjudicate
based on the Gospel that would be the one that
they have, which is what we have. So then you say,
thus not having to do with using the Gospel to
judge the Kuran. So, unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, you
contradicted yourself. Because what Allah revealed in the Gospel the
Engael is what they had with them. The other Quran
text says what they have with them to judge the
New Revelation. To see that consistent, I mean, the passage
is abundantly clear telling you that you're judging that the
New Revelation is a confirmation of what came before. I
mean the passages are not that mysterious in this case
as to what it's about. There are many passages that
are unclear. In the footsteps of the prophets. We sent Jesus,
son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. So
you see the pattern hearent. Jesus confirms what came before.
We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, confirming
what was revealed in Torah. So Jesus's Gospel confirms the
prior revelation of the Torah. So at this point the
Koran was correct and understanding Christian theology. Right, Christians believe
the Gospel confirms and it's consistent with the Torah because
we believe that Jesus gave the Torah to Moses. So
let the people of the Gospel judge. How could we
judge by what Allah has revealed in it? Meaning obviously
it's saying the Gospel. The passage before is telling you
that it's talking about the Gospel. It's not going to
be talking about the Koran. Let the Christians judge the
Gospel by the Quran. That makes no sense given the
previous passage. And also the appeal wouldn't work because the
whole issue here in this passage is will the Christians
or the Jews believe this message of Muhammad? And so
the appeal is the passage is saying, take your own
books and you will see this new revelation of Muhammad
is consistent with your passages. That's the whole point because
just as Jesus was consistent, Mohammad is consistent with Jesus.
That's the argument here. He's not, but that's the argument
of this passage. So it's saying Christians, just like Jesus
confirmed the Torah, Mohammad is confirming Jesus and Torah. Look
for yourselves and you will see it as confirmed. It's
consistent with your passages. We have revealed to you, Oh Mohammed,
this book with the truth as a confirmation of the
previous scriptures. And it's not just these passages. By the way,
in this video I made here, and I think I
actually missed a couple, here's one video where I go
through most of the passages in the Quran that say
this same point. So it's not just five forty six,
forty seven, forty eight, forty nine. There's like, I don't know,
twenty or thirty passages in the Quran to talk about
the validity, the veracity, the truthfulness of the Torah and
the Christian teaching. That's the point. JB. Peltia five dollars.
What would you say to a Protestant using one Peter
two is a proof against the role of Orthodox priest Well.
Paul's Epistle to Hebrews talks about a ministerial priesthood the
Order of Malchisa dek Paul ordains Timothy to be a bishop,
so not everybody in the church is ordained as a bishop.
The way Paul ordains and lays his hands on Timothy
and then tells Timothy to lay hands on men after him.
So Two Letters to Timothy refute the idea that because
we are all priests, and that's true, we are a
priesthood of believers, it doesn't follow from that that there
is no hierarchical, ministerial, episcopate priesthood. So Protestants are just
picking and choosing the passages that says that we're all
priests and neglecting the passages that Paul talks about apostolic
succession in the Two Letters to Timothy, Nick ten dollars
cosmic skeptic backed out of the Wood debate because Muslims
are supposedly, supposedly making threats to doing something at Rid
Vaughan at his next event. Alex has a history of
not debating Muslims because of safety concerns. Okay, but so
because Muslims might attack David Wood, Alex O'Connor won't debate
David Wood. I mean, can he not do the debate remotely?
Was it an in person debate? I don't understand why
was this in person or over the internet? Because it's
like Muslims already know you're an atheist, and so they're
going to come after you. What does it matter whether
if you I mean if you, if you can do
the debate over the internet. How does how does this
problem even apply? That's what I understand? All right? Well,
thank you guys. A lot of fun tonight. We hit
on most of the kind of Islamic topics. I guess
I wanted to get to tonight. Let me see, there's
anybody else in here? Do we have any Muslims in
the chat? Or who are? If you disagree, I'll bring
you on. Let's see. I see eight people here? Oh Metron,
I'm mute, Hey Jake, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Hey? Anybody? Well, first time, long time? Love your work?
Try to refer people whenever I can.
Speaker 9: Just a couple of things that I won't. I won't
keep you too long. You want to get out of here,
but you know.
Speaker 2: I'll love your work on MK Ultron, can.
Speaker 13: You hear me?
Speaker 2: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 9: And you know modern conspiracies and oh god, I can't
think right off the top of.
Speaker 1: My So is this related to the topics listed?
Speaker 2: Catholic?
Speaker 9: Well, yes, I am getting to that. It's I'm an atheist.
Or really agnostic. But I don't mind the atheist moniker
or whatever. You know what I mean, I'm honest enough
to say that I you know, I don't know at
the end of the day. You know, I studied these
topics too. I got a graduate degree in history whatever.
Was a Southern Baptist for many years, and you know,
I dropped.
Speaker 4: Out of that.
Speaker 9: But and how didn't know You've been through every religion
that there is. I didn't know you were a Calvinist too, Jesus.
Speaker 1: You really I've made about three big changes. I wouldn't
say that's every religion.
Speaker 9: So you were just Protestant first, right, then what Catholic?
And then to Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I had a period in there of kind of doubting.
I wouldn't say I was atheist, but I had like
a may be a neoplatonic period.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's what's And that's another thing I love about
you too. You get into the philosophy like like no
one else, and your your film, book reviews, all those
things are fantastic.
Speaker 2: What I don't get though, is you know all these things.
Speaker 9: About you know, MK ultra and all these modern manipulations,
but you can't see that Christianity and some of these
religions they're using the same tactics and the same things
were going on back in those days. Also, you know
the political propaganda that you know, the mind games, the
psy wars and all these types of things. Do you
not think that that's a valid explanation for you know,
the creation of some of those things. I'm kind of
a Roman Provenance guy, I know, not in the Joseph
Atwill vein, but more just taking it it was a
serious political move by maybe some Romanized Jews to kind.
Speaker 2: Of quill the civil war that was going.
Speaker 9: On at the time, and to kind of use Jesus
almost like ventriloquis dummy to you hemerize a kind of
perfect you know, stoical type, philosophic, neoplatonic type, you know,
hero figure to maybe unify the you know what was
going to be, you.
Speaker 2: Know, the Roman Empire or whatever.
Speaker 9: I don't know, I just see it more in those
terms than in religious.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not I'm not trying to be dismissive,
but I don't understand how as a historian anybody would
take this sort of Joe Atwill type thesis seriously. It's
just preposterous.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I'm not saying that I agree with all
of this stuff too.
Speaker 9: I think a lot of the things that he writes
Mooder stretches. I just think that there's something to that.
And I mean, for forgive my impact.
Speaker 1: Can you be specific and give an example of which, like, like,
when did this happen? Under who?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean just using some of the sources that
you have at the time.
Speaker 2: You know, Filo of Alexandria.
Speaker 9: You know, all these things, in my eyes were they
were evolving in the Greco Roman world.
Speaker 1: But Pilo is prior to Christ and he was you know, heavily.
When it's by Plato. What would that have to do
with the New Testament and the Well, what I'm asking
is what Roman emperor and family are we talking about?
Where Christianity was co opted to be this thing? When?
When is this?
Speaker 2: Well? And see that's the mystery.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I was out a mystery when I
can read the Church Fathers for the first three centuries,
We've had thousands of pages. You see these behind me,
there's thirty eight volumes here of the first five six
centuries of Christianity.
Speaker 9: Well, certain, and I think that there was a pre
existent kind of Christology that was going around, and there was,
you know, a pre existent church structure.
Speaker 2: Obviously, Like what what are you referring to?
Speaker 9: Well, like the you know, Church Antioch and things like that.
I think there was a pre.
Speaker 1: Exist, pre existing What how could the Church of Antioch
pre exist Christ? If Christ set up the church?
Speaker 9: No, I'm talking about and I'm kind of borrowing from
carry Or here saying that through the Greco Roman world
that these things were evolving naturally, the church structure, I
think Christ was the thing that's kind of consolidated all
these things.
Speaker 1: And so again you're missing my point. So I'm not
trying to be rude, but you seem to be completely
ignorant of the fact that we have voluminous writings from
the first, second to third century and we can are
you going to interrupt me or let me finish that,
we can go and actually read about, for example, the
episcopal structure of the church existing in the first, second,
and third century. So are you saying that the episcopate
evolved and what's the evidence for that?
Speaker 9: Well, look, I'm not going to get into the manutia
of all these.
Speaker 1: Things, because the minutia would actually disprove these generic theories
that you're asserting.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's the opposite.
Speaker 1: Actually, Okay, So have you read Eronas. Does Ieronaus talk
about the episcopacy.
Speaker 9: No, I don't think so from what I haven't read
these sources in years and years, So I'm not.
Speaker 1: Arnas talks about the episcopusy because it was a bishop.
He's the Bishop of Leone, and he wrote a giant
book called Against Here season one eighty and he talks
about apostol succession. So episode succession from a bishop an
episcopate in one eighty by one of the most famous
Christians of the second century. Right away, this proves the
idea that this quote evolved. But I can give you
many many more. Do you understand that there's countless bishops
and martyrs that we can look to from this from
this time period?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 9: And I mean I'm not saying, you know, you have
to take it into the context too. I think that
they all believe what they were saying.
Speaker 1: Well, you just said that it's something evolved, and I
gave you an explicit example from Aeronais from one eighty
of the episcopacy. So how does this not refute your
original assertion.
Speaker 2: What that it evolved? That would be supporting it.
Speaker 9: I think there was obviously a structure there that was evolving.
You're saying there was already bishops, there was you know,
these things were.
Speaker 1: How was it evolving if I'm giving you the early
extent evidence that it didn't evolve.
Speaker 2: That it didn't evolve.
Speaker 1: My gosh, I'm not sure to be mean man, but
do you.
Speaker 2: Like like talky?
Speaker 1: Are you a bloomer like I don't like? This is
like the typical kind of hard head Old Earth creation?
Are you changing the subject because you just got refuted
on something very basic and now you want to change
the subject.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I know what you do.
Speaker 1: And here now it's ad hominem. So I just refuted
you because you didn't know what Aaron A said and
Aaron as refuge to you that it evolved, and now
you want to go off into Now I'm a bad person.
So this is your weakness. You failed here, not me.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, you like a woman.
Speaker 1: I'm like a woman. You're going to personal stuff. You're
the woman here?
Speaker 2: Right? Okay, whatever, Jake, I'll see you later, but I.
Speaker 1: Okay, whatever. Steal lanor i'll see yeah, said, I'm an athey,
I'll see lanor I'm a classicist, even though I don't
know the basics. I'm a classicist.
Speaker 9: Well, well, I haven't had time to sit on my
ass and not have any kides.
Speaker 1: Oh so here we go. So so now it's all.
So you went to add hominem like a woman, did
you not.
Speaker 2: I just think it's funny. I like seeing a squirm.
Speaker 1: I'm squirming when you got refuted the whole laughing at you,
right right, right right. You're so Christian. Look at that
massive fail. Every time we get these goobers like this
that think that there's some sort of like Joe Atwill
genius when you actually go into the specifics, which he
called the minutia. You mean, the specifics that review you.
You're a woman, you probably believe in the young Earth.
So he goes off into all this other stuff to
deflect away from the fact that the Episcopae is clear
in the first, second, and third century. And I can
give you many more. We can go to Cyprian, we
can go to Tertullian, we can go to all these
other passages that would easily prove his random assertion that
the church structure evolved. You're a woman. What's up?
Speaker 3: We'll talk.
Speaker 13: I had a question, but can you can you please
like guarantee that you won't run away from scripture?
Speaker 1: Uh? What's going to bring it up?
Speaker 3: Testament?
Speaker 1: I'm not going to play these games where you do
this thing as a Muslim, where you try to get
me to guarantee to something that you can clip it
and put it on your lane chain.
Speaker 3: No, no, I don't care about clipping. I don't care
about none of that.
Speaker 1: Ship sure, but.
Speaker 13: When I bring when I bring up versus, just please
don't run away from it.
Speaker 3: That's my point.
Speaker 1: So can we go to the Quran?
Speaker 3: We'll see again.
Speaker 2: You're no, I'm.
Speaker 1: Running away from it. You look at me. I'm not
your brother. What what? What's the passage? I want to
know though, that when we go to my passage, we
can also go to the Kuran.
Speaker 13: Listen, absolutely, but don't run away. I know you're the hope,
so you can remove anyone at any time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm terrified I have to run.
Speaker 3: I think you can ask me anything about the wood
on whenever you want.
Speaker 1: What passage?
Speaker 13: All right, So just to just to clarify your position here,
you believe. Do you follow the Old Testament? Do you
take it as the words of God?
Speaker 2: Or no?
Speaker 3: As I run into Christians that don't that say they
don't take.
Speaker 1: Yes, Orthodox Christianity believes in the Old Testament.
Speaker 13: Exactly right, Okay, So in the Old Testament, do you
do you dismiss the idea that contradictions exist in the
Old Testament, whether they are numerical contradictions.
Speaker 1: There are copies.
Speaker 13: Aside from like copy of stairs, something that not the
same word, or.
Speaker 3: A number that has a different number, or two missing
or something like that.
Speaker 13: But rather if you look at I'll give you an
example here if you can read, do you have it
in front of you? Can you go to Second Samuel
twenty four to one.
Speaker 1: Is this about Samuel or the census? Yes? Yeah, you know,
the same thing happens in Exodus where it says that
Pharah hardness heart and God hardened Pharaoh's heart. So the
way that God tested David was by allow allowing Satan
to move him to do a census.
Speaker 3: It doesn't change the point.
Speaker 1: That it does change the point, and it shows that
that's no, it doesn't change the point. That's how we
always execute it. So thank you. For wasting her one's time.
Suicide girl, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 6: I just had a personal question about your academic history
and what you majored in.
Speaker 1: Why do you need to know that?
Speaker 6: Because I'm currently a college student and I'm a communication student,
and I kind of like admire your.
Speaker 2: Ability to refute and your knowledge.
Speaker 1: Essentially, Well, it has nothing to do with my university background.
But I don't answer personal questions like that. You don't
need to know my background. Nate, what's up? Nate? I'm
you mister Smirk's five dollars. I'm getting my CDL. I
want to acquire one BTC before skyrockets. Is this feasible
or am I cooked? I think we're all forced, if
we are wise, to convert all of our Fiat into bitcoin.
But I can't tell you what to do because I'm
not a registered financial advisor. But what I believe in
is converting all Fiat to bitcoin. Otherwise it's not just
worth Is it just not worth it to be slightly
richer but not f you rich?
Speaker 12: I don't.
Speaker 1: I think I think you're missing the point. I don't
know why you would say am I cooked? And I
should I give up bitcoin altogether? I mean this is
the point of bitcoin. Is not like a uh, oh
I'm gonna invest in my view, it's not this, oh
I'm gonna invest in this thing and get a sweet return. No, no,
this is the money of the future. All the Fiat,
as Max Kaiser says, is going to zero next to bitcoin.
So it's not like a how can I make a
quick buck? No, no, it's all going to zero. Rachel, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 6: I was just jumping into uh because people were having
questions about the whole cosmic skeptic thing.
Speaker 3: That's that's debate.
Speaker 14: Co on five.
Speaker 6: So it's in person this weekend.
Speaker 2: Andre and I are going to be there.
Speaker 6: Oh and it's a it's a total bullshit excuse because
the Muslims are mad at the Christians, right, Alex O'Connor
is trying to help defeat the Christians. He never debates Muslims,
he doesn't go.
Speaker 3: After them, so they should like him.
Speaker 6: If anything, he'd actually be safer to a debate conference
with a.
Speaker 2: Bunch of prominent Christians.
Speaker 5: So that's all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I figured it. I figured it was something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I appreciate that. Who is Andrew debating?
Speaker 6: Oh, he's debating like everybody because several people dropped.
Speaker 2: Out and the roster kept changing.
Speaker 6: So, okay debating some crazy leftist guy.
Speaker 3: Named FtF E.
Speaker 2: Who else you debating? I mean, like four people?
Speaker 1: Well cool, I hope it goes good. I'm sure he'll
have no problems with those opponents.
Speaker 3: No he won't, all right, thank you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you? Yeah. I was curious as to what
was going on with that. That seems like a sry
excuse to me. Oh, I can't debate because of Muslims,
even though I'm an atheist. Admiral Bright, what's up? I mean,
I'm not trying to be rude, but like, I mean,
Ben Shapiro smoked Alex O'Connor, so like, I don't know
what people are expecting. Alex O'Connor. I mean, that guy's
way overrated. What's up?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 7: Jay?
Speaker 15: Hm, it's morning over, good morning, good after believing wherever
you are?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So, I just I just saw.
Speaker 15: Something this morning and a I looked at someone's head
and I saw a quote from some wondering up for
four I to put my eyes to something, and I
just wanted to know if anyone has asked that has
that idea of somewhere on forty four and related to
it to the wandering al fat four times.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't I can't understand what you're saying.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I have no
idea what you're talking about. Vain, what's up?
Speaker 3: Yo?
Speaker 16: So I was.
Speaker 14: Debating with a Muslim and I thought, I remember a
quote that you used one time, I think out of
the Qur'an that said that all is nothing like creatures.
Speaker 2: And I tried bringing that up. I just didn't know
where that was from.
Speaker 1: It's twice, it's forty two, and then it's I think
one ten, so forty two. I mean, you could probably
google it.
Speaker 17: I didn't know where it was from, but I just
remember that you had mentioned that.
Speaker 2: But anyways, I've hit.
Speaker 17: His response to to it was that that is a
view that a very small minority school of Muslims a
hold to.
Speaker 1: That Like is that a well, I mean he can
say that, but like that doesn't saying that doesn't resolve
the dilemma of when he tries to make anthropomorphic statements
or claims right. So really, just that's the thing with
like these different schools of Islam is like, anytime you
go to this passage, they're gonna be some other kind
of school, and oh, we don't understand it that way.
So it really just depends on which type of Muslim
you're talking about. So it's sort of it's a forty
two eleven. There's nothing like unto him. But what you
can point out is that between the Sunnies and the
different Akitas, they kill each other and have fought over this.
In fact, I've got books over there right now that
like the Salafi, like Jake when they talk about the
uncreated foot and all this kind of stuff, like the
other soonis call them anthropomorphic heretics, right.
Speaker 17: Thanks here, I appreciate the context.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it really just depends on which school they are.
So if it's like the Jake and the Daniels there
Salafi right, Authori type stuff, So you're gonna have to
deal with a different exegesis when you get to, you know,
other types of suonies. Zachara all ten dollars. In the
malpass debate, you said language presupposes logic. I feel like
I agree, But can you expand on that? What about
adequately communicating with ambiguous or inaccurate designations? Well, I mean,
even if it's a vague comment or something ambiguous, it's
still assuming the structure to sentences. Right, So words and
sentences are symbols that are put out in a certain way.
They have predicates, they have they have subjects that have predicates. Right,
there's a structure to all language. There's a beginning, middle,
and end to stories, to sentences, paragraphs, hence periods. So
that structure is necessary for any language and meaning to occur.
So that's what I was saying. And none of those
things are molecules. You say, you can't reduce those things,
or the universal patterns and structures of language, the archetypes.
You can't reduce those things to molecules or atoms. Now,
we actually come this last night, and so if you
want maybe a helpful way to understand this, that's a
different approach perhaps than philosophical stuff. And I'm not saying
kral Jung is who we go to because he's kind
of a quack. He's a kook, But a lot of
people have found krawl Jung's archetypes to be a helpful
launching pad, a helpful bridge to what we mean when
we say that there's these patterns and structures that underlie meaning. Okay,
so I'm not advocating Carl Jung's gnosticism and his weirdo stuff,
but if you watch my talk from last night, you
can probably find a helpful bridge to understanding this through
Young's archetypes or the underlying universal principles and patterns that
are necessary to have any kind of language, meaning and communication.
To believe it or not, that's actually some that Carl
Jung argues in something I would agree with. So maybe
that would be a helpful bridge to this kind of stuff.
Mister Smirk's five dollars, I'll take your non financial advice.
I will try getting FIAT as much as I can
into BTC. Well, you know, people are upset or people
are worried because oh it's one hundred now, and oh
it's just too late. Look again, I think even if
we don't get a Bitcoin strategic reserve, it's still going
to be probably a million dollars in five years. So
from that vantage point, you're still early. I can't guarantee
that I don't. I mean, we could all blow up
in a deep impact asteroid tomorrow, so I can't prove.
I can't give you the silver bullet. Nobody can't. There's
no silver silver bullets in this life when it comes
to you know, money and houses and finance and all that.
But I think that if you understand the base six,
which is why we did that Bitcoin Basics video the
other day. And by the way, Jack Mallers just did
another lecture which is pretty good on Bitcoin BASICX. But
my fourth hour was Bitcoin Basix with Jordan Bush, who
is the co author of that book with Julia, our
friend from Garve of the World. I think she's kind
of retired from content because she has Do you notice
that guy went to like super personal stuff too, Like, oh,
I've been having children. I haven't been laying around and
doing so like all I do is lay around and
do nothing, right, I mean he actually said I liked
your Hollywood books. So wait a minute, I thought I
laid around and did nothing. How did I write these,
you know, nine hundred pages now on Hollywood? Twelve eleven
hundred pages on Hollywood? How did I write another book
that's another six hundred and seven hundred pages. Oh, but
I've just been laying around doing nothing for the last
several years. Yeah, bro, I worked from the time that
I wake up until midnight one in the morning every
day almost so I don't like. I don't know what
people think I do like they do well, he do
is turn on the turn on the computer and talk
and you talk into the microphone, talk at the screen
for two hours. That's all he does. He's all he do.
He don't do no real work, dude. I work from
the time I get I guarantee your ass. I work
more than you do. I guarantee it. Do you know
when we travel, we're traveling for work. All I do
is work? Anyway, what was I looking for?
Speaker 2: Get? Quit?
Speaker 12: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Watch the video over here. I mean people just
still do not get this. I do not know how
many times I can explain this, rehash it, and then
all you goobers, like when I start talking about it,
literally half the audience goes away. Are you gonna be
poor or be poor? That's your choice. Good luck with that.
Now here's the video I made Bitcoin Basics Jordan Bush,
longtime bitcoinner, super smart dude, A great conversation. Here's the
basics start here. Welcome to new members. We've got Brandon
Griers Gears Branding Gears, Nathan Cross, Boomer Slayer. That's a
name Luca belvis A. Excuse me. All I be doing
is that cringe cor and she Yeah, you think I
don't work? How else could I have made the cringe
cor hits I've made if I don't work? Dog lazy,
just laying around? Yeah, I just lay here, the books
just wrap themselves, lay here. Yeah, I've only been hosting
one of the biggest radio shows, the Fourth Hours, because
I just lay here for five years? How did I
get to be hosting that show? Just lay around, dude, lazy?
Call me king slough Baby, I'm just sloughing. Head on
over to chalk dot com and get rid of that
sloth by using the promo to promoc J forty four life.
We got a do we have a disagree? It looks
like we got all agreers here, so we're gonna have
to call.
Speaker 2: Her a night.
Speaker 1: I'm too tired. Thank you guys for joining us a
lot of fun tonight. We did. We did get some
feral uh rabies callers, so it did happen. Shout out
to all the people in the chat. Thank you all exactly.
You can't write a song like Quasimoto if you're lazy, dude,
do you know how long that took me to write, literally,
like no time at all. It's all, I mean, all
that suffs, improv in it. Don't let the goobers get
you've been out of shape, buddy, You've affected more lives
positively than any of them. Pop biscuit five dollars. I'm
not been out of shape. It's just fun to rant sometimes.
It was stupid when people say that YouTube is not
a real job. First of all, my job is not YouTube. Okay,
So I was writing books and doing podcasts and media
and writing my brains out for twenty one wire writing
with Mark hackerd for years. Is writing not real work?
I mean, I don't know, like who. It's funny because
I guarantee you like whoever, whatever these people's jobs are
like that, whatever their job is is the only real work.
That's how those the fund is. It'll be like, well,
the only real work is working on the oil rig.
That's the only real job. Everybody else it's a week
some bitch because you ain't over there on the oil
read like me, Well, maybe you made bad life choices.
Did you ever think of that? Like, maybe you didn't
choose wisely in life, and maybe you're working a stupid
ass job for you'all own fault. Maybe, mister smirks three bucks.
I'm sad that I didn't discover you earlier. I would
have invested in BTC. You were the one to convince me. Well,
I've been talking about BTC since twenty seventeen, and I
think I've been pretty much vindicated. And if we get
a strategic reserve, it's off to the race's son anks
two dollars. Did my previous super chat go through? I
think I read one from you you said for five dollars.
Maybe I didn't you know you sent Okay, I missed one.
Excuse me? You said so. Basically, if you judge by
the Gospel, even if it's for the people at that
time and place before Mohammed, Mohammed should be there and
he's not. Well, it's not a question enough did the
Bible predict Muhammad. It's a question of the fact that
if you're supposed to judge the new revelations of Muhammad
on the basis of the prior revelation, the prior revelation
many times over and in many ways contradicts the claims
of Muhammad, for example, that God is a only a
unitarian being and not a trinity. The Bible, the Old Testament,
the Tora teaches the trinity. We have a whole lecture
series on that. The deity of Christ is taught, the
death of Christ on the Cross is taught in the Bible. Right,
and these are really obvious contradictory teachings in regard to
what Islam claims. So when all of these and many
many more things are mentioned from the Bible, the Moslem says, oh, well,
you see, those are all the places of the Bible's corrupt.
Oh but wait a minute, don't you also, as you
mentioned Anza, claim that the Bible predicts Mohammed. But wait
a minute, the Bible's corrupt. Oh well, it's not corrupt
in all the places that I needed to defend my colt.
You see, it's the same thing that Joseph Smith does.
It's the exact same move apex Wolf five dollars. What
are the keys in Matthew sixteen? Why do Roman Catholics
believe that Peter Loan got the authority when it's not
historical to ex communicate. Well, they believe that because that's
what they need to establish the papal position. But as
you can see, two chapters later, in Matthew eighteen, the
exact same promises made to the entire college of the Apostles. Now,
if this comes only through Peter, wouldn't we then expect
that Peter delegates the Apostolic college. That's how it should
have happened. If the Roman Catholic position is true, right,
Jesus would have in Matthew sixteen given this to Peter,
the keys et cetera, the jurisdiction, the offices of episcopay,
preaching the gospels, that's all, the exercise of the keys.
And then then Peter would have said, and I then
now give you my fellow apostles this power. But is
that what happened? No, Jesus did give honor to Peter,
because Peter first confesses that in Matthew sixteen. But then
the exact same things are given to the other apostles,
the entire college two chapters later. And it wasn't Peter
giving it, It was Jesus giving it. Likewise, did Jesus
breathe on Peter and John and then tell Peter to
breathe on the apostles to remit sins? Or did Jesus
breathe on all of them at Pentecost when the Holy
Spirit descends, does it descend on Peter and then Peter
descend the Spirit on the rest of the apostles. No,
it's a collegial collective affair, you see. And Peter is
not the Pope of the Jerusalem Council in Acts fifteen.
So nothing in the New Testament matches up to the
Vatican One claims of what Peter is. That's all retroactively
read back into the passages, and the Roman Catholics ignore
all the other passages that contradict the Vatican wi and
reading of these pastors. You see. But great question, dolphin,
that's a seal, that's not a dolphin. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man? Man?
Speaker 2: I had a question. So I really appreciate all of
the work you do.
Speaker 18: And uh, I was having a debate with a Muslim
buddy about free will and its relationship to omniscience. So
if God knows that there is going to be a
predetermined outcome, right, he knows that the outcome is going
to be, is free really will really just us being
a secondary cause to that predetermined outcome?
Speaker 2: It's not. Well.
Speaker 1: But if their secondary cause, hold on, hold on, If
their secondary causes the outcomes are not predetermined by God.
They're known by God. But God is not actively causing
every event, So the fact that he knows it does
not equate to him being the cause of it.
Speaker 18: Could it be predetermined without him being the sole cause?
Speaker 1: Well, when you say predetermined, who is the actor to
do the determining, it.
Speaker 18: Would be us as him creating us, not him as
a soul cause. But us being the secondary cause to
that predetermined outcome.
Speaker 1: Well, if we're secondary causes, it's not predetermined. That's the
point of that phrase secondary causes. For it to be
predetermined means that God is the determining.
Speaker 18: Cause, right, right, But I'm just trying to understand how
to articulate this to him. And I do believe that
we are secondary causes because God created us with free will.
But there is going to be a set there's going
to be a determined outcome, right, But that's just not
a there's not a moltiplace city of outcomes that.
Speaker 1: Now, there is a multiplicity of outcomes. I mean, God
knows the outcomes, but there is real choice and multiplicity.
So when the church Fathers, for example, define free will,
they define it literally as the choice amongst varying options,
So there has to really be a true, real varying
of options. So again, the fact that God knows our
choices does not equate to him being a determinate cause
of our choices.
Speaker 18: Okay, I'm just trying to understand that, so I can
explain it. So with God being that having that knowledge,
him knowing that thing and knowing that.
Speaker 2: There will be that singular outcome.
Speaker 18: So is his omniscience functioning as when you say a
multiplicity of outcomes? Is God on God's omniscience selecting the
one that we that we're.
Speaker 2: Going to choose.
Speaker 18: Anyways, I'm just not understanding how there can be a
multiplicity of outcomes that could happen that God knows that
the outcome that will happen.
Speaker 1: Because of the reality of free will, there really is
the possibility of different things occurring. But the fact that
God knows our choices again does not mean that he's
the determinate cause of our choices. I'm not trying to
be rude. I just don't understand, Like, what's the hangout there?
Speaker 2: I understand it.
Speaker 18: And my buddy who's a Muslim, he's trying to understand
the connection of how there could be one thing that
is going to happen in God's omniscience that he knows,
but we also somehow have a multiplicity of choices, and
just generally the way I'm trying to explain it to
him is like, yes, and this may be incorrect of
me explaining that this way, but yes, God knows that,
but we are the secondary cause to that outcome. Is
that a good way of explaining it? Or am I
confusing the term?
Speaker 1: So maybe we should understand primary and secondary causes? Right, So,
for example, for a Calvinist or for a Muslim, many
of them are occasionalists, and they're so strict and they're
occasionally if they're sunny. They're so strict in that that
they believe that even human causation is not possible because
they think it would detract from God's power and sovereignty
if a human could actually quote cause something. And so
they believe that at every nanosecond God is literally destroying
the universe and recreating it, because if he didn't, there
would be actual human causation and that would detract from
God's sovereignty. So it's a really stupid position from the
outset that they have in order to explain and get
away from why there's no quote secondary or creaturely causes.
So if we understand that from the outset, and we
have a bit that my friend Lewis made, it's I
think unparalleled in this regard. And I think but Muslim
is because they don't really care or even go into metaphysics.
If you go to orthodox Shahada and you look up
the metaphysics of Islam. Let me pull the video up.
I think this video will help you because it actually
lays out and maybe even get your friends your friend
to watch it because it lays out this problem in
about a thirty minute video. So it's not really a
problem of I think for a Muslim they would. They
don't have a conception of God knowing something without him
being the cause of it. So for them, if he
knows it, he is directly the cause of it, and
that's why he knows it. He knows it because he
causes it, you see. For them, and many of them
actually don't necessarily believe in free will, so it's kind
of like just depends on whichever Muslim Muslim you're talking to.
But this is the video. It's called old Classical Islam's
unusual metaphysics, and the whole video is about occasionalism and
the fact that there is no causation except Allah directly
for every single second and every single event.
Speaker 18: Gotcha, just a quick side note on this, would this
be another problem for Islam because if when we're referring
to private prior revelation in the Old Testament that if
God's nature is immutable, unchanging and he is good, how
can he be the creator of both good?
Speaker 1: Absolutely? Absolutely, absolutely. In fact, somebody wrote a paper, a
philosophy paper many years ago saying, if Alla is the
greatest of deceivers, as the Quran says multiple times, why
should we believe in Allah? How do we know he's
not deceiving us at every point?
Speaker 2: Right? And how at that point?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 1: I mean, by the way, if All is the greatest
of deceivers, isn't that maybe a clue into who All
I really is? Yes?
Speaker 18: Yes, right, Well, I really appreciate your time, Jay and
taking my call at the end of your live stream.
Speaker 2: I know it's probably pretty late for you there, so
thank you.
Speaker 1: I know it's fune appreciate you. Caterramasio gifted a membership.
Thanks man, appreciate that. But yeah, check out Lewis's video.
This is really a great video, and it kind of
went unnoticed even though I've tried to promote it like
countless times. And I think just because Islam is just
really at root anti philosophical, as much as they want
to talk about being interested in colomb and all this stuff,
but if you learn about Islamic atomism, which underlies classical
sunny colum metaphysics and their creed, where this idea of
occasionalism and animism comes from, why it was adopted, et cetera,
all of this is is dealt with in a really
excellent way. And Lewis's super awesome, high produced video here,
so so must see and thank you for those questions.
I think that will definitely help you with this issue.
Here we go. I thought I was getting away from this.
Now here, here come all the Muslims. Is I'm about
to quit? What's up? I'm you? I can't read your
Arabic script. I don't know your name.
Speaker 19: It's Abrahim every burson of Abraham.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, I know Abraheim is that? But I can't
read what your script says.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 3: Good?
Speaker 19: I just wanna well, hello everyone, and I just wanna
point point something you said. You said, Islam doesn't doesn't
believe in the choice.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: No, I said that it depends on which Muslim you're
talking to as to which one will say that it's
a strict occasional and determinism, or which one will say
that there is free will.
Speaker 2: No, no, it is, there is free will.
Speaker 19: It's uh, it's most most Muslims are just normal.
Speaker 1: Okay? Are most the most Sunni Muslims believe in occasionalism?
Speaker 2: Occasionalism? Can can you describe it?
Speaker 8: Please?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Find that Allah is the direct cause of every single
event directly and there's no secondary causes. Oh yes, okay.
So the problem is that that is not consistent with
quote free will.
Speaker 2: Why is it?
Speaker 1: Because if Allah is the direct cause of every single
action I'm doing, I'm not the cause. There's no secondary causes.
Speaker 19: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. No, Well God gave us fee
will and whatever you do.
Speaker 2: Muslims believe whatever.
Speaker 1: It's exactly the point. Thank you for contradicting what I
just said.
Speaker 19: No, No, I'm just point I'm not contradicting anything you said.
I'm saying that, yes, sure, whatever you do, you have
free will.
Speaker 2: But whatever you do, how do I have free will?
Speaker 1: If Allah is at every single point destroying me and
contradict and recreating me. You just admitted that Allah is
the direct cause of every single thing. Yes, okay, then
there's no such thing as free will and secondary causes?
Speaker 2: Can I can?
Speaker 16: I can?
Speaker 9: I get?
Speaker 1: Yeah? You want you want to go you want to
go ahead and contradict yourself again, Sure.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, whatever you do, dude, just let me speak.
Speaker 19: Whatever whatever you do doesn't go beyond beyond God's God's knowledge,
So God.
Speaker 2: No not.
Speaker 1: You just admitted you don't even know what occasionalism is.
So this is a waste of time.
Speaker 2: Joel, Hello, good morning.
Speaker 1: Uh huh, what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Are you hearing me?
Speaker 12: Uh huh?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 5: Hi?
Speaker 2: Nice to make you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all good.
Speaker 16: I'm listening to the debate. Very interesting, Thank you for
putting me up. But if I understand correctly, your point
of view is that a divinity, a god does exist
in reality?
Speaker 2: Correct, yep, And we are here to debate that point.
Did I understand correctly?
Speaker 1: If you'd like to any any of the topics listened to.
Speaker 2: Our fair game amazing.
Speaker 16: So I am not convinced that God exists or ever existed,
and since you are, I would just like to ask you,
why are you convinced that God exists? What makes you
convinced of that?
Speaker 12: Uh?
Speaker 1: The transcendental argument?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 3: Huh?
Speaker 2: Can you described it?
Speaker 16: I know many arguments, this one I'm unfamiliar with. Mabe
is the one who will convince me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if God did not exist, then there would not
be a basis for knowledge whatsoever, nor would there be
a coherent justification or basis for ethics or metaphysics.
Speaker 16: Ethics, I can speak about the moral argument, argument.
Speaker 3: Ethics.
Speaker 16: Maybe English is my third language, but for me, I
always thought that ethics and moral are a bit connected.
Speaker 1: The moral argument I know what the moral argument is.
I did not make that argument excellent.
Speaker 16: So my question would be, I don't think that you
can support your first claim.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if there is no deity, what would be
the justification for the possibility of knowledge?
Speaker 16: I don't see any reason that we would need one.
We see knowledge exist, do we agree?
Speaker 1: Okay? So you can. So that's called being at hog.
That's a fallacy knowledge.
Speaker 2: Just let me let me be clear.
Speaker 1: Me and you you were clear. You said knowledge just is.
That's an assertion, and that's at hoc. And you're saying
that we don't have to justify our beliefs or our positions,
then I can also be at hoc. So that's the feeding.
Speaker 16: Taking the opposite way that that's This is exactly the point.
I am not claiming that what you are saying is false,
because if I claim.
Speaker 1: You don't even understand the argument, one.
Speaker 2: Second could be.
Speaker 16: I am not claiming that what you're saying is false.
Speaker 2: That's not atheism.
Speaker 16: Atheism is not saying God does not existing.
Speaker 1: Actually it is.
Speaker 16: That is the definition is okay, so in in my
definition of.
Speaker 1: It that can I define words my own way now.
Speaker 16: But the promis that we are doing these conversations, so
we need to understand what we teach means when we
define something. So the only thing I would like to say,
I am not saying a God does not exist, because
if I say a good does not exist.
Speaker 1: This is Reddit level stuff, man, We're like ten We're
like ten levels beyond all this Reddit level. You don't
have to repeat to me the Reddit level stuff about
defining the word atheism. I know that, man, I know
that many atheists think that this is some profound thing
to say that the word does not mean that there's
no God. It just means that we don't know. I look,
none of that addresses the point that I made about
justification for knowledge. Do you think knowledge claims don't have
to be justified.
Speaker 2: I think that knowledge exists.
Speaker 1: That's cool, But that's an assertion, and that's being at all.
I can say God exists.
Speaker 16: No problem, exactly the same way that I can say knowledge.
Speaker 2: You can say good knowledge exists.
Speaker 1: Okay, So again, no clue what you have, no clue
what you're talking about. So this is a clear waste
of time. It's like talking to like a five year
old man. I'm not trying to me mean, but like
good grief kind of bullock. People have no idea what
it means to engage in a debate and what it
means to justify acclaim. You cannot just say it just
is man. And that's what Dyla Hunty did, right. This
is like what's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Yo?
Speaker 3: What's up dude?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Yeah, jedire, I was just asking how much money for
you to take it on the stream?
Speaker 1: Really, dude, did you did you hit the bomb tonight, Bril,
did you hit the bomb to April?
Speaker 2: Good night? Good night j Dyer.
Speaker 1: Well you ever notice how like the weirdos that call
in and think that they're being funny, they always repeat
my name like that and that say my full name.
What do you think with ja? It's like why you're
saying my whole name is weird? And see it's as
we're beginning to close up the shop is when all
of the best weirdos come in and that's what's Are
you not entertained? This is the way, this Isn't this
what you all want? The entertainment? One hundred Canadian looney
tunis or whatever weird gay currency they use in Canada.
Boomer Slayer sends one hundred gay currencies and he says,
thank you, Jay, have a good night. Does anyone who
disagrees want to come up and actually present an argument?
You you repeat reading out to me Reddit definitions and
repeating things about the word ETHEGM does not mean that
I know that there is not no God. It means
that's simply that we do not know that that agion
of God. It means that it has not been proven.
Like I haven't heard this since freaking nineteen ninety eight,
and then the guy leaves, so bringing another guy on
in just that he leaves, So maybe he only had
the Reddit level conversation. Does anyone who is above reddit
level will want to come on and make an argument?
All you do is mute people and talk over Then
this is a perfect example of the previous conversation, not
with this goober calling in, but the atheist guy. I
specifically said the transcendental argument. He says, I have a
moral argument. Good for you. I didn't make the moral argument,
so not relevant. And then he says knowledge does not
have to be justified. It just is, okay, God just is.
Like people just can't fa that. That is so stupid,
Like it's kind of mind blowing really, And you notice
like none of them actually want to understand what I'm saying.
They just want to like vomit out stuff. They just
want to like preach their thing. They don't actually want
to hear why I said that, or what the point
is or why I'm arguing this. I'm looking for people
who disagree. So Garrett and Quiet, I appreciate you guys
coming on, but I know that you guys are probably
bringing supportive argumentation. I appreciate that, but I'm as we're
closing up shop, I'm looking for any last disagreeers who
want to request to speak, and come on, You're welcome
to do so. Anybody else, last call for alcohol.
Speaker 20: Closing time. Time for all the weirdos and the pharaoh
queers to call in. Closing time. Time for all the
rabies and the crazy people to call.
Speaker 1: I know, I want to call in now.
Speaker 7: I know
Speaker 1: No, all I see is the other weirdo