Speaker 1: Both traditions of men. It's a no brainer.
Speaker 2: You're such a tyrannical rainer.
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on the in?
Speaker 3: Or well?
Speaker 4: I need to change your shoe?
Speaker 2: Can't take it these loads?
Speaker 3: You're slow boys?
Speaker 4: Is this your first time on the wesh?
Speaker 1: I need to change your shoe?
Speaker 2: Was that an uncreated foot part? Unmute, dude, Stop repeating
my name. Dude, you goober's callin or I'll boot you.
Where did we get the Bible from? Have you read
the Canons of Franzia?
Speaker 5: What are you Catholic?
Speaker 1: Are you promisonants?
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to be me, but do you have
an actual argument?
Speaker 1: There is only one church? You are in a cult.
Speaker 2: You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer j quick question.
Do we have any diddyback venerators in the chat? How
is this your first time on being?
Speaker 6: Or well?
Speaker 2: I need a too, can't take these loads?
Speaker 6: You're slow boys?
Speaker 7: Are you?
Speaker 8: Is this your first time on being?
Speaker 9: Where?
Speaker 10: I need aching too?
Speaker 1: If you're a wine on.
Speaker 2: Front of the line, I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 1: What is your epistemic justification?
Speaker 11: That argument is circular and you are refuted.
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on me? Where shy, I
need to change your show.
Speaker 4: Can't take these loads.
Speaker 1: You're so boring. Is this your first time on me?
Where I need to change your show? If you're a
lie in front of the lie on you dude.
Speaker 12: Yeah, there's only one.
Speaker 13: Thing that can bring them together that begins with you.
Speaker 1: Where it begins with you not.
Speaker 6: I'm gonna says a wage. Bank on the floor. Bank people,
WoT bgers, you're gonna pay bars your name.
Speaker 1: Name, your name name.
Speaker 6: I want to see your ass. More c os, Yeah,
I'm talking to you. Get more homes, give more p
give more motes.
Speaker 2: Gimp.
Speaker 6: I want to see the CEOs moves the bee ruin
those lides in one hundred and forty one.
Speaker 1: Bb cool.
Speaker 6: Your name name name.
Speaker 12: Name, your name name, day the day day shake take
take that shake that alright.
Speaker 6: Middle class seegos, get on your toe.
Speaker 1: H you'll pay.
Speaker 6: We did just wace.
Speaker 14: I want to sit in the banker on the floor.
I want to see your ass, the poor.
Speaker 6: Make it clap, make it fat clapa.
Speaker 1: Who's reading. I'm gonna task here.
Speaker 6: Bankers, get on the floor. Banker people, poor Baker, you're
gonna pay, Baker, You're gonna pay. One May you read
a book together.
Speaker 1: Such in the middle.
Speaker 15: Class and more Si, I cash in my bank account,
get on the floor, make the people poor, get.
Speaker 1: More pain bank.
Speaker 16: Bank bank bank, my bank bank bank bank, my blang
bank and my lang, my bang, my bang bang and
my bang bang bang bang, my bank bank bank bank
bank tu my bank bank do my bank bank black
bank du my bank bankd my bank bank bank bank
bank bank bank bank banks.
Speaker 17: M hm.
Speaker 1: Hm hm.
Speaker 12: Hm. I hope we get some callers. I love you, guys.
I'm not mean anymore. I'm changed. I'm nice. I'm nice man. Now,
I'm nice. I know I was muted. I was talking
to the people that I didn't want you to hear.
It was a private conversation between me and the people
I love. You're gonna have to deal with it, are
you jelly? A little bit?
Speaker 9: Jelly?
Speaker 12: I think the chat is behind I should not be muted.
Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 12: We got a bunch of jealous people in the audience.
Speaker 9: Talking to me.
Speaker 1: Ain't talking to me.
Speaker 18: I want to teach you.
Speaker 12: Where's the original I'm mute, dude, I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 1: Check this out. I'm gonna show you how I afforded this.
Speaker 12: Car, afforded learns of grammar, which afforded this car. Where
do we get the Bible from? Did you even read
the cannon? So frasi, there is.
Speaker 14: Only one charge.
Speaker 2: You are an You're gobbling a demon a bullmerchard.
Speaker 1: You're so mean.
Speaker 12: What I like about the song is that it sounds
like an evangelical praise and worship.
Speaker 9: Man.
Speaker 12: It sounds awful. That's what makes it funny.
Speaker 1: On your dude?
Speaker 19: Is this your west?
Speaker 9: I need.
Speaker 1: Everybody having a good day.
Speaker 12: What's up?
Speaker 4: One plus one plus one equal free?
Speaker 14: It goes on to the tree.
Speaker 20: Why do you pray?
Speaker 2: Dead deep?
Speaker 12: All right, let's get it started. Enough of that nonsense.
And I want to give a shout out to before
we get into the open calls. Buck Johnson did a
great podcast with I don't know who Monique is, but
if it's a sister named Monique, I'm on board a
way of handing tradition. I listened to this podcast. It
was a great podcast. Everybody should check it out. It's
the interview with Father John Whiteford and Jim Jatras, friends
of ours, of course, and they were very kind. I
said a lot of nice things. I appreciate that have
nothing but kind words for all those guys as well.
Not so much for these Protestant people who didn't have
very good points at all. And I was gonna do
kind of a response to this podcast, but it's not
really necessary because they didn't even really talk about much.
It was basically just Orthodox. He's not American, and so
America's not going to become Orthodox, which has nothing to
do with weather. It's through false it's all just culture stuff.
So you can go listen to their critique of it.
They did fine critiquing it. The link is in the
chat over on Bucks podcast. And I noticed one funny
contradiction in the podcast. Father Wifer kind of hit on it.
But they fuss about the American Church in general in
the Protestant domain, and you could extend to Catholic and
even elements of Orthodoxy that there's a high level of
acceptance of the Skittles through all the social engineering and
whatnot in the last you know, fifty sixty hundred years.
And then he's like, but we don't want to become
Wortheos because it's like mystical and gay or whatever. It's like, dude,
you just admitted that your own Protestant nation, America, which
you tell America as Protestant and Protestant as American and
America as a Protestant nation, that's your pride and glory.
You just admitted that it's a giant gay church and
that's why everybody's going to other areas like Orthodoxy, and
then you call Orthodoxy gay as it made no sense.
So and by the way, the highest percentages of anti
Skittles countries are the ones that are these still nominally
Orthodox countries like Georgia, Russia, et cetera. So they also
didn't know anything about orthoxyology, Shacker. They thought Orthodoxy has
Gregorian It's like people are converting to Orthodoxy for the
Gregorian chant, yeah, which doesn't exist in Orthodoxy. So good job.
If you want to support the stream, you can do
somebody superchats. Superchats are reactivated. We're back, We're in the money. Yes,
they were. This is just such a weak outing. I
mean they should have at least like try to address
some of the reasons. But they're like, but nobody's converting
over theology. They're only converting for like cool aesthetics. No,
I mean, we're not focusing on cool aesthetics on my channel.
Maybe we should focus on that more. But we're always
every day for years, not every day, but multiple days,
arguing the theology, so they don't even know how to
assess their own issues. It's like, you should be able
to assess that the problem is that people are converting
over the theological issues and historical issues, and then they
just deny that in the podcast and they're like, well,
we know, it's not that it has to be the
cool art. I've never met anybody who literally converted over
cool art. They might have had an interest in orthodox
theology or whatever through the art, but it's the theology
dog And by the way, you can people are concerned
with what's true, and they just can't fathom that maybe
their position isn't true and that people are actually looking
into the arguments for orthodoxy and comparing it to the hoolicism,
et cetera. Now feel free to call in, and the
way that you guys call in, we already got big
fat super shadows rolling it out, making this whole outing
worth it. I don't even have to do anything now
we can just retire. By the way, where's bitcoin at
Boys and Girls? Exactly where I told you it would be,
and we're only going higher. I don't know if it'll
be this week. We might drop again, but it's like,
no matter how much winning occurs, haters be in denial.
You can always still, by the way, super chat through
stream labs if you choose to. But we do have
memberships as well. I'll be linking some more members content
probably today or tomorrow and turn what off? What are
you talking about? Let's see we gotta let's see what
we got super chat here, he says Gabriel fifty bucks yo.
Tucker interviewed shum Off. You're talking about that billionaire Indian dude.
At one hour fifty seven. They discuss how all world
views are theory relating and that Silicon Valley atheists must
have their own assumptions as starting points. Great to hear
your quick perspective. Sounds like somebody's been listening to what
we talk about, because I don't know anybody else out
there pushing that world viewser theory laden. I mean, I'm
not saying I came up with that, but like in
terms of present day pushing that perspective, I ain't heard
nobody else saying that. I mean, Tucker could have heard
that from somebody else or chum ofth or whoever. But
I think no, I think maybe we're having a bigger
effect than we thought. People think that. So, like when
they did that big Wall Street what was it, Wall
Street Journal where they interviewed I think Father Wifford and
Father Josiah and people. They asked me to do an interview,
and I said no. And by the way, that's like
the third or fourth major mainstream outlet that's asked me
to do an interview, and I've turned them all down.
And it's not because I wouldn't mind the exposure or whatever,
because I usually on people's podcasts, but you'll notice I
almost always exclusively go on kind of alternative media type podcast.
I've never done a mainstream media interview ever, magazine, newspaper, whatever,
because I don't trust any of them. And so I've
had Wall Street Journal twice, I've had New Yorker Magazine.
I've had all these things reach out and I just
don't even reply. For one, I don't trust any of
those people to actually report what I say. I just
assume they're gonna lie so Orthojoe for five bucks, Jay
when is Passerini balls and shake yaboo, youre going to
do a debate, Well, they would probably pray and come
to the same conclusions that they worship the same god.
So I don't even know if they could have a debate.
I don't know why my color is all messed up
in here. The color scheme is all off. Dog, I look, look,
look a damn hot dog or something. Look at what
they gave me. But a strange reversal they decided. So
we're not far from two hundred k. But they did
a strange reversal and decided, Okay, we'll be on the
right side of history. We'll give you this little thing here.
It's a little plaque right here. You have a little
plaque for what you did. Good job, doing a million
videos to get to one hundred thousand. Good day, you
get a little plaque, got a little plaque on you know,
take right now, just kidding. I'm thankful to have I
guess the reward for pouring myself out on the internet
to get one hundred thousand subscribers. Dude just admitted it.
Dude just admitted it. Clip that clip that and expose him.
Bro exposed it ain't on my icon. Shelved dog that's
not even anywhere near the books. I just put it
up on the bookshelf.
Speaker 18: So and.
Speaker 12: I mean, I guess it's kind of okay, like it
makes sense to get a I guess some kind of award.
Speaker 9: I guess.
Speaker 12: I mean, it was a lot of damn work to
get to one hundred thousand. I mean, we were just demonetized,
you know, we was distant algorithm. I even talked to
the people who know about it, and they were like, yeah,
your channel probably has a controversial rating, which means that
it's never going to be pushing the algorithm. So the
audio is breaking up. I don't understand how the why
the audio would be breaking up. Dire Victor Ziegler straight
up from eyeswat shut. He says, dire equals lance from
elite for. What is elite for is some kind of
video game. Somebody was saying the audio was doing this
last night. The weird thing is that I don't see
any indications that there's any problems. Let me see the
stream indicators, see if it says there's any issues. It
says stream quality is fine. YouTube doesn't have any YouTube
says it's healthy. It might be y'all's internet. Somebody said
last night that it was the audio is cutting out,
But then I went back and listened to last night's
podcast and I never heard any audio cutouts, so it
might be on y'all's in or sometimes YouTube buffers has
issues with buffering CUS nine ninety nine with thumbs up
thanks to appreciate that try refreshing if you are hearing
some kind of skipping or something. I don't know. Alula
sends five bucks. I literally tell everybody about you. I'm
not kidding. People are amazed about the sources I give
them about what's happening in the world, but all I
do is repeat what you say, so I always tell
them about you. Well, thank you, Alula, that's very sweet.
Appreciate that I don't I don't know what Elite for is.
It sounds like a video name. By the way, I
chose this year to fast for an entire year from
video games, not that I really play a lot of
video games, but I thought, you know what, I want
to bust butt this upcoming year because I want to
stack more bitcoin than normal and I want to finish
Ussel Turcoli with three and so I realized the best
route to that was to completely cut off all video
games for the next year. And again, I mean I
might have put in a few hours a week, so
it's not like I'm spending hours every day playing video
games anyway. But I'm like, you know what, the next year,
I'd rather take that time and energy that went into
any video game. It's going to go into business related
things in order to just simply stack bitcoin, because I
don't know if you guys have noticed how bullish everything
is now. You got like four states talking about making
a strategic bitcoin reserve on top of the federal government
with the limbs Bill Joe Piota, five Canadian bucks, Christ
is God, thank you so much, Victor Ziegeler, two bucks,
Pokemon X. Okay, I don't know anything about Pokemon's but
I will trust your expertise. Welcome everybody. We got open
debate today. The topics are listed Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, libertarian, feminist, Marxist,
Hebrew Roots, Mormon, Joe's Witness, Hebrew, Israel Lite. Get them
crazy people calling in And the way you call in
is through the Twitter space or the x space. You
can call in right here, and it's also penned. Well,
penn does excuse me? That's to join the channel if
you want to do memberships. And we hit two hundred
and twenty members yesterday. So all right, we got Queen
of the Juice. Uh, this sounds like this sounds hardcore
right here, Queen of the Juice gotta. I'm you, I'm you, dude, Hey, j.
Speaker 3: How's it going?
Speaker 12: I'm good? What's up with you?
Speaker 3: Hey? Doing great?
Speaker 21: You know?
Speaker 12: Are you drinking phronsier right now? How much wine you got?
Speaker 22: Oh?
Speaker 3: I don't drink. I just drink a lot of water
and coffee. How about you?
Speaker 12: I only drink phronsie. It's difficult because I get really
thirsty for water. But then I disciplined myself to not
drink water, to only quench my thirst with more phronsia
from that box. Baby, I live on the box.
Speaker 3: Oh box one?
Speaker 22: Yeah?
Speaker 12: Is there another kind of phronsie?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I'm not familiar, to be honest.
Speaker 12: So what's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Well, what's on.
Speaker 23: My mind is just being so grateful to God Almighty,
even though I've had so much propaganda and rhetoric used
against me, you know, name calling, et cetera. I realize
that during debate, if the other person really doesn't have
an argument, they just devolve into name calling.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that definitely happens. What are you usually debating.
Speaker 23: I'm usually debating the illegitimacy of the government in general,
and that the government is meaningless and has no purpose
without people, and people will always have a meaning of
purpose without the government. Same with the artificial intelligence. The
artificial intelligence has no meaning or purpose without humanity, and
humanity will always have meaning.
Speaker 3: Of purpose without the artificial intelligence.
Speaker 12: I mean, I guess I've some of thatized with a
lot of that. But so what do you what are
your Are you so you're libertarian? Is that why you
clicked in here?
Speaker 18: Oh?
Speaker 3: No, I'm not a libertarian.
Speaker 23: I'm actually anti government and they made they radicalized me
to be against them through their terrorism efforts.
Speaker 12: Libertarians or government?
Speaker 9: What do you?
Speaker 20: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 23: Uh, the organized you know, government and using their authoritarian technology.
The technocrats.
Speaker 3: You're well aware of them. I know you've been.
Speaker 23: Studying our literature like I've been studying their literature. I've
seen you read out of books that I don't have,
which is interesting to me.
Speaker 3: But we've been reading some of the same literature you're
familiar with.
Speaker 23: Ray Kurzwell, yeah, yeah, and how Ray Kerswell and Bill
Gates want to make a new religion.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm sure they would like to have some kind
of new technocratic religion, those two.
Speaker 23: Sure, Yeah, where they're the high priests of it. And
we know that Bill Gates is friends with Trump, and
you know Trump with all this AI and all the
efforts with the AI to analyze people's behavior, and we
also know through the be A Skinner and the works
of these other behavior and analysts that they're literally torturing
people to analyze their behavior through torturing, So they're going
to be used in the artificial intelligence for these same purposes.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Well, I mean today's topics are more religious, So
did you have any I'm not disagreeing with your overall
thesis that they want a social credit score and AI
to run it and all that, but today we're talking
about Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Atheism, Islam. Do you have anything
on those topics that you'd like to debate or discuss.
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 23: My main thing I would like to discuss would be
the mark of the BT system coming into fruition through
this technology, track and trace technology and those prophecies of
having this mark that you can't buy or trade without,
and you know, the digital currency realm, and having everything
tied into this CBDC, which can be switched on and off.
Speaker 12: Trump Trump banns CBDC. So how would that be? How
would that fit into what? Because you said Trump's bad
but he banns.
Speaker 1: CDC, well we know that.
Speaker 23: Well, first again, I'm anti government all in general. I
am anti all these guys. They've literally tortured us. So
from what I understand, the rest of everyone else is
just basically being under Stockholm syndrome at this point. So
it's hard to even debate with peopleeople that are mentally ill.
Speaker 3: But regardless of that, Trump has an.
Speaker 23: Illegal surveillance He's in control of the United States government.
He could shut down all these illegal surveillance operations, but
we see he's choosing not to.
Speaker 12: But again, so today's topics are today's topics are theological?
And I mean you're saying mark of the Beast? Are
you saying that Trump is rolling out in the mark
of the Beast? I don't understand where you're going.
Speaker 3: The anti Christ? Trump is the anti Christ?
Speaker 12: All right, We're done. I'm sorry. I feel sorry for you.
Speaker 3: The majority of the Christians to go.
Speaker 12: Sure, Amanda, And it took twenty minutes to get to
the heart of the thing, which was that Trump is
the Antichrist. What's up?
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
Speaker 4: Uh it was that?
Speaker 17: I am?
Speaker 18: I am?
Speaker 3: I can I hear? I can't hear anyone in what
you're here?
Speaker 12: What's up?
Speaker 3: Hell?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I can't?
Speaker 12: Yeah? Can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Hello?
Speaker 3: Hear anyone? I'm sorry, only your.
Speaker 12: Phone is messed up. It's not my problem. Sorry, good grief.
We're off to a wild story. You already for some
adventures today, Savvi? O.
Speaker 1: Hey, how are you doing?
Speaker 9: Jay?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I have questions.
Speaker 24: So I remember he's talking to a Muslim, and the
Muslim is saying that something can be generated into existence,
but be uncreated.
Speaker 1: My question is that in.
Speaker 24: Orthodox here I think the I'm the Villica chapter nine ish,
it says the glory of God was worshiped.
Speaker 1: Is that what that pretends to the energy has its
distinction or just a question?
Speaker 12: Yeah, it's called a theophany. It's a manifestation of the divinity.
Speaker 1: OK, thank you.
Speaker 12: Yeah. And the problem is that the Muslim was saying
that a creature can be eternally generated. You're talking about
the anask guy that I just shared the clip last night.
How does the creature be eternally generated? That does make
that makes no sense? Cheek malow. I'm mute, chik Amalia,
I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 1: Can you show me.
Speaker 25: I just had a question about the Biblical canon, and
I know you're a proponent of using the argument of
the formation of the canon against Protestants.
Speaker 12: Right, yeah, sure, So I would like to ask you if.
Speaker 25: You think something similar could be used against the Catholics.
I know they accept the canon based on like people
authority at the I believe, and we we base our
canon like the sixth Council or something like that. So
I would like to ask you if you think there
is any arguments to be had with the Catholics about
the canon, like against Catolicism in general, or would it
be just we say this, you say this, and fruitless.
Speaker 12: Well, I mean, I guess in their mindset because they
presupposed the papal view all the way back throughout the
first millennia, they're gonna say that that canon is authoritative
because of Pope Damasis in the Councils of Rome, we're
gonna say, Okay, we appreciate that the West basically has
the same canon as the East, but we're going to
look for the Ecumenical Council discussion of it, rather than
just the Patriarch of the West saying that the Dutero
canon is part.
Speaker 5: Of the canon.
Speaker 12: So I don't know. I mean, in other words, that
argument hinges on papalism versus synidality and conciliarism.
Speaker 25: All right, so you would say that before we it
isn't like a very good argument against Catholics, and we
should just.
Speaker 12: Well, it's not that it's a bad argument. It's just
that it boils back down to the well, it boils
back down to the thing in question, conciliism versus papalism.
Speaker 25: So you would just challenge the people supremacy or like
a directly.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I think the strongest route for that is to
just go into all of the counter examples to Vatican
One in the first millennium, of which there are many,
and all of those.
Speaker 25: Yes, that's all I wanted to ask.
Speaker 12: Thank you, sure, yeah, good questions. Appreciate it, NERD.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 9: All right?
Speaker 1: Cool? Uh do you mind if I ask you a philosophical.
Speaker 26: Question because I've been trying to wrap my head around
sort of the recursive circle of Orthodoxy, because it is recursive,
and that's what makes it not not contradictory.
Speaker 1: I think, wouldn't it be for transcendentals?
Speaker 26: That if transcendentals exist, then a certain metaphysic is needed
in epistemology, that it must be the Orthodox God and
then in order to quote unquote justify because I was
arguing in atheists about this, to justify the Orthodox.
Speaker 1: God, it would be the transcendentals.
Speaker 9: And that's the circle.
Speaker 12: No, it's just at any worldview bottoms out, it's something
that's that's self recursive and not justifiable. So God is
the ultimate starting point or the ultimate foundation. So God
doesn't doesn't and can't be justified because by definition, God
is the ultimate self referencing thing. He says I am,
that I am, that's so referencing. So there's no there's
no other thing that you appeal to to justify God
because God is the grounding for all possibilities or all conceptions,
all categories, et cetera.
Speaker 26: So would you say proof instead of justification because that
sounds like grounding. But it wouldn't be grounding, it would
just be well, sense of transcendentals exists, like that X
is a necessary condition.
Speaker 1: For why why therefore X.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 12: Proof is a kind of a generic type of term,
because there's all different types of arguments and different types
of proofs. So I mean, if you demonstrate that your
argument grounds the things in question, that would be a
kind of a proof.
Speaker 19: All right, thank you?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean I hope hopefully that was helpful. Those
are fair questions. Roman Omen, welcome, father Deacon. Feel free
to chime in if you would like. Hey, thanks, appreciation, Sure,
Victor Ziegeler ten ten pounds. I want to keep hearing
that donation jingle. It's a psyop. Yes, I'm mind controlling
you to keep giving super chats with that EDM jingle.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 18: Hey, So I was having a conversation this morning with
someone on Twitter and he raised a I thought he
raised a good point about the canonical status of Augustine sainthood,
and he I was I was under the impression that
he recanted basically most of the errors that he made
throughout his lifetime.
Speaker 12: No, that's not true or no, retractions doesn't deal with
any of the big stuff. Okay, but he's he's a
saying because the Fifth Ecumenical Council calls him a saint.
Speaker 18: So yeah, that's that's that's what I was saying. I
was like, I submit to the Bride of Christ, and
I agree with I agree with that, But what is
the main difference between him and Origin? Because Origin also
got posthumously a mathematized.
Speaker 12: Because it's not just about being wrong, it's about the obstinacy.
And so Origin was excommunicated and never rejected his mistakes,
and Augustine submitted his writings to the church and said
the church can judge these and that's why it's the
because I double one went with the Cappadocian model the Trinity,
and not the Augustinian model. But good questions.
Speaker 27: I was have an argument was one of the liberal
theology professors, but he was an Origin lover, and that
exact question came up, and I was like, well, he's
condemned as a.
Speaker 28: Heretic, and we talked about what makes heretic and he
tried to defend Origency. But I found the police where
it says I opened my anything I say.
Speaker 1: To be corrected by the Church. Well, you can say
something like that, but the fact that he didn't, Yeah,
it does.
Speaker 12: Origin was condemned. Origin was condemned in his day and
left the teaching of the church. And you also did
other things that booted in from the church, like castrating himself.
So yeah, rabbi, what's up?
Speaker 1: Hello? Hello?
Speaker 29: There?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Ah?
Speaker 1: Okay? So first things first, I'm not a rabbi. I'm
actually orthodox.
Speaker 12: I'm just a total high up.
Speaker 30: I just wanted to because I saw that there's a
libertarian in the title, and.
Speaker 1: You said you want to talk about the theology and whatnot.
Speaker 30: So I'm not sure if it's that's for me to
be here, but I would like to talk to you
about libertarianism, if that's okay, okay, right, So well.
Speaker 1: First things first, was your stance on libertarianism.
Speaker 12: Well, libertarianism comes out of the Enlightenment, so I don't
see how it's really combinable in its fundamental forms with
Orthodox Christianity. There's elements of libertarianism that we probably agree
with some of the basics, but the idea that you know,
the state is a human institution, social contract, utilitarianism, all
the things that are usually attendant attendant upon natural rights,
like all these things that are usually kind of the
essence of libertarianism or the Enlightenment are in my view untenable.
Speaker 1: Also, I'd say two when I've.
Speaker 28: Taught a class on this, just comparing uh kind of
more modern political thinkers and theories of government compared to antiquity.
Speaker 1: It's all monitor theories, especially libertarian is all premised on
kind of.
Speaker 28: Negative rights, restrict creating laws that you know, will enable
somebody to do something, but restrict you know, you know,
somebody from committing theft, uh.
Speaker 1: Murder, different stuff like that.
Speaker 28: And if you look at the way antiquity is structured
in terms of law in the state, it's an ever
this kind of hobbs in, like, you know, man's.
Speaker 1: Just going to kill everybody, so we're going to create
laws to prevent him to do that. It's about creating
laws that promote virtue. So the end for the state in.
Speaker 28: In antiquity is who cares about freedom if it's preventing
somebody from obtaining virtue. You create laws to prevent people
from doing those things, and you create laws to promote virtue.
And I thought that was an essential distinction between the.
Speaker 12: Kind of two negative liberty versus the state having a
duty to promote virtue.
Speaker 30: Yeah, okay, So I mean I feel like you're talking
more about states libertarianism, whereas I might be a little
bit more extreme than that.
Speaker 1: I kind I see myself as an anarchist.
Speaker 30: So to me, my perspective is more like the state
is so I think the laws and whatnot, you should
go down to the household level, really, and I think
the best way to establish a deocracy, if anything, is
through anarchy.
Speaker 12: A slave cannot have two masters, right, And I feel
do you think the New Testament is anarchic in its
perspective when Paul says that Caesar has the sword and
he is a diacinos, No, not necessarily.
Speaker 30: I mean the Bible came before the establishment of the
modern state, right, So my issue is more with the
modern state kind of started sixteen forty eight. But my
personal perspective is I think the only way to actually
be proper in a manner, so the state is antithetical
to theology. I feel state cannot have two masters. And
I feel like Caesar is demanding worship, so rendern to
God what belongs to God? Right, But Caesar thinks.
Speaker 12: Wasn't But wasn't that true? At the time of the
first century when Paul wrote Romans Nero, I.
Speaker 30: Don't think Paul liked Caesar. What, I don't think Paul
liked Caesar.
Speaker 12: Yeah, but Romans thirteen calls him still a diaconos.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, look, I'm not pretty familiar with that term.
Speaker 12: Just so you know, I thought you're Orthodox. Well I
am Orthodox, but you don't know what the word means. Non, Okay, well,
good points, fair points. I appreciate that they're going to
move on Dallas. What's up man?
Speaker 9: Hello?
Speaker 12: Mm hmm, what's up?
Speaker 9: Dog?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got a question.
Speaker 31: So decrease sixteen and the Council of Jerusalem. I heard
a guy today like promote that Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Like before.
Speaker 31: I guess like he's basically saying Orthodoxy the past one
hundred years is fake, and Orthodoxy before that it's real Orthodoxy.
They used to believe in inherit a guilt like the
growing Catholics.
Speaker 12: No, that's I mean, yeah, I mean, do you think
that's really a tenable argument? It's all Orthodoxy sins. Decrease
sixteen it's fake. No, I mean, this is a basic
misunderstanding of the Latin or the Western terminology that's used
in some of those confessions and creeds and councils, and
so remission of sins. Sometimes even Paul talks about remission
of sins as if everyone is who's under Adam has
or needs remission of sins, and it's just talking about
the state that they're in. It doesn't mean that they
have actual guilt. And so both the Orthodox Church and
the Catholic Church, especially in those later centuries after the
Middle Ages, they started to develop a distinction between original
sin and actual sin. So the people that you're talking
about who just say this stuff on Twitter, they have
no idea what they're talking about. They're just spouting stuff.
And now they're actually talking about something that would be
schism to say that everybody got it wrong Post sixteen hundred.
It's just retarded. I mean, it's not worth anybody's time.
This is why we tell you guys not to listen
to people who've never studied theology and they just run
around on Twitter and they don't have any blessing to
teach to just confuse people. The only thing they do
is confuse people. So no, there's no church in the
world except for Calvinism unless you want to go be
a Calvinist. You can go still believe in inherited guilt
with them. Maybe maybe traditional Lutherans. I don't, I don't
even know. But no, it's just kind of preposterous to
think that everybody got it wrong when it's no more likely. No,
it's absolutely the case that they're wrong. Amanda Lee, you
want to try again?
Speaker 1: Hello?
Speaker 3: Is it working this time?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 3: Oh, but I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: I don't know why you can't. It's not common sense.
You can say that original sin and everybody encompassed under
the descent of Adam is deprived of the grace of immortality,
but they make the leap that it therefore means that
they're damned and that they have personal guilt. Damnation is
contingent on personal guilt, actual sin, not original sin. And
that's why the Bible itself says that nobody is guilty
for their fathers sin. So you either believe in a
contradiction or you have a way to reconcile these two
positions and the Western Latin understanding. When Augustine translated and
misunderstood that text, because the Greek doesn't say what the
Latin says, he thought all men are guilty in Adam
when it says that all men are in Adam and
sin because they're sons of Adam, they're not sinners because
they're in atom as in an archetype. And therefore Augustine
attributed to Paul the teaching of original guilt. Nobody else
taught that in the West in the East, and by
the way, the early Western Church brothers didn't teach that either,
so they're just confusing statements like that. And by the way,
the irony there is that when Catholics or these Western
rite idiots think that those councils are teaching Latin theology,
that would mean that they're borrowing from the Roman Catholic
terminology and mindset, which didn't teach original guilt. So the
very thing that they argue that it's borrowing from, or
that it's speaking in line with Western Latin theology, it's
about the Snaut of Jerusalem and whatnot, well, that would
mean that they're adopting the Roman Catholic position or that
they're restanding the Roman Catholic position according to these people.
And if that's the case, then they're also still not
teaching original guilt, because the Roman Catholics don't teach original guilt.
It's just so idiotic like people have they don't know
the basics, and then they run off on Twitter and
they go crazy with a bunch of people's like quote minds,
and it's just a waste of time. So you're wasting
your own time following these people who will just lead
you into nonsense. And that's why they'll go on the
comments of Bishop Arona and tell Bishop Arna that he's
a heretic like Prime did. So you're just wasting your
time following people who are like twenty two year olds
and don't know anything.
Speaker 28: By the way, I mean, it's a whole I think,
a whole issue and problem with kind of a Protestant
mindset and Americanism that well, we just have a free
market of online orthodox content provider and might pick your
favorite one even if no credentials, even if clergy warnt
against you, just just choose your own theology. Right, it's
a total kind of free market American Protestantism.
Speaker 1: And it's just now that doesn't mean that you know,
somebody can't.
Speaker 28: Question clergy and stuff like that, but there's a prescribed
way that again, and there's a consensus among the clergy too,
isn't that interesting.
Speaker 12: Yeah, there's no clergy that say what they say. Yeah,
it's just idiots on the internet. Well they're all wrong,
and no even say all the clergy're wrong, but we're.
Speaker 28: Right, which shows you another instance of why it's very Protestant,
the necessity to have normative authority to.
Speaker 9: Resolve these disputes.
Speaker 28: Why clergy at various levels right going up from the
dock and to the priests, to the bishops, to synods
are legally binding on you because otherwise every goose is
can just.
Speaker 1: Go and quote mind and make their own case.
Speaker 28: And then you just have the free market and you
got to rely on your own understanding and just figure
out the best and.
Speaker 1: Then you're totally confused. Yeah, so it's just not the
Orthodox way of going up.
Speaker 12: It's Protestant, exactly as you said, Al Season's five dollars first,
super chat visious. Thank you. Here's a great article that
Mayandorff wrote a long time ago that really summarizes the
root of this mistake and why the idea of original
guilt even came to be. And it's because in Romans five,
when Augustine was arguing against the Palagian's he thought that
this was a key passage that proved that all men
are guilty in Adam because they're in Atom as in
an archetype, which is literally what he says in the
City of God. I've done a whole lecture through. I've
read most of those key writings of Augusta, I read
all the anti Pallagian, all the Antidonatists, I read City
of God, I've read the theological treatises, and he does
teach clear as day, multiple times over that everybody is
in Adam as in an archetype, and that's why they're guilty.
It's called mass daw Nata is the name of the doctrine,
and it was never taught in the East, and eventually,
when the East saw that this was being taught, it
was rejected. And that's why you have people like Saint
Fodia saying, no, we don't believe this. And so there's
a reckon for how infants are quote innocent, meaning innocent
of personal sins, actual sins, yet they're also encompassed under
original sin in that their descendants of Adam, who inherit
the passions from Adam and eventually will commit an actual sin.
That's what Romans five means. And Mayendorff demonstrates that this
is precisely where Augustine got it wrong, and that's why
multiple great church fathers after this time period, like Saint Photius,
point out that this is incorrect in Augustine. And so
there's this all these people who have no idea what
they're talking about, and they just run around on Twitter
endlessly quote mining and they only have like one or
two things that they go to and they just repeat
that incessantly, and they never talk about or explain any
of this other stuff common sense, what's up? Dog? Welcome everybody,
can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 9: Cool? Yeah.
Speaker 10: I think it's pretty fascinating how much.
Speaker 2: And I call them the church nephews because I think
that they taught a lot of things that just weren't
taught by Christ in the apostles, like the Trinity for example.
Speaker 12: I mean, the Trinity is taught, for example, in every
chapter of the Gospel of John. We lectured to the
whole book. So where do you get that it's not
ever taught?
Speaker 10: I mean, it's inferred, but nobody, nobody tries to teach
you or make the case that God's three persons.
Speaker 6: Ever.
Speaker 12: I mean, it's immediately taught by the post Apostolic Father.
So what do you mean we did a whole You said,
nobody ever taught.
Speaker 14: This in the Bible, in the Gospel.
Speaker 12: Yes, well you mean the terminology.
Speaker 18: No, a teaching of it like God is actually three
persons nobody.
Speaker 12: Well, if the New Testament said, hold on, if the
New Testament says that the Father is God and is he?
And if the Son is godden is he? And if
the Holy Spirit is gotten, is he? Then that's teaching
three persons.
Speaker 1: No, that's that's Moses is also called judges, are.
Speaker 12: Called Elohem has nothing to do with it, has nothing
to do with the New Testament terminology where Jesus is
called Yahweh and called the tetragrammaton has used of him
do has nothing to do with Elohim.
Speaker 1: He's never called in the New Testament.
Speaker 9: He is.
Speaker 12: Absolutely He says I am that I am multiple times
in the Gospel of John, which I just quoted to you,
and John one, he's called God, he's called the logos
of God.
Speaker 1: No, he doesn't say in the beginning with the Sun.
Speaker 12: Who's the logos? Doesn't John, who is the logos.
Speaker 1: It's God's word. God's word belongs to God's Who.
Speaker 12: Does John identify that person as.
Speaker 1: At the baptism Christ becomes alone?
Speaker 12: No, no, no, in John one, not his baptism, Yeah,
he does. He tells, you're not answering my question in
John one, who is that identified.
Speaker 1: As God's word belongs to him?
Speaker 12: You're just repeating your position. I'm asking a specific question
about John one. Yeah, so you're not. You're not gonna
answer it.
Speaker 1: I am going to It's the word belongs to God.
Speaker 9: It's with God.
Speaker 1: It's not another person.
Speaker 12: It says he who's what does he refer to in grammar?
Speaker 1: It's personified like us wisdom?
Speaker 9: Is she?
Speaker 12: Yeah? But that it's identified in this chapter that that's
who became flesh? Is this word in John one? Fourteen?
Speaker 1: Right, we know that John the word became flesh at
the baptism.
Speaker 12: It tells you that, no, no, this is talking about
his birth. He became flesh when he took on the
nature from Mary that he assumed.
Speaker 1: Yes, it is, John warned fourteen.
Speaker 12: It says, and John, who is the one that's eternally begotten?
In verse eighteen, it's not who is the one who
is that? So in verse eighteen, it's not Jesus, even
though it says it's Jesus.
Speaker 1: Well, different translations say Son, not God.
Speaker 12: No one has seen God at any time, but the
only begotten Son, who is in present tense the bosom
of the Father has executed or declared him in the Greek.
What do you mean, right, Yeah, that's refuting what you said. No,
who is that?
Speaker 9: Who is that?
Speaker 12: In John one eighteen it's Jesus Christ is in exactly
it's this is that?
Speaker 1: Not?
Speaker 12: And it's not the same word from three verses earlier.
Speaker 1: No, we don't ever see the Son in the Old Testament.
Speaker 12: Okay. Jesus himself says that he's the one that spoke
to Moses. What do you mean he's not in the
Old test Yes he does, he says that, Yes he does. Yeah,
he says that Moses wrote about me. Paul says in
segret in these three that when Paul that when Moses
went up on the mountain, he talked face to face
with Christ. Yes he does. What do you mean you're
just saying, no, three, you can't ever.
Speaker 32: Show the Son in the Old Testament alive doing anything
being worshiped.
Speaker 12: What are you talking about who is the angel of
the Lord. He's every one of the Theophanies doesn't says Lord,
Yes it does. Jesus identifies himself in John five through
nine too, the Pharisees as the one who appeared in eight,
with Abraham as the one. All right, you're just a liar.
It's good, Yes he does. You're a liar. We've lectured
through the entirety of all of these tore up passages
on the Theophanes is completely nonsose.
Speaker 1: It's just repeating no.
Speaker 12: Yeah, he just said no about twenty times and repeated
his position when I gave him literally all the texts
that refute what he's saying. And so he's just repeating
like made up Aryan nonsense. What's up Ruby or something?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 33: Hello, I actually I had a question if that's okay.
So I'm a former Jehovah's witness and I recently converted
to Orthodoxy, and I still feel like I have certain
questions about Mary, Armageddon, and the resurrection. So really quickly, Mary,
why does it matter whether or not she was a
virgin after Jesus was born?
Speaker 3: And about Armageddon.
Speaker 33: I still struggle with Armageddon as if is it real,
is it going to happen, is it literal?
Speaker 3: Is it symbolic?
Speaker 33: And then with the Resurrection, I still struggle with like
what happens to us after we die and are we
going to be resurrected on a paradise earth or are
we just going to go to heaven like well, so.
Speaker 12: The Resurrection is a new creation of the entire universe.
In terms of Mary, I made a whole forty minute
video that I would say to go and watch, so
that I'm not trying to be dismissive. It's just that
it's a whole lot of like, you know, things to rehearse,
and each one of these topics they're very vast. So
watch my Mary video which is forty minutes on the
Theo tokos and that argues from the Bible why all
the Marrian doctrines are the case. Then I would say
watch my video on the Beast in the Resurrection, which
is about preterism and how we don't have to be
in this sort of you're an XGW, so we don't
have to have this like end time sphere sensationalist type position.
There will be an end times, there will be you know,
a final Antichrist. But I have extensive podcasts on all
of those specific topics, So do you go check those
out because those are pretty vast topics there. Rafael, what's up?
Speaker 29: Due?
Speaker 12: We gotta hold on one second. Jonathan dine In five bucks,
Crucible rad, Hey, what's up? Welcome to everybody. Appreciate you
guys coming on over the cheap chimp five bucks for
the cringe core Lord, thank you. Jaden Day. I appreciate
the ten bucks, but I don't think I can read
that super chat five bucks. If you want to come
ask it somewhere else on a different format, maybe let's
see Iranian Jay three dollars. Will you debate or discuss
doctor Khalil about Islam and neo Platonism. I doubt it.
I don't have time for that kind of a formal debate. Also,
I don't think that you can go watch his debate
with Shamoon Eb five bucks. I'm Orthodox converted, but I'm
still addicted to certain sins. Personal advice, any personal advice
besides talk to my spiritual father. I mean, you just
have to keep battling. Everybody's going to keepattling or passion,
so don't get discouraged. What's up, Raphael?
Speaker 34: So, uh, just a context, I'm Orthodox, and uh, I
just want to run back on that original sin slash
guilt topic. Right, So I came up like or I
didn't come up with it, but I was thinking, would
the saint with Saint Varus and Saint Cleopatra like kind
of refute the original guilt claim.
Speaker 12: I don't know off the top of my head. How
what's so.
Speaker 34: Saint Virus Basically he was a martyr who prayed for posthumously,
he prayed for Saint Cleopatra's deceased child who was unbaptized. Right, Oh,
she received a vision you know, where her child was
in heaven.
Speaker 29: You know.
Speaker 12: I mean I just think that the like visions of
claims of saints at post divine revelation. I'm not saying
they're not true. I just don't know how strong they
are in theological argumentation.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 12: And then just to add on to that little thing,
because because if you made that like some kind of
knockdown argument, you could conceivably use you know, these kinds
of stories of lives the saints to prove anything. And
that's what that's what a lot of these people do
it's like they'll they'll just go fish out some random
crazy story or some some obscure thing, and then all
of a suddenly it proves their pet heresy. Right, I
would just be leary of that as a Methodist. What
I'm trying to say, Yeah, But and then.
Speaker 34: It doesn't stop there though, with the Saint Virus. Like,
for example, during the time of troubles in Russia, Saint
Hermogenes of Moscow actually told the people of Russia to
like to ask intercessory prayers to Saint Virus on behalf
of their deceased children who were unbaptized. So, you know,
the claim that the Orthodox Church was, like, you know,
was all wrong before that council or whatever that guy
was saying before is.
Speaker 12: Just kind of dumbastic. I mean, that's a schismatic out
of it. But yeah, these are some good points too
that And I mean we put in our discord many
times that there's you know, open prayers, there's liturgical prayers
for unbaptized infants and so forth. So heroes workshop five bucks,
Jesus turned water to wine, Muhammad turned a child into bride.
That's a good point. Five bucks. Will you debate pologia.
People keep asking me this, I mean, tell them to
I don't know who it is, so yeah, sure or whatever.
People think that I set up all these days. Dude,
nobody wants to come debate, so I don't know what
I mean. That isn't like insane site site siege. What's up? Dog?
We hit a shout out to all that audience from
the Crucible. Appreciate you, guys. We got over two thousand,
we got twenty two hundred. Welcome everybody. I'm mute, I'm mute, dude,
Hey Jamie, Jamie, is this your first time on the yeah?
Or that I need a gender to can't take it?
Are you gonna? Unmute? Man? What's up?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 2: Are you talking to me?
Speaker 9: I guess?
Speaker 12: So what's up?
Speaker 1: Oh? Howdy dare?
Speaker 19: Yeah?
Speaker 8: But you see, I'm an ex cradle Catholic, I think,
and that's a term for it. I just had this
question of first, I can you't hear me because I
know my eye is weird? Yeah, okay, So I hear
this constant with them Orthodox guys saying that I see
that Catholics practice idolatry by praying to Mary. So my question,
but how so.
Speaker 12: You can't be serious. Well, no, I've never heard of
Orthodox It's called Catholics idolatrous because I'm Mary. I mean,
I mean potentially the Roman Catholic doctrines of co redemtrics
could lead to that, But I don't know that is
that sounds like somebody's joking around. Tear on what's up?
That was somebody doing a good people was a right,
good what's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 1: Good question?
Speaker 35: And so I've been, you know, following some of the
debate and in the preciposition is debate specifically, and my
question is why are metaphysical Metaphysical preciposition is not brought.
Speaker 1: Up in debates.
Speaker 12: I'll bring them up in almost every debate. So what
are you talking about?
Speaker 36: Well, it seems to me that everyone uses them, uh
kind of Aristotelian the physic where they get.
Speaker 1: But like Christian the physics seems like it's based on.
Speaker 36: Relationship first and knowledge in the context of relationship.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I think you can make that argument, and we've
we've used that line of argumentation before.
Speaker 36: So for example, you know, if you're arguing with someone,
they have a relationship with this idea that that they have,
which is like you know, and so they're there, their
communication with you is just rationalizing their h I would
say affection to.
Speaker 37: That idea, Okay, so I meaning that, And that's why
it's more of a spiritual issue. That's that's so much,
you know, integrated with all these conversations. So people's positions
is not entirely rational, it's really kind of spiritual connection
to something.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 12: I think that's a fair question, and I think a
lot of people don't understand that their issues might in
fact be spiritual and not intellectual. But sometimes that's difficult
to convince people of and so usually debates are for
the sake of the audience, not the opponent, and that's
why debates are usually focused on whether the arguments were
sound or not. So, but that's a I think you're
right about what's oftentimes going on in the soul of
the person debating cost. Yeah, what's up man. By the way,
if you guys want to call in, welcome everybody who
got like two thousand ish. You can call in through
the Twitter link right there. If you have a debate challenge.
If you're a Protestant, if you're a Roman Catholic, if
you're a Muslim, if you're an atheist, it's open for him.
Use the link and hit request to speak and I'll
bring you up. Just got to unmute yourself when you
get brought up? What's up? Cost you? Unmute yo?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 12: What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: I want to say, pretty excited about your work with
Sam Hide. That should be pretty cool. Yeah.
Speaker 12: What do you think of the first two episodes I
co wrote on those two.
Speaker 1: Of the New World Piece or what is it?
Speaker 21: No?
Speaker 12: The two the Sam Hide Show, Dear Elon and Dear
vivek Oh.
Speaker 1: I didn't know you were involved with those. Yeah, those
were great.
Speaker 12: Thanks.
Speaker 14: Yeah viral too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, congrats, that's for you. Thank you.
Speaker 21: I wanted to talk a little bit about Orthodox jurisdiction
if you don't mind.
Speaker 12: I mean, I don't mind answering that question, but I
mean we're not we're not really doing Orthodox problems in
inner disputes. Is it about like where do I go
to church? Or what's the question?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I know you're like ro corps.
Speaker 21: I just wanted to get some some more take coun
not like personally, I don't believe in canonical territory, and
I know the US and a complex situation right now.
Speaker 12: But is it what do you what do you mean canonical?
I don't know what you mean, like in terms.
Speaker 1: Of jurisdiction, should have strict geographic.
Speaker 12: Lines, okay, but I mean America is an oddball, unique
situation that doesn't fit history, So we don't want to.
Speaker 28: Canon law works to their rules that are applied, you know,
on most situations. But you're going to get cases that
it's like, well it's not going.
Speaker 1: To work here. Yeah, absolutely, that's what that economy is necessary.
Speaker 21: But as as latey, I mean, shouldn't we work towards
you know, meeting that that norm.
Speaker 12: Well, the problem is that in America the U. S.
State Department and the CIA try to have a huge
influence on the jurisdictions and try to tell them what
to do and what direction to go, which is you
can imagine as skittles and that kind of stuff. So
you know, we don't want one giant jurisdiction right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fair.
Speaker 21: I was in a go Arts church a couple of
weeks ago and they had pictures of like their metropolitan
with the pope all around.
Speaker 12: It was weird, right, that's where if you if you
have you know, the U. S. State Department running and
telling all the Orthodox churches under one giant jurisdiction what
to do. That's what you're going to get.
Speaker 21: Yeah, yeah, that's fair, all right, I just want to
get I know you're a ro corps like I.
Speaker 1: O c A has autocephially. To me, that's a pretty
strong argument. But yeah, just something I've been thinking about.
Speaker 12: Strong argument for what.
Speaker 1: For its jurisdictional kind of primarity?
Speaker 12: I guess, well, I mean the Russians were here first.
So look what I don't understand the logic of that.
Speaker 1: Well, record doesn't have auto stephy though, but what do
I have?
Speaker 12: What would I have to do with you said prime, prime,
prim priority, Well, the Russians came to this count, to
this continent first, So how do you determine priority just
because the O c A is supposedly auto stephalos. I
don't get it.
Speaker 1: I mean it's a good point. I'm just trying to
think through these wants.
Speaker 12: The O c A wants recognition from the EP so anyway,
I mean, I'm not trying to be a douchebag. I don't,
I don't know, I don't. I'm not into I'm not
into canonical stuff. I think that also super boring. So
I mean, I just it's not my domain. You could
go ask them about your knows. Cantaloon, I don't know. Doogle,
what's up? Doogal what's up?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 12: It's open for him?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 12: What's up?
Speaker 38: First of I just want to say I'm a big
fan and I've been watching some of your videos of
late you and the Sumpsho Moons and the Christian Prince.
Speaker 1: I just have a question about Orthodoxy because if.
Speaker 38: I'm being honest, I've never a few months ago, I
actually never heard of orthodoxy. What it's like indifference to
Roman Catholic titulicism is. So I did a bit of
research and is it true that to basically, the main
belief is that the something about the Holy Spirit and
that the Father can only send it.
Speaker 3: And not the Son.
Speaker 12: Yeah, the Father is the sole cause in the trinity,
and the Son does not participate in his hypostatic property
of being caused, which is unique to him. That's philioqua correct, Okay, And.
Speaker 1: I have some questions about.
Speaker 12: It's open debate today, So I'm not trying to be rude.
It's not open Q and A for work for people
who disagree. So if you disagree about Protestantism with alicism, atheism,
and it's hard to understand what you're saying. I'm not
trying to be rude, Matt. What's up? Robert Dryer five dollars?
I need a comment relational ontology approaches to Christianity, like
making God just a relation, like Zizzelus and Balthazar. I
think you can go too far with relational ontology. But
I mean it's relational when you read uh Father stun
Eloy in Orthodox dogmatics. But no, I don't think. I
think people like zizzel let's go too far with it.
What's up man, Matt? Hey, j how are you good?
What's on your mind today?
Speaker 9: Hey?
Speaker 12: How are you good? What's on your mind today?
Speaker 1: Just one?
Speaker 7: One quick question? And and then I suppose just I'm
a I'm a Protestant or an Acostal, but really love Orthodoxy.
Speaker 9: And love what you do.
Speaker 12: You're cutting out.
Speaker 14: I was having a discussion with someone regarding.
Speaker 1: TAG.
Speaker 14: I was having a discussion with someone regarding tagh.
Speaker 12: Okay, okay, are there tag?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me yet?
Speaker 12: What about tag?
Speaker 1: It's merely a language?
Speaker 12: You're you're gone, man, I can't I can't hear you. Sorry,
So it's open for him. We got almost ninety people.
If you would like to debate, you can come to
the head of the line and your hit request to speak.
I'll remind everybody in the chat we've got still we've
got thirteen hundred. Now, if you want to call in,
call in through the Twitter link right here. I'll put
it in the chat again for you guys, if you're
watching the the livestream chat right here, call in right there,
hit request to speak, and I'll bring you up. He
said Pentecostal. I was hoping we can maybe get into
that because you know, when you go to Acts and
you look at the Book of Acts, if you look
at Acts two, the only way that Acts two makes
sense is if this is known languages, and that matters
because it means it's not gibberish. So, for example, at
Isaiah twenty eight and twenty nine, we read about these
events that are going to happen in the Messianic era.
So this is a prophecy of Pentecost. The Lord has
poured out upon you, and this is talking about the
disobedience of the Jews. At this time, and also in
the time of Christ the Messianic era, pause and wonder.
Blind yourselves and be drunk blind. They are drunk, but
not with wine. They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
The Lord has poured out upon them a spirit of
deep sleep and has closed your eyes, namely the prophets.
He's covered your heads, namely the seers. It's in other words,
this is a contrast to the pouring out of the
spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost, as we'll see in
a minute. Contrast it to the pouring out of a
delusion and a blindness to those that don't believe. The
whole vision is like words of a book that are sealed,
and men deliver it to one who is literate and
say read this police, and he says, I can. It's sealed.
Then the book is delivered to one who's illiterate, and
they say read this, and he says, I can. I'm illiterate. Therefore,
the Lord sayss inasmuch as these people draw near to
me with their hearts with their mouths, but and they
arm me with their lips, their hearts are far from me.
Jesus quotes that very passage describing it as a contemporary
prophecy for his day. So we know this is not
just Isaiah's day. It also applies to the Messianic arrival era. Therefore, behold,
I will do a marvelous thing among these people, a
wonder the wisdom of the wise will perish. The understanding
of the prudent will be hidden, and that those who have,
those who seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord.
They say, who sees us, who knows it? Surely those
things turn around. And then it goes on to say
that God will provide for them. He will fulfill his
promises to them. They will eventually hallow his name, and
they will learn true doctrine. And then we go back
to twenty eight and it says that who will teach knowledge,
who will make unders to understand this message? Just the
chapter right before those wean from milk and drawn from
the breasts, precept upon precept, line upon line, here, a
little there, a little for with a stammering lip and
another tongue, he will speak to this people. Okay, this
is a prophecy of Pentecost and the fulfillment of Pentecost,
that when the apostles preach, right, this will be the
outpouring that Joel prophesied, and in contrast, the Jews will
have a delusion and a blindness poured out upon them
in this generation as a punishment. Right. So these are
prophecies of Pentecost. But it is not gibberish. It is
another tongue by which He speaks to this people, and
that means it's a known language. So when I come
over to Acts two and I compare that to what's
in Isaiah twenty eight and twenty nine, and we know
it's a prophecy that day. This is not gibberish. It's
not an angel language, which Pentecostals all believe. It's known languages.
How do I know it's no languages. Well, if you
go to the Orthodox liturgy, especially on the Day of Pentecost,
you'll read about how it's the reversal of Babel. Babel
is where God divides the nations and confuses the languages.
Here is the reversal of that. But that reversal is
in the Kingdom of the Church, you see. So it
cannot be gibberish languages or else. It is not a
sign to the Jews that God is speaking to them
through the hearing universally all people that are hearing the
same message, that's the miracle. Thus, pentecost is not gibberish
like Pentecostals do. In other words, if it's gibberish, it
destroys all of these prophetic fulfillment elements. You want to
try again, brothermore, go ahead.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so happy to talk on pentecostalism, but I just
wanted to quickly ask you about tag when when I
was having the.
Speaker 14: Talk with someone when I'm talking about logic, his argument was,
logic is merely just a.
Speaker 10: Language that we interpret, and I was trying to work
a way around that, and.
Speaker 14: I was trying to get into the kind of like
the logic that you talk of.
Speaker 7: What what would be just your approach on that, and
then I can talk about Pentecostalism if you want.
Speaker 12: Well, I mean to just say it's just a language
doesn't do much to I mean, that makes it just
something subjective or tokenized or human creation, and so it's
not actually talking about the ontological status of it, and
it's not it's not going to do him much good
to just say it's just that, right, because how is
it universal if it's just a social construct or a
human construct.
Speaker 1: Well, I said to.
Speaker 7: Him, I said, so does that mean then if it's
no human minds, then that logic doesn't exist? And then
he just went into basically, well, how do you justify
the words that you're using now?
Speaker 1: And I was just like what, So that kind of
threw me a bit.
Speaker 12: How do you justify the words you're using? I don't
how would that? I know, I know anyway, but.
Speaker 10: Yeah, just on your point on X, I agree with
you as that it is other languages to the Jews.
Speaker 14: That is a sign from Isaiah.
Speaker 7: And I would also probably I don't know what your
thoughts are on this, but you've also got the gift
of interpretation of tongues as well.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's people who have the ability to understand and
interpret languages.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but would that also apply to acts?
Speaker 14: So, for example, would they also be interpreting.
Speaker 10: The tongue that they all speak and they're hearing it
all in their own language.
Speaker 12: I mean, it seems to be saying that in Acts
and Acts two Acts two at Pentecost is a unique
miracle again reversing babble, and it's a sign of the
Jews in Isaiah twenty eight twenty nine and other passages. Right,
So that's I think a unique situation where we're not
gonna be seeing Pentecosts like Acts two for the rest
of the church period. Acts two is a fulfillment of
the feast of youths and the feast of weeks of
the Old Testament calendar. So it's a unique redemptive historical event.
It's not to be repeated, except that in the Orthodox
Church we do believe that chrismation is your own personal Pentecost,
So in that sense it's repeated, but it's not repeated
for the collective church.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 14: I mean the next point we see is with Cornelius.
Speaker 1: When they.
Speaker 12: Yeah, but again that's that's not Pentecost. That's a sign
to the Jews that gentiles can to receive the Holy Spirit.
That's a unique redemptive historical event during this transition period
from Old Testament to New Testament.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but you see that with So back to the Acts.
They speaking in other tongues. Some people say, I can't
understand this stuff. They're or drunk or whatever, but other
people say, no, we hear them in our own language.
Speaker 12: Right, that's a miracle.
Speaker 9: True.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you can either take the position that, oh, tell
me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 12: Okay, but hold on. But see, but none of that
has anything to do with Pentecostalism. Okay, Today's pentecostalism is
like Montanism. Are you familiar with the heresy of Montanism?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 10: Yeah, but it's without the and that's where NAR and
all that kind of stuff creeps back in as well.
What what is that the NAR New Apostolic Reformation guys,
you know, the prophetic Apostolic guys.
Speaker 12: I don't know who any of that is. Are you
talking about like the Azuoza Street Revival in California?
Speaker 10: No, no, no, this is this is recent. This is
like through guys like Peter Wagner, Bill Johnson.
Speaker 12: I don't know. I don't know who these people are.
I mean, what I'm getting at is like the this
is all old heresy condemned in the days of the
second century. It's the third century of the Church. So
I don't I don't understand, Like what I mean that right,
there should be the undoing of the whole thing, like
Pentecostalism is totally false.
Speaker 10: Well, no, they were condemned for thephes of.
Speaker 1: Being on par with Scripture, not with ecstatic speech or.
Speaker 12: No, that's not true, that's not true, that's not true.
There's no there's no new divine revelation after the death
of Apostles, And there's many places in the New Testament
that that make it clear that there's not going to
be new, ongoing divine revelations. And if that's the case,
I agree, well they're not under That means that Pentecostalism
is false, because Pentecostalism pauses that God directly gives you
new revelations.
Speaker 14: On what has already been revealed, bringing greater understanding.
Speaker 12: No, there's plenty, there's no, that's not true. There's countless
Pentecostals who claim to prophesy and give words of prophecy
to people individually, and it's all bologny, it's all delusion.
And by the way, many of them are not. Look,
it's not in the Orthodox Church. I mean, you can't
have this stuff without Orthodoxy, So that right there discounts
all of it.
Speaker 1: So so am I hearing you right? In Orthodoxy there
is no more kind of prophetic utter.
Speaker 12: There are miracles, and there's clairvoreants, but there is no
new divine revelation. And so that cuts off, Yeah.
Speaker 14: We would believe that as well as Pentecostals. We wouldn't believe.
Speaker 12: But that's not true.
Speaker 9: No, you do not.
Speaker 12: You believe that there's people speaking with the Holy Spirit,
and it's if the Holy Spirit speaks, that's divine revelation.
But the people in Pentecostalism who pronounce word of prophecy
or whatever like, that's not the Holy Spirit speaking.
Speaker 10: Yeah, gotch you So you mean, like for example, just
a case example, like when a lot of the prophetic
guys in the Pentecostal little circles basically said, are Trump's
going to get in in two thousand?
Speaker 12: And it doesn't matter Like I've been to Pentecostal churches before,
I've been to many different groups of pact. Yeah, I've
been to different Pentecostal groups. And I mean, if you're
not even mostly I'm not gonna this is enough of this.
I mean, yell at me, canmule. It's the heresy of Montonism.
And if you disagree, well then we will have to disagree.
I don't know what else to tell you. And it's
montanous was condemned also for ecstatic expression. Let's look at
let's read this convinced that the end of the world
was at hand. That's most Pentecostals. The New Jerusalem was
about to descend to the village of Pepoosa, So he's
a premillennial. John Hagee Pentecostal Montanus established a rigorous morality
to pureify Christians and attach them from their material desires.
Criticism of Montanus and his movement consequently emphasize the New
prophecy's unorthodox ecstatic expression and his rejection of the bishop's
role as divinely appointed. So it is premised on the
rejection of Appasaoltic succession and authority in the Church that
was rejected way back in the second century when the
Church rejected Montanism and all Pentecostalism. Is is this same
delusion represented? And if you disagree, I'm sorry. It's like
it should be clear this day. I don't know what
to tell you. What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 9: Can you?
Speaker 12: I'm mute, can mule?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 9: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hello?
Speaker 11: Hello?
Speaker 3: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Come?
Speaker 12: Well, okay, what's up?
Speaker 17: Man?
Speaker 12: Oh man?
Speaker 1: Someone's texting me?
Speaker 12: Let me you said, I don't I don't know how
to pronounce that.
Speaker 1: What what?
Speaker 12: What's up?
Speaker 1: It's all right, It's all right, Jah, it's all right.
Speaker 39: Why do you keep a lot of the time, when
you speak about like foreign influence into an Orthodox church,
you always point to NATO, Like.
Speaker 17: Why do you do this?
Speaker 12: Because I'm at Schill and I work for Putin, so
good job. You want to clip that, put it on
your two hundred follower channel. Put it on your twound
follower channel. Paula, what's up, Paula? You want to I mute?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Are you drinking wine?
Speaker 23: No, not at all.
Speaker 3: I just I've never called in. No no boxed wine,
no so aproa pos of all.
Speaker 40: The Pentecostal stuff.
Speaker 3: I well, I wanted to thank.
Speaker 40: You because, like I ended up becoming Orthodox because I
listened to your stuff for years. And it's actually kind
of odd because I'm from a Romanian family.
Speaker 3: But we're Baptists.
Speaker 40: Interesting, well, they're a Baptists from Transylvania, and all the
people I grew up around that were Romanian.
Speaker 12: Baptiste Baptist Dracula Baptula pretty much Bractised Dractist Dractice Baptist
Order of the Holy Order of Baptist Dracula followers.
Speaker 40: Go ahead, Yeah, It's been really interesting because growing up
like I was like really alienated from Orthodoxy, and until
I was about like twenty eight or so, I didn't
go into an Orthodox church, and it was only like
watching your content. I don't know how I found you,
and then also like interacting with like different people that
I would like encounter that were discovering Orthodoxy as well.
I finally decided to go in anyway. So that's that's
my back. That's why I know a lot of Pentecostals
and Baptists who are Romanian, if you.
Speaker 1: Can believe it.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean I I the first time I ever
went to Orthodox church. It was at Saint Dracula Baptist Church.
Speaker 40: Saint Dracula Baptist ch I'm joking, no, no, like, yeah,
that Dracula thing is annoying too, because yeah, we're like
from Transylvania.
Speaker 12: I took the hold on. I took the Dracula pill
years ago. So I suspect that he was Orthodox and
he's based and he fought Muslim, So I don't believe,
Like I think Dracula is a good guy.
Speaker 40: No, he was cool, but I wonder if the pope
also supported him, So I don't.
Speaker 12: Know, Like, well, he was in a weird situation of
like between Uni A and Orthodox. So I don't know exactly,
but somebody was saying somebody that was his predecessor, Stephen
the Great, or somebody who's some king that fought Muslims
was Orthodox.
Speaker 9: Oh.
Speaker 40: They were all like, oh, of course, all those princes then,
you know, in Moldova or whatever you know. And by
the way, Dracula himself, not to get too off topic.
Speaker 12: From the debate, the chat is having a blast. The
Dracula Baptists have evening services. The morning services or the
morning services are dead, and they're dead because you got
your blood sucked out of your dog.
Speaker 40: No, it's so annoying to be Romanian and from transylvan
Everyone comes up and talks about Dracula because he was
from Malaysia and he was a prisoner of Hungarians in Transylvania.
So I don't think he was even like Transylvanian prince
reely and bram Stoker made a bunch of crap up
about him.
Speaker 12: So I don't know what's on your mind.
Speaker 3: Okay, So that's my background. So I know a lot
of Romanians who are.
Speaker 40: Really zealous evangelicals in America.
Speaker 12: Now Father knows about those two probably he does because
he's we talked about it. Yeah.
Speaker 40: Yeah, so it's really hard to like sometimes coming out
to them as Orthodox is like kind of awkward because
they think it's idolatrous. They've had experience in Communist Romania
being the persecuted people who stood up for their faith,
and when they think of the Orthodox, they think of
like drunkards, adulterers, people who don't.
Speaker 1: Like really follow the faith.
Speaker 3: I don't know. They have a bad experience of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can tell you all about it.
Speaker 12: Yeah, well Father Diagan was the Baptist drunkard, so he
knows all about that.
Speaker 40: Oh cool, Yeah, I mean I'm glad you are a
drunkard because.
Speaker 1: Totals about it.
Speaker 28: And guess what it was Pentecostals. They they were Romanian Pentecostals.
Speaker 40: Oh they're so they're so like pure and like they
call themselves which is like I don't know, like what
does that mean like reformed or repenters or something.
Speaker 12: I don't know.
Speaker 28: But I asked the Orthodox Romanian community like how did
this even happen?
Speaker 1: Because I just thought this is what So a couple
of different things. First of all, none.
Speaker 28: Of these people were properly kind of key sized they
were brought up, they probably had weird ideas and like.
Speaker 1: You said, they might have seen problems with the state during.
Speaker 28: The tech regime and stuff like that and associated with
but that they're ignorant.
Speaker 1: Now, what happened is people in the United States, it's
made a huge missionary effort, especially.
Speaker 28: The Pentecostals, to go over and pray on these ignorant people.
Speaker 1: Now how they came over is that here was the
additional fact. So if you're in.
Speaker 28: Another country, you've got to get a visa and have
somebody sponsor you.
Speaker 1: And so they have what they call visa families. So
it was a strategy.
Speaker 3: I'm from a visa family for Yeah.
Speaker 28: So there was a strategic attack in which the Pentecostals
and other Baptists worked basically as missionary from this to
receive and be visa families, and then they integrated them
into the community. And being ignorant not accounted key size properly.
They told them like, oh, well that was all idolatry
and that was all and.
Speaker 1: The third important fact too. And you see this with
other cultures too.
Speaker 28: This American is some kind of mythology. Many cultures think
America is just the most wonderful, and a lot of
people have shame or they're leaving their country behind, their's.
Speaker 1: Issues, and they don't want to be seen as foreigners.
I think it's just kind of a natural.
Speaker 28: Tendency, and because of that they try to adopt certain Americanism.
This was become a huge issue on the Arabic Christians, especially.
Speaker 1: The Antiochians, and then really with like the Coptics and
stuff like that. They just started like Coptics will do
like praise music and.
Speaker 36: Stuff like that.
Speaker 1: And the Coptic people told me that they're like, Oh,
it's because we're totally insecure and.
Speaker 28: We don't like our Egyptian heritage and we want to
be American and they see this kind of narrative of
this Americanism what it means to be American and evangelical,
and they want that. So I think it's a combination
of all those kinds of things that lead to this.
Speaker 40: Yeah, I wouldn't describe a lot of malice to some
of these people, because some of the Baptists and Pentecostal
missionaries and so on probably would have been trying to
like do good and they would have been told that
in Communism, Oh, these people couldn't have Bibles an atheist.
Speaker 12: The CIA utilized the Pentecostals, the Evangelicals, the Baptists throughout
the Cold War. Absolutely as a form of soft power.
We've talked about that a lot.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they did.
Speaker 40: But the awareness on the level of like individuals, no,
I know that they don't.
Speaker 12: So it wouldn't be all of them. It would be
so in general it would just be soft power, but
there would be specific you know, agents here and there.
I'm not saying everybody who's a missionary as a CIA operative. No,
it's just soft power. But then some of those people
are actually operatives.
Speaker 40: Well, I can and I could talk about this for
like a long time. I don't want to like bore you,
but like even my grandpa that he was very wild
as a young man, and he when he became like okay,
like repentant and whatever this story goes in our family,
he went to the local Orthodox priest to share about
his like, uh, you know, his like I don't know
how to say it, because he had a bit of
like a bit of a spiritual experience and anyway, and.
Speaker 3: From what I heard, the priest like he.
Speaker 40: Started to debate with him about like Scripture and the
priest banged him on the head with the Bible, and
so my grandpa like left and he became Baptist. And
then you know, that's how he met Mikeel.
Speaker 12: He was trying to get the Baptist demon out of him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was trying to like but see, here's the thing.
Some of the priests at that time.
Speaker 40: I mean, like, first of all, Romania probably always had
a problem with like uneducated priests in a way because
they would have been drawn from the you know, just
regular people.
Speaker 12: Yes, we had a whole argument yesterday in my comments
that somebody's trying to argue that you have to believe
in vampire's or you're not Orthodox. I was just like,
give me, oh God, and he was our but he
was actually pulling up all this like old Romanian superstition.
I'm not joking. Yeah, and that there was in two
thousand and three. Uh, there was a village guy who
dug up bodies to destroy the heart and the organs
and then you have to burn it and then the
villagers have to drink the acid ashes. I'm not joking,
and like the church told them to stop doing it,
but the villagers think that that it's real and you
have to believe in vampires.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I'm gonna ask you, uh like wind?
Speaker 3: Oh my god?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they love that.
Speaker 3: They're great.
Speaker 1: I remember when I first heard. I'm like, you've got
to be kidding. So there was a draft.
Speaker 3: It's just a draft.
Speaker 12: Is this why they like pentecostal?
Speaker 9: Like?
Speaker 12: Is Pentecostalism there? Because the Romanians might like the Romanians
are like SUPERSTI I'm not dissing all Romanians.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, you know that, right.
Speaker 40: Witches at that like threatened the government and stuff when
they wanted to tax them, and like.
Speaker 9: I think.
Speaker 12: You're gonna pay that witch tax. That's a witch tax.
Hey you gotta. We got a twenty percent witch tax
in America too. I pay it. I'll pay it every year.
Speaker 1: And it was like, oh yeah, I'm sick. And I'm like, well, yeah,
what happened? I got a cold and I was like,
how did that happen?
Speaker 28: He's like, I went to the beach from my feet
got wet and I was like wait what And he's.
Speaker 1: Like and then the wind blew on my feet. I'm sorry,
is that unusual? I grew up hearing this. Is that weird?
For Americans, it's like, yeah, that was the first time
I've ever heard. I'm like, that's not what cold me.
Speaker 40: You go to too, Like sure everyone talks like that
in like old Yeah, And there.
Speaker 1: Was all kinds of stuff that I was like, you
actually believe that. Oh yeah, man, never leave.
Speaker 28: Because especially like places where kay Or lives or like
if you're from California, it's all about leaving your windows
and doors open to get a breeze.
Speaker 40: Yeah, well I'm in California. So yeah, I mean thirty
years I'm in California. And can you imagine I never
walked into an Orthodox church because I was like, oh no,
you know, I grew up Christian.
Speaker 12: But I was like, oh, I don't like this.
Speaker 40: I don't like Protestant church.
Speaker 1: It's like a church by the way, if you don't
mind me, If you don't, I could I could say.
Speaker 40: I mean, like, I go to a Greek church. Now,
I know, I keep hearing about how go arches, you
know whatever, but it's local. So and I actually got
baptized in Ireland, well Greek church.
Speaker 3: And I've gone to.
Speaker 40: Romanian churches, Russian churches whatever. And I used to I
used to go to Riverside at Saint Andrew where followers
is Hiah Trenomus. So I've been all.
Speaker 12: Over now, all right, So I appreciate your comments rude, but.
Speaker 40: You really cracks talking to Pentecostals or Baptists. This is
what I originally called for, in addition to all this
interesting cultural stuff, was I don't know how to.
Speaker 3: Like reach them.
Speaker 40: They like don't really I mean, I just saw my
job really too, but they're kind of puzzled by me.
They don't understand, like, and they'll bring up stuff all always.
Speaker 3: They're bringing up Hebrews or they're like, why is.
Speaker 1: There a priesthood? All this stuff to you?
Speaker 40: Any tips of like things to tell them.
Speaker 12: So Hebrews teaches that there is still a priesthood and
it's the pre said I Malkisa Dek. The New Testament
teaches apostolic succession. So you could look up the discussions
that we've done on epistolic succession and tradition, you know,
the go listen to the debate that I did with
doctor Branson and Dale the Protestant, because we go really
deep into tradition and how tradition is necessary to have
the Bible. So all these people are just assuming that, like, oh,
I just quote the Bible and that's all that's needed.
Speaker 28: But then they believe it you're missing the point. See
that's all too intellectual. So all those things are really
important to say to them, but they're not going to
hear it unless you get a strobe light and a
fog machine and a guitar while you're telling them this, Noka,
that's the way they understand stuff, right, You've got to
bring strobe lights and fog machines and wiggle around and
do praise music as you're telling them all these facts,
and then they'll go, I got it.
Speaker 1: I totally understand what you're saying.
Speaker 12: Shout out to dem Nash she became a member. Shout
out to Tiki Tak. Five dollars. Cgd's voice. That's just
his voice. He's a good guy. Well he can call
back in then zero we're let's see, I lost this
zero cool three dollars. Thank you so much, man, Tony
oh one one six five dollars. They used to be Pentecostal.
Those people thought they were profits. Of course. I mean
they believe that they are a continuation of and have
the gift of prophecy. So this guy telling me that, no,
they don't believe that. They're not profits. Yes they do
believe that. And they might say, well, it's not revelation
like the way the New Testament's revelation. If the Holy
Spirit is speaking through you, how could it not be
divine revelation? Is that the fallible speaking of the Holy Spirit.
But what's in scripture is revelation. It's infallible. You see
how silly this is. If God is speaking, it's not fallible.
So for you to say that you have the gift
of prophecy and you speak for God, no you don't.
I'm sorry, we don't believe that. So it's nonsense. And
it doesn't exist outside the Orthodox Church anyway. So and
I meant to say too, it's not just a matter
of I mean, the Old Testament office of a prophet
is done. And when Paul says in the New Testament
that some people have the gift of prophecy, it's not
an Old Testament prophet. Jesus says in Luke sixteen that
John the Baptist was the end of the prophets. There's
no more Old Testament prophets. There are elder saints people
like that who have clairvoyance, but that's not new to revelation.
Otherwise the faith was not once for all delivered to
the saints. Otherwise, I couldn't use Paul's test to test
the spirits. Test the spirits to see whether they have
got what's the test? Do they teach according to what
Paul taught? Galatians want you see? And the whole thing
is built on emotions. It's not God speaking through you
when you do a bunch of gibberish, it's your own emotions.
In the Book of Jeremiah even says that the heart
is deceitful and wicked, and the false prophets prophesy and
a thing of their own imagination, of their own dreams.
So the very things that a real prophet like Jeremiah
says about false prophets applies perfectly to Pentecostals and Charismatics
Upzi six ninety nine. I can't go to church. It's boring.
I gotta be stimulated. By twenty four to seven. A
lot of Protestants think that those lights in the churches
are gay. I hope you're joking. Gifted one membership Javi Dames,
David James Flood, thank you so much. All right, let's
see who's next. So we're looking for people who disagree.
If you disagree, you go to the head of line.
I'm not mad, and the people who've come to ask questions.
That always ends up being what happens, But preferably it's
not catecumin day. It always fills up with cateacumens. So
we're looking preferbly for people who dissore. If you're a Protestant,
if you're a macalit like if you're a Muslim, if
you're an atheist, if you're Mormon, you're a libertarian, feminist, Marxist,
you go to the head of line. But just try
to make arguments. I know that's very difficult, very difficult
to get people to make an argument. An argument is
not like that arian dude just saying no, no, no, no,
in asserting your position over Remember Kakuro, what's up?
Speaker 1: Hello?
Speaker 39: Yeah, uh, I'm sorry, but I just came here to
ask a couple of questions.
Speaker 12: Man, after you went on about what.
Speaker 18: You said, like.
Speaker 1: People shouldn't move to the front if they have a disagreement.
Speaker 39: But yeah, my question question is like, uh, what would
be considered like appropriate ecumenism, because I know acumenism is
only allowed in so far as much it would like
lead someone to Orthodox here.
Speaker 12: Well, no, that's not that's not the defining, that's not
the delineation, like because I could say, oh, I'm gonna
go hang out with my Protestant friend and go to
his church with him for the next five years to
try to get him to become Orthodox. No, you cannot
participate in the public worship services of heterodox and schismatic groups.
That's like the easiest, like you know, borderline there, knucklehea
it knock.
Speaker 1: I hate it.
Speaker 12: Erica ten dollars. I just started reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.
Thank you for the tip and helping me on my
journey to Orthodoxy. Yeah, well that's a kind of an
advanced book. But if you find yourself able to read it,
then more power to Yeah the champ, the cheap champ.
Five dollars. This is for the cringe Lord. Thank you
so much.
Speaker 9: Man.
Speaker 12: He knows how to recognize the true, the true cringe Lord.
Thank you, thank you. Can knucklehead you want, I'm mute
or what's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 1: Hey, I just didn't want to interrupt.
Speaker 12: Can you pick up?
Speaker 22: Sorry? Yeah, you know, I'm just about to I'm just
about to be stopped driving.
Speaker 1: Stop driving, so it'll get a lot quieter too.
Speaker 41: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I I was calling because there's a.
Speaker 22: A little while ago I asked, I'm Orthodox, but uh,
a little while ago I asked if the argument for
against the papacy would be good if you just say it?
Would it be a good argument to say, you know,
why didn't Paul mention Peter or like the papacy in his.
Speaker 9: Letter to the Romans?
Speaker 1: And I kind of think that that's a bad argument now.
Speaker 22: Because at least because I got into it like a
debate with a Roman Catholic and he kind of pointed
out again, I still think that it's Uh, I don't
believe in the papacy, but like if Peter was there,
then maybe Peter already taught it and that's why.
Speaker 1: Paul didn't.
Speaker 12: Well, first of all, that's an argument from silence, and secondly,
oh dude, it's an argument from silence. And second the
argument is not just why doesn't Paul mention the papacy
in the Letter to the Romans. The argument is that
Romans eleven warns the Church of Rome that they collectively
as a church can be grafted out which is impossible
given the so called Petrian succession and the doctrine of
the patrin terrorism and indefectibility. So why would you warn
a church that's indefectible that they can be cut out
of the covenant. So the argument is not all this
stuff to do with why didn't Paul mentioned the papacy?
That that's not the argument? Warren, what's Warren? G? What's up? Dude?
Sea Bass becomes a member of Shout out to the
Chad members. We've got Sea Bass joining us Orthodoxy as
a tar can another country an invade an opposing nation's
bitcoin reserve like they would with gold Well, I think
that if a nation, if a nation state is a
stocking bitcoin, they probably have sufficient protocols in place such
that it's stored in a secure way. They might use
multi sig, they might use some you know, super difficult
way to keep those seed phrases private. So this is
an argument that bitcoin proponents make, which is that when
the world moves to a bitcoin standard, if that happens,
I think it's very likely there will be less war.
It's not going to solve all problems. It's not a
silver bullet. There will be less war. Because it's way
harder to get a hold of this asset than it
is physical gold, physical property, physical treasure land. Right, those
things are much easily had in warfare than something that
I can memorize a seed phrase and boops, I forgot
it right. So you know the voting accident example, if
you're familiar with that. Where can I sign up to
be Orthodox? Go to your local Orthodox church to become Orthodox?
It's not an online thing. Let's see, he says, first
seven Canadian? Can I play on my church? Can I
play on my phone in church? No, it would probably
be better for you to go to the Lutheran church
if that's what you're suggesting, rather than an Orthodox church
playing on your phone. What's up, Warren? You're raising your
hand and go ahead. I'm mute, okay.
Speaker 42: So I just wanted to ask you a question.
Speaker 1: So you're going to also debate.
Speaker 12: Libertarian, right, Yeah, sure, that's on the list.
Speaker 1: So I just want to ask you that.
Speaker 43: So you're in info Wars and why someone like Alex
Jones is opposing Israel. So that's the only family libertarian
perspective that they were saying, Oh, funding for this is
it against like libertarian.
Speaker 12: Alex Jones and info Wars has nothing to do with
the topics. I don't know what you're talking about. Joel Davis.
What's up? Sharif ten dollars Canadian Thank you so much,
Sharif Cody s five dollars. Jay, would you say that
Pentecostalism is just modern Montanism? Yes, sir, Vane five dollars.
Do you believe in the miracle will Holy fire the suppulcher?
I don't have any position on it. I don't know.
I've never been there, I haven't seen it, so I
just don't know. Tonyo one one six, No, we already
read that. Excuse me. JD became a member get Ganazia
ten dollars. Will you speak to Joe Attwell's theory on
Caesar's Messiah. We already had a debate with this person
on this this goofy topic, like eight or ten years ago.
Let me I'll pull you up the debate that I
had with one of the proponents of this. It's what
is that guy's name, Alex Sicaris. So if you go here,
this guy argues, this guy argues the Joe Atwill thing
from it's actually eight years ago technically, so there's my
thoughts on that. You could also watch my podcast that
I did on the Beast and Preterism. Go ahead, what's up, Joe?
Speaker 1: Hey? Can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Uh huh Hey.
Speaker 41: So I'm a Protestant looking into Orthodoxy right now, and
my question is how is how do the ecumenical councils
not count as divine revelation. I've heard a lot of
Protestant rebukes of like of how they are divine revelation
in the sense that there's new information being conveyed that's
binding to the Church, and I just wanted to know
what your response.
Speaker 29: Was to that.
Speaker 12: Well, they're not revelation in the sense that, as Jude says,
the faith was once for all delivered to the Saints.
So there's a finality to what we call the Apostolic deposit,
which is everything written and oral from the Apostles. That
deposit does not have new information added to it. It
doesn't evolve, it doesn't change, it doesn't develop like Roman
Catholics think. It's a single, unified body of teachings expressed
in things like the Niceno Constablitan Creed, for example. So
when we come to documenical councils, Athanasius says that the
voice of the Holy Spirit spoke through the Council of Nicea,
so you can have a sense in which it's a
restatement of but there's no new revelations. So Nicea is
not a new revelation. It's a precise explication of what
came before. That is the Apostolic deposit Thus it is
in no sense a new revelation.
Speaker 1: Okay, something, Yeah, I was just talking with my professor
about that. That's I didn't think of it that way.
Another question that I have is in regards to.
Speaker 41: You know, how can we know how can we know
what is true today versus what is false tradition?
Speaker 1: If a lot of these things like, for example, the.
Speaker 41: The Council of Icia, the Second Council of Icia, where
there's like iconography is discussed, and there's not a ton
of information regarding iconography in the first three centuries, so
how can we know that?
Speaker 12: That's not like an aggression? Okay, but that's also an
argument from silence, and there is some information about iconography
in the first three centuries. So the idea that there's
not any I'm not saying that you said that, but
a lot of Protestants, so there's no proof of that.
There's not a lot of proof for the Protestant cande
of scripture in the first three centuries either, So there's
a lot of things that even Protestants believe that there's
scent evidence for in first, second, third century. So the
again that kind of ends up being arguments from silence.
Keep in mind this is the period when the church
is persecuted, so the church is underground, so they may
not be as ostentatious in terms of the you know,
luxuriousness of the ornate basilica when they're having to meet
and do their services in the catacombs. But I've been
to the catacombs, and when you go to the catacombs,
guess what they have in there. They have images and
they have altars. That's not Protestant. So the catacomb church
the first second, third century is not Protestant. Go to
Rome and go look at the imagery that's drawn on
the walls and where the altars are in the catacombs.
Speaker 1: Awesome, Thank you so much, Shacob.
Speaker 12: And those are great questions. And also I think Michael
Garton has a new book out on imagery and icons
in the first three centuries. I do not have the
book yet, so I can't speak to it, but I've
seen a lot of Orthodox people are talking about it,
so that probably also addresses it. Also, I did a
video in response to Gavin Ortland a while back. It
was a brief twenty minute video where I address from
the Protestant liturgy scholar Hugh Weybrew in his book Byzantine Liturgy.
In the first few chapters he actually addresses and robuts
most of Ortland's claims. So let me pull that up first.
Here is the Beast Sism and Best System and Resurrection
podcast I did five years ago. This one addresses a
lot of those kind of early questions that we had
about Joe's witnesses. Do you need something it's gonna help you, okay?
And then could you make me one more of these?
Thank you? And on my clips channel is this twenty
minute summation of what's in the Hugh Weybrew book. So
now I have longer podcasts discussing icons, but this right
here is a brief response to Galvin Ortlund, and it's
citing the Hugh Wybrew book. Christian JADEI refuse Protestant Gavin Orland.
By the way, this might be the guy who has
the baptism video. Maybe not, he doesn't have many videos,
that's not him. But anyway, this this is a good
video right here. And you'll notice right there, like you
have the dro Europos churches and synagogues how they were structured.
Speaker 9: You have.
Speaker 12: What basically amounts to altar rail in the west, or
a what becomes iconostasis in the east. You have an
altar which is blocked off by the communion rail or
the iconostasis.
Speaker 9: You have.
Speaker 12: Baptismal fonts in the basilicas that are converted into churches.
So here's a easy twenty minute response to a lot
of the Gavin Ortland types of claims. And this is
from a Protestant scholar. That's why I always point out
the Hugh Weiber book is not written by an Orthodox person.
That's written by a Protestant liturgical scholar. Fury, what's up, dude, Fury?
Speaker 9: Are you there?
Speaker 12: Fury? You want to unmute?
Speaker 9: All right?
Speaker 12: He dropped off. If you disagree, you go to the
head of line. So remember we're not really doing FAQ
catechumen question day. That's for you to be catechized by
your priest. I'm looking for Protestants, Catholics, Atheist Muslims, Mormons, Libertarians,
Marxist feminists who disagree Hebrew roots arians. You go to
the head of line Manny money like run Lula, run
over here with Manny. So MKG asked for six ninety nine.
If the forerunner is the last of the prophets bringing
divine revelation, no, no, last of the prophets in the
sense of an Old Testament prophet. The role of a
prophet like Isaiah or or Moses or you know, Hoseiah.
Jesus says in Luke sixteen the law and the prophets
were until John. Since that time the Kingdom has preached.
Kingdom has preached, which is the summation of all those things.
So in a sense, yes, aga Us. In the Book
of Access to a Prophet, Paul is a prophet. Paul
talks about the gift of prophecy, right, And I'm not
saying that those aren't gifts. Those are gifts unique to
particularly the Intertestamental period to establish the church, but they're
not profits in the way that there's an office of
the profit of the Old Testament. Pentecostals believe that they
are the office of prophets like Hoseiah or Isaiah. Okay,
they literally believe that, most of them do, and they
don't really see any difference or any discontinuity between them
and the Old Testament prophits. I'm pointing out that Luke
sixteen refutes Mormons, it refutes Muslims and all these groups
that believe in new, ongoing public divine revelation. You see.
So the Apostles message is the finality of what all
those profits of the Old Testament were. They're all predicting
this kingdom that's coming, this era and this time of
the Messiah. When the Messiah comes, he said, Jesus says
in Luke sixteen. Since then the Kingdom is preached, meaning
now that I'm here, I'm the Kingdom, I'm the king
My church is the Kingdom. That's what's preaching.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 12: That's the finality, that's the Apostolic deposit. It includes these
Old Testament revelations because that's all presaging and predicting the
coming of this period. Rachel Wilson gives five memberships. Thank you. Rachel,
appreciate that upsis since a couple more podcasts. Thank you
so much, excuse me, excuse me, since a couple more
super chats for six ninety nine, do I have to
be rebaptized? I was baptized by nutcase Pentecostals. A lot
of times the Orthodox will probably not rebaptize you, but
baptize you because they don't recognize anti Trinitarian baptisms, and
a lot of Pentecostals are anti Trinitarian their oneness. So
if I don't attend church every Sunday, do I go
to Hell? I mean, these are kinds of questions that
you're gonna ask somebody in your catechumen class. Peace out, Jay,
maybe I won't be saved. Have more money. I'm a
slow boy. Don't be mad. I'm a rich Christian or
a rich heretic.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 12: Just go to the church, uh and check it out
at a local level. Dog Ryan taross five dollars. What
brand of the Ginger Choose? I don't know the one
that every Whole Foods and Sprouts has. I don't know that.
I can't remember the name of the brand. I don't
have a sponsorship from Ginger Choose, so I'm not gonna
I'm not gonna promote them, but I only eat the
Ginger cheo if I haven't had any like if my
blood sugar is low and I'm getting angry at people
or something. So I feel fine today. I don't I
don't need a ginger jee. What's up? Money?
Speaker 21: Money?
Speaker 9: Hi?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 29: So I'm a person and I have a question. So
when a non Orthodox person praise to Christ, I think
praying to the same Christ orthodox person is praise too?
Or is it someone different?
Speaker 12: Say that again?
Speaker 29: So when an Orthodox person praise to Christ, like from
it you're cutting out man.
Speaker 1: Person.
Speaker 29: When a non Orthodox person praise to Christ, are think
praying to the same Christ?
Speaker 9: And a person is praise too?
Speaker 12: Well, they might intend the same reference, but that doesn't
mean that it's that it's hitting upon the same reference.
Speaker 1: And so is that pray legitimate?
Speaker 12: Well, God can hear people's prayers. That's up to God.
But it doesn't follow from that that. I mean, a
Muslim might dude, what are you doing in the background, man, Yes,
it's loud. It doesn't follow from that that it's hitting
upon the same just because they intend it. And it's
just like a Mormon may mean the right Jesus, but
the Mormon Jesus is not the right Jesus. So, but
God can hear and knows everyone's prayers, and he knows
their heart whether they're sincere or not. War thunders ten dollars.
I'm not going to read that super chat, but I
thank you for the the support there. I'm just going
to say that I mean accusing me of teaching authority
orthodoxy because I teach that the Theophanes are real. When
somebody who claimed to be this person claims that they're
a translator of Orthodox texts, they don't have any degree
in translation. They just joined the church, like not even
two years ago. So if they want to go that route,
that's they can do that. Christians for Trump, Hello, m.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so what do you have?
Speaker 11: Are you like against Bertarians?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 11: Why do you call libertarians to debate?
Speaker 12: I'm I guess a lot of the ideas of libertarianism
you are are.
Speaker 11: You like by libertarian? Do you mean like anarchists or
do you.
Speaker 12: Mean more like any of those any of those positions?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 17: So, so like if if I'm a libertarian, for example,
and I believe that government should be limited to boundaries
within just the constitution.
Speaker 11: Like, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 9: If?
Speaker 1: What? Now?
Speaker 11: So if if I'm a libertarian. I believe that we
have a government that is.
Speaker 17: Stepping over and trampling on the boundaries that the Constitution
said on it.
Speaker 12: What's wrong with that? Well, that's not what libertary. What
I disagree with libertarianism about. I disagree with the enlightenment
ethos of libertarianism.
Speaker 11: Can you clarify what enlightenment ethos means?
Speaker 12: I mean the Enlightenment, like libertarianism, comes out of that
whole ethos of rights are natural, grounded in natural law.
They come from the bottom up. There's no divine authority,
negative liberty. I mean, I'll see, all these is a problem.
The state only exists to promote pleasure utilitarianism, I mean,
all these things are a problem.
Speaker 11: Okay, I would agree with you on that.
Speaker 1: I believe that.
Speaker 44: Rights come from God, so I would agree with you
on that. So I'm currently an r CIA to become
a Catholic.
Speaker 45: Uh huh.
Speaker 44: And one of the things that drew me to Catholicism
versus orthodoxy was that the Bible says that God would
not allow them gates have held to basically overcome the Church.
Speaker 12: Yeah, well, how do you know that's the Roman Caloity
Church and not the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 11: Well, because they were one church before the schism.
Speaker 12: Okay, so how does that? But how does that not
maybe it's still the Orthodox Church, So how as they
say it's the Roman Church?
Speaker 44: Well, so the Roman Catholic position is still that the
Orthodox Church has a valid priesthood and valid Holy orders.
Speaker 12: But what does that have to do with it? Yeah,
but it's it's in schism according to traditional Catholic teaching,
So what does that have to do. It's not the
Church church anymore. If it's not in union with the
Holy See, it's not the true Church. So how does
that tell you that it's the Roman Catholic Church that
is the fulfillment of Matthew sixteen's promise.
Speaker 44: Because even though that it's not in communion with the
with the Pope, it still has valid Holy orders in
a valid priesthood.
Speaker 12: It's not are you going to answer the question or
you don't understand the question.
Speaker 11: I don't understand the question.
Speaker 12: How does that tell you it's the true Church when
it's in schism, it's not in communion with the Roman Church?
So how do you know that Matthew sixteen is still
it is fulfilled in the Roman Church and not the
Orthodox Church and just saying that, well, the Roman Catholics
believe that Orthodox have absolute succession doesn't answer. Isn't an
answer that question?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 11: So yeah, that's what I was going to say, because
they have opothelic secession.
Speaker 12: All right, Well, I thank you for the question, but
you're not You're not getting it, So moving on. Busn't
Orthodox category.
Speaker 1: Cool?
Speaker 12: YEP?
Speaker 13: I just wanted to ask you real quick.
Speaker 26: I've heard Catholics making these statements that the essence entergy.
Speaker 39: Distinction is only conceptual and the polemic disciple taught that.
Speaker 1: What would you say to that?
Speaker 12: I mean, there's a whole article written by a UNI
eight scholar, Christian cop Base. If you're talking about scolarios,
and the whole point is that you can't say that
it's purely conceptual. It's prior to conception. Is the terminology
that they use, and the Polemite synods define them as
distinct realities.
Speaker 1: Gotcha appreciate that.
Speaker 12: It's Uh, the article is on the energies and I'm
not recommending this weirdo's website, but it's let me find it.
Hold on, you just read the essence entergy distinction of
the theology of Saint Canadius Scolarios by father Christian cop Base,
who's one of the most famous Uni eight scholars, and
he admits that obviously these are they're not. It's the
essence intistinction is not concept purely conceptual. It's not the
tonistic position. And the Fourth Palamite Synod condemns the idea
that it's only conceptual. So if you have the orange,
if you have the Orange book right here by Palamas
has a cast controversy. The Fourth Palamite Synod is concerned
with that very position that it's purely conceptual, and it's
rejected in the Tomos of thirteen sixty eight. I wrote
a whole article on my substack on it. The Tomsic
view is explicitly rejected. So it's utterly idiotic to think
that you can combine these two positions, because you.
Speaker 1: Know, I think they try to quote mine of Palamas
disciple seems like it does what they do?
Speaker 12: You mean scalarias well. We have a bunch of people
in my discord who are translators, not fake translators who
claim that they are when they don't have any degrees
in anything, and they have actually translated various texts from Scolarias,
and now he does not teach anything close to the
Tomistic position, so Copies is correct. Scolarios explicitly says that
Aquinas is completely wrong on the Essen center distinction. Thomas
denies it. Thomas thinks that the attributes are only distinguished
in the mind. Yeah, so there you go. I mean,
it's kind of a it's kind of a silly position, really.
I mean, if you just get into the literature, don't
have to go very far before you find out that's
the case. Baki, m baki are you gonna? I'm you
backy b a K I try again, parabolic. I don't
know what's going on. If you have a hard time. Sheriff,
Sheriff marsha Reef, Hey, j how are you? What's question
for you?
Speaker 1: Is human nature simple or composite?
Speaker 12: In your opinion, it's clearly composite. Multiple church fathers say
it's composite body and soul, right, and anything created is
also composite.
Speaker 1: Right understood? Understood?
Speaker 32: Would it be correct to say that a human being
is consubstantial with the substance of the flesh and also
consubstantial with the substance of the soul?
Speaker 12: I mean the word human being usually refers to a
whole human being, body and soul. So I don't know
what you mean.
Speaker 42: No, I understand.
Speaker 32: As in, for example, if we were to think of
them as two sets, right, the set of all you know,
human souls and the set of human flesh, would a single.
Speaker 1: Body be a member of both sets? Like?
Speaker 32: Would that be okay to say consubstantial with the substance
of the soul and consubstantial with the substance of the body.
Speaker 12: I don't. I don't understand what the point of that is.
Why would you want to say that?
Speaker 32: Well, so the only reason why I'm asking is again.
Speaker 1: With the you know, hypostatic union, the.
Speaker 32: Act of composition I guess of Christ, Like, is there
a reason why the Calcedonian position isn't that Christ has
three natures?
Speaker 1: Actually, because there's.
Speaker 32: The substance of the logos and the substance of the
flesh and the substance of the of the human soul.
Speaker 12: It's just distinguishing two different types of things. It doesn't
mean that it's a different, wholly different nature. Because the
body is physics, is solid and in space and time
and has spatial location. It doesn't mean that the soul
is therefore a totally different substance or nature, because the
term human nature is supposed to encompass the two together.
So no, it's not three different natures. Just because the
term nature or the term substance is used in a
different way substance in the modern word, can you mute
when you're not talking, there's like a loud static. Oh sorry,
So after Descartes, substance takes on a different meaning. In
Western philosophy, substance typically means some kind of substrate or
some kind of physical collection of corpuscles or molecules or atoms.
In the ancient world when that terminology is used, or
in the Middle Ages or whatever, they're just talking about
a term that encapsulates one type of thing or one
kind of thing. So angels and souls are non physical
types of things, and so they might be called, you know,
aerial substances, or the soul is a type of substance.
It doesn't mean it's a completely different type of quote
nature in the strict definition the way that it's used
in the terminology of the councils. So no, even though
body and soul are two different types of things, they're
not intended to be strictly speaking, different natures in the
same sense as divine nature and human nature. Nature just
encompasses the two together that in that context, I guess.
Speaker 32: I'm wondering then, what to make of sin Cyril's you know,
pointing to the composition of body and soul as.
Speaker 12: A model for It's an analogy. It's an analogy for
the two natures coming together in Christ. It doesn't mean
that there's three natures in Christ. It's just an analogy.
It's called the henautic union.
Speaker 1: No, I understand.
Speaker 32: I guess I'm wondering then, if saying that that single
nature that since Cyril talks about is actually just the
composite then of all three effectively, right, it's a composite
of the human and the divine, and the human itself
is a compositive soul and body, but used to end
up with one singular composition.
Speaker 1: At the top level.
Speaker 12: Well, but even he says in the two letters sysixth
census that it is not a tertion quid, so's it
still retains the properties of being created and being uncreated,
which means that there's two natures. So no, it's not
a triplicity that's blended into a tertion quid.
Speaker 32: I guess that tertiaon quid would be if any of
the constituent ingredients change their property somehow. But the composition
does not necessarily require the change of properties.
Speaker 12: Right, tertion quid means that it's a third new thing. Right,
so if it's a third new thing, then we don't
have any connection to it anymore in orders God. So
it doesn't bridge the gap between God and man. That's
what urson quid is a reference to. So it can't
be a new nature that's some whole. That's all the
three triplicity natures are blended into. That's what That's all
I'm trying to say. And the two letters of ex
sense to say that it continues to keep its properties
proper to those natures. So it never ceases to be created,
it never ceases to be uncreated, because it's a hypostatic
union for all eternity.
Speaker 32: God it So so then let me let me ask
you a question about kind of like the Calcedonian you know,
teaching on the hypostatic union.
Speaker 1: Because my understanding, I think you said this before, where
the logos exist in the mode of humanity.
Speaker 12: Is that is that the phrasing that you use yeah
and himbostatize, right, Okay, So my question to.
Speaker 32: You is, because you know the incarnation can be measured
in a moment in time, right, Like we know, like
there's a time some twenty and twenty five years ago
or whatnot where the incarnation takes place.
Speaker 1: If the logos exist purely in the mode of is
divinity prior to some point, but then exists.
Speaker 32: In another mode or and hyposcifizes something new orting in
a moment in time, doesn't that necessarily require a change
in the divine hyposthesis.
Speaker 12: It's not a substantial change. It's a change in the
sense of adding something new, Like I put on a
coat and so I have something new on me. But
my substance does not change. My being does not change
in itself. That's why we sing in the liturgy he
underwent no change.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I was just trying to reconcile the two, right.
Speaker 12: Like how the divinity is impassable. Divinity is impassable, he
can't change, right, No, I.
Speaker 32: Agree, I agree, hundred percent. I know that that's like
a bedrock, you know, foundation for everything.
Speaker 12: So what's meant by what's meant by the incarnation is
that he assumed a new nature, not that he underwent
substantial change. In that assumption. He's still the same divine person.
He's still the same divine person, that the same divine agent,
that the same divine subject, and now that he's added
a new nature, human nature to the previous divine nature
that he possesses.
Speaker 1: No, I totally understand that. I totally get it.
Speaker 32: I guess it's that that that that notion of and
hyposthetization that I'm asking about.
Speaker 1: Right, because that is you are giving existence to something
new in the hyposthosis of the locals again, which so.
Speaker 12: You guys misunderstand what that term means. Right, So they
got that the Oriental dude that tried to call in
ato debate, when all it means is that he assumed
a new a new thing, and the new thing that
he assumed exists in the mode of the person that
has it now. It doesn't mean that it changed into
something different. I don't know why or where you. I'm
not trying to be mean to you or him, but
I had no idea where you would get the idea
that the word in hypostatized means that it undergoes some
substantial change. If it changed its substance, it's no longer
the same substance. Ergo, it is no longer human nature.
All that changed in that sense, maybe you're referring to
the idea of deification. So the uncreated energies do deify
the humanity that he assumed. That's the teaching of the
same council. But it's still the human it's still a
human nature. It's not a human subject. It's a human
nature that has for its subject the divine person who
assumed it. So that's all in hypostatized means means it
refers to the mode, the mode of the nature that
he assumed, the human nature of Christ. The mode of
its existence is in is in the existence of the
divine person of the word.
Speaker 9: It's his.
Speaker 12: Now, just think again, Athanacious all the way up until
Maximus uses the analogy of a coat. Okay, it's analogy.
So I'm a person, Jay, I have human nature. I
put on a coat. I've added something to what I have.
That coat now exists in the mode of Jay Dyer,
who possesses it and has it as his own. That's
an analogy that the Church fathers use consistently for the
human nature. The coat is not a person. It becomes
part of my person, you could say, because it's now personalized.
It's Jay's coat. So the human nature that he assumed
becomes the human nature of the divine person of the
word who assumed it. It's not a subject. Does it
undergo a change, not substantially, but it's deified.
Speaker 32: No, I totally, I totally understand. I guess with the
code analogy, which which I like, by the way, that's.
Speaker 12: That's used by Maximus and athenationis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's it's great.
Speaker 9: I think.
Speaker 32: The question then becomes like the the that's a hyposthesis
of a code that exists in reality.
Speaker 12: It's not a hypostasis. It's not a hypostasis. That's the
confusion that you guys. It's a nature, not a hypostasis.
So after the Cappadocians, after the Cappadocians, hypostasis is specified
to refer to the subject or our agent that has
the nature. It is not just a nature. That's the
confusion here. So Orientals think. Orientals think that hypostasis refers
to just a concrete nature or an individuated nature, and
we do not believe that anymore. That's the source of
the confusion. Do you understand why or not?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 32: Well, that helped me understan right, So in terms of
it being a particular instantiation of a usia right, So
like the code analogy is a particular instantiation of that
particular Okay.
Speaker 12: That's the older definition that's used at Nicea. That's no
longer used after Nicia and the Cappadocians. It's it's no
longer used that way. So no, it's not that, And
that's why we make the distinction between That's why we
make the distinction. No, Cyril himself even makes this distinction
between nature and person. So no, a hypostasis is not
just an instantiated nature. And I mean I can prove
this to you very easily. How many hypostaces are there
in the Trinity?
Speaker 1: There are three hypostaces?
Speaker 12: Okay, so are there three instantiated natures in the Trinity? Well,
there are three answers, No, No, there's not. That's the
era of John Philipponis. There's not three natures in the Trinity.
There's three hypostaces with one nature. That's why you have
to distinguish person, because it reflects back on the trinity.
Speaker 1: You see, No, I understand. I did not mean to
say that there's three different natures, of course not.
Speaker 12: Okay, then you can't say that the hypostatius is just
an instantiated nature because there's that would be three natures,
three gods in the trinity.
Speaker 1: No, sorry to use that to use analogies again, right,
if there is, I'm sorry.
Speaker 32: I obviously divine mystery should not be compared to to
human things.
Speaker 1: But just for the sake of explaining right or or forever.
Speaker 12: This is why the human nature cannot be called a hypostasis.
It's not because for us that means a subject or
an agent. That would be an historian. Okay, it's a
human nature, not a human person or subject or agent.
Speaker 1: No, no, I I totally understand that. Of course, I'm
not accusing you of saying a second hypostasis. That's not
my point, right I am by No.
Speaker 20: No, I know that you.
Speaker 12: I know that you weren't saying that my position is
a historian. But I'm saying that there's a reason why
we do not call what he assumed a human hypostasis.
It's not. It's explicitly rejected. The human nature exists in
the mode of the hypostasis. Of the Sun. The only hypostasis.
The only person or agent there is the Sun. There's
no human hypostasis at all. Period. That's rejected of the
Six Council.
Speaker 1: But why does the third anathema says anathema.
Speaker 11: To those who divide the two hypostaces after the union you.
Speaker 12: Talk about ephesus or you're talking about ephysis or calcilap emphasis,
because at that point that's using the word hypostasis in
the older definition, which I'm telling you that eventually after
the Cappadocians, eventually this becomes specified to be agent and
not nature. This is why if you look at Nicea right,
it talks about God being what having one hypostasis. God
is not one hypostasis, but it means nature there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, at the end of the original nice and Creed,
I've seen that.
Speaker 12: That's because at that time it meant nature, and the
example that you're using, it's referring to nature. It's not
talking about the agent or the subject that has the nature.
This has developed after this time, specifically at the Fifth Council.
The Fifth Council said, this is why an hypostatize comes
into play, because that's intended to signify the mode of
the nature, which is in the subject or the person
that has it.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 32: I'm still trying to get a handle on the on
the mode thing which which is fine, it's no problem.
Speaker 1: I do have another question for you, which is related.
Speaker 12: Let me let me help you out. Let me help
you out. So sure nature for us, as this theology
gets specified after Calconon into the fifth and sixth Council,
nature refers to what a thing is, okay. Person refers
to the who, the operator, the agent, the subject, the
who okay, and that for us is what hypostasis ultimately
comes to me. We do not anymore use that older
definition that was used at Nicea and the example that
you're talking about with ephesis, and sometimes Cyril uses that
older definition, which is part of the there's reason why
there's confusion between these to end Orientals right or to
Orthodox Orientals. Eventually it means subject or it means subject
or agent, and so the confusion results from people going
back to the older definition of hypostasis as a nature,
and that's not how it's being used anymore. That's why
Epistle Letter thirty eight of Basil says on the distinction
between nature and person, and again the reason I went
to the trinity. Is that that's the easiest way to
show you that you can't use that older definition of
hypostasis anymore because when you refer back to the trinity,
it doesn't work. You can't say that there's three natures
in the Godhead. So how hypostasis can no longer mean
or refer to in the councils and in this theology
just an instantiated nature. It has to be more precise
to be the agent or the subject that has the nature,
hence the your person distinction.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's thank you for that, Jay.
Speaker 32: I do have a related question on that. So we
know the saying goes from the fathers that that is
what is not assumed is not saved, which of course
makes sense. So we know that in the incarnation, the
only prosopa and the only divine side and the only
subject is the divine person of the logos. No disagreement there,
I guess, is God saving human flesh and human.
Speaker 1: Souls or is he saving human persons? Because then there's
kind of like a dilemma, I think, And by the way,
this is a genuine question.
Speaker 32: I'm trying to figure out how to square this because
that which is not assumed, is not saved.
Speaker 1: And we know that he did not assume a human person.
That's historianism. So then all he assumes is a human
flesh and even soul. Is God just saving souls and
flesh or is he saving persons?
Speaker 12: No, that's the person is the unique mode of the
individual's existence. So this is what you're This is why
you're not understanding. That differs between the things and themselves
and the mode of the things. So mode refers to
how a thing exists or the way that a thing exists.
And this is important in theology because for example, when
we when we distinguish in the trinity, let's say nature
in person, right, and we say that there's three persons
and there's one common nature in the trinity. Mode helps
us to explain how that nature exists in what way
And it's not abstracted. You don't you don't have this
like universal nature that three hypostaces participate in, and that
would be platonic. The way that the divine nature exists
is in the mode of the persons that have the nature,
and so eventually hypostatized is also stated of the divine nature.
It exists in the mode of the three hypostaces that
possess it. Likewise, human nature exists in the mode of
the specific individual persons that possess it. I'm the person Jay,
You're the person Bob. We have a common nature between us,
but that nature exists in the unique mode of the
hypostasis Jay that possesses that nature. It exists in the
unique mode of the person Bob that possesses that same nature.
And so we're not clones of atom because we have
a unique type of stasis or hypothetic mode of existence
that instantiates human nature in a unique way for each person.
So that's the distinction between nature and persons. So Christ
assumes in the incarnation all human nature from all eternity,
all of it, and that's why all the humans are resurrected,
you see. But the role of person here for individual persons,
that's how we accrue individual responsibility for virtue or for vice.
So even though we're all going to be resurrected, if
I don't recapitulate the virtues and participate in Christ, that
resurrection will be an ever ill being for me, as
Maximus says, versus ever well being. So this is why
mode is very important. Not just in Godhead or in Christology,
but also in anthropology to distinguish individual persons. So Christ
assumed universal human nature, but it's up to every individual
person to willingly participate in that in order to receive theosis,
because everybody's going to be resurrected in terms of recapitulation.
Not everybody's going to participate in theosis. That's why it
requires your own mode of willing, which is in hypostatic personal.
Speaker 1: It's okay.
Speaker 32: So you're saying that the teaching casider teaching is that
he assumed all human nature universal.
Speaker 12: Absolutely, Yeah, that's why all people are resurrected. It's called recapitulation.
So go you to read Saint Aarnaeus and he says
Christ recapitulates everything that Adam lost. The totality of all
human nature is lost in Adam. And one grinenty is fifteen,
which is what Urinaus is citing. There is the recapitulation
of all the human nature that Adam destroyed all his descendants.
This is why the wicked are resurrected. It's called recapitulation.
It's not taught by Rome's not taught by Protestants. It's
taught by the Orthodox, and Saint Cyril teaches recapitulation by
the way.
Speaker 32: So let me ask you, because I always thought that
there was a connection between the necessity of the eucharists
and the resurrection, right the promise in John six that
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, you know,
will live forever and I will raise him on the
last day.
Speaker 1: I thought that that's how the resurrection, at least for the.
Speaker 12: Righteousness, everybody's resurrected. The scope is just as universal in
First Grident as fifteen for everyone, as as it was
universal that what Adam lost, So everybody who fell in
Adam will be raised in Christ. But that doesn't mean
everybody participates in thiosis, you see. That's only for those who,
by their own will and decision join the Church and
live the life of the virtues, to participate in the
uncreated energies to be deified. You see. That's why Maximus
says we're all going to the same escton. So Christ
in the death arone, resurrection and ascension purchased ever being
an immortality for all human beings, all of our natures
are resurrected. There's no other basis to be resurrected than
Christ's work. And this is why it sounds I'm not
calling you out personally, but it sounds odd to people
who've grown up. Not you, but like in Western theology
when they hear that Christ assume universal human nature. That's
why all people are resurrected. What, well, there's no other
basis to be resurrected. God's not just willing the wicked
to have hell bodies, like Augustine says, this is the
thing that Augustin got wrong. He doesn't teach recapitulation, even
though all the Eastern fathers and the people before him
taught recapitulation.
Speaker 1: So what rule does the Uchrist play then?
Speaker 32: Because I thought that the teaching of the fathers is
that you know, the trio of life and Genesis is
the eucharis.
Speaker 12: Then you're not understanding it. Just because you're resurrect it
doesn't mean that you're having a good experience. So, as
Maximum says, in the recapitulation and the restoration, if you
were wicked, your body will be unable to endure the
divine energies in presence of God, and so it becomes
ever ill being for you. So the resurrection becomes a
bad thing for you. You see, So you're that's what
the damned are. They're in that state of being.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm willing to know that's fine. I'm willing to
grant that that that's not Actually, that's not what I'm questioning.
I'm questioning.
Speaker 32: So given that, what role does the Eucharist then play
as the tree of life in the whole kind of
story of self?
Speaker 12: Again, what I just said that you don't participate in
theosis deification without participating in the life of the Church.
So the wicked are resurrected, but they're resurrected to the
resurrection of the unrighteous wickedness. It's still on the basis
of Christ, though, but they didn't actualize the potentiality that
they had to become members of the church, and so
their experience is ever ill being. And those who participate
in theosis in the life of the Church and eating
of His flesh and blood participate in ever well being.
That's theosis. So the wicked are resurrected because they don't
have theosis.
Speaker 29: Got it?
Speaker 1: Okay, very clear?
Speaker 12: Thank you so much for the discussion, and this will Yeah,
absolutely no. They are great questions and if in this alone.
By the way, the point about recapitulation is something that
nobody in the West teaches anymore. I think this if
you really understand this, let's say, if we can find
Iranaus's comment on it. I don't know who this is
or what this website is, but this, this is the
quote here. It's against heresies five twenty one point one.
He therefore, in his work of recapitulation, summed up all things,
both waging war against our enemy and crushing him who
had the beginning led us away as captives in Adam
and trampled upon his head. As you can perceive in
Genesis that God said to the serpent, out the imity
between you and the woman, and between your seed and
her seed. And so he goes on to say that
the son of Man then vanquishes death in our nature
through his resurrection, which affects the entire nature. You see,
So Adam sins and everything that comes out of his
progeny is subject to death, decay, immortality, and the loss
of thiosis. In Christ, the nature is restored to be
in That's why it's resurrected. There's no other basis for
resurrection than Christ. God doesn't just like arbitrarily will that
all the wicked be resurrected, and they have no connection
to Christ. One Christian is fifteen is teaching recapitulation, and
it's comparing the scope to Christ. And this is really
hard for Protestants and Roman callous to understand. So that's
why we come over here. And Christ has risen from
the dead, has become the first fruits of those who
fallen asleep. For by man came death. So also by
man comes resurrection of the dead. For an atom all die.
So in Christ all will be made alive, each one
in his own order. Christ is the first fruits and
afterwards of those who come after him. At his coming,
then is the end when he delivers the kingdom up
to God right, so he must reign until he's put
all enemies under his feet. The last time me to
be destroy his death, and then he will be all
and in all. So you'll notice the scope of what
Adam brought right is to all human beings. Likewise, all
people are resurrected in the general resurrection only on the
basis of Christ. There's no other basis for resurrection. And
this is called recapitulation, which is taught by the Eastern fathers.
It is not taught in Western Latin theology, and it's
it's taught by Cyril. I don't so let me get
I'm not dissing that previous guy. But we've got like
orientals coming in here trying to quote Ceil teaches recapitulation.
So it's like, do you not read you guys, don't
read your own dudes. I mean, Cyril explicitly says, Jesus
assumes universal human nature. How else are all humans resurrected?
There's no other basis for it. There's a great article,
by the way, but orthodox professor that touches on this,
Jesus Christ the universal person. And this is an article
written by uh, I'm trying to remember this professor's name, Manzeriites.
He's the guy that wrote the Palomas book, Georgios Manserrites.
And by the way, his Palomas book says that youse
that this that uh, the Theophanes are actually seen by
the visible eye as well.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 12: So this is something that refutes the people who constantly
try to argue with me, people who were just sending
in the super chats who claim to be translators, who
don't have any degree in anything, even though Manserrites says
that they saw the Theophanies with their physical physical eyes.
Speaker 1: RC.
Speaker 12: I don't know this guy.
Speaker 1: M Hello, yep, hey, it's working today, thankfully.
Speaker 12: What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: So a clarifying question before I get to my actual question.
Do you believe that Mary is the mother of God
in heaven?
Speaker 12: Yes, she never lost that status because it is always
the case that the person that came forth from her
is God.
Speaker 1: Got it.
Speaker 20: So, then, who was the mother of Jesus Before he.
Speaker 9: Was on earth?
Speaker 12: He did not have a mother because he was not
yet born as a man.
Speaker 1: So why would that change in the heavenly rom.
Speaker 12: Because he stepped into time and space and took on
human nature and a human mother.
Speaker 20: Yeah, human mother will He was human, but in his
divine form in heaven he's not.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have a mother.
Speaker 12: He's still in his human nature. He ascended in the
human nature that he assumed on earth, so he's still
a man.
Speaker 20: So Jesus' nature changed before he was onearthed.
Speaker 12: To after didn't change. Is the same human nature that
we have, except that nature is deified. That's why they
touch him after the resurrection and he eats fish with
them to signify that he still has a human nature.
Didn't go away. We're not gnostics. He has the same nature.
It's just deified.
Speaker 1: He was always deified.
Speaker 12: The human nature was not always deified.
Speaker 20: But we believe he came down in human form even
before Mary conceived him.
Speaker 12: Uh no, he did not have a human form before
the incarnation.
Speaker 20: So then in the Old Testament, I think it was
was who is David wrestling with?
Speaker 12: No, it's not David, it's Jacob. So you're not even familiar.
You're not even familiar with the Old Testament.
Speaker 20: So I got I got one name wrong.
Speaker 12: No, you're completely mixed up, like two very different people.
So you're talking about a genesis.
Speaker 1: The Lord because I got a name wrong. So I
know nothing about the Old Testament.
Speaker 12: We're done. You're not familiar with basic theology at all,
so I don't know. We're trying to debate it. That
was the RC guy that wastes everyone's time. Terry, what's up.
I've already lectured on the Theophanes countless times. I'm not
going to go through all this all again. Go ahead,
just have a.
Speaker 42: Quick question about we have been saying recently on many
shows about how you are in support of the Microsoft
implants since I can somewhat what circumstances such as you
find many members we have fucking.
Speaker 12: Know, yeah, we have a guy at our church that
has the same thing. So what doesn't mean I'm a
support of microchips?
Speaker 42: Well, my question is since the Orthodox Church has historically
been opposed to that, how.
Speaker 17: Would you go?
Speaker 12: Well, then you can expose me as a supporter of
anti christian so go have fun with that. I'm on
what's up?
Speaker 46: Hey, j Thanks for having the impatience to deal with
these idiots. But quick question, can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 46: Okay, I just got the Peter Chef thirty eight volume
Church Father said, any recommendations.
Speaker 12: Because Philip Chef.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, Philip Jeck Philo Chef, That's what I mean.
Speaker 12: Any recommendation.
Speaker 46: Now I can go about reading it because I thought
maybe you would have some recommendations because you've.
Speaker 1: Done it before.
Speaker 12: I mean I read every all thirty eight volumes. I
read a lot of it. I mean I would start
with Afthenacious on the Incarnation. I would read Gregory Nazianzus'
theological orations. I would read Basils on the Holy Spirit.
Then I would say maybe something like Jerome against Telvidias,
Jerome against Vigilantius. That's how I would go about it.
And then I would then I would start reading like
maybe the Ecumenical Councils and the basic documents in the
because one of the volumes is the Seven Ecumenical Cultures.
Speaker 46: That's what I'm happy i'd call it too, because I
already started reading that and I was like, just confused,
So I'll start the other way around.
Speaker 12: You might also, uh, if you don't want to start
with that, because those are pretty heavy theology works. If
you want to start a little bit easier, you could
start with the post Apostolic Fathers and read like the
Letters of Clement, the Letters of Ignatius. That might be
an easier starting point than just starting with Athenacious, but
that's where I would recommend starting. Let's see, I thought
somebody was a messaging me and not wanting to come
to debate. I don't know who this person is, so
I think I have a podcast up to go. Do
here in a little bit subs account.
Speaker 1: Hell, yeah, Hi, I'm currently.
Speaker 47: Looking into orthodoxy. I've been passively observing different conversations and
debates for about.
Speaker 3: A year and a half now, and I'm at the
point where I'd like to convert. But my issue right now.
Speaker 32: Is my husband.
Speaker 3: He's not fully on board.
Speaker 47: Part of him is convinced that it's kind of culty
because he grew up Protestant and.
Speaker 3: He's in a or.
Speaker 47: Growing up, he was part of a church where his
mom has been able to get ordained and everything. And
though his faith isn't that strong right now, he's been
churched enough to be very wary of the different things
positive by the Orthodox Faith. And his strongest thing that's
creeping him out is dealing with relics, and I have
a hard time any information about that. Do you have
any recommendations that would help broak the subject because we
have four children?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean read Jerome's essay on relics. It's a classic.
I always get against Vigilantius and against Helvidius mixed up.
The one on relics is against Vigilantius, and Jerome will
go through a lot of proof texts and just show
kind of the tradition of the Church from the earliest days.
Against Helvidius is about perpetual virginity. But yeah, against Vigilantius,
we got some super jets KG. Ninety nine. Do you
think Muslims would try to use that to say that
Mohammed is a correction of the true teaching of the
Kingdom or they would go with something like what Daniel said,
that Muhammad is the new Moses continue in the old office. Well,
I mean, we've actually brought up this point about the
finality of divine revelation many times to Muslims and what
do you can you guess what they say? Oh, it's
all corrupted, right, That's that's usually what they go to.
Few became a member. What's up? Few shout out to him.
I think you just have to point out, as I've
done many times in many live streams. I think we've
even clipped it, like there's no new revelations. Zachariah was
at thirteen eight thirteen predicts that in the Messianic era,
there's no there's no more profits. Luke sixteen sixteen sixteen
is very clear that Jesus is explaining that John is
the last of the Old Testament lineage of prophets. That's
why Joseph Smith changed that verse.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 12: We've argued this with countless Mormons. If you look at
Luke sixteen sixteen and the Joseph Smith translation. He changed
it because it's clearly says that there's there's no more
Old Testament prophets. And if that's the case, then out
goes Muhammad, outgoes Joseph Smith. You say, so he had
to change it. But also, you know, Jude says in
Jude three is the faith ones we're all delivered to
the saints. You get in Tessalonians or Sue mean Galatians one.
Paul says that it's you know, his teaching is the
judge of anything else that comes. And then providentially, you
could argue that in Revelation twenty two it talks about
not adding to or taken away because there's i think
an assumption of finality to the revelation of the Book
of the Apocalypse. Now there could have been, you know,
in John's day, when he was alive, he could still
preach the oral word of God, and it was the
word of God, and the apostles identify their oral preaching
as the word of God. But when the alas Apostle
dies John, there's no more divine revelations. There's no more
public divine revelation. Hence it's the faith wance for all
delivered to the saints. Now, there can be miracles and
there can be clairvoyance, but that is not divine revelation.
It's not the same thing as what is the apostolic
deposit And another way we know this is that the
Montanists are condemned for this position, for saying that there's
ongoing divine revelation and then there's ecstatic, gibberish utterance. And
it should be obvious why we want this to be
the case is that it cuts off all these all
this nonsense. We're not going to fall prey to all
the cults and the Muslims and the Mormons, because there's
a finality to this. So I just don't. I don't
get where and why anybody would even want this living
water five dollars. Glad to see you still doing your thing.
I hope there's more collapse with sam Hid to come.
I mean, I'm officially a writer on the Sam Hi Show,
so I don't. I mean, I could theoretically not be
asked to continue to write. But as far as I know,
I mean, they're they're touring and doing stand up right now.
But I assume I'll be writing on episode three, So
I mean, he sam seemed to like and use a
lot of what I'd put into the first two episodes,
so I would guess I'm still I mean, I think
there's still gonna be collapsed anonymous ten dollars. Calvinists often
say that God does things arbitraary. It's called theological voluntarism.
Quote according to his will, his orthodoxical we say that
arbitrary in this is something that only fallen creatures have
as a gnomic will. Well, it's just really an idea
that they collapse God's will into his nature, into his essence,
and they kind of make these things the same because
they have a divine absolutely doing simplicity position. So I
condom Matt two dollars. How many natures does yacub have? Infinite?
Condom Matt two dollars. Jay start a funk go coin. Well,
I'm pretty much a bitcoin supremacists, so I'm not going
to be starting any any cryptos because I tell people
to stack bitcoin, and I mean, I don't know why
you guys still haven't been listening. I mean, we're at
almost we're right next to all time highs again. All
time high was what last week one o eight and
we're at one oh five to two, so we're only
a few thousand dollars away from all time high. And
people are like, couldn't wait till the dip to forty K.
I don't think are going to be a dip to
forty K. I mean, you can wait all you want,
you do what you want. I can't tell you what
to do. But I don't play markets like people think, Oh,
you're gonna play the market.
Speaker 10: Not really.
Speaker 12: I have in the past. I've followed the cycles, and
I've tried this and that trading, and I did all
I did all that for many years. But it's a
lot safer to just stack bitcoin and you don't even
you don't have to worry about anything. So you know,
I'm actually toying with the Jack Mallers plan of like
not even using feat at all, and you can get
strike app and literally live on bitcoin. The only reason
I haven't done that is that I'm not sure that.
I mean, we already almost kind of do that. Pretty
much all Fiat I get is automatically converted into bitcoin anyway.
I just have to pay taxes with FIAT, so I
don't know if it would actually benefit me to pay
taxes in bitcoin because you pay capital gains tax, so
to me that seems counterintuitive. But also his his strategy
might be because he has a business, so maybe maybe
his setup is a little bit different having a business.
So I don't know how his taxes work, because I'm
sure he has a multimillion dollar business that probably pays
a lot of tax I don't know his situation. But
where was the bitcoin question? Over right there? I want
to remind you guys see that we have a show sponsor,
which is chalk dot com choq dot com, the best
in supplementation. You can head on over to chalk dot com.
You use a probably go J forty four live jy
four four l I f E to get forty four
percent off all of those awesome, awesome products. My lamp
got too heated and it burned out over here. There's
too much there's too much chalk energy radiating off of me.
It burned out my little lamp here. So it's kind
of it's kind of a dark vibe in here. We
had a dark synth wave vibe in here. My favorite,
as you guys know, is that tongue cattleee. I'm a
big fan of the tongue cattlee and it's proven to
boost testosrum. So people are like, when do you sell?
You guys don't understand. It's it's like that meme that
you see where it's Neo talking to Morpheus and Morphius says,
when you understand bitcoin THEO, you won't even ask about selling.
You won't sell, You never sell. That's the point. It's not.
It's not you've misunderstood what this is and what my
philosophy on this is. It's not playing a market. It's
stacking the future of the world reserve currency. And you
understand that what four states just said that they want
to have a strategic bitcoin reserve. You don't understand how
bullish that is. Like Trump just passed the Crypto bill
or exsume executive order. It's not perfect. I would rather
be bitcoin and not just crypto, but you know, we'll
take what I can get if the Loomis Bill passes.
Speaker 36: Do you not?
Speaker 12: I don't, Like, I know we're talking about theology day,
but I just don't understand why you guys don't get
bitcoin yet. Like I have a super smart audience. How
do you guys not get this it's not that complicated.
It does take understanding. It feed a reserve field system,
so I guess that's over most people's heads. But this
is an audience that already understands that. So is it
just the boomer mindset of it not being physical? Like
boomers just don't understand it. I can't touch it, it
ain't real, well, Boomers? Do you send emails? Okay? Or
do you write letters? Do you send emails?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 12: Boomers? Do you do electronic banking? Every boomer I know
has the banking app on their phone and boomers are
using Zel. Now okay, you're using Zel, but you don't
like anyway? Do you suggest stacking Bitcoin or eth has
been a giant mass lately. When I was doing trading
when when Eth popped off, we did pretty good. We
made good on the ethereum when it went from like
remember when it was like seven hundred and five seven
hundred dollars and then it went up to like four thousand. Uh,
we did pretty good with that, and then I just
flipped everything over into bitcoin. So I don't care anything
about like stacking now. I don't stack eth. Eth is
pretty sucky, dude, Like it's when it gets high traffic.
Every transaction is hundreds of dollars. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
So and uh eth is centralized. It's I don't know,
I don't It's that's why over time I just have
more and more been bitcoin supremacist. So anyway, head on
over to chalk dot com. He's just prone code Jay
forty four life, jy four four life you to get
forty four percent off all those great products. It's like,
I just like you guys come in the chat and
you say all the same stupid thud that you heard
some boomer say on MSNBC, and you say it to
sound smart, and you don't sound smart, Like I know
that you're just heating fud that you heard on boom
or financial shows to sound smart, and you don't know
what you're talking about. Like bitcoin is a vast rabbit
hole of lore, okay, and I don't know all the lore.
Will it hit one million? Dude, you don't understand. If
the Loomis Bill passes, the government is buying I don't
care about whether you think it's good or not. The
government is buying a million bitcoin in five years. That
means bitcoin will be one million dollars per per coin
in five years at least? Does this not register with you, guys,
I'm trying to help you. Don't waste my time and
your time typing out boomeror fud that you heard Dave
Ramsey say to sound smart. You don't sound smart, and
nobody in the chat cares that you think you're sounding smart. No,
I don't do XRP. Why I want some centralized CEO thing. Well,
you might make money any short term, maybe you can't
go for it. That's your thing. I don't want XRP.
I disagree with it philosophically. The only thing that has
any potential of taking over the world is bitcoin, and
it's starting to do that. Do you not see this?
By the way, so everybody and I know everything that
whitney Web says. I've been listening to the Whitney Webb
and ring here for years. I disagree with her on
some of these points. She has some good points, and
somebody sent me some like super bitcoin architect dude, and
I put it in the community tab. He spent a
doing a one hour critique of the pros and cons
of whitney Web's take right here, and I thought it
was a very good balanced reply. His name is Bitcoin Mechanic.
This dude knows more than I do about the technical
side of this. Okay, I don't know all the technics.
I engage you with it from an investment standpoint. And
I like Catherine Austin Fitz. We've done many interviews. I
respect her, but I totally disagree with her on bitcoin,
and so Bitcoin University did a response critique of her
right here. So I think that they are wrong on
these points. And I've heard these same points, by the way,
since twenty seventeen when I started, and who was right?
Who was right? Since twenty seventeen? What bitcoin was two thousand,
eight hundred dollars or whatever it was back then? Oh
we were. It's one hundred and five thousand dollars right now,
three thousand dollars to one hundred and five thousand dollars
right now. The market is so all you libertarians, the
market has decided it is not unrealistic to say that
bitcoin would be one million dollars. It would be ten
times all the gold. No, do you understand that, dude?
You have no idea what you're talking about. The market
cap of gold will be surpassed by bitcoin. Bitcoin already
flipped silver a cool nick, and when bitcoin flips gold
it will be what five hundred six hundred seve hundred thousand.
That's just flipping gold. And the reason that the government
buying one million will send it to a million a
coin is because the other nation states will also then
try to front run and buy it as well. You see,
don't you understand that it's already it's not just the
US government, the Feds, it's the NATE, that's the States.
This is all over Twitter today. Nobody saw the news today, Guys.
I just don't. I just don't get it. Like I
was telling Jamie this yesterday, I'm like, how come people
don't understand this. I don't understand why they can't grasp
what is going on with this? Let me show you
how many states is it? Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas are the
ones I saw today. Now the EU is idiotic because
they're the ones still pushing that there will never be
anything like that, so that they're sealing their own doom.
I mean, I was at the Bitcoin conference when Trump said.
Speaker 4: This was by hard never sell your bitcoin. That's right,
isn't that?
Speaker 48: Huh?
Speaker 12: Has Trump made good on the rest of these promises.
Speaker 4: How did I figure that way?
Speaker 9: So far?
Speaker 45: Midcoin, and so as the final part of my plan today,
I am announcing that if I am elected, it will
be the policy of my administration United States of America
to keep one hundred percent of all the bitcoin the
US government currently hauls or acquires into the future.
Speaker 4: We'll keep one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I hope you do well.
Speaker 45: Please, This will serve and effect as the core of
the strategic national bitcoin.
Speaker 4: Stock pile stuck by as you know, as you.
Speaker 45: Know, as you know, most of the bitcoin currently held
by the United States government.
Speaker 12: So the Loomis Bill is a proposal to buy one
million coins over five years. It's not just one million
coins over five years. It's also that that will then
trigger all of the states who want to do this
already four or five now to buy for each state
the reserve and in the other nation states in the
world doing the same thing. That is why it pushes
up the price up to a million dollars because of
the supply shock. It's not just the purchase of the
one million by the US government, it's also the rest
of the nation states who don't want to be last.
It's called supplying demand that forces it up even higher
because there's not enough bitcoin to go around. You see,
that's the point supply shock. Why do I not like XRP. Well,
and let's listen to Jack Maler's.
Speaker 48: I have to start off with your viral post, your
impromptu press conference that you held, because we got some
news lately about this strategic reserve and it might not
just be bitcoins. So I just want to get your
take and your message for the community.
Speaker 19: Yeah, well, I think that a bitcoin strategic reserve. So firstly,
this concept, this idea that's been floated around and it
seems like we're making political progress. I think it would
be one of the most important economic announcements in US history.
Important meaning, I think, on par with something like Nixon's
and noun in nineteen seventy one. However, I think the
big difference that no one's talking about enough is it
would be one of the first positive economic announcements. So
important doesn't bias positive our negative. It means it's meaningful
to the public. But meaningful to the public has usually
been negative with economic US announcements. Nineteen thirty three was
a really big one, and it was the confiscation of
gold nineteen seventy one Nixon, the one I keep referencing
was a really big one. It was divorcing ourselves from
a gold standard, which the way I like to think
about it is divorcing our monetary policy from the immutable
laws of mother nature and the ability for the government
to print currency, debase currency, and inflate the goods and
services of.
Speaker 1: The people in the public.
Speaker 19: And then two thousand and eight was another very important
I would say, economic announcement and string of decisions from
financial authorities. But was it positive. No, it was that
financial authorities took the side of Wall Street banks in
private corporate rations and burdened the cost of the mistakes.
Speaker 1: On the people on the public.
Speaker 19: And I think a Bitcoin strategic preserve would be as
important and the caliber of those type of financial announcements
but positive, And I think there's a lot of insights
in that idea because this is an asset that's owned
only two three four percent of the bitcoin network is
owned by governments. Who owns it, Natalie, the people, the public.
This is an asset where it's monetary policy cannot be changed,
it cannot be forced to seizeiture, it's global, it's inclusive,
you could buy a pennyworth of bitcoin, So you're talking
about a financial instrument that can measure a grain of
sand or a professional sports team, right, And so this
is in the best interest of the people. It's in
the best interest of the public. And we're reaching an
inflection point where is the future of the money one
of the people or one of corporations. And so I
think it's as important but positive. And when I see
something like Ripple lobbying privately as a for profit corporation
to undermine this idea of a positive announcement that's in
the best interest of the people, in the best interesting.
Speaker 12: To understand, Ripple is a corporation and has a CEO.
It's lobbying Bitcoin is not a corporation, doesn't have a
central office, doesn't have CEO.
Speaker 1: Just to the public.
Speaker 19: That's changing the tide of the last century of American
economic announcements in monetary policy against the public, against the people,
and really changing the momentum in our direction as a
country and the leader of the free world. Ripple is
bringing us back to all of the awful announcements that
are against the best interest of the public that I
just walked us through right. This is private lobbying acting
as innovation, acting as a public good in service.
Speaker 1: But what is it?
Speaker 19: Ripple printed one hundred billion or p tokens gave it
to themselves and the distributions to people is by them
selling it.
Speaker 12: That's centralization, that's fiat. That is opposite of what bitcoin
is in principle. This was twenty one hours ago.
Speaker 49: Bitcoin reserve from the Trump administration. Everyone's waiting for that.
We got the study and the review, but the Bitcoin
Reserve Texas is going to move forward. It looks like
with legislation Dan Patrick announced today that's a big priority
for them in Texas. But how about the Trump administration.
Speaker 12: Well, there's also a bill in the center. I think
Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming has introduced a bill to create
a national Bitcoin reserve. The President Trump has asked us
to study that issue. So we're just not ready to
comment on it yet, but it's one of the things
our working group's going to look at. Polymarket has that
or has had that at seventy percent. I don't know
what it is today. Pass If that passes, then I'll
be retiring very soon in the next five years retiring.
I don't mean I won't be working. I mean that
I won't have to work. I'll be doing whatever I want,
which means I'll be doing what we do already, Denise
five dollars, excuse my boomeriness. Where do you buy bitcoin
and get started with a couple hundred? What I would
do is treat it as like I can't tell you
what to do. But if I only had a little bit,
I would just start stacking it and use it as
a savings account. That's what I would do. You can
get started with Swan bitcoin in the show description. Swan
is right here. Anyway. So we got Texas, We've got Illinois,
We've got Pennsylvania, We've got a couple other states. Oh
wait now South Dakota. Look at the states introducing the
idea of bitcoin strategic reserve. Don't you understand fifteen? I
didn't even know it was that many. I thought it
was like, so this is news to me. If this
is accurate, I assume it's pretty accurate. Max guys was
telling Russia that they should introduce a bitcoin strategic reserve
for Russia with no ship coins. That's funny. And yes,
as somebody in the chat pointed out, we got a
super chat this says about check. Yeah, I did see this.
The Czech Central Bank is now the first Bobby C
five dollars saying they want to buy billions of euros
for a check strategic reserve for bitcoin exactly, so very
very bolish. Everything is super bowlish Bitcoin wise, Travis Phillips
ten dollars. Is it worth pursing through the BTC ETF
or just simply holding it? Well, Remember, part of the
point at bitcoin is to remove third party trust, So
I wouldn't buy black Rock Fidelity or whatever ETFs. I
mean that's for boomers who know nothing but want exposure
to it. I believe in self custody because that means
getting rid of banks in middlemen. I support that idea,
so I'm not going to destroy you. There may be
some situations where Grandpa's, Grandma's boomers want exposure to bitcoin
and they don't have the time or the energy to
keep up with personal custody, you know, seed phrases, all
the difficulties that can come with this. I mean, do
boomers are still clicking on, like, you know, email links
with dancing babies at scam them? So they're probably not
going to be able to manage you know, seed phrases.
Let's be honest here, right. I mean it's a joke,
but not really. So there may be some cases where
people can get exposure that's not direct, and maybe it's
works for them Grandma's or something. I don't know. Ideally
it should be like younger people helping the older people
or something, you know what I mean. Like that's probably
better than trust it. Would you trust Larry Fink and
Boomer Stonkman too, do what they're saying. I don't. I wouldn't.
That's the whole point at bitcoin is to remove this
trust of all these other people in these failed institutions
and scammers everywhere. So there may be some cases where
pragmatically you could justify the ETF. It's very bullish for
bitcoin obviously when it passed last January. But no, I
think you're much better off in the long run just
learning how to self custody, getting you know, blockstream, Jade,
or getting a Ledger or whatever wallet you research and
decide you want. Denise, No, we already did, Denise. Let
me check make sure I get super chests over here?
Speaker 29: Yes?
Speaker 12: Do we have any more callers? What's going on over here?
Read it or let's try this. Oh no, go here
we go yep.
Speaker 50: Hey yeah, So I am a letter day say, a Mormon, right,
and I've had a couple of.
Speaker 9: Questions for you. Some of them that I would be
interesting to.
Speaker 50: Think is if your whole concept is built off of
creation out of nothing, right, which we belive in chreation.
Speaker 9: Makes materia, that's sort of stuff.
Speaker 1: So you have creation of nothing. God basically just creates.
Would you say that God creates whatever he wants, however
he wants?
Speaker 12: Is that would be your definition of Well, so if
eld On, so just from the outset, like, if you
believe in creation out of material, you're already a polytheist
because you have another eternal thing alongside God. So how
many eternal, uncreateds do you have?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you want to define something eternal
as making.
Speaker 12: Apologism, well, if God didn't create it, is it eternal?
Speaker 1: Well yeah, well, I mean that's it's literally in our.
Speaker 12: Right that there is you mean you mean, although so
you're saying you're a script you don't Book of Mormon.
Speaker 1: That's on the Book of Morts, in the doctrine companies, right, So.
Speaker 9: That's where you can definement right.
Speaker 3: So three, it says element is eternal.
Speaker 1: It says the spirited man was in the beginning with God.
Speaker 12: Right, So you're right. So right, So that's your position.
And I'm asking you, how are you not a polytheist
If there's two uncreated eternals.
Speaker 50: Well, I mean we wouldn't define that as pologism because
I mean you're coming from but there has to be
this one simple thing that and that is God writing
that simple thing is eternal, right, that's how you define it,
and we will just define God is so.
Speaker 12: You know, so redefine the words. So just redefine the
words to make right. So redefine the words to make
the position work. So there's an eternal, uncreated thing alongside God.
But you don't believe in two eternal principles.
Speaker 3: So eternal principles and it being God who rights, so
God has.
Speaker 12: I don't care whether you call it God because it's
still polytheism. If there's two uncreated eternal principles, that's two
polytheism to gods.
Speaker 1: Well, but it's okay, So I mean it's not God.
Speaker 12: Well you're just calling it not God, but you're but
it has the attributes of God eternal and uncreated, but
it's not God, and there's two of them, hence polytheism.
Speaker 50: So God, I guess as we would, the final is
eternally created and has all.
Speaker 1: Powers bring about his desire. Right, the element doesn't have
power to do anything.
Speaker 12: Well, he's not all powerful if there's he's not all
powerful if there's another, their uncreated eternal thing next to him.
So that's not all. So he's not all powerful because
there's another eternal principle. You're a dualist, so I mean sure,
So now you're so you admit that it is dualism.
Speaker 1: So sure, well, I mean I guess I probably wouldn't
have what I have memorized.
Speaker 12: Well, you just said sure. I mean so there's there's
two eternal, uncreated principles, God and Premiam material. Sure, so
you're a dualist, and so you're a dualist and then
neuropolotheist by admission. That's what dualism is defined as. So
I mean, right, I mean two that's Polly?
Speaker 9: Is two?
Speaker 12: At least is that more than one? Polly? Two eternal
uncreated principles? You said, okay, dualism, Sure, that's two, that's Polly.
Speaker 1: So the thing is that you're using in a way
that it's like.
Speaker 12: Not right now, that's colloquially and definitionally an academic theology.
That's literally what it means. More than one is poly
that's two. So no, it's not true. It's just total bullshit.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 12: I have a question for you, though, well, I have
a question for you before you ask my question. My
question for you is why do all of the texts
prior to the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis, whether Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic,
none of them contained the additional eleven or twelve verses
of Genesis that Joseph Smith added to predict himself.
Speaker 1: I think there's this right because what adding that?
Speaker 42: Right?
Speaker 12: Yes, he is adding it there. What are you talking about?
What do you mean?
Speaker 8: So they this is like a.
Speaker 9: Like the.
Speaker 29: Bible?
Speaker 12: Yeah he did, so you're Smith right, So your answer
is to just yap around it. You're cutting out. We
don't hear you.
Speaker 1: Hear uh? Oh?
Speaker 9: Right?
Speaker 3: So I'm playing where this comes from because if you.
Speaker 1: Look into the say you know, scripture, you understand this.
Speaker 12: So I'm looking into the scripture. Don't come on, man,
don't give me this crap about if you actually look
into it, you'll see where it's coming from. I've got
it pulled off, I've got it pulled up. Yes, yeah,
But how am I going to follow the book?
Speaker 1: Bro?
Speaker 12: You're missing the point. Why would I follow the Book
of Mormon? No, you're missing what the Book of Mormon is. Bullshit.
I'm not going to believe that because this is in
the Book of Mormon it should be added to the
later chapters of Genesis, when the entire revelation given to Jews, Christians,
Orthodox Protestants for every century prior to this, con Man
does not have added versus predicting himself.
Speaker 1: Again, that's the thing, right, that's just like people say,
you know.
Speaker 12: It is not the same thing as No, it's not.
It's not the same thing as the atheist objection. It
is absolutely not the same as the atheist objection. Because
you're just gonna yap. You're not going to give an answer.
How is appealing to You're appealing to the other fake thing.
You're appealing to the other fake thing to prove this.
It is not the same as the No, it's this
total false analogy. No, it is not the same. It
is not the same the same. So that's a fallacy
to say that if if an atheist makes an argument
about textual corruption, that that's the same as the argument
that I'm making. I am not that. I'm not making
that argument.
Speaker 3: Claim your claim making so okay, so.
Speaker 12: People, therefore, that is not the argument being made here.
That is a totally dominalogy every text that is all right,
we're done, You're done. This is so stupid. I don't
understand how anybody can believe. This is completely stupid nonsense.
This is not the same as when an atheist says
that texts are corrupted or people. The New Testament writers
wrote themselves, wrote Jesus into the New Testament, and they
wrote and created a prop that is not the same thing.
The difference is the New Testament cites countless times in
the Old Testament where Jesus fulfills those prophecies. This is
totally different where you have absolutely no textual evidence at
all for additional verses to the last chapter of Genesis
that predict Joseph Smith. So it is totally different, no
similarity at all to what the New Testament writers do.
Remember when we had another Mormon that debated the same thing,
and he did the exact same move. He said, oh, well,
the New Testament, the Apostles, they just craft these verses
to make Jesus be the fulfillment. No, they don't, total nonsense.
Jesus isn't just the fulfillment. He's the one that gave
the Old Testament prophecies. This is totally different. Where you
have absolutely no textual proof or evidence prior to Joseph
Smith of any of these extra verses in Genesis predicting him.
It's an obvious defeater for the entire religion improves hes
a con man. So their only answer is to say, well,
it's kind of like what the Apostles did where they
crafted Old Testament verse to make it about Jesus. No,
they're not con men like Joseph Smith. They're actually proving
that Jesus fulfills the prophecies. This is so obviously a
fraudulent addition to Genesis to predict Joseph Smith. Why at
the end of the Book of Genesis about the death
of Joseph would there be suddenly a prediction of Joseph
Smith thousands of years in the future. I mean, it's
just so absurd. On the face of it, it's so dumb,
and it's obvious that he's stuck it in here because
it was talking about Joseph, and he's duping all of
these low IQ ignorant prairie muffins into thinking that it's
Joseph Smith when it's talking about Joseph the Patriarch. It's
so obvious. I mean, it's like comedy level stuff. And
this is what we're dealing with. Liam five bucks. Did
you say that the IMF got El Salvador to back
off of bitcoin? Back off?
Speaker 11: I don't know.
Speaker 12: I have not seen that. What does that mean? Back
off of it? Its success will be down to what
the international money power wants, how the international money power
cannot stop what is already out there. Bearish looks like
they're pushing to get liquidity.
Speaker 9: Who who is?
Speaker 12: I don't know what you're talking about. The government is
pushing bitcoin to get liquidity to do what again, Everybody
that argues this kind of stuff is missing the whole
point and idea behind bitcoin. I don't see anybody else.
Looks like we've had we had a nice little yappy
Mormon talking about how oh well, he's like, you're not
using the real definition of polytheism to eternal uncreative principles.
Literally Aristotle's definition of a diad, that's two, that's poly theism. Well,
but the other thing's not God. It's an uncreated eternal
us next to God. That's called dualism. And if there's
two eternal principles, that's polytheism. Oh well, it's not though,
because I don't call the other thing God. That's just
changing words, dummy, ash, Hello, can.
Speaker 3: You hear me?
Speaker 9: Yep?
Speaker 42: All right.
Speaker 1: I was talking with a friend that I went to
college with about my conversion to go into Eastern Orthodoxy,
and I basically got him to admit that the canon
that he has was given to him by fallible means.
Speaker 51: Like he would say the church was fallible, but that's
where he he would go to them and go, yeah,
the church is the one that gave him a cannon.
The church is the one who wo attests Christ to me,
even though it is fallible. And then he said, but
God's providence is infallible and doing that thing, and so
the providence art is the infallible part.
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of I.
Speaker 51: Guess his weird way of getting to an infallible message
through I guess fallible means.
Speaker 1: I mean, he he did say that.
Speaker 12: That's just that's just a bunch of talking around the
very thing.
Speaker 1: That's sure.
Speaker 12: I mean, he's admitting that the it's the men that
made the decision. Yeah, so you can say, well, bet
it was providence and God did it. Okay, but God
providentially directed the men to make the decision. So was
the decision fallible and infallible? He's just he's just deflecting
and saying, well, the providence was infallible. Well, Providence is
infallible and everything. That's what stupid objective. Everything happens infallibly
according to what divine Providence sees and forenos. So that's
begging because that means everything that is infallibly happening. That's stupid.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 51: I thought a good critique to that was that, like, oh,
well then that's kind of like a subjective, almost subjective
argument because he but even him as a he would say, oh,
my sixty six books are providentially and fall will be
given to me. I'm like, well, how like the Orthodox
can claim that stor Well.
Speaker 12: So let's see if he admits that the decision back
then was quote infallible, it's not his Protestant canon.
Speaker 51: Well that's why. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, and
so I thought that a good The best critique was like, well,
you realize that that's what the East claims and their
canon is different than yours.
Speaker 1: So what now, what do you have to stand on?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 12: The Church universally accepts the Dudero canon for the first
several centuries and universally proclaims it at Trello and the
Seventh Ecumentical Council. So he's just being a judized Protestant
like they all are and saying that now I'm going
to follow what the Jews said.
Speaker 1: Sure, and you had a ton for war more question,
uh huh so he uh.
Speaker 51: Another critique that he gave was that he does not
see the system of like what the Orthodox believe when
it comes to the uh collecting of the canonical text.
Speaker 1: He does not see that in the New Testament.
Speaker 51: He was saying that Jesus when he refers to the
Old Testament books that they were that Jesus assumes that
they're infallible and that they are.
Speaker 1: And they are without error. And he said that's not
a showing of the system of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 12: I don't know, I mean the Ecumenical councils are patterned
on what happens in Acts fifteen, the Jerusalem Council. So
if he wants to have Bible examples of how the
church should function, Acts fifteen is synodal church government. And
when they talk about the presence of the Holy Spirit there,
that's the spirit amongst the synod or collegiality. So I
don't understand what. So, Jesus cites the scriptures. Every ecumenical
council cites the scriptures, So how does that prove that
there's no oral tradition or that the church doesn't have
normative authority. So I don't understand what that argument is
supposed to prove. That Jesus cites the scriptures, every church father,
every council cites the scriptures. They're missing the point that
it's not a question of citing the scriptures or whether
the scriptures have authority. The Protestants are not understanding that
you can't get in a time machine and go back
to getting Paul's autographa, the books that you have in
your hand, this collection here, you're assuming that the church preserved, maintained, copied,
and transmitted this over centuries, and then it really is
the things that Paul wrote, and it really is the
things that Matthew the Disciple wrote. You're trusting.
Speaker 13: It's not just a matter of oh, orthodox think that
you got to have an authority say that this is
the infallible collection of the Bible, and if you don't
have an authority, then it's up to everybody's opinion.
Speaker 12: No, No, it's more than that. It's also the very
text themselves were preserved by a community of people. That
tells you who the authors were. You see, it's much
stronger than just some authority claim.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agreed, agreed, And the people.
Speaker 12: That preserved it are not Protestants, they're not Baptists, they're
not Calvinists, they're not Episcopalians, they're Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah, agreeance with all that. And like I said, yeah,
I thought. I just thought. The biggest critiques of that
is that he still has to answer.
Speaker 51: And I got him to admit that all of the
stuff that he believes it affirms, first of all, come
from to the Church, So he affirms at least some
type of authority, but he won't make the jump to
call it an infallible or normative authority.
Speaker 1: And I basically just said, that's basically just picking and choosing.
I mean that that's just picking and choosing.
Speaker 12: I mean, yeah, a lot of times. Something he's also confusing,
you know, normati authority, meaning that there's people who have
the ability to bind people's consciences. That's different than existential certitude.
Speaker 51: Yeah, And I think he kind of missed that part too,
because he said, he told me that I, as an
orthodox believer, wouldn't have.
Speaker 1: A wouldn't have a greater amount of a certainty.
Speaker 9: That he would.
Speaker 1: And I said, no, that's the whole point, man.
Speaker 51: I was like, the certainty that I have as an
individual going through all these church documents, going through all
these councils and these canons, like we're on the same
plane field. It's not like I can claim something that
I have and you don't. But it's just the recognizing
of philosophical justification. And I said, I don't think.
Speaker 1: You have that.
Speaker 51: You've already admitted, like Ortland and all these other Protestants
will admit that the canon that they've received is fallible,
that the message, the Gospel they've received is fallible. And
I said, you don't see that as like being any
troublesome to you, right, And he just said, well, no,
He's like, I could have justifiable belief in it, don't
have to have certainty in it. And I was like,
I think you're still confusing the categories. Like I don't
care what you have certainty about you?
Speaker 12: Now, how is it gonna tell me? If I mean,
I've studied, I prayed a lot, and I'll come up
with my own canon, because I mean you can't. I mean,
by your Protestant canon, you've admitted it. You have admitted
as fallible. So on what basis am I wrong if
I've come up with my own canon. This is how
stupid Protestantism is. It has to admit that literally every
church can come up with denomination or individual gathering of
strip mall people can come up with their own canon,
and you can't. You literally can't tell them that they're wrong.
With any authority. You can say, well, I don't think
it's a raight canon, but hey, I mean it's it's
a free for all because it's fallible. There's nothing that's
binding within church history.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 1: All right? Sweet man?
Speaker 51: I just he's a dear friend of mine, you know,
I just wanted to make sure that my critiques were
were I guess good critiques.
Speaker 12: You know, I think so much. I think they're good points.
Genus one dollar. Your recommendation is that good resources or
Orthodox doctrine or recapitulation Cosmic Mystery of Christ by Saint
Maximus MKG. Do you think that the Theophany of Joshua five?
Would you debate it? What's to debate? It's clearly like
he falls in his face to quote worship, and it says,
take off your sandals for the place where you stand
as holy. So that's telling us it's just like in
Exodus when Moses falls down in his face and God says,
take off your shoes for the place where you're standing
as holy. So it's the same Angel of the Lord
Theophany as what Moses saw. So yes, I think that
is Christ. And I don't know what is there to
debate about that passage mkg. Angel just means messenger, so
I'm not sure why what there is to debate. I mean,
the only thing I could see somebody saying is that
maybe it's Michael because it's the commander of the army
of the Lord. But I mean Jesus outranks Michael, so yes,
Michael is the commander of the host of the Lord.
But Jesus is above the commander of the host, the Lord,
so he's also the commander of the hostly Lord. So
I don't understand what the argument would be on this passage.
I'm trying to think of any other way to say
that this is not a theophany coal. This is another
point I want to say too, and this bears on
the previous question about Theophanes. Theophanes are in Orthodox theology
and mystery, and I don't have an answer exactly to
tell you the logarithmic, technological silicon valley account of how
they happen. We are told, and it is revealed that
Theophanes are energetic manifestations in time and space. They are
called divine, they are worshiped, they are called Yahweh. They're
called the face of Yahweh. I don't know how Christ
does that, and I do not believe that divinity changes,
or that it undergoes change or whatever. I don't know how,
but somehow it happens. Because all the Israelites see a
fire theophony in Leviticus nine. It's not a physical body
of Christ that's manifesting. The burning bush is a theophony.
I don't know how. We don't know how. So at
a certain point there is mystery. There's no rational, academic
explanation of every single element of Orthodox theology and Trinitarian theology.
This is why it's called communicatio idiomatum. This is why
Saint Cyril says God died for us, God became a baby. Okay,
they're not contradictions, but they are mysteries. And so to
have this attitude of like, oh, you're an authority because
you said that there's a face of the Lord. The
scriptures say that the Son is the face of the
Lord and that his glory appears in time and space.
I don't know how that is. But I'm not a Muslim,
I'm not an athari I'm not an anthromomorphic heretic, because
I say, what is in the scriptures and what is
in divine revelation. It's what say Maximus, and it's what
Saint Gregor Palma say. Palma says that the physical eye
can see the theophanes how. I don't know how, But
this is precisely why they saw Isaiah in two. Because
Isaiah said he saw the Logos on the throne. How
he wasn't incarnate yet. I don't know how. God doesn't
tell us all the hows. It's the same as creation.
How did God create? Exnel? Give me the formula how?
Speaker 9: How?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 12: I'm asperg. Tell me how, or you're a heretic.
Speaker 38: I don't know.
Speaker 12: I don't know the how. Nobody knows the hows. We're
told that it happened.
Speaker 17: Tell me how.
Speaker 12: There's a difference between procession and generation.
Speaker 8: Tell me how?
Speaker 1: Tell me how.
Speaker 12: I'm asperg. I need everything. It's filled out like a
giant algorithm. We're also believe it. Or now you're misleading me.
I need the algorithm. Chicken didn't need a chunky milk.
I don't know. There's not an answer to everything. Grow up, Cole,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 9: Jay? Former Mormon? Here it was. I've heard a few
times Mormon's get on and.
Speaker 5: Just just trive me nuts hearing about it, just knowing
I was in it for way too long, but grew
up in it and didn't realize it was what it was.
Speaker 9: And I liked your arguments with about justice.
Speaker 5: That Putnam his own scriptures and Genesis and all that craziness.
But some of the things that I found the most
intriguing about Mormonism itself is more of the argument of
the evidences that we have, Like I'm right now, I'm
actually in.
Speaker 9: The increase stage.
Speaker 5: I've been going to a moth odoxi for a few
months now, but I'm working on Katachusis. But it's been
fascinating just to see, like the I guess the scholarly side,
I know what the doops isn't like they don't like
hang their hats scholarly stuff. But just the fact that
we actually have physical evidences of the translations to the
Bibles and all that stuff, and then most of the
stuff within Mormonism is trust me, bro, just you got
to have faith, you got to have a warm feeling, you.
Speaker 12: Have a question or anything.
Speaker 5: Just I didn't know if you knew of like some
of the physical deals that came with the physical the only.
Speaker 9: Time that there has been any physical evidence of justice.
Speaker 5: Smith's translations have been like clearly been frauds in regards.
Speaker 9: To like the Book of Abraham, mainly like the pull
up Great Price.
Speaker 12: I don't know, I don't have any physical evidences about
the history of the fraudulent translations, but I know they're frauds.
But I can tell you that there are absolutely no
texts of Genesis prior to Joseph Smith that have anything
close to twelve eleven verses added to Genesis that predict
Joseph Smith. And nobody in the astory of the world
has ever believed or thought of anything so stupid. And
if you can't recognize that, if no text had Joseph
Smith in thirteen verses to Genesis fifty and Joseph Smith
adds himself, if you think that's a real prophecy, I
don't know what I can There's nothing I can tell you.
I can't help you. Sorry, Silas five Bucks. I'd love
to see you debate rabbis like miss Rock or Singer.
They're crazy and brag about debating goofy evangelical professors. I
don't know. I mean, we've had maybe five Jews come
in debate in open forms. Gooner squad five Bucks is
nationalism at odds with curse in theology. No, I never
said that, so I don't know where you would get that.
I would say that many Christians quote unquote believe in
liberal views of open borders. I've never argued that all
of the same Protestant pastors by the way. Everybody sent
them the links as usual, and of course none of
them have come. Jay Chase Davis, that guy. We've asked
him multiple times, I've DMed him multiple times, and every
time a DM ME say I can't do it. I
can't do it. So it was like weeks of not
being able to do it. So none of these Protestant
people are going to I'm gonna come do this. Do
you have any thoughts about the book Thinking Orthodox two dollars?
I've not read that, sorry, so I don't. I can't
speak to that. I feel like I'm missing some super
jets anyway, I don't know. Thank you guys, a lot
of fun tonight. Thank you Father Deacon for joining me.
If you would hit like and share. And I think
I'm on a podcaster in a little bit, in an hour,
so maybe two hours. I don't know if that'll I
don't know if that's live or what, but if it is,
I'll share it on the community tab and you can
join by the penned link