Speaker 1: So it's so insane.
Speaker 2: Bunker bunker, bunker.
Speaker 3: Knocker.
Speaker 4: I got married.
Speaker 5: I got married to a funko who.
Speaker 3: We got wedded.
Speaker 5: Come joint in the subway, he shot, I.
Speaker 3: Am married, I'm married to my func.
Speaker 5: But do we get joined? Co write a sooner subway
he shot.
Speaker 4: It's as and biscuits and linerals. They come to to
my whole life a spit watch other two. We have
successfully cocked our block. We have successfully pretended to burn sage,
which actually if you pretend to burn sage, it only
banishes pretend bad spirits. Happy Christmas everyone, Eve on the
real Christmas, not the fake Pope Christmas, not fake Papal Christmas.
It's the real Christmas.
Speaker 3: Eve.
Speaker 4: Hope you got good presence if you did it, not
my problem. Also, you can support my stream via what
are called super chats, which are done through stream Labs.
Stream Labs is the link that's pinned the top of
the chat. You can also find that link at all
times in the show description. Show description has all the
links that help you help me to help you through
supporting the show through all the varied and a sundry
ways to support the show. Welcome, everybody, shout out, got
a few super chats to read from the last time
that I did not get to I meant to make
a coffee and I didn't get to it. Yet. My
allergies are going crazy as usual, since I left a
thirty two degrees scenario and came to a seventy five
degrees scenario. And when it's seventy five degrees, it means
that pollen boys on the attack. Jayder three dollars is
the fake Jenner. You should watch the movie Death Dream
nineteen seventy four. It's the best vampire movie. It's a
mind controlled Vietnam that who Comes Home type of deal.
The same to the Mad Black Christmas. I think I
read that last time Dead Don't end your stream, it's
the best stream ever. New Year celebration. Jamie is reading
her book? Who reading whose book? Vane three dollars. What's
the best kind of Bitcoin stories? Probably Lederer? Harry Sapounds
ten dollars. Happy New Year, Jay, God bless your family.
Carlo Phelps three dollars. Christ is born Say John Evangelist's
Orthodox Mission recently found a property for a permanent mission
location in Mesa, Arizona. I mean Mesa, Arizona. I'm not
a grifter, but I love Orthodox community, so spread this
word everywhere we would need. We need help raising money.
Carlisle Phelps, Okay, well how do we? I guess people
just look for that online Orthodox Mission, Saint John the
Evangelist Orthodox Mission, and Mason Arizona. So I don't have
any links to support it, but thank you. If you
would like to support them, go find their their links.
I guess google it. Haiti's undead ten dollars. I just
ordered my first commissioned yakoub icon. I must pay homage
to my creator. Thank you for the recommendations. You're welcome.
Zalmoxi's fifty dollars. He's we hadn't even started yet, and
we're already we're already retiring from all this bank Geeddy
Green that's coming in. Thank you so much, Zalmoxis. Have
you talked about the history of liturgy and how it
informs the Biblical canon? No, you often talk about this.
I saw a video where you mentioned literagy. Saint Mark.
Do you have any book recommendations of the history of liturgy? Yeah,
I would read the Williams and Install book on the
History of the Temple and Synagogue. Liturgy as it influences
the Orthodox Church, and I would read Hugh Wybruce book
The Byzantine Liturgy and Why. Bruce book is particularly impactful
because it was written by an Anglican who supports a
lot of the contentious perhaps ideas of the Orthodox Church.
MKG ten dollars, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. Thank you.
You mentioned a while back the Orthodox Study Bible had
in your in my opinion, five to seven mistakes. Do
you have a go to place to refer for those now?
I mean it's just things I've noticed over I don't
know ten years of using Orthodox Study Bible. I mean
not bragging, but I mean I've worn mine out. I
don't have a list of places where I thought it
was a mistake. Do you think it will be changed
or fixed? I don't think anything will be changed because
I think that people that wrote the notes, whoever they are,
we're writing, you know, their best informed theological opinions. Cayden
Scrugs three dollars three dollar. I was baptizing the Orthodox
Church my Wifeishoryay. Thanks to you. Hey, glad to hear that.
Cayden Scrugs BMX ten dollars. Christ is born thank you,
thank you, BMX, Merry Christmas everybody, and a little bit
of an update on me personally. I challenge myself to
be more loving. This is gonna be the year twenty
twenty five is gonna be the year of love. So
let's remind ourselves what is love. Love is patient and kind.
It does not envy, It does not parade itself, is
not puffed up, doesn't behave rudely, does not seek its own,
isn't provoked, doesn't think evil, does not rejoice in iniquity,
rejoices in the truth, bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, and there's all things, never feels. If
there's prophecies, they will be fulfilled. Is what it means
by fail. If there are tongues, they will cease languages,
knowing languages and not going to matter. They ask Caton,
having knowledge not going to matter, And they ask Caton.
We know and prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes,
that which is in part will pass away. For now
we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face,
abide in faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these
is love. So notice that love is not divorced from
what's true. It rejoices in what's true. Love should be patient,
should be kind. But it is not the an affectation
or some front that you put up. You have to
actually genuinely be these things in your heart. And nobody
can actually be those things in their heart without divine grace.
So these are not purely human works that you can achieve.
You must achieve these through the grace of God. And
I must force myself to balance out joking around, debating,
and so forth, dealing with many, many unruly ridiculous persons.
And I'm going to strive this year, in twenty twenty five,
to try to be balanced in all those ways. So
that's my challenge to me. Nobody told me I needed
to do this. Nobody said you better repent on your
live stream. I do not think that love excludes ribbing
people joking around, but I'm going to try to be
better at that. So that's my New Year's resolution. Also,
my other resolution was to not play any video games
for one year, except for maybe Mario Karba Jamie on
a feast day. That's about it. So I was trying
to think of pleasures to give up. I guess video
games are a kind of a pleasure. But I don't
even really play that many video games. But I didn't
want video games to get in the way. So this
is not like me telling you, oh, I'm so pious
because I am fasting publicly from video games and I
want you all to know how pious I am. No, No,
this is not This is just for U New Year's resolution.
So it's not even anything particularly religious. Now I'm not
gonna see. That's what I'm saying. I gotta balance out
love with roasting. How can you still roast people and
make jokes? Which I don't know if you guys saw
my Twitter profile, but I am yes officially working with
Sam Hide on his new TV show, his new twenty
twenty five of Us Sam Hide Show, and I might
have had a hand in some previous, already produced content.
So yeah, we gotta we gotta figure out how to
balance all this. We gotta walk the tightrope. We gotta
steer between and Cherubidus Skilla and scrill X and Kareem
abdulji Bar. We gotta steer between squill X and Kareem
of those of Bar, just like the Greek who was
it Odysseus or whoever did going on and travels. He
was traveling. We're gonna open it up. Enough of my yapping.
I'm gonna have to have a little bit of meat
tonight because anytime we travel, we drive for ten freaking
hours to get back to Florida, messes up my stomach.
So welcome tonight. The topics are, you've got it, all
the ones that we always do that are listed. Glad
to see a lot of people saying I'm reading Saint
John Damascus's writings. That's great. I had a guy calling
the other night and said that he had read on
the Orthodox face. Glad to hear that. It's the first
systematic theology. It's a classic, really good bust down a
jubilee one dollar. How much do you like your watch?
Actually tired of this watch. But the thing is, I
don't want to buy a new watch because if I
was to buy a new Movado, which, by the way,
secret you can get those at the outlet. So you
get a designer watch, get at the outlet, dog and
you pay like way less. You didn't know that. But
any money that I would allocate to a new Movada watch,
I bought this one in twenty eighteen. I would rather
have in bitcoin, So it makes no sense to buy
a stupid watch. So do I like this watch? It's
pretty cool. I've had it for about six years. But
did you know a lot of people don't know this,
but people that buy like watches, there's not this watch.
This is just a silly watch, but it's just a
mid grade watch. Watches are actually ways to store value,
so not everybody that's buying a watch is buying it.
I'm not talking about this. I'm not like if somebody
bought a Rolex, because they store value. So wealthy people
don't just buy things to be ostentatious for no reason.
Maybe some of them do, but sometimes people invest I'm
not talking about me. I'm talking somebody bought up rolex.
It's an investment, but that was before bitcoin. So everything
that you might try to do with a Rolex or
whatever as an investment is dumb because you should have
bought bitcoin instead of a stupid watch. So anyway, yes,
I like this watch, but it's already like old. So
welcome everybody, camp Cam Pomson. There's Orthodoxy condemned Freemasonry because
I know there's a patriarch who was one and that
bothers me. You're gonna find freemasons potentially in any church.
So if you're looking for us some perfect church that
doesn't have evil people in it, you're never gonna find one.
As a Catholic, I know that church condemns it. Yes,
there are many statements. If you go to orthodox info
dot com and type in freemasonry, you'll find many condemnations
of freemasonry by the Orthodox Church. Atheist de vehterant ten dollars.
Thank you, jam My girlfriend and I are catechumens. We're
nine months. I hope you don't mean you're nine months
old because that'd be really word if for typing. We
come from a Baptist background. That's good here, dude, Can
you summarize the difference between pneumatology for those who don't
know that's the doctor of the Holy Spirit, between Protestant
and Orthodox. Well, simply put, Artisans for the most part
kind of just default to the Roman Catholic position. So
they're gonna just have I mean not because it's Roman Catholic,
but they just kind of default to the I guess
what you could say is the Augustinian position. So Calvin
and Luther, they were very Augustinian. They just defaulted to
that position. Most Anglicans have been very Augustinian, So the
ethos of the Protestant world has always been the Augustinian
view of the double eternal procession of the Phillyoquay. The
best book probably would be to read something like Edwards
Kashinsky's book Philly Oakuay History of the Doctrine. We did
a podcast on that that actually just posted to the
podcast feed a couple of days ago. We did a
two or three hour podcast on that, maybe five years ago.
So I would say that's a good one to get
an overview. If you want to read more of the
Orthodox position, the two best would be Saint Photius's Mystagogy
and Gregory Palamas's book Appedictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit.
If you were to read those three books, and of
course there are more things that you could and should
read on that topic. That's not the exhaustive list, but
if you were to read those you would have a
very good idea of the specifics of the departure day.
JI are one dollars. This is the fake me. I
was at a bookstore. I was buying books, books for Christmas,
and I saw tons of autobiographies people like Bush, Obama, Clinton,
Boris Johnson. Are all memoirs like good like David Rockefellers,
or are they all full of bs like a celebrity.
I would imagine most of those are bs waste of time,
celebrity things that they're all ghost written anway, they don't
write their own. They don't write those. You think Bill
Clintons is going to write to a six hundred page book,
I wouldn't waste my time. I mean, really, the only
the biographs I have that are relevant that I've cited
are John Roberts's biography of Cecil Rhads is good. I
would probably get if there's like good biographies of the Ralph,
the Ralph Child's, those would probably be worth it. Calidrin
Horowitz's Rockefeller's biography is very relevant. I admits everything in there,
and it's official biography. So but autobiographies, I mean, I
don't I can't imagine like the typical political people like
a Obama, Clinton and those sound terrible. But John C.
Lilly's autobiography is pretty revealing. He meets all kinds of
stuff in there, So I guess it just depends on
the person. But typically those like Obama Clinton, like the
president level, those are all going to be whitewashed propaganda.
Shout out to everybody in the chat. Well, I saw
Tristan here and then I saw FDA here and they
just left so kind of depressed. Now my friends just leave.
When I do a live stream, they leave me. I
guess I gotta just give up. They just leave. What
would you do if I just cried live on live
stream right now? Just what if I just started crying
NonStop for like an hour? What would y'all do? This
is the new me, though, this is the new loving me.
Way too mean, so mean, I'm not I'm still not
exactly sure what I did. What that was mean? I mean,
I don't know. Its fat jokes against it, borrow is
that What counts is that it's the only thing I
can think of. It comes up.
Speaker 3: Mmm.
Speaker 4: But I'm sure that I have done things wrong. For sure.
We could we all, so we could all be more loving.
I need to lean into love. I'm gonna be a
love slag, wen, That's all I'm trying to say. I'm
gonna lean into being loving. I just it just makes
me mad that everyone thinks that love, love and being
loving is just acting kind of gay, you know.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's like it's just talking like this. And and
if you talk like this and you're solved and you're
non threatening, it also makes you really spiritual. I'm really
spiritual because I talk like this and I'm loving, and
I pray all the time.
Speaker 4: But no, I'm not talking about I ain't talking about
crying on stream. I ain't talking about none of that.
Well essays on Theologian Philosophy on Kindle. No, sorry, mine
says for ten dollars. I didn't make that book. I
don't even know who made the book, and I couldn't
get it pulled down, so I just decided to sell it.
So I don't know anything about it. I've never made
a put a book on Kindle. I think I still
turn call it what is on Kindle, but I have
a publisher for that, so he does all that. I
don't want to think about it. Welcome, everybody, appreciate it.
It's time to open it up. Now here's the challenge,
because as soon as I say I'm gonna try to
be more loving, people think they're gonna confuse that with
being nice. I don't know if I'm gonna be nice.
I don't know about that. So I don't think you're
gonna weasele your way in here and bully me around. No, son,
no sir, Because this is a challenge for me to
balance out my good natured ribbing with being loving. I'll
being nice. You're gonna get guaranteed love. You're not gonna
get any guaranteed nice. That's how That's how we roll
around here all right now, the way it works, as
you guys know, if it's been or new here, we
got only ninety seven, we had over two hundred. We
had like almost three hundred the other day. Is it
because it's a Monday night. I don't know what's going on,
but you request to speak. I'm talking about on Twitter,
on YouTube. We're doing good. We always get We're already
close to one thousand. We're on YouTube. Shout out what's up?
By changing my jokes? Hell, no, I just told you
I'm not. None of the good natured ribbing is going away,
None of the impressions are going away. I don't exactly
know what's going away, that's the thing. But I want
to be more loving, just without changing anything. Jokes on you,
y'all thought I was gonna turn into some dumb hippie
psych I'm gonna be meaner than ever in twenty twenty five.
I'm just kidding. I'm gonna be more loving, but without
changing any of my existing ways. So that's the challenge,
That's what I'm saying, man, that's the challenge part. All right,
enough of this nonsense. People are getting frustrated with the
apping and the pontificating in the hot air, the bloviating
real Calie Prepper. Did Lord Valdimore get replaced? That's the
funniest conspiracy I've seen this last week. But I did
that Lord Baltimore changed like he's wearing a He's a
CIA clone? Yes, Alex is a CIA clone. Brother Fresh?
That sounds like a like a rat name from the Ages,
Brother Fresh, Dougie Fresh? What's that man.
Speaker 3: As Brother Fresh? Here?
Speaker 6: I didn't forget to unmute hey man, it's unrelated to
the topic, but I just wanted to ask, Like I
was watching Fish Dank and Sam mentioned.
Speaker 3: That you guys are going to have like a podcast
or something. Is that true?
Speaker 7: Like, are you going to have a separate podcast or
is that just like a gaslight?
Speaker 4: Did you not look at my Twitter? Profile, it says
writer for the sam Hidro.
Speaker 3: Oh damn, okay, that's cool, right, excited for that? Man,
I have a good one, all right.
Speaker 4: Thank you appreciate it. Yeah, Like I said, I might
have had had had a hand in the p O
T y the party. How did I have a hand
in the party? What's the party?
Speaker 3: You say?
Speaker 4: The party? No, the party? What's the party? Post of
the year. I'm talking about sam Hi's post of the year, son,
or might have had had a hand in that? How
is that? I will leave you to speculate and think
on that, son Jose. The way that the way it
works is your question to speak. You come up, you
unmute yourself. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 4: Hey, Jay?
Speaker 3: What's going on? Had a quick question for you?
Speaker 9: Also, Merry Christmas Eve to all the Christians that celebrate.
Speaker 4: On the seventh, the true Orthodox Christmas.
Speaker 3: The true old calendar Christians now.
Speaker 4: The only calendar Christmas.
Speaker 3: Okay, so kind of to the chase.
Speaker 9: So, I was reading through the Old Testament, and I'm
just getting through the New Testament. But in many parts
in the Old Testament, through the Theophanes, there's many mentions
of God and his hands doing this and his face
being turned.
Speaker 3: I think that was in Isaiah or Daniel and seeing
the face.
Speaker 9: Of the Lord in those kinds you're familiar with those, Yeah.
And in the so I'm reading through the Orthodox Study Bible,
and in the Orthodox Study Bible it says that these
are instances of the preincarnate person of the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. So I wanted to know, like it just
mentions in the Study Bible, that is to mystery. It's
a holy mystery. But how can this be the actual face?
Is it the face in a figurative sense, or is
it the actual face of the incarnate Jesus Christ just
in a pre incarnate form. So it would be the
actual person that came two thousand years ago, but in
a form that didn't come to the earth yet.
Speaker 3: That makes sense.
Speaker 4: It is the actual energetic manifestation of the second person
of the Godhead in time and space, known as the
Angel of the Lord, who is Jesus Christ.
Speaker 9: Obviously it can't be a created face. But my question
is just this, when I see the word face, it's
not a created.
Speaker 3: Face, so it can't be.
Speaker 9: But is this the person of Jesus Christ that came
just in a pre incarnate form. So it is the
body in the walking Jesus Christ, but just in a
pre incarnate form.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there is some form of God that was able
to manifest, just like the cloud, just like the fire,
just like you know any of these other theophanies in
the Old Testament. In fact, in Leviticus nine, the theophany
of the cloud is called the glory of God. So yes,
they are all energetic theophanic manifestations in time and space,
and they really do show us the second person of
the God had so in Jesus himself, and the Gospel
of John says, I was the one talking to Moses
face to face on mal Zimmer.
Speaker 3: And this is all to say that it must be Jesus.
Speaker 9: Because, as he says in the New Testament, nobody has
feed nobody has seen the Father absolutely, so it has
to be him, and it can't be, for example.
Speaker 3: The Spirit.
Speaker 4: I guess right, well, Jesus says to the Pharisees in
John five, six, seven, eight nine, when they keep debating,
he says, no one sees the Father at any time,
But he argues that Moses saw God face to face,
and if no one sees the Father, Jesus saying Moses
saw me face to face. Is in that very chapter
he says, if you believe Moses, you would believe in me,
because he wrote about me and Paul and said. Grinthians
three says that when Moses went up on the mountain
and when he was transfigured, excuse me, when Moses was deified,
when he came down from the mountain, he was seeing
Christ face to face on Montsima. Adam is made in
the garden of Eden after the image of Jesus. Jesus say,
is the second person that God had, The age of
the Lord of the Logos, is the form of God.
He's called this all throughout the Old Testament. If you
watch my I did a three hour the off in
his video, and I did an older one that's another
three hours. He's called the glory of God, the face
of God, the image of God, hands of God, all
those things referred to the second person, the Son. Okay,
all right, thank you, And how is it possible you
write to also have mentioned that there's an element of
mystery because and this is what really I think futes
all of the Tomistic type positions on this. If you
read Philippians too, it's famously known as the canosis passage.
Canosis means the in dwelling or see me, the outpouring
or this self emptying, And what that means is that
when the second person of the Godhead took on human nature,
he will fully chose not to actualize or to do
all of his powers. So he willfully stepped into time
and space and limited himself quote unquote to be in
the form of a man and so forth. So that's
a great mystery, yes, but Philippians too makes it very
clear that that's exactly what although being equal to the Father,
he actually entered into this limited state. And that means
that the Roman Catholic or the Tomistic type positions which
reduced God to pure act, what actually that would actually
be impossible if God was identical to pure act.
Speaker 9: Right, I'm yet to get there, but do you have
time for one more question. It's just on the Coptic
interpretation of Christology. So I understand there's a there's a
misunderstanding on their part. Well, I guess from the Eastern
Christian lens that they understand Christ to have both the
divine and human nature, but they create I guess a
third category out of that and that becomes a new
thing in Christ, whereas the Eastern Orthodox say that that
the person of Jesus is both the divine nature and
the human nature working as one, but they don't create
a new category for that like the like the cops do.
Speaker 3: Maybe I didn't explain that correct, but.
Speaker 4: Well it's halfway correct. So you're right that we argue
that their position leads to and is a tertium quid.
That's a new third thing, is what the phrase tertiam
quid means. It means that it's not fully human, not
fully divine. It's not the Orthodox position of a hypostatic
union of the two that retains the properties. It's a
new third thing. And part of the reason that they
have that confusion, I also think is a lack of
clarity on the essence energy distinction. Because the way that
the reunion is a real deification of the human nature
is through the uncreated energies of the Sun deifying the
human nature that he assumed. They typically are somewhat confused
on the energy's doctrine, and so they think that if
we say there's a continued distinction between the natures after
the union, that that's a separation and division, and there's
not a real deification of Christ human nature when the
six Ecumenical Council stresses how he was deified and goes
into the doctrine of the energies. Saint John Damascus in
Book three of the Only Orthodox Faith, chapter fifteen, talks
about the essence sentergy, distinction and christology and how Christ
transmitted to his human nature the uncreated energies that deify it.
But strictly speaking, the hypostasis is not a product of
the carnation. Hypostasis is the ground of the incarnation because
it's the second hypostasis of the Godhead who took on
human nature, and the hypostasis as product view is actually
condemned at the Fifth Council. So there's a lot of
different things and nuances going on and what we're talking about,
but ultimately you're correct that we believe that their position
is inconsistent. It leads to a tertiam quid. And we
also believe that even though the natures are distinct after
the union, there is a real deification of the human
nature of Christ.
Speaker 3: Okay, cool, that's all I got. Thank you.
Speaker 4: We've been doing a series on this too. I don't
know if you have you seen the series.
Speaker 3: What's the name of the series?
Speaker 4: Oriental Orthodoxy refuted, I.
Speaker 3: Must have seen it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's just one of those things where you know
where I look it up online after, you know, taking
a look at some of these clips, and it's just
hard to get a conceptual understanding.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm just too a low IQ, but no, this
is so we're doing a long term series. We've only
done two of them and they're like three hours each,
So I would say start with our series and watch
the first two. We'll be doing the third one soon.
The only reason we haven't is that Kai got married,
so he's on his honeymoon. Good for him.
Speaker 3: But I'll kick it out when it comes out.
Speaker 4: Then, well, are part one and two are already out?
So you go to my channel and type in Oriental
Orthodoxy refuted, you'll see part one and part two. But
thank you great questions, Civic Crisis. What's up? And by
the way, if you want books, you can request come
back in. I'll tell you what books you want to get.
But we also mentioned the books in the series.
Speaker 3: For me to go ahead.
Speaker 4: Sure, what's up?
Speaker 3: Mean? Hey, what's up? I got like a few things
to bring up.
Speaker 10: Okay, now, for one, like, I'll just say you are
very knowledgeable, and we probably I'll just say for certain
we agree on a lot of things, even a lot
of things that I've learned from you over the you know,
past year or two or three or whatever, And so
I do appreciate.
Speaker 3: All these spaces you do and whatnot.
Speaker 10: But so with people who are less educated so much
but still have like a strong faith and stuff, you know,
and education to the basics and whatnot. But you wouldn't
would you wouldn't necessarily say that like like those people
are less like lesser?
Speaker 3: Would you?
Speaker 4: Everyone is lesser than me? Is the easiest way I
would put it.
Speaker 3: Fair.
Speaker 4: I'm just kidding, what do you mean lesser?
Speaker 10: No, just like their faith could still be accepted with
the same grace, right.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know the parameters of people's individual status.
I don't, and we don't really judge that typically speaking. Yeah,
but I think what we do is we U go
buy people's public profession and we tell people if we
think that's wrong, that's that's wrong. So but I can't
hider and say you're going to hell, buddy, Like I
don't I.
Speaker 10: Know that, No, problem anyway, we'll move past that anyway.
So I am Protestant anyway, and you know, I like
to join more of.
Speaker 3: Your spaces in the future. I think we've talked in
the past a.
Speaker 10: Little bit, but so so again I'll reiterate that we
agree on a lot of things, right, I think you would.
You'd probably agree on that too, like such as like
many things I could name that we would agree on.
Speaker 3: Like I just said, I agree.
Speaker 10: With most of the things that you say as well,
so we can like acknowledge that, yeah, it's just.
Speaker 3: Or you would accept a prize in saying that.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, But agreeing is not the criteria. Like the
the way Orthodox Christianity works is it's holistic. So for example,
I can't be like, I'm seventy five percent Worthox, but
like thirty you know, twenty five percent of their doctions
that they teach I reject. It doesn't work like that.
It's a holistic package. So you can't be consistently like
I'm thirty percent Orthodox, but I'm seventy percent Protestant. There's
no graded scale. It's it's a packaged deal.
Speaker 10: Yeah, of course, yeah, I get your points there, But
generally we agree in the Trinity, we agree in like
several different things.
Speaker 4: Well I don't think we do. So no, we don't
even agree on the Trinity. So I mean I think
that you intend, as a Protestant as most like a
Roman Catholic to profess and believe in the Trinity. But
Protestants do not actually believe in the Orthodox doction the Trinity.
Speaker 10: See, that would be something I'd like to dive into more.
But first let's just uh, you know, accept that response
you gave and whatnot, and how we'll just stand on that.
So yeah, and that's you know, giving respect to that
we do have things, even though you may think they're different,
I think generally or similar. So one thing I wanted
to bring up actually, and this is kind of why
I rose the hand here. I wanted to just kind
of find out what you what your perspective is on
how and also let me first state for clarification, like Protestant.
Speaker 3: Is very wide ranging kind of demographic.
Speaker 10: Me I'm more of like a Nordic type ancestry, just
so you understand, but anyway, it and I am American
right for over one hundred plus years.
Speaker 3: Of this type of years.
Speaker 10: Well, my ancestry dates back to that type of Nordic
Christianity and they immigrated here.
Speaker 3: One hundred plus years ago.
Speaker 4: Is what do you mean.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Lutheran. So you know, I'm and I'm
also willing to accept the faults in that.
Speaker 10: But anyway, it does appear with modern data that you know,
not only Catholics and Orthodox. And just to also clarify,
and you mentioned this too, like Oriental Orthodox Eastern Orthodox.
There's a difference there, and you've been kind of posting
about that.
Speaker 3: Is that correct? That's great?
Speaker 10: Actually kind of interested in hearing more about that later.
But so it does appear with this data I've been reviewing.
This isn't a gotcha or anything. Just want to get
your honest feedback. These kind of demographics of faith Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox,
Black Protestant, they tend to be, you know, at least
fifty to one hundred plus percent more gay accepting than
like white Evangelical Christians.
Speaker 3: Kind of what's your view on that.
Speaker 4: I don't think the Orthodox Church is accepting them gay
at all. In fact, I mean you noticed the Orthodox
countries are famously not gay. That's why they targeted by
NATO in the State Department.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you'd be correct in that, but I mean in
the US.
Speaker 4: No, I think that the Roman Catholic Church has notoriously,
according to some accounts, seventy gay Norvusordier priests. Most of
the Protestant churches are pro gay, so that's all well known.
Speaker 3: Absolutely Again, I think you're correct about that.
Speaker 10: But the specifically the white even those are kind of
non Evangelical Protestants. But if you look at the Evangelical Protestants,
it's different. It's you know, way less accepting of that
gay marriagerect So what's the point, Well, it's just it
does you know, looking specifically at the data, I'd be
have to share it in the in the Purple Pale
down there, but you know, it does say that Orthodox
are fifty percent more accepting of gay than these white events.
Speaker 4: I would have to do well comparing that with like
Eastern European countries, uh in Russia, that would have to
do with the Americanists and fluence rather than the Orthodox position.
Speaker 10: You know, that'd be fair, but then the same influence
would it would also be you know, onto the white
Evangelical presence, but they tended to resist that or whatnot.
Speaker 4: That's funny because the Evangelicals were the Protestants one hundred
years ago, which eventually cucked to that stuff within time.
And I think that if you look at the looking
at your data here, if you look at the tendency
of Protestant well, excuse evangelical seminaries, they cook over time too.
In fact, Southern Babasiological Seminary just started pushing critical race
theory and hired three or four different CRT professors. So
I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. You
think you're going to prove some theological position by tallying
up how much gaye and how much percentage of gay?
Speaker 10: There is no The data exists without me analyzing it.
Speaker 4: It's just that what is it supposed to know? That's
not true because you're bringing the data for a reason.
So what's the purpose of the data?
Speaker 3: Well, it does exist without me analyzing it.
Speaker 4: That is true, maybe not in your point of bringing
it is what.
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 10: Just that this is the what appears to be the
objective reality, which.
Speaker 3: Is that you know?
Speaker 10: This is the question I get when I ask this
is what what's my point?
Speaker 3: But I think that that misses the point of the data.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you come from a whole you come from
a Lutheran background. What's the Lutheran position on all that stuff?
Speaker 3: Reject gay marriage?
Speaker 4: No, that's absolutely not true. I'm not talking about Missouri sid,
I'm talking about the mainline Lutherans, you.
Speaker 10: Know, And that would get to a specific specificity of
like what my denomination is. I will tell you my
denomination rejects gay marriage.
Speaker 4: So well, you started by saying that you're a hundred
year proud you know, lu Nordic immigrant, and the mainline
Lutheran Church caved decades ago to the things that you're
trying to champion.
Speaker 10: Here the main line one did I'm not exactly I
don't follow that one. And I did acknowledge the faults
that there are faults and willing to totally acknowledge.
Speaker 4: And so by that, by that argument, you should become
some sort of like independent fundamentalist Baptist. If that's the
one that I'm not a Baptist, I said, if this
is what shows us the true Church, then you should
be a Baptist because whatever. So we're going to go
about what the largest number of people in a denomination
that rejects the gay marriages of the true Church No, it's.
Speaker 10: Just that you can see the followers of the churches
and see what they believe in, and you can see
that there are some serious issues.
Speaker 4: So we only judge it by and so we judge
it by America's numbers. Is that right?
Speaker 3: Well, we are in America, and we're in America.
Speaker 4: What does any of us have to deal with what's
true or false?
Speaker 10: Well, we believe this is another thing back to what
we also agree on. We believe that gay marriage is wrong, correct,
and that's that's a truth. Now we can look at
some of the peers that we have within these designated
demographics of faith and we can see some serious issues there.
So that's kind of what I'm kind of raising attention
to and maybe get your feedback on that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just don't think that the numbers of various
percentages and denominations in America approves or disproves anything.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm not trying to disprove, like you know, on
a macro level of an entire religious belief, but just
looking you.
Speaker 4: Know more, is it. Let me ask you a question,
is it possible for a cult Islam to be anti homosexual?
Speaker 3: Well, I think anything is possible with God's.
Speaker 4: Okay, are Muslims anti on the on paper?
Speaker 10: That's pretty uh, you know, that's generally I would say no.
Speaker 4: No, Sunni Islam is officially anti homosexual and anti gay marriage.
So what are you talking.
Speaker 10: About, Well, you're generally yeah, yeah, you may be correct
in that, but are that would.
Speaker 3: Be you know, wrong right now.
Speaker 4: I didn't say they all are. I'm talking about numbers
and percentages of the professing Sunni majorities of Islam on
paper or anti gay marriage. So what does it have
to do with what's true or false?
Speaker 3: Well, that would be one thing that they have correct then.
Speaker 4: For those that believe that, right, and so all of
what you've argued gets you nowhere.
Speaker 3: All right, that's fair.
Speaker 10: But my point is that I'm not trying to, you know,
make this macro argument.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to make what's your point micro what's a
micro argument about the point of the debate today is
what's true and false? So your micro argument is kind
of irrelevant.
Speaker 10: Okay, well, thanks for having me up anyway, but just
you know, conclude with like, my point of bringing this
up is I just wanted to hear your feedback on
for example, you know, more specifically, with what you are
you know your peers? It's it does say here fifty
four percent of Orthodox Christians believe in same sex marriage,
So that would be an issue for you, I would think.
Speaker 4: And so by that logic is long. By that logic
is lom. It's true because Islam on paper has almost
a billion people or more than a billion, who are
professing to be anti gay marriage. So there you go.
Good job, that's a fallacy. So good job with your fallacy.
Any other arguments, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I don't see how that's a fallacy, just.
Speaker 4: Pointing out as data, but because the data doesn't prove anything,
and there might be tons of factors as to why
that's the case. And I use the Muslim example to
show that your argument doesn't prove anything. Okay, so why
should so hold on? So why should we believe Lutheranism?
Because what I notice is it looks like you're going
through data to try to find some weird other way
to say that perhaps Orthodox Christianity is not true and
your flavor of Lutheranism and white Evangelicalism is when that
doesn't make any sense if the mainline Lutherans all capitulated.
Speaker 10: Yeah, fair point, And I totally understand what you're saying,
but I don't have that view that I'm trying to
disprove all these other.
Speaker 4: Things because so you brought an argument that doesn't prove
anything to a debate.
Speaker 10: Yeah, fair, I mean I did join just now last second,
so I do apologize for that if it's a.
Speaker 4: Little off, tokay. So do you have any other arguments
as to why Orthodox Christianity is not true in your position?
Speaker 3: Is? Well?
Speaker 10: Like I said, I actually am interested in our hearing
more about that. And you know, I've learned a lot
from you about different things, and so a lot of
things I think we would agree on.
Speaker 3: Actually, let's go back to the first thing.
Speaker 10: If you don't mind real quick about how why you
believe that our view of the Trinity is different than
each other here?
Speaker 4: Well, simply put, the Orthodox Church has for over a
thousand years explicitly rejected the Phillyoquay, and every major Protestant group,
whether Protestant, whether Lutheran or Anglican, or Calvin, believes the Philly.
Speaker 10: Oquay, so specifically the phillyoaquay.
Speaker 3: And I mean, if you don't mind, I would actually
ask you, do.
Speaker 4: You know kind of Luther and Calvin and all of
the Classical Reformation tradition, affirms the Augustinian.
Speaker 7: I want to show off something that we're all proud of.
I've got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted,
much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just
got this page up. We are just testing it out.
You guys are some of the first people in the
world to see it. I want to say, for my part,
it's not philosophy want oh one. I think this is
a miss mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed,
because a philosophy want on one course, they give you
kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of.
Jay actually lays out, over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens
of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone,
the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it
takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the
origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different ways
to look at it over time, and how that has
been brought about to what we have today, which is
almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic and
reason side, in an overabundance of woke philosophy that is
irrational and is made up day by day as people
are like I think we should bring racism back, and
then here's a justification, and then it gets wokeified and
spread out, and then all of a sudden you have
a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become the
property in action. You need to be able to stand
on your own ground. It helps to have a foundation
in philosophy because it's a method defined when you get
down to it. Philosophy is there because you love truth
enough to go and learn how to find it, because
it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that.
There is the landing page. We'll link it up in
the notes. It is a longer once, so we'll get
a shorter URL for this. I'm sure Jay has a
link on his page. I just wanted to show it off.
Now you know what exists, you can go look for
it and see why this is not your father's philosophy. Right,
So well done. I'm proud of everyone who helped to
produce and edit the course, and of course Jay did
a flawless job in presenting the course over those twelve weeks,
and he's a juggernaut. He's another guy just like John Bush,
in action all the time, doing something productive, like very
little wasted time in his week, those one hundred and
sixty eight hours of being harnessed very well.
Speaker 4: Eternal double hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox
Church famously for a thousand plus years, rejects that there
is a double eternal hypsit procession. The Father is the
sole cause in the trinity, and you cannot give causation
to the Son because it's a unique hypostatic property that
picks out the Father.
Speaker 3: And why would you think that I disagreed with that?
Speaker 4: Did you not hear what I said?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: I did.
Speaker 10: It just tended to not be in plain enough English
for me to accept it on.
Speaker 4: First because all a Protestant professing Christians believe in the
Augustinian doctrine of the phillyoq waight ninety nine point nine percent,
and it's the Lutheran tradition to agree with that.
Speaker 10: All right, Is there anything that you would suggest that
I review to better understand what you're The point you're
making is because I'm just not getting it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we did a talk. You can find the podcast
on my channel. It's called a Philly Oku Way history
of a doctrinal controversy. That's a good place to start.
And it's me Father deacin Annius and our buddy Lewis.
So I appreciate your comments.
Speaker 3: If you don't mind, just what is the root of it?
Speaker 4: You know, what is the root of the Phillyoaks doctrine?
Speaker 3: The difference.
Speaker 4: Well, we would argue that Philioque messes up the trinity.
It creates an imbalance because you get a diad where
you have this principle of this power that two persons share,
which is the property that picks out the father. The
father can't give his unique personal property to the son,
namely to be cause. So that's a diad. You would
have a subordination of the Holy Spirit because the Holy
Spirit doesn't have the power to cause a person.
Speaker 10: Oh well, I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is subordinate.
Speaker 4: If he doesn't have the power to cause a person,
then it's a power that he lacks that the father
and the son share, so you subordinate him.
Speaker 3: Hum. Yeah, that's interesting, And again I think that gets.
Speaker 10: Into what a lot of people don't actually hear when
they're growing up in Christianity. They like this is something
that is more of a compla type of thing.
Speaker 4: Well, it's not just the Philly okay. I mean there's
a whole bunch of other things that Orthodox believe that
obviously Protestants don't. So I mean, there's the doctrine deification,
there's the doctrine of you know, the reality necessity of
the sacraments, which Lutherans do believe professing to they at
least profess to believe the necessity the sacraments, but we
don't believe in a justification by faith alone, which Lutherans
believe in. Luther was pretty strict on the doctrine predestination.
I don't know what your specific Lutheran group believes on predestination.
The Orthodox Church does not believe the Augustinian position of predestination.
So there's plenty of things that could be listed. The
distinct We believe in the necessity of tradition, so we
don't believe in solar scripture. I mean, there's all kinds
of things.
Speaker 3: M Okay, yep, that's great.
Speaker 10: So two things in response, If you want to move on,
that's cool. We'll just get these two things in response
real quick. But I feel like this is a conversation
that you know, obviously there's more research than you've done
my part to understand fully what these differences are.
Speaker 3: I understand some what you're saying. But so the two
things i'd say is, like, you know, the thing is.
Speaker 10: In my faith, I would be willing to accept that
your faith is accurate, you know, as well as my own.
Speaker 3: Right, that's like a difference there, I think that we have.
Speaker 4: That's another fallacy.
Speaker 10: So that's okay, you know, if you say that, that's
fine with me. So the second thing is just totally separate.
Speaker 4: I mean, Luther says, if you teach works, you had
to teach a different gospel, and he believed understand that.
So I mean you don't believe that.
Speaker 10: They're both important, right, go ahead, Yeah, I mean faith
and works are both important.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: Again, that's not the point Luther. Maybe you don't believe
what Luther's taught on this, I don't know, But I
mean if for him it was a question of a
different gospel. So Paul says, you teach different gospel, you're cursed.
So you can talk like an ecumenist and make it
sound like your positions better because you accept me, but
my positions worse because I don't accept you. But that's
a fallacy, has nothing to do with which positions were false.
Speaker 10: That's, you know, a good point, but it's not what
I was saying. Actually, I don't believe one is lesser
or whatnot.
Speaker 4: So but yeah, that's inconsistent because the traditional Lutheran Reformation
position is that my position is a false gospel. So
which one is it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then there's that argument that.
Speaker 10: You know, in the context of the times, things can
be said that are but that's not really my point.
Speaker 3: Okay, but you would understand that too, at the context
of the times or whatever.
Speaker 4: Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 10: So anyway, I think we had a good discussion on
that for now. But let me just ask you a
totally separate questions. Do you partake in drinking?
Speaker 3: Now? Call?
Speaker 4: I do not.
Speaker 8: That.
Speaker 4: What does that have to do with anything?
Speaker 10: Just a personal curiosity, I guess anyway. But hey, Jay,
you know, it's been great talking to you. Happy New
Year to you, man, and I appreciate it always hearing
your spaces and being able to contribute.
Speaker 3: I think one thing we can acknowledge.
Speaker 10: Is in this data, I did share the number one
uh faction of acceptance to.
Speaker 4: All of this.
Speaker 3: You know Satanism are the Satanists one?
Speaker 10: So I mean, if you maybe closing thoughts on that,
we have these atheists, pagan Satanists and like LGBT movement
groups that are like becoming a massive religious base.
Speaker 4: So what what what? What's the point of the alcohol course?
I don't understand. Where? Why what's the relevance of that?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 4: Hold on it? The wrong button?
Speaker 11: Here?
Speaker 4: My computers I can wear Are you there?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I wouldn't have judged you either way you answered,
I was just generally curious.
Speaker 4: But why nobody's I don't care. It's just I've never
been asked that on his face. I'm just curious.
Speaker 3: Why. Oh, perhaps on that one, you know, that unique
question there, but totally irrelevant. Man, don't worry about it.
Speaker 4: Thanks, man, appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Rachel, Hey, sorry if I sound bad, I'm kind of sick.
But I just wanted to quickly jump in and say
that mister fed guy there who was bringing up the
gay stats made a very simplayer in reading those statistics,
which you kind of guessed and sussed out, which.
Speaker 3: Is that when you look at the data he was
referring to. I googled it found it right away.
Speaker 8: It even the data itself in the report says it's
basically just a reflection of the actual culture at large.
So yeah, So if you look at Greece, the Orthodox
there are more accepting of gay stuff or as. If
you look at Russia or Eastern Europe, they're not. If
you look at the Middle Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Areas, they're not.
Speaker 8: And that the numbers in the United States are exactly
on par with the general population's acceptance of homosexuality.
Speaker 4: So that makes sense. I mean, basically, wherever NATO goes
is where you get get all this skittles. So but
I thank him for bringing all his discussion that these
are different arguments not used to this type of bringing
the stats. I don't mind it. I'm not really sure
how it relates to which positions are true, but it
is relevant, I guess, to bring up the cultural influences
of the face absolutely. Now I'm looking for people that disagree.
So I don't have a problem with people asking to
speak for Q and A, which is totally fine. As
you can tell, you've gotten the new loving Jay who
was biting his lip to be patient the entire time.
And I would like for people who disagreed to come
to the front of the line. So I don't have
a problem with the Q and A, but it always
ends up being Q and A, which is fine. But
I'm looking for the real challenge, which is can I
refrain from being mean while I debate? So let's see,
all right, we'll go to you guys raising your hand.
So next up is Nick? What's up? Nick?
Speaker 3: How can you hear me?
Speaker 4: I kind of hear it. Go by the way, impressions
is not mean. I'm still going to personate people. It's
not mean.
Speaker 3: It's okay, it's okay. Anyway, I just have a question.
Speaker 6: So I will be arguing from a more like skeptic
I guess alien position.
Speaker 3: You would call it alien?
Speaker 6: Like an alien? No, like a and like what like Arien,
you know, like you know, the stuff doing with the
trinity and stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, ok, yeah.
Speaker 6: So basically you like to bring up this like transcendental
argument right to when when arguing with atheists and stuff,
and so basically it's it brings up the necessity of
grounding like transcendental objects like reason itself. So basically you
cannot reason without grounding reason itself. So so that's that's
like a good argument, and I thought about it, But
still I don't see how the necessity of grounding reason
would imply a utrinity, right, because all this implies is
the necessity itself. But you can kind of you can
kind of solve this by platonism, right, so you can
kind of ground that and.
Speaker 4: Work Platonism has fundamental problems which make Platonism impossible. But
what does this have to do with arianism? I thought
you were talking about arianism.
Speaker 6: No, yeah, I just I just don't see how the
trinity comes in, right, So from the transal argument and
why it is necessary as a whole, like in the
theology because you know, Orthodox Christians they said the things
to fully as to other Christians as well. I don't
see how that is necessary in the same way as
the transcendental argument makes you know, reasoning grounding reasoning.
Speaker 4: I mean I've addressed time, addressed, I have addressed tons
of times. Just posted on my audio feed the response
to it's called Universals Conceptualism and response to doctor ed
Faser and I talk about how the argument is not
just for grounding theoretical you know, logical entities or whatever.
It's it's actually an argument for an entire worldview. So
the metaphysics that are required to have language, universals, categories,
et cetera, requires a specific type of world and universe,
namely one in which there is a creator. There's telos
tellos teleology, there's causation, there's morals, there's absolutes, there's external world.
All those things are part of the argument because it's
a specific worldview and a specific metaphysic, and that requires
the Christian Trinity. And Platonism doesn't work because Platonism is
reduced as to a monad. Platonism doesn't explain how the
realm of the forums relates to this world. There's a
dialectical tension between being in becoming. Platonism givesupremacy to the
one over the many. We don't have any explanation as
to why there's many and not just a one. I mean,
there's all kinds of serious problems in Platonism.
Speaker 6: I can see what they're saying, and I can sort
of see your reasoning here, But at the end of
the day, like I would have to basically accept because
that is not an argument. That's just you directing me
to read more about this stuff. So would you kindly
provide me, you know, if some sort of a guide
into like understanding this pillological position better, Like how would
I actually go from the transcendental arguments to actually, you.
Speaker 4: Know, transcendental categories that make knowledge possible do not exist
in a vacuum or independent of one another. They all
kind of go together. So think of all the transcendental
categories in a big ball, and that they interrelate and
necessitate one another. And that type of a worldview requires
a world like the Christian position posits about God's creation,
man's moral duties, providence, regularity over time, regular nature, identity
over time. That specific worldview resolves all those problems like
the one in the Many as an example. And so
the argument is that trans category is presuppose a certain
type of deity to ground all of those transmital categories,
namely the trinitarian Christian God.
Speaker 6: All right, but you don't see any other possibilities because obviously.
Speaker 4: It's a holistic. It's a holistic argument, and so the
other possibilities are not going to have the Christian trinitarian
theistic position. They're going to have other positions that at
a fundamental level, if you use, for example, change the
deity that you're trying to use to ground the system
like Platonism. You can't ground it in Platonism because Platonism
doesn't tell you how there's any similarity to the realm
of the forms to this realm, so you could do
no grounding.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, thank you for your response, I guess
thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah. You can check out that video where we went
into more detail. And I also did one called top
ten arguments against the transcendental argument, which covers how it
relates to Trinity, and I also recently put it up
on my podcast feed, the one about phaser. Can somebody
raise your hand? If you disagree, you go to headlline
bye way. I appreciate your question, It's just that one's
a really long, involved kind of response because I'm not
knocking you that you seem like you're on the run
at the right track here lot thigh. So anybody who
disagrees you got a headline, request to speak, and I
give you microphone, then you on mute. What's up?
Speaker 3: Hi?
Speaker 12: So I'm not a Christian, but right now I believe
that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have strong arguments.
Speaker 3: But right now I mean more.
Speaker 12: Toward Catholicism, because I don't know how to reshoot doctrinal
development and the unity that he does.
Speaker 3: And the what unity?
Speaker 4: What do you mean? The how to refute unity? What
does that mean?
Speaker 13: No?
Speaker 12: Like that the church is one I knew that, and
the first millionaim there was autophalis churches, But I don't
think that it was the best model.
Speaker 3: Like why couldn't it evolve?
Speaker 4: I mean it was not the First of all, it
doesn't make any sense because an ecumenical council is what
grants autocephally. So you're basically saying that ecumenical councils error
if you don't believe in all cephalist churches.
Speaker 12: No, I'm just saying, why couldn't it evolve to a
bitter system?
Speaker 3: Like right now?
Speaker 4: Well, first and foremost, there is no reason to believe
in the evolution of doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church itself
has condemned the evolution of doctrine. An evolution of doctrine
is a two edged sword, because if it can evolve
to be a papacy, then it can evolve to be
liberal or something else. So it's a stupid position to
think that doctrine evolves over time. And nobody in the
first thousand years of Christianity teaches that doctrine evolves over time.
So again to say that autocephalus existence church, the existence
of motocephalist churches is itself a problem. Is you calling
in to question the Council of Emphasis which granted it,
which means that the council's error, which means that you
don't believe in the Christianity the first thousand years.
Speaker 12: But couldn't you say that the trinity or anation was also, No.
Speaker 4: You cannot. No, this is a stupid argument. I'm not
trying to call used to it. It's just a dumb
argument because the council that confirmed the Iconodualism, the Seven
Ecamenical Council, says it is not a development. It is
an ancient Apostolic tradition based on the theology of the
Hebrews and their icons and imagery and Sacramentalist principles. So no,
you can't again to say that, as for example, Eric
Ibar does, is to reject the Seven Ecamentical Council. So
once again, you do not believe the actual theological teaching
of the councils. The papal system is what you're arguing
for in essentially rejecting the first size. So the other words,
the very argument is rejecting the theology the seven Ecamical councils.
Speaker 12: I think you're arguing because of a Patundy and a
Lamenta Lue, right, correct, But doesn't these documents say more
about modern errors than just development.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And what I said was it's a two edged sword.
So because those documents condemned the liberal evolution of doctrine,
it doesn't matter because the very principle is there that
there is no evolution of doctrine. Supposedly, that's why Vatican
one and statist cognitium argue that Vatican One was not
an innovation or development, but it was there from the
earliest days and that everybody believed it. So that's another
contradiction that the Church can have evolution of doctrine that
vindicates Vatican One, but also that there wasn't an evolution
of doctrine. Everybody believe Vatican One. So it's a two
faced contradictory position that Rome is always putting out, which
allows for all the confusion and people to justify all
the nonsense. No, I mean, and people even say I
mean the whole reason there's a novasorto with all this
madness is because it evolves in your church. So what
are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I just want to clarify something.
Speaker 12: So the Catholics think that the same papacy was un destroyed,
like when Jesus gave the keys to put it was
like the same as.
Speaker 3: It is now.
Speaker 4: Vatican Ones, Vatican Ones Posture Attornis, and Satis cognitum argue
that the Vatican One ideas are there from the earliest days,
believed by all without question. But because there's problems for
that view, other Roman Catholics, like Cardinal Newman, say will
prove it with doctrinal development or evolution of doctrine. And
all I'm trying to tell you is that when Vatican
One says that it's there from the beginning, but also
it condemns doctrinal development, as other theologians of the Roman
Cello Church say there's doctrinal development, then you get Vatican
two as the development of Vatican One. So development, I'm
just telling you that once you adopt development, there's nothing
that promises that it develops in a conservative way. It
can develop into a liberal way. And that's exactly what Vatican.
Speaker 12: Two is, yes, but doesn't the liberal liberal development is
in the category of the modern errors that limitably condemns.
Speaker 4: Then you're rejecting Vatican two, which is the liberal development.
Speaker 12: But like the Immaculate Conception or the assumption is not.
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter because if development is admitted, there's nothing
that guarantees that it's not going to develop in the
liberal tradition. And I'm proving that by pointing to Vatican two,
which is dogma, which developed in the liberal way.
Speaker 3: Can you say, what are these liberal thing that Vatican
two says?
Speaker 4: How about praying with Muslims together because Muslims worship the
same godd as Christians.
Speaker 12: M I mean, yes, it can be liberal, but why
could we just interpreted as a nice gisture like to
make people more So.
Speaker 4: This is the problem. So in the first thousand years,
it's condemned and you're excommunicated as a prelate to pray
in sects or synagogues with other groups. Post Vatican two,
it's the work of the Holy Spirit. That's a contradiction.
So that's the problem with development. Development develops into Vatican
to Abu Dhabi Faith Center, where we're all worshiping the
same God together, and you can't do it because it's condemned.
It's a contradiction. How do you call crusades against Muslims?
But now you can go pray in the moss towards Mecca,
as both popes, the past two popes have done.
Speaker 12: They will say, like a content Domino, they will say
that it was atended only on that period and not forever.
Speaker 4: This is why you're I'm not trying. I'm really having
a really hard time not being mean here because you
just admitted that dogmas condemn the dogmas don't develop in
a liberal way, and then you just told me the
cantat Domino is for that period and not for forever.
You don't see that as a contradiction.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I see your point. I see your point. Yeah,
that's all for me. Thank you for answering my questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, great questions. Yeah. And I'm not trying to be rude.
I'm just really see you're of love, man, See you're
of love, dude, chilling out fair questions. I understand. I've
been where you're at. I had to work through the
calg Orthodox issue for many, many, many years. So it's
all good, dude, the man cave. I don't understand how
that we get up to sixteen hundred. Is it something
to do with YouTube? I don't get it, like it
gets out. We got up to sixteen hundred, which is
one of my highest live stream audiences numbers wise. I
think one time we had two thousand. Maybe Crucible dumped
into into here. I'm not sure, but I noticed, like
it's the wildest fluctuations that I see on my control screen.
It goes from nine hundred to sixteen hundred, to nine
hundred to sixteen hundred to nine hundred to thirteen hundred's
are are there really five six hundred people just dipping
out within like two seconds? I don't know who knows
what's going on. I'm mute, man, what's up? I was
about to eat a ginger chew, but I was like
that ginger she's been sitting there for like two months.
I don't think I'm gonna eat that. What's up? Man,
I'm mute. You raise your hand. You don't want to talk,
man cave, I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Oh sorry, I didn't even know I was muted.
Speaker 13: I was actually chatting with you, but you didn't hear
anything I was saying.
Speaker 4: Well that's why I always say I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 13: No, So I've been listening to the channel for a
little while and you know, just to spice you know,
some some things up, just to give some of my background.
I'm an atheist and I just, uh, you know, I
grew up in the church, and there are, in my opinion,
you know, very reasonable.
Speaker 3: Steps that I took to arrive where I'm at.
Speaker 11: So, you know, I think, you.
Speaker 3: Know, I love conversations.
Speaker 13: I'm not a big debate person, but I have had
interesting conversations with Christians.
Speaker 3: I was in church for New Years.
Speaker 13: So I'm not coming for a place where I think
that Christians are bad people or anything of that nature.
Speaker 3: I will maybe propose some of you know, a couple.
Speaker 13: Of reasons why I ended up where I am, and
I wanted to maybe get your viewpoint. I don't I
don't think that will agree, but I think it may
you know, lead to some interesting conversation. Right, So I'll
just get yeah, I'll just get right to the point.
So one of one of the you know, things that
I started to think about, you know, when I was
really studying the word, and I'm telling you I studied
it was just the thought that God is perfect? Do
you do you believe that God is perfect?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 13: Okay, so like everything God does is perfect?
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right?
Speaker 13: So for me, you know, I'm reading the Bible and
God was perfect in the Old Testament too, right, So
why what part of that perfection included drowning babies.
Speaker 10: During the flood?
Speaker 13: Like God's omni present, so he's like everywhere, he's like
watching babies drown.
Speaker 4: Well, God has the authority over life and death. So
if you're going to say that's wrong, Like, on what
basis is it wrong.
Speaker 13: Because babies are drowning, Like drowning is a horrible way
to die.
Speaker 4: But the universe is a cold, meaningless series of determined
causal effects, causal chains, Like, what's what's wrong with it?
Speaker 13: Because you know we have things like natural disasters?
Speaker 3: Right, we have earthquakes.
Speaker 4: You know what I'm saying, If your view is true,
why is it wrong? Or what does it mean for
someone to be wrong? Why is that bad?
Speaker 13: Because if I was perfect, I'd figure out.
Speaker 3: It another way.
Speaker 4: No, but I'm saying, if there is no God, what's
the basis for saying anything is wrong?
Speaker 13: Again, like the premise that you're you know, asserting that
the hasc tod an objective morality view, we as human
beings are trying to figure this thing out.
Speaker 4: Okay, so the so if there's not an objective morality,
then that's I'm.
Speaker 13: Just if I could, I would take like ten seconds.
So like century after century, right, I think we get
a lot of things wrong. But if you look at
how we treat each other to day versus a hundred
years ago, twenty years ago, thousand years ago, I think
we're gradually getting things.
Speaker 4: Okay, so we're better than we used to be. What's
the benchmark for what's better?
Speaker 13: Just general happiness, general health?
Speaker 4: Why does any of that matter? We're just meaningless cogs
and a determined machine universe. What does happiness even mean?
Speaker 13: Because in your view, I'm asking your view, Yeah, I'm
telling I'm telling you because in your view, no, because
you feel like God gives us a purpose.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, there's also the principle I'm making a more
philosophical point about teleology, and I'm saying that if the
universe has no purpose, there's no purposiveness, then there's not
actually anything that's all actions are equalized, they just are.
Speaker 13: So I disagree because I feel like we all can
give our lives purpose and.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but you're a meaningless being in a meaningless universe,
and so your petty little to oral subjective purpose doesn't
mean anything ultimately. I mean, you can call my No,
I mean is that your Is that consistent with the position?
Speaker 3: I mean, you're you're calling my time that I spent.
Speaker 13: With my family over the holidays and the joy that
we had and the presence that I made and took.
Speaker 4: In the big picture? Is that not true that in
the big picture, in your position, it's beingless.
Speaker 13: It's it's I and my family had an amazing.
Speaker 4: This is all subjective. These are emotional appeals. That's a fallacy.
Speaker 3: It's well, it's to you.
Speaker 4: But my argument, no, it's not to me. You don't
so you don't think there's a fallacies that's all subjective.
Speaker 3: I think I think that us as human.
Speaker 4: Beings are fallacy subjective. I think that So you're just
you're not here to preach, dude. Can you debate or not?
Speaker 3: No, I'm telling you.
Speaker 4: Can you you're telling me. I'm asking you if if
fallacies and the laws of logic or subjective.
Speaker 13: It depends on the argument. There are this argument and
the objective arguments.
Speaker 4: Well, we're talking about what we're talking about, that's what
I'm referring to. Obviously.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think there's an objective right or wrong between me.
Speaker 4: So you made an emotional appeal bringing up your family
at the holidays, and I'm saying that that's a fallacy,
and you're saying that that's my opinion. So there's not fallacies.
Speaker 3: I'll conclude my magin my argument is.
Speaker 4: You didn't make an argument, you made a fallacy.
Speaker 3: I will, I will.
Speaker 4: I'm going to come now, hold on, I want to
before you go on, I need to know if fallacies
exist or if they're subjective. Yes, okay, So there's laws
of logic? What are those?
Speaker 3: Well, if I can, So.
Speaker 4: You're not going to address the questions. You're not. You can't.
You're not here to preach. What are there laws of
logic or not?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay? And where are those? What are those in
a meaningless universe?
Speaker 13: If they're a verifiable truths and falsities and that we
can test, those are very good gauges.
Speaker 4: Okay, how do you test a law of logic?
Speaker 14: Again?
Speaker 13: Are we talking about morality or other things as science?
Speaker 4: Okay? So you don't even know what you're talking about.
You're not even you don't even know, You're like not
even in the game. I'm talking about the laws of
logic and what they are and where they are and
how they're justified because you said they do exist.
Speaker 13: Okay, where you give an example, because I had a
very simple point I was just trying to close off.
Speaker 3: With in ten seconds.
Speaker 4: Well, you made a fallacy and I called out the
fallacy of an emotional appeal when you started saying that,
how dare you say that my time with my family
doesn't have any meaning? And I'm saying, that's an emotional appeal,
it's relevant to you today, and you're saying that's why
I said, well, what a minute. You said that's subjective,
and I said, no, an emotional appeal is a fallacy,
it's not subjective. That's why I'm asking you if laws
of logic are real or subjective? And you said they're real,
And now I'm asking you how they're real?
Speaker 3: What are they?
Speaker 4: Where are they? What's the justification for believing those things
in an atheist universe?
Speaker 13: Well, again, like I said, I will grant you that
there are laws of logic.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm not well for questioned?
Speaker 4: So what are they? How are they? Where are they?
What's the justification for those in eight?
Speaker 13: Can you tell me some examples of the laws and
logic so I can follow what you're saying.
Speaker 4: There's a point, all right, So like, if you're going
to come debate, maybe you should have known about those
things before you debate. That's not being mean. If you
come to debate and you don't know what a law
of logic is, you're not ready to debate, that's not
me being mean. If you disagree, raise your hand and
I'll bring you to the head of the line. Who disagrees? Okay, Monitor?
What's up?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 10: Hey, okay, yep, I don't disagree, but can I have
a question?
Speaker 4: Can I ask why did you come to that now?
Because I asked people specifically to come to the headline
if they disagree, and so you like metal? What's up?
See now we're back to fifteen hundred live. I don't
understand what's a dog?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir?
Speaker 15: Oh hey, sorry you said Monitor? I was just I
didn't I didn't hear it was a metal ass foreword
the wrong thing.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, Oh you're.
Speaker 15: Good, Thanks for letting me on. I've been trying to
get on for a while.
Speaker 11: You know, I try to be pretty proficient.
Speaker 15: In my philosophical thinking, but for the most part, I
guess I'm pretty adept in it.
Speaker 11: So forgive me ahead.
Speaker 4: Of time, your adapt or, inapt.
Speaker 3: Or excuse me, okay, what I mean?
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 15: So I've been attending an Orthodox parish for the past
four years.
Speaker 11: In southern California, and I grew up Baptist.
Speaker 15: I went to an Evangelical university, Biola.
Speaker 3: I'm sure you've heard of it.
Speaker 4: It's pretty well known.
Speaker 15: But I'm really trying to get to the point where
I recently have kind of stopped attending because I really,
m hmm. There's just some some qualms I've had that
I just can't get my Protestant mind around.
Speaker 11: Mainly in particular, I guess.
Speaker 15: The the final authority that Scripture has.
Speaker 16: And.
Speaker 15: I guess most people I talked to at my parish
they would hold tradition and the the traditions of the
Church essentially as a safeguard for the interpretation of Scripture.
Speaker 11: Do you see it as such as well?
Speaker 4: I would say that'd be one element of tradition, sure
would be one that would be one function of it.
Speaker 15: Sure, Okay, I guess really it's my main My main
qualm with it is ecumenical counsels are infallible in an
orthodoxy point. And I don't really see how they are infallible.
Speaker 11: Because ultimately, if they go outside the.
Speaker 15: Bounds of scripture, then shouldn't they be held to Okay.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, they don't go outside the bounds
of scripture, And in fact, in every ecumenical council they
cite as the first level of authority divine revelation, particularly scripture,
so scriptures almost always put first, and then they'll list
arguments from tradition and church fathers, and then arguments from logic,
so there's always usually kind of a tear system going
on there. But the idea that they would go outside
of or contradict, we would say, I mean, you can
go to divine revelation. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit
would guide the church, so the idea that the church
universally could error really invalidates the promise of Christ that
he would lead them and guide them into whole truth,
and that there's one holy Catholic Apostolic Church, or that
there's one Lord, one face, one baptism. As Paul says,
like the entire universal Church can fail, then the gates
of Hell prevail against the Church. So maybe the mistake
is your interpretation of what you think is going outside
the bounds of scripture, whether versus whether they really did totally.
Speaker 11: And that's ultimately what I've had to come to terms with.
Speaker 4: So what's an example of what's an example of an
ecumenical council that went outside the buses war?
Speaker 11: Well, I wouldn't.
Speaker 15: I mean, I guess maybe the triumph of orthodoxy in
terms of icon veneration being re implemented.
Speaker 11: Back in to the churches of practice.
Speaker 4: Right, So how would that be going out saw the
bounds of scripture when you find out throughout all the
throughout all the Old Testament that God tells you to
venerate things like the arc of the Covenant.
Speaker 11: Totally.
Speaker 15: And I understand that that typeological argument, but it really
doesn't quite hit home with me and my own heart,
and I really wish I could get to the point
where it does. Ultimately, you know, I don't see it happening.
Speaker 3: I mean I do.
Speaker 15: I watched countless hours, read you know, countless pages of books,
and ultimately I feel like you can't really trace it back.
Speaker 11: To the first century.
Speaker 4: Ultimately, did they have the eu Christ in the first century?
They did, Yes, sir, okay, was that revered.
Speaker 15: More than it is now in Protestant circles?
Speaker 4: I would say, yes, hold on, was that I'm just well.
Speaker 11: I just mean, like it's it's revered.
Speaker 15: Then, it's revered now. But I would say it has
more of a it has more of a relaxed view
nowadays than it did.
Speaker 4: You know, like, no, no, I'm not talking about Protestants today.
I'm just asking you if they revered, if they revered
the Eucharist and believed in the real presence of the
first century? Is that not a created thing? Is that idolatry?
Would Wouldn't that violate the point you're making about the
seventh the Council.
Speaker 11: I guess it would. Yes.
Speaker 4: So in Joshua seven it says Joshua torres close and
fell in the arc, fell in on the earth on
his face before the ark of the Lord him and
all the elder elders of Israel. So they're prostrating before
the arc. Is idolatry?
Speaker 11: No, I don't think it is. But also the presence
of God was.
Speaker 15: In the ark at that moment, so you don't believe
it is in the Eucharist.
Speaker 4: So, but he's not president in the liturgy. I don't
understand is he president in the bodies of the Saints
or not he is? So where's the problem?
Speaker 11: I guess the problem for me is.
Speaker 15: I understand the logic to get to the point where
you know the prototype when when you when you venerate
the prototype, you're you're venerating Christ. Right, Ultimately I understand that,
But as a practice, I don't see it happening in
the first century archaeologically or historically.
Speaker 4: Where's the Protestant Canada scripture in the first century?
Speaker 15: That That's another thing I've been thinking about, truly, is
I don't really I understand the argument that, well, where
did you get the Canada Scripture?
Speaker 4: No, no, I didn't say that. I'm not going to the
canon argument. I'm specifically saying the argument presupposes that there
would be some written proof or evidence of that in
the first century, And I'm saying that Protestants themselves believe
multiple doctrines that are not explicitly written in the first
century documents or texts. For example, where in the first
century is the Protestant or the second century of the
Protestant Canada Scripture.
Speaker 11: I think the Canada Scripture was already pretty well established.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's totally not true. Where did you get that idea?
We name a church father in the first, second, or
third century that lists the Protestant candascripture?
Speaker 11: Do they need to lift it if they already.
Speaker 4: You're just said that, Where was the evidence it's in
the first few centuries or the first century for icon veneration?
Speaker 11: Well, right, right, okay, I see, I see your thing.
Speaker 4: Okay, name a Protestant, Name a church father in the
first three centuries that has a Protestant cannon scripture, that.
Speaker 11: Has a canon of scripture?
Speaker 4: I mean, you have no that has the Protestant canon
of scripture? Are you having a hard time? I'm not
trying to be mean, but like, it's not a hard
Can you name a church father for the third time
in the first three centuries that lists the Protestant canon
of scripture?
Speaker 3: What do you mean by product?
Speaker 4: I mean, have you actually read this stuff? I'm not
trying to be rude, but it's like, I don't you've
been You've been attending an Orthodox church for four years
and you they're not familiar with any of those. That
doesn't make.
Speaker 3: Any sense, I am.
Speaker 15: But what I'm saying is the Canada Scripture by the
time it was established.
Speaker 4: When do you think that? When do you think that was?
Speaker 11: Third century?
Speaker 3: Four? Yeah? Third century?
Speaker 4: By who? What do you? I don't know what are
you talking about?
Speaker 3: Who?
Speaker 4: Who listed the Protestant canon district? You don't know that
the Protestants of a different canon.
Speaker 15: Each Yeah, each father had roughly a different canon, but
there were some that were there were books that were
always maintained.
Speaker 4: And so what church father in the first three centuries
maintained the Protestant list of books name one?
Speaker 11: I guess there is none.
Speaker 4: Correct, So you're requiring for orthodox a position that a
Protestant doesn't hold to themselves. So that's a double standard
because there are many things that even Protestants believe that
were not written as a dispute or a issue in
the first, second or even third century.
Speaker 11: Yeah, like justification by faith alone, essentially is.
Speaker 3: Would be one of them.
Speaker 4: Well that if you believe, if you read ELSI graph
wasn't believed by anybody in the first fifteen hundred years.
I'm not trying to be really but I don't actually
think you have. I don't actually think you've looked into
these issues, and I don't act. How have you attended
North X Church for four years and this is where
you're at? It just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 15: Well that's why I'm not christ made in essentially it
is because I just really, ultimately, I'm not trying to
say that you guys aren't Christians or you're wrong about.
Speaker 4: These things, but you don't. You don't exemplify much knowledge
about these topics at all. So what were you doing
this for?
Speaker 17: You?
Speaker 4: Did you go like once every four years?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 11: No, I go every week?
Speaker 4: Okay? An I mean does the priest not know anything?
Like he's just not good at katechisas or what?
Speaker 11: No, No, they're absolutely great.
Speaker 3: Kiss.
Speaker 15: I What I'm ultimately trying to get at is I
do not I ultimately think that I don't understand how
scripture isn't held to a higher authority than the tradition
of the church.
Speaker 4: But do you understand that when you walk into the liturgy,
the whole thing is scripture? So what do you? I mean,
the readings are all scripture, So what are.
Speaker 3: You talking about?
Speaker 11: I love the liturgy?
Speaker 4: Well, that you're you're introducing a false divide between the
two things. So where do you understand that the Bible
comes out the Bible comes out of the liturgy. Did
you even know that.
Speaker 15: The Bible comes out of the liturgy or it's made
alive in the liturgyes?
Speaker 4: No, it's literally determined to be what it is from
the liturgy.
Speaker 15: Wouldn't that and wouldn't that imply that the liturgy is
prior to.
Speaker 4: Well, what does Paul say in First Timothy? That's the
pillar and ground of truth.
Speaker 3: The church?
Speaker 4: Right? Does he say the books the scrolls? No? Okay,
So the Church produces the Bible and determines what goes
into it. And part of the way the Church determined
that was the electionaries. Electionaries are daily readings. The daily
readings had a huge role on the Church fathers over
the centuries, deciding by the time of Trollo and the
sixth and Seventh Council as to what would be included
in the canonicals list of scriptures. That canonical list of scriptures, universally,
except for Saint Jerome, included the Dutero canon, which the
Protestants rejected.
Speaker 11: Correct, they do reject the Deudio canon.
Speaker 4: Okay, so you're saying, come about the premiacy of scripture,
and you're going you want to go to a group
that doesn't even have all the scriptures.
Speaker 15: Well, when I think about it, and when I think
about it, logically, they had the book before they had
the services. The books came before the liturgy.
Speaker 4: No, that's not true. Totally wrong. Again, you don't know
what you're talking about. If you read Williams and Anstall
book on the history of the formation of Christian liturgical
worship out of the synagogue and temple system, and even
if you read a Protestant like Hugh Weybrew in his
book The Byzantine Liturgy, the liturgy predates and precedes the
the canonical list of scriptures. So you're absolutely wrong.
Speaker 11: Maybe then it might predate the canon list.
Speaker 4: How are you going to have solo scripturia without a canon?
Speaker 15: Well, there was already established scripture before.
Speaker 4: You're missing a point. It doesn't matter. I understand that
certain churches might have had Paul's Letters or this or
that gospel, but for sola scriptura to be true, you
need the entire Protestant sixty six Books of the Bible,
and even James White in his recent debate with Trent Horne,
admitted that no, the Church of the first several centuries
did not operate on a sol scripture of principle because
they did not have the entirety of the Bible. Do
you understand you can't have solos?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, Well then that refutes your previous point.
Speaker 11: I'm not even saying that all you need is scripture.
I don't even hold to is. So I don't even hold.
Speaker 4: I believe the Orderdrox Church does believe in premuscret that
the scripture is is primary.
Speaker 11: Okay, okay, okay, yeah, okay. Can we move on and
can ask you one more question?
Speaker 18: Okay?
Speaker 15: So the Orthodox view of hell, I know that there
are a lot of differing views on it, because I
mean to say ultimately what the afterlife is going to
be like ultimately.
Speaker 3: But one of the.
Speaker 15: Main proponents of what I've heard coming from my own
parish personally, is that you know, the wicked and the
righteouster are all raised, We're all going to get new bodies.
Some are made for destruction and some are made for
eternal life with Christ right and the same river of
life that flows from the throne is like fire to
you know what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 11: You know I'm getting at You've heard this? Is that
is that view held mainly because.
Speaker 15: I guess, logically speaking, God, God's presence cannot inhabit or
God cannot sustain I guess a place of existence for
us in the afterlife where his presence is not so
he can't create Hell, where he can't create Hell.
Speaker 11: And sustain its existence. If his presence is not there.
Speaker 15: And if you're going to believe that Hell is the
absence of God's presence, then how can Hell be sustained?
Speaker 4: I mean it's not ultimately determined by a question revolving
around divine on the presence. It's more so a question
revolving around Christology and the idea that Jesus assumed universal
human nature, and that's why all men are resurrected. So
all men are resurrected regardless of whether they're wicked or righteous,
according to Paul and verse Crinian's fifteen. And as Christology develops,
don't mean developed in the Roman sense. I just mean
that the specification of what the Apostolic faith is, and
the councils as that specification develops over time, what gets
worked out theologically is also the effect of Christology and
a cosmic scope on the esketon. And so Saint Maximus
is a key figure in that. If you read any
of the works on Maximus, like the Little Blue Book
that SBS puts out, there's a whole section on recapitulation
and if you read it.
Speaker 11: Here Nasty Christ.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So Aaron As also talks about recapitulation and against heresy.
So this is the idea that Christ recapitulates everything that
Adam lost, and Adam's sin didn't just affect him personally
or his own physical body or his progen and it
affected the entire universe. So there's a cosmic scope. Because
man was a steward of all creation, Christ becomes the
new steward of all creation. Thus the scope of the
effect is just as universal as Adams fall. And so
that's a big part of where the Orthodox doctrine of
river fire being the light of river, of life, water
life and all that. That's where all that comes. It's
basically more so crystal logical than it is anything to
do with whether or not God is omnipresent.
Speaker 11: Okay, Okay, that that's a nice clarification.
Speaker 4: Sure, Okay, yeah, a new time man. I appreciate you
coming on, and I'm sorry if I got a little
uh testy there. It's just the the thing with the
canon is a is a is a thing. I harp
on a lot. It's just kind of a pet peeve
of mine. So I'm not being rude to you. I'm
always I'm looking for people who disagree. If you say
you're disagreeing and you don't disagree, I'm just gonna be
gonna be You're not gonna answer your question because it
gets annoying when people lie and say that they disagree
just to get to the line. Rick, what's up dude?
Hey Jamie, Jamie, could you make me a double shot
of Xpresso what's that slick?
Speaker 3: Rick? Hey? What's up? Jay?
Speaker 11: How you doing, sir.
Speaker 4: Good?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? All right? All right?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: My issue?
Speaker 18: Well, yesterday I was listening to one of your I
guess little whatever this is called, and I heard you
say that if you're not a member of the orthodized.
Speaker 4: Trop all on, just one second to the guy in
the chat over here on YouTube, not you, Jimmy and.
Speaker 19: The Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed
to take your performance to the next level. Chad Mode
is for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting the gym,
invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the
midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's
as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our
fine powder into water or juice. Providing you with a delicious,
energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring
a clean and effective formula. Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle,
blue dye and sucralose, further tanking their already low testosterone levels.
Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok
peasants pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab
made caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave.
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic
registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and
organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power
of organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose of chad
Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a
half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you
to fire your boss and mog on anyone who opposes you.
Chad Mode will give you a dominant and aggressive edge,
like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the gazelle is
a TikTok Jim zoomer, macro guzzling sucralose on the daily
edging to TNF videos. Whether you're seeking a high potency,
junk free pre workout or a better way to kickstart
your day, chad Mode has you covered. It's not just
for men. Chad Mode is a solution for anyone ready
to conquer their fitness and life goals, dominate their coworkers,
and aggressively gamble their life savings. Don't miss out secure
your supply of chad Mode on TikTok Shop with a
limited time, massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days.
Chad Mode not for your average Jim bro zoomer who
guzzles synthetic blue dyes on the daily. Buy on the
TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok
for a very limited time. Buy now while this is
still available. Mode has been flying off the shelves because
it's the first of its kind, certified for Alpha or
Sigma males only. Do not buy if you are a beta.
We will refund your money.
Speaker 4: Chat if you want to. Instead of spamming, you have
to come to debate. So you're welcome to come and
chat Jimmy. But to just spam the chat, you're just
gonna get booted. So go ahead, man, what's upright?
Speaker 3: No problem?
Speaker 11: Yeah? I just heard that.
Speaker 18: I think that if you're not an adherent to the
tenets of the Orthodox Faith, that you know you're going
to hell.
Speaker 4: I heard you say that.
Speaker 11: Okay, so what what are your parameters? And I'm not
asking a question, this is not Q and A.
Speaker 18: But I'm sure I'll be able to find something in
your response, that won't give me an opportunity to argue
against what you believe. But in terms of your parameters
for sociology, what is essential for salvation according to the
Orthodox Faith? According to your understanding, which I'm sure you're
understanding is limited. I doubt you have in your mind
the entire you know, canon of understanding from all the synods.
But according to your limited understanding, what is necessary for salvation?
Soteriologically speaking?
Speaker 4: Do you have an understanding of all the synods?
Speaker 3: No? I don't, okay, and I think no one does.
Speaker 11: That's going to be part.
Speaker 18: Of the logic which I understand you hold is pre
eminent in terms of understanding your faith above other things. So,
but let's just ask the question, if you don't mind,
if you can answer it, what is essential for salvation?
Speaker 4: Well, for example, there's not a one size fits all
because we would say, as Orthodox that say, a retarded
person or a child who doesn't have any advanced level
of understanding can be saved. Right, So the Orthodox Church
we baptize children then slow people as well, so they
can be baptized and saved without extensive amounts of knowledge.
I think Jesus says, you know to who much is given,
much is required. So in those cases I would say
that's why. Ultimately, on an individual basis, as Orthodox we
say that we leave that up to God. But for
what we go by in terms of public profession, you
do have to be joined to the mystical Body of Christ,
which I do believe. The parameters are that that's identical
to the Orthodox Church. But that's not hold on, that's
not like necessarily limited to some building or some space.
In other words, let's say a Muslim dude, let me
finish it, I'll let you talk. So let's say a
Muslim dude like lives in Saudi Arabia, doesn't anything about Christianity,
and he starts listening on the internet to Orthodox stuff.
And let's say he gets down and prays and accepts
Jesus something like that, but he has no access to
baptism or something like that, and then he dies that night.
Could he be said? Absolutely? And the thief on the
Cross is an example of that. So it really depends
on that's extra normative. I think God has the ability
to through extra normative means, like the guy the thief
on the Cross, to join people to the mystical body
but I do also affirm that the Orthodox Church is
the mystical body of Christ.
Speaker 18: Okay, And when you say a mystical body of Christ,
what does that mean.
Speaker 3: That? Well, because the.
Speaker 18: Mystical definition that kind of just.
Speaker 11: For me that throws me off.
Speaker 4: Like that's just that the ald term. It doesn't it
doesn't ever to do with a mystical definition. It just
means that the extension of the incarnation is the Church.
It is the visible, institutional Orthodox Church, which is the
continuation of His body. Say that same much, let me finish.
According to Paul first Corinthians twelve, when he talks about
the church at Corinthie says, you are Christ's body, eyes, hands, feet,
et cetera. We believe that we really are through baptism,
the extension of the incarnation.
Speaker 18: Yeah, with the contextually, what he was actually talking about
in one Corinthians twelve was to not elevate one part
of the body over another, that the entire body was essential.
So I would cite you as being incorrect there on
your contextualization of that scripture and ulizing it for the
mystic body of Christ.
Speaker 4: So you're a gnostic who doesn't believe in the incarnation
that's what you're saying.
Speaker 18: Now, I believe in the incarnation that what I said,
and you're you're setting up a straw man right there.
Speaker 4: Well, no, your your exidesis tells me that your position
is what Protestant? Are you Protestant?
Speaker 18: I no, I'm actually pre Protestant. I would be like Brien,
you know what, because.
Speaker 4: Heretic?
Speaker 3: Okay, no, I'm not a heretic.
Speaker 4: But there is no such thing as a Brian church
doesn't Here's the.
Speaker 18: Thing, this is, this is what I'm trying to say.
I'm trying to say that the first century church you're
you're not that you're a you're from what I'm not.
Speaker 4: That that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as
you have. You're not that there is no boer in church.
You made it up.
Speaker 11: Let me make it. Let me make another point.
Speaker 18: See Rachel laughing. You know I sense that there is
a lack of the fruit of this.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, here we go. Yeah, well you should be
thought of because you're ridiculous.
Speaker 11: Okay, Well here's the thing.
Speaker 3: All right, here's the thing.
Speaker 18: See that type of comment, when you go into the
ad homin and attacks, you basically rendered any of.
Speaker 4: Your because nobody should listen to you, because nobody believes
in a delusion on this channel. What I said, because
nobody is gonna listen to somebody who believes that they're
reinventing a first century church. That means you're in delusion.
So we're not gonna argue with you. You're a waste of time,
You're a delusion. That was not mean, that was correct.
So notice how nice I was to that guy, answering
his questions, and then he comes with this total quackery.
Who's next? You have to raise your hand and we
will go to you. I want to hear actual arguments.
I'm not gonna hear you yapping at me about the
exegesis one Grindians twelve. How's that going to prove the
Barean Church? You misinterpreted French Criadian's twin. I'm a member
of the original Brian Church. There is no original Brian
Church doesn't exist. You're in a cult. Okay, Alex, you
are disagreeing. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 4: Oh, we got a philanthropists playboy, he's a mac daddy.
He's gonna set us straight.
Speaker 20: Yo, No, no, no, I have So I came across
an argument from the Muslims I've never heard of before,
and I'm curious your take on it.
Speaker 3: His argument is because Christ, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Yep?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 21: Because Christ took on a fully human nature and he
has that in eternity right, he's bound to it for eternity,
he says. He said, how is that not idolatry because
you can't separate the person from the nature.
Speaker 4: Well, Saint Cyril addressed this objection. It's an objection that
the story has had. And Cyril's answer is that the
we're not worshiping the humanity for the sake of humanity.
We worship the one Christ hypostatically united to the human
nature that he took on. So it's the body of
the god Man. We're not worshiping his body.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 20: So I said something very similar to that, and he
kept on reiterating that because it's a property that the
person has and we claim to worship Christ as a whole.
Speaker 3: He couldn't seem to get past that.
Speaker 20: I was thinking that it was probably just him having
a lack of person in nature distinction is that?
Speaker 4: I mean, I think that's part of it, But also,
like the point of the hypeset of union is that
the whole Christ is what's worshiped, not parts. And that's
what ephesis reiterates against the stories, because the story says,
if you worship the humanity, you're worshiping a man and
you're an idolator. And so the response is that there
is no dividing of the worship that we direct to Christ.
The worship that we direct to Christ is to the
divine person in his human nature, so that the subject is
fully divine from all eternity. The second person that God
had and that nature that he assumed, which is deified,
is also now taken up into his possession, and it
has become his own. And so because it is his own,
we worship it as the body of the God Man
and not a body, right.
Speaker 3: And because he took it on, it wouldn't be.
Speaker 4: Idolatry that And also Muslims are really in no better
position because they can't figure out if they worship and
if there's an eternal Qur'an next to a lot as well.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, exactly, all right, that was it. I appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, good question. I mean, the anathemas of ethicis if
you read through them, they're actually that's funny, because that's
I wonder if Nestorius, I mean, if you read even
today's academics, they'll point out that Islam was influenced by
Arianism and Astorianism and the Talmud and so forth and
so on. So I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't
a connection between Nestorius's argumentation and what you hear Muslims
make Ea Christian Ea, what's up?
Speaker 3: Hello, m.
Speaker 16: Oh hi, thanks for having me on. So my question
actually follows from that. It's somewhat similar. So I don't
quite understand the difference between the Eastern Orthodox position and
Oriental or copted and regards to Christ's nature.
Speaker 4: Okay, well that's a question, and I don't mind the question.
But we're doing an ongoing series about that that you
can watch on my channel. This is for people who
disagree today, so you can go to my channel and
watch part one in part two of Oriental Orthodoxy Refuted,
where we spend about six hours addressing that topic, and
we have many, many more installments coming. So I'm looking
for people who disagrees, So raise your hand in the
chat if you disagree. If you're coming with a Q
and a I'm just I'm not going to answer the questions.
So let's see. Next up is Alex.
Speaker 3: You know what's up? Jay?
Speaker 14: Hey, Okay, I'm probably going to disagree with you on
one question, but can I just get this off my
head first?
Speaker 3: I don't know if you.
Speaker 14: Saw Charlie Kirk talking to Michael Noles.
Speaker 4: I heard they had a debate. I've not seen it.
Speaker 11: Yeah, he was making a point.
Speaker 14: He made it against Catholics, but would follow for you two,
how we take Maccabee's but the Jews don't.
Speaker 3: So why, Well, Jews don't.
Speaker 4: Just Jews don't believe the New Testament.
Speaker 3: So what That's what I said. But so yeah, so
that's just a stupid argument.
Speaker 4: It is a stupid And also, the Apostles site and
utilize uh dider canonical texts quite often. The subtuo agent
which the Apostles usually used, included the dider Ken.
Speaker 14: Okay, nice, second, I want to know your take. I'm
sure you've deep dived the Fatima.
Speaker 3: Case. Like the miracle. You believe that was a real miracle.
Speaker 4: I do not know.
Speaker 3: Why.
Speaker 4: Even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't have anything
to do with whether or not we should follow it.
I mean, what does Jesus say about signs and wonders?
Wicked adulterous generation seeks signs and wonders. Every religion proclaims
signs and wonders. Are you familiar with Mary's so called
apparition at Zaytun?
Speaker 3: No, I haven't heard that one.
Speaker 4: So if you look up the Zytoon apparition in Egypt,
this is the most famous recent apparition. Thousands of Egyptians
saw supposedly the Virgin Marya appear over a Coptic church
in Egypt and Zytune does that prove Coptic Christianity truth?
Probably not know right, So Mary and apparitions cannot be
the thing that proves the true Church. I do believe
that the true Church will have miracles and things like this,
that's definitely they will accompany the true faith. But you
can't make those signs in one there's the thing that
proves the true faith because every group claims and has
these theories and operation claims. Also, my specific theory on
that is that I wrote an essay on this maybe
ten years ago. If you go to my website, type
mbattament will come up. My theory is that this was
part of the geopolitics of the time that they were
looking to and were already prepping for World War One,
and so they were looking for this enemy that they
wanted to really hype up. Also, the West exported, particularly
certain groups and people exported Marxism in Bolshevism to Russia.
And Mary curiously doesn't mention that. Mary seems to say
the things that literally the Anglo American establishment said and
wanted to be the case. So I do not believe
that Mary was working with the banking elite to try
to destroy Sorry.
Speaker 14: Right, but then those girls, like when the main miracle happened, right,
there's like fifty thousand people or something that saw it.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, I mean there's around that many at Zaytun Egypt.
Speaker 3: So I don't know what I'm saying.
Speaker 14: The girls had like six encounters before that main one.
Speaker 3: Doesn't that add a little more validity to it?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean there were there were there were very
famous fake news stories even prior to this. Look up
the Great Moon hoax in the eighteen seventies or eighties.
So because there's some news footage or a newspaper claim
out of Portugal, I mean one hundred years plus years ago. Look,
how is that proof that? I mean says, who, how
do we know that?
Speaker 14: No, I'm just I'm just saying they talked about before
the actual big event happened. They were saying a big
events can happen. That's why people were waiting there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but that's exactly what would happen if you're going
to stage an event like that. Have you looked into
the CIA's history of staging these kinds of events.
Speaker 3: See this where we're going to disagree.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, you can believe or not believe whatever
you want. You're saying the CIA doesn't stage religious events.
Speaker 14: No, I mean, well, I haven't heard actually anything about
religious events, but I know CIA is fucked up, right.
Speaker 4: So I covered Michael Graziano's book, which is right over
on the sheltered a whole talk on it where the
CIA was discussing staging the Second Coming under Ed Lansdale.
During the Cold War, CIA famously staged the Chupacabra vampire
stuff in the Philippines to in this situation, the Hook Rebellion.
They staged religious miracles there. They've staged stuff in Latin
South America to promote Catholicism. So they actually have a
well documented from academic text history of staging these kinds
of religious apparition events.
Speaker 3: So what do you think then.
Speaker 4: By the way, I'm not saying that the CIA stage Fatima.
There was no CIA at the times. Also, some idiots
gonna say I'm saying I'm not saying that, but I'm
saying that there have been a known large scale religious
forgeries and frauds that have existed for centuries and millennia.
It is not without it is not outside of the
pale of in my view, the Western establishment, even at
the time of Fatima, to stage that type of an event.
Which again, is there a direct proof of staging. No,
but there is a pattern of intelligence stagency staging going
back earlier than the CIA, into the OSS, into the Inquiry,
so it is possible. In fact, even tradcat Michael Jones
believes that Megi Gore is a CIA sigh up that
they stage. So I just go one step further. If
Megia Gory can be staged by the CIA for the
Cold War, as Emichael Jones emits, so can Fatima for
the West pre World War One?
Speaker 14: Okay, I see that just another kind of on topic here,
So then would like when Paul talks about testing the spirits,
could it then could they then fake a religious experience
that like aligns with the spirit, So we really wouldn't
be able to tell like like at all.
Speaker 4: We'll take magic Gory for example. I mean, if magic
Gorey is a fraud, then that has duped millions and
millions of Roman Catholics and you know Pilgrims, and so
what do you, like, what do you mean by aligning
with the spirit? I understand, Like I'm.
Speaker 14: Saying like like false lights, like for example, like muhammad Cave,
Like if false lights come, we're told to test the
spirits to make sure they're actually from God, not like
a devil of light or something.
Speaker 4: We don't even know that this was actually some miraculous event.
It could be completely whole, wholesale staged.
Speaker 14: No, I'm just saying hype like off Fatima, Now, like
could we ever know then like if they can stage
the event to line up with what the spirit would hypothetically, Well.
Speaker 4: This is what I'm saying, is that the New Testament
I think, tells us not to go by signs and wonders.
The stricture is you go by the prior revelation, and
that's what judges any future so called revelation, for example,
Deuteronomy thirteen, Deuteronomy eighteen, and Galatians one, which Galatians is
actually following in consort with Deuteronomy thirteen and eighteen about
the principle of how you judge so called profits, miracles, signs,
and wonders is whether they line up with previous revelation.
That's the test. So I'm not sure what you're talking
about with how how could they do you? What do
you mean?
Speaker 14: Like, I'm just like if a spirit comes to you,
unless I'm misinterpreting it, like I say, like a light
light comes to you posing as an angel something right, right, right,
You're supposed to test that spirit?
Speaker 4: How although how do you do that?
Speaker 14: Maybe like ask stuff that would line up with the gospel.
Speaker 4: I don't know, Like, well, that's what I'm saying. So
we already have in Deuterami thirteen, deuteronymy eighteen, and Galatians
one the answer to the very question that you're raising,
which is, if there arises among you a prophet, a
dreamer of dreams, signs, and wonders, and it does not
come to pass, then you know that they're lying, and
you don't follow whatever they're telling you to do because
the Lord is testing you. The same type of statement
is stated in Douronmy eighteen. And then when Paul says
in Galatians one, you do not go after any sign
or wonder, angel or whatever, because Satan can appear as
an angel light, right, So signs and wonders are secondary too. Revelation,
is what I'm trying to say. So that's the test
that we have. That's how you discern the spirits. As
Paul later says, And in my view, Fatama, for example,
where was this conversion of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.
Now they'll say, oh, well, the pope didn't do this, right, Well,
the Pope has supposedly consecrated Russia multiple times and Russia
has not converted to Papism. So the whole mythos of
Fatima is literally all directed towards papal geopolitical power. It's
all about whether Russia, which just happens to be the
enemy of the Angle American establishment. Particularly at that point
if you read quickly, even quickly, he's not talking about Fatima,
but he's talking about the geopolitical power structure. At that
time World War One, right, the two enemies of the
West are Austro Hungarian Empire and Russia. So it just
does not make sense to me that Mary is going
to promise all this stuff, talk about all this stuff,
and all of what Fatima is about is papalism and
Roman Catholic specific doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and all
this stuff.
Speaker 14: So what's the because I'm just kind of looking into Fatima, Now,
what's the third secret?
Speaker 4: Well, this is another I would argue, this is another
reason why it's bogus, because you can spend the next
twenty years going down the rabbit hole of the trad
cat madness of the third secret, where who knows it's
anybody's guest because supposedly it was hidden and the popes
didn't want to reveal it publicly, and then supposedly under
John Paul the Second, it was red but it was nothing,
but the trad cats say, jump all the Second covered
it up because he wasn't a real trad and they
switched out the Sister Lucia, and it's a clone, and
it's a fake Sister Lucia. It's a never ending rabbit
hole that is absolutely worthless.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, that seems I know. I was trying to
go and it was just too deep.
Speaker 4: Apart, you'll never get anything. So trust me, I was
in the tradcat world, wandering in this hall of mirrors
and smoking mirrors for I don't know ten years. And
by the way, has everyone forgotten remember when what four
years ago Lofton and everybody they were making videos that
remember Roman called world was going crazy that Francis is
concert creating Russia to the Immaculate Heart finally, finally, And
I did multiple videos on this because I said, guess what,
nothing will happen. Now, let's take note of this because
I'm going to make what I think is a really
strong argument here and I'll let you talk to you
in Alex here. So let's go to Fatima on my channel,
and we're going to look at this video when Francis
was supposedly finally consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart right here.
This one his favorite YouTuber. So this was two years ago,
March twenty twenty, so almost three years ago, March twenty
twenty two. By the way, most of this podcast, if
you want to go out and review it, I'm covering
my article that I wrote a long time ago about
Fatima and Syops. So all the Romancounts are going crazy
because at this time they were saying Francis was about
to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. Finally Russia was
going to become Roman Catholic, and we all sat around
laughing because we'd pointed out, guess what, nothing's going to happen.
And it doesn't matter whether he is or isn't consecrating
Rushi to the Emacular Heart. This was supposed to have
been done back at the time, and there's like ten
different times when the Roman Catholics said, well, he didn't
really do it, but he's really going to do it
next time. This scam has been going on since Fatima,
and why can't if first of all, why can't he
just do it? Like if you're a Roman Catholic and
you believe this stuff, all the Pope has to do
is just come out and do the consecration supposedly the
way Mary said to do it. But there's this weird
loophole where, well, but he didn't exactly do it technically
the way Mary really told him to do it. So
it's a never ending. It's almost like Harold Camping, who
was that Protestant goofball that died not too long ago,
who that evangelical end times guy was always predicting the
end of the world, and then every time it wouldn't happen,
he would say, oh, I got my calculations, but I
got it right this time. So literally we would get
it wrong like every few years and just alter the
thing and say, well, I got it wrong, but I'll
get it wrong. I'll get it right next time. What
does Deuteronomy actually say when the thing doesn't come to pass,
you know, not to listen to them. Well, guess what.
How many times have we been told that the Immaculate
Heart of Marry is going to be uh, you know
what Russia converts to and they're going to return to
the Holy Father And this has never happened. Therefore I
don't have to listen to the pope and Ptoma.
Speaker 14: That makes sense, I mean, yeah, so the couple things
came true though, right, like the World War two prediction
or no?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean so so what so we were even
if that were the case and it wasn't staged. So
what it's it's like a sixty thirty percent. So you
so what three out of three, out of one, out
of three, two out of three. I mean this says.
This says that you got to be like one hundred percent,
Like you don't get like a sixty percent prophecy, you know,
a good try, you know, certificate of good merit. You
were almost a one hundred percent profit, but you're only
about a sixty percent profit. So anyway, thank you for
your questions. I appreciate it. But those are my theories
on Fatima. I don't hinge everything on Fatima. If somebody
has a different there's different people. Some people in Orthodox Church.
I actually think Fatima is an Orthodox thing. I don't
know where you would ever get that, but some people
think that it seems obvious to me when you read
through Fatima. It's completely one hundred percent committed to weird
Roman Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate Heart of Mary and
all this stuff, So dude, what's up. I think it's
also one of the last resorts like for people who
are really doubting Rome and all this, like they just
run to the Mary and apparition stuff like, well, I
don't know, it all seems like it doesn't make sense
and for ancest is contradicted. Well, but you know what, Mary,
I don't know. It's like the last sort of like
bastion thing. But to me, it's just like really weak.
What's up, dude, don't you hey, Jamie, could you make
another one? This was really weak. I know it's the
it's not your fault, it's the faulty machine here. Yeah,
I mean so you ran I thought he wanted to debate.
He ran away. No, he's back. The dude on mute.
We got the big Lebowski, we got the dude.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, love that.
Speaker 17: It just was kind of freaking out, like, uh, I
don't know what was all right? Uh first off, kind
of conspiratorial mindset here. Uh. I guess we'll just thank
Alex Jones for that one. And uh uh you know,
I guess the first thing I would disagree with would be,
uh the perpetual virgin thing. Not that I really not
that I don't want to. I don't want to put
too much stake in this because I really I don't.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. But
like in in the Bible specifically, when I think there's
a few passage maybe there's like one passage in Matthew
and then another passage in Mark, but it references to uh,
you know, his brothers and I think maybe even his sisters.
So I think that's kind of the content.
Speaker 3: It's there for me.
Speaker 17: Are you contestants disagree with the Catholics and Orthodox?
Speaker 4: I know, we know, but uh, the word can mean
just relative, distent relatives and cousins, so it doesn't it
does not necessitate a biological brother.
Speaker 17: And I think that was kind of the the baseline
for Martin Luther to Uh.
Speaker 4: No, that's false. Did Martin Luther believed in the perpetual
virginity as did Calvin? So that's Falseome?
Speaker 17: Well, no, no, no, no, I was I was stating,
you know, the agreeance with that from your standpoint, he
did believe in a perpetual version.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 17: Uh you know that wasn't really a Protestant belief until
further down the line.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 17: So yeah, Now I got another disagreement here.
Speaker 3: Kind of having to do with the whole Uh. I
noticed that first off?
Speaker 17: Maybe a segue here, I'd like to reiterate that, you know,
Martin Luther, I don't think he really had any ill blood.
I think he Actually, I'm not one hundred percent on this,
but I do believe he tried to do some reunifications
and restructuring with the Catholic Church. I don't know if
that was pre him being excommunicated or not. And then
I also believe in his later days, and I could
be wrong, but I thought he tried some sort of
reunification with the Eastern Orthodox as well.
Speaker 4: I mean he wrote some letters and there was some contact,
but there was not any attempts to have reunification. I
mean later Luthor. I've read a lot of Luther. I
went through a phase when I was a Protestant. I
read about six or seven of Luther's books. There was
a there was a period where he kind of reached out.
But later Luther gets really sort of adamant about things
like Solofide, and he was not interested in Orthodox position
because they didn't they weren't. They weren't interested in Solofide.
Speaker 3: Right, and so on.
Speaker 17: That big separation from the Catholicism is stim some other disagreements,
like purgatory. Obviously I don't believe in purgatory.
Speaker 4: Well there were the doors. Doesn't believe in purgatory.
Speaker 17: So, oh, that's right, Okay, Yeah, So when I was
briefed on the two different other sects when I went
through a confirmation or whatever, and I'm not very devout anymore,
but I still read a lot and long story short,
when we were talking about him, I remember very little,
but it was more or less described as the.
Speaker 3: Lesser of the two evils.
Speaker 17: Between the initial start of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox,
the Great Schism.
Speaker 3: We briefly touched.
Speaker 17: All of that, and so, like, I guess I forgot that.
So what about prayers to the dead? Is that a
thing for the Orthodox?
Speaker 4: I thought the Saints, so we don't believe that they're dead.
We believe they're alive to God. And if you read
Revelation five through nine, John season to heaven on the
Lord's Day. So he's in the liturgical worship, he's officiating
the altar, and he interacts with the Saints the angels
in heaven, and they're doing the prayers in heaven for
the church on earth. So it's community of saints. It's
not talking to the dead.
Speaker 3: I guess I was maybe I got that mixed up.
Speaker 17: I thought I thought the talking to the saints thing
was a praying to the saints to be the mediator
or whatever.
Speaker 16: I thought that was.
Speaker 4: Called communion of saints and it's the idea that the
Saints intercede for us.
Speaker 17: Okay, Yeah, No, I thought there was specific like prayers
to purify the dead or whatever in the Orthodoxy tradition.
Speaker 3: I thought the Catholics did that too.
Speaker 4: I'm not. I mean, we pray for the dead, is
that you're talking about?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, the people who are newly deceased are prayed for
in the liturgy. Correct. That is an Orthodox and Catholic practice.
It's in the Book of Maccabis too. It's a noble
thing to pray.
Speaker 17: For the dead, Okay, and the meaning that's why the
you know, the Protestants, don't you know, follow that. You know,
I understand that Luther didn't really kick it to the
curb as far as all those additional looks. However, he
did when he did his translation or whatever.
Speaker 4: I know he did explicitly later he later explicitly said
that he does not like those books because they afford
the Catholics proof for their doctrines. So appreciate your questions. Man,
We're going to move on. Look for people who disagree.
If you have an argument. If you'd like to pose
an argument against me, if you'd like to raise an issue,
you can have a floor. You can argue for as
long as you like. Raise your hand. If you are
in the quay. We've got eleven people waiting, so let
me know. If you disagree, you go to the headline
and I will go to you first. So, Joshua, what's up, dude?
What's up?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 22: So kind of argument and a question, But how do
you have a personal being in procession? So you know,
the sun is begotten, but the Holy Spirit proceeds. But
they're both personal beings. And as far as I understand,
the procession is something like a breath from God.
Speaker 4: So no breath is just one of the biblical analogies
for the person of the Holy Spirit. It's not intended
to define his procession. Procession is the particular personal property
that picks out the Holy Spirit. So what's the question?
Speaker 3: So wouldn't that make.
Speaker 22: Wouldn't that make the sun and the Spirit, you know, indifferentiable?
Speaker 3: You cann't really tell them apart. No.
Speaker 4: In fact, the Unomians raised this question to Basil, and
Basil says that that there's a distinction between generation and procession.
We know exactly what that distinction is. We do not know.
So there's a lot of elements that we're not told
in Divine revelation about the person of the Holy Spirit.
And Gregoro Nuts I think is Gregory nat Sanzos says
that in the Escaton the Holy Spirit will be more
known than he is in our era. So no, so
there's a lot more to this question. It's not a
question of somehow Philioque would give a character to the Spirit.
I've never understood this argument. I'm not trying to knock you.
It's a common Roman, Catholic and Protestant argument. I literally
have no idea what this argument is supposed to prove.
Speaker 3: It.
Speaker 4: I think it stems from the idea that the only
way to distinguish persons is relations of opposition or something
like that, or you know, one comes from the Father,
the other one can only be distinguished if he comes
from two. I mean, this is totally stupid if you
think about in terms of theological augmentation, because it's a
subordination of the Holy Spirit to try to distinguish him
by not having something that the first two people possess.
It's that stupid, and in fact it's the very argumentation
of the Cappadocians against the subordinationists of their time. Because
the subordinations of their time, we're arguing that you can
have these different levels in God as if well, there's
these powers that this one has that this one lacks,
this one has this power of being this and the
Father and the Son together could do this. I mean,
it's an extension of the argumentation of the heretics to
argue that the Holy Spirit precedes by will, or that
he proceeds from the Father and the Son as a
single principle. There's no power or attribute that two people
in the Trinity share that one lacks. All the philioque
ugmentation is premised on that very point, So that subordinates
the Spirit he lacks the power of causing a person.
Speaker 22: The procession from the son, I mean, we would say
the procession from the Son to the Spirit is not.
Speaker 3: It's not exactly the.
Speaker 22: Same procession as from the Father through the Son.
Speaker 4: Well, that's even worse because that means that there's partition
in God because the Father contributes something to the Spirit
that the son, that the Father doesn't contribute something that
the Son does. So what the Father spir rates fifty
percent the Holy Spirit and the Son spirates another fifty percent.
That's again, that's stupid because there's no partitions in God.
Speaker 22: Well, it would it would all all the procession would
come through the Son the Spirit.
Speaker 4: Okay, does the Father generate a son whole and entire?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: Right, So when the Father spirrates a spirit, is he
not whole an entire? Yeah? Correct, Then there's nothing that
the Sun could contribute to the existential existence of the Spirit. Yeah,
I mean it, well than that refutes Philqui. That's from
that's an argument from them.
Speaker 3: That's at the very end of my.
Speaker 4: That's from the mystic Gadia. I'm literally just repeating mister
Gauji arguments.
Speaker 3: So you said that in a.
Speaker 22: Particular saints said that in the future we would know more.
Speaker 3: Is that what you said?
Speaker 4: I believe it's Gregory, not Sanjus who says that the
it might be one of the it's one of the
Cappa Docians. It's either Nissa or not Sws. But in
the asketon, more of the personal character of the Holy
Spirit would be revealed in the asketon because in this dispensation,
this era before the Esketon, we have limited ideas and
details about the person of the Holy Spirit. In the
New Testament and in Church history we have several I'm
not saying there's no details. Jesus tells us many things
about the comforter. He sanctifies, he reveals truth, he points
people to the Son. The Son then points people to
the Father, et cetera. So it's not that we don't
know anything. It's just that the Cavedasians point out that
we are not told as much about the Holy Spirit
as we are told about the Sun, and they speculate
that in the Esketon more would be known about the
Holy Spirit. It was the escaton, the eternal state.
Speaker 3: So you're saying in the afterlife will know more.
Speaker 4: Yeah, as the text from Paul says that I see
through a glass darkly, but then I will know fully.
Speaker 22: Okay, all right, yeah, those no.
Speaker 4: Those are fair questions, Shay, fair questions on that though.
Those are actually common objections from people in the West
to the Orthodox doctrine of the procession. But if you
read mystagogy and then appudect to treatise by Sangraa Palamas
is really it's actually just building on the mystagogy, and
it takes the arguments to another level. So most of
the arguments that are in the mystagogy are one solid,
they're still they still hold up. But Palamas takes Aristotelian
logic and applies that to all the arguments that Photius
makes and just kind of makes the next level. Muge
Taba Ahmed, Hey.
Speaker 11: Can you hear me?
Speaker 23: Yeah, yeah, hey there, Jay, I recognized you from one
of the debates that you had. But uh, but Jake,
I met a physician and Daniel Hakika Chu. Yeah, nothing
specific about those debates, but I was curious, you know,
from an overview standpoint, what are some of the theological
differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic and the
Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: So I was just interested, maybe in your words, what
what are some of those key differences. And and one other.
Speaker 23: Question I had in Islam, the Virgin, the Virgin Mother Mary,
may peace be upon her. Uh, she had no husband. Uh,
she had no physical husband. So I don't know, maybe
I read it wrong or seen it in videos that
she did in fact have a husband.
Speaker 3: In some Christian traditions.
Speaker 23: So maybe if you can speak supply to that, if
that's true.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Mary
was betrothed, she was not married in the sense of
any sexual relations, so we believe she remained a virgin.
Catholics believe that as well. Many Protestants used to believe that,
but there are Protestants are all over the place, so
there's maybe some groups that believe that something else happened.
I mean, many Protonants believe that she had relations with Joseph,
but we do not believe that she