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