Speaker 1: Up in that tree?
Speaker 2: What you doing up there? Why you scarce? Why you
run it from every de bad? You ran from nan
treu and from me.
Speaker 3: Man till the monkey.
Speaker 4: Like the email monkeys with the bananas between the trees
hanging down upside down.
Speaker 3: That's a smile side.
Speaker 5: Tell a monkey what you doing to me?
Speaker 4: Till until a monkey till a mankcky.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmmm h the mot.
Speaker 5: What's it doing to me?
Speaker 2: De aerd.
Speaker 6: De mo?
Speaker 5: You are in a cult.
Speaker 1: You are not in a church. You invent your own church.
Speaker 7: Excuse me, you're you're just making an assumption at all
the saints agree, they do, I.
Speaker 5: Can go read them. You have no faith. You're acholarly
a a demon.
Speaker 7: A boomer part part a demon, a boomer making an
assumption that deem it a boomer part.
Speaker 6: Excuse me? Is a demon a.
Speaker 7: Boomer part art you're a coolarlyement a boomer part out
a demon.
Speaker 6: A boomer part excuse me, dement a.
Speaker 1: Boomer part are a demon?
Speaker 6: A boomer making an assumption? Are all the councils inspired
in an errant?
Speaker 5: The acumenicals the ideas, so there are ecumenical incidents are
inspired in an errant?
Speaker 1: Correct. How do you know because the oyster at least
is another truth.
Speaker 6: How do you know the oyster leads you to know the
truth because.
Speaker 5: They're in acord with all the other ecumenical doctrine, all
the other parts of the things and the scriptures.
Speaker 6: You're just making an assumption.
Speaker 1: You're a scholarly A demon a Boomer part art that.
Speaker 7: He a boomers breaking an assumption. A demon in a
Boomer card excuse me? A demon in a Boomer card
part you're a goggling A demon in.
Speaker 5: A Boomer card outdoor?
Speaker 7: Okay, a demon in a Boomer card excuse me? A
demon in a Boomer card part. A demon you know,
boomers breaking? Assuming?
Speaker 1: A demon in a Boomer card part.
Speaker 6: A demon in a Boomer card excuse me? A demon
in a.
Speaker 1: Boomer card part or a demon in a boomer tard outdoor.
Speaker 7: A demon in a Boomer card excuse me? A demon
in a boomer hard part. You're a gobbling all that
demon you.
Speaker 6: Know, boomers breaking an assumption? Assumption?
Speaker 1: A demon in a Boomer card part.
Speaker 8: H.
Speaker 9: So where do we get the Bible from?
Speaker 5: Did you even read the cannons? There is only one charge.
Speaker 10: You are in an occult, you're govern the team a boomert.
Speaker 1: It's so mean. I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 5: Is this your for someoney interwebs?
Speaker 9: I need a jew.
Speaker 11: Can't take it.
Speaker 1: He's a little to your boys.
Speaker 9: I'm you, dude, one plus one plus one equal free.
Speaker 1: It comes on to do the tree.
Speaker 11: Why do you pray eat dead people?
Speaker 9: That the traditions of the new heretic?
Speaker 1: Un your dude, is this your for some webs?
Speaker 7: Shaggy?
Speaker 11: I need a gender jew.
Speaker 12: Can't take it.
Speaker 4: He's a little to your boys.
Speaker 3: Unmute dude.
Speaker 9: Justification two?
Speaker 5: Hey Jamie, could you make me an espresso? Welcome everybody.
It's being a minute. It's been a minute since we
did open debate. As you know, I can't take the
low tier slow boys too much, so I gotta take breaks.
I gotta pause, I gotta go do some other things.
I got other things to do. But after about a month,
three weeks, I started thinking I wouldn't mind having a
stimulating intellectual discussion with someone who disagrees. Although that rarely happens,
doesn't it rarely happen? What do you think? Low tier
slow boys? But now and then there are gems, rare
gems who pop up and impress me. Who knows what
we'll get today. But you guys know the way this works.
Hopefully you know the format. You can call in through
Twitter X. The extreme link is in the chat right there.
You want to call in if you disagree, if you
would like to present your best argument against whatever my
positions are. I listed a bunch of theological things. If
you want a debate something else. If it's in the tos,
we're overcounting YouTube, so we gotta be careful. You can
also bring up geopolitics. You can bring up moral, ethical issues, feminism,
any of that kind of stuff. You want to bring
that up. The topics listed are Islam, Catholicism, Protestanism, Evangelicalism, Atheism,
Hebrew Roots, Judaism, Arians, et cetera, et cetera, Gnostics, Pagans.
We've got some wotan pagan dudes. They want to come
on a debate. I'm seeing that pop up a lot more.
We did podcasts four or five years ago saying that
pagan neo pagan stuff was going to get really popular
and be promoted everywhere by design. Here we are. I
think that's fomented and fostered. So if you want to
call in and make your pagan objections, you can. That
is on the table again. You call in through Twitter,
You enter the X space, the Twitter space, and you
hit request to speak. When you come on, you will
be muted. You have to unmute yourself. Unmute dude. Is
this your first time on the internet, Jaymi, I need
a hair inet. You can also leave a super chat
through stream Labs. Shout out to stream labs for sending
me a hat and a hoodie because I was one
of the top stream lab ers apparently. And next I
get a coat. So I'm decked out in swag. Corporate swag,
corporate Internet streaming swag. I guess that means I just
beat all the Internet nerds on Twitch. I beat the
gamer nerds. Is that what that means? I don't really know,
but I won the superchat competition on stream Labs. I'm
in the top diamond tier. But that's thanks to you guys.
You guys actually bought me this amazing black corporate hat
that says stream Labs and the corporate hoodie that says
stream Labs. Also, I get a drinking glass that says
stream Labs and a coat. So I have to advertise
stream labs. I guess now that I don't mind the hat.
Those cool and I guess gamers wear hoodies, so that
makes sense. So I could be a I could be
a gamer for you guys. I could be whatever you
want me to be for you. Y'all want some more
video game streams. We did some resident Evil streams, but
they didn't get a whole lot of views on YouTube.
But I don't know what you guys want. Like, everybody
always wants me to play games that are you played
Bloomer games? Okay, well, I'm not playing freaking Fortnite. I
ain't playing Minecraft. I don't put pixels sixteen bit pixels together. Okay,
I had sixteen bit pixels when I was eleven years
old on my Nintendo. Okay, I'm not going back to
sixteen eight bit pixels of blocks and squares. Bro I
don't know what none of that even is. I'm not
a Japanese man in nineteen eighty five building a video game.
But all of the children's the churns they want to
be Japanese coders in nineteen eighty five building blocked squared
cows and sheep and pigs. It's not my life bro.
If I was going to play a game, I might
play Silent Hill two or something remake, because in that
game you're fighting what the Illuminati, isn't it. There's two
games where you fought the Illuminati, Resident Evil four and
Silent Hill two, right whereas it Silent Hill one. What
am I talking about? It's called video games. The giant
half of the Internet is video games. You never heard
of that, And I'm waiting for people to call in
with their questions. Thank you. We have I'm talking about
a cult called Minecraft.
Speaker 6: I'm you, dude.
Speaker 5: We also have the upcoming event I want to remind
you guys of that. You can come see us the
Horror and Alternative Film Movie Convention. At about four or
five hundred people that come to this, I'll be speaking
Tampa Bay Screams Convention. It's a private dinner, separate event
though with me and I'll be giving a talk on
esoteric Hollywood and film. You can get tickets to this
right here, January nineteenth, Tampa, Yo. If you like esoteric Hollywood,
you're gonna love this talk and you're gonna enjoy Esoteric
Hollywood three that's coming out. Baby, I'm mute, dude, thirty three. Yes, literally,
the Masons literally control the number thirty three. Anytime it
pops up for you Skizo's out there, that's because the
Masons are literally causing the number thirty three to pop up.
They own it. They own numbers, but only certain numbers.
That makes a lot of sense. We did video game
analyses back in the day. We did a few of those,
but we didn't get many. We didn't get many. A
lot of that stuff doesn't get many views. Basically, it's
just like twenty twenty people that are twenty years old
want me to cover video games, and that's it. Actually,
I think the when we covered games that did get
some pretty good some good numbers. Let's see what's up,
y'all ready to get this going. We got three or
four people in line already. We're gonna open it up.
The way this work says, you can make your argument,
you can ask a question. You don't have to debate.
You can call in and ask questions if you want to.
By the way, I've not been not doing anything in
the past three or four days. I did multiple other
people's podcasts, so those should be going up in the
next few days. So where was Jay for two days
he didn't live stream. I was on all these other
people's podcasts, so we got some good but we got up.
We did a pretty sweet busy Byzantium Islam History podcast
the other day. We did a super sweet Philosophy of
Bitcoin podcast today, and then, uh, tonight, I'm supposed to
do interview with a pretty big name person. I'm not
gonna say who it is. It's gonna be a little
bit of a surprise, but uh, she's a big name person.
We're gonna have a hopefully a good conversation tonight and
we're gonna open it up again. You're gonna be ummuted.
Unmute yourself, um mute dude. First up, Byzantine, scumbag, that's
what I'm talking about. That's a name.
Speaker 6: I like.
Speaker 5: His name front Neill, friend to Neille, what's up, friend, Tanill.
Hey you can hear me, yes, sir this by saying that.
Speaker 12: I'm Orthodox.
Speaker 13: I was actually baptized this past Saturday.
Speaker 5: So good shout out for that. It's good many years
to you. Yeah, thanks, thanks.
Speaker 13: I actually got into a Twitter spat with.
Speaker 5: Some guys.
Speaker 13: I don't know if you've ever heard of this KJV
only cult Baptist sext.
Speaker 5: Like Steven Anderson stuff. Yeah, yeah, I mean I don't
know any of the people from that, but I'm familiar
with that. Yeah.
Speaker 13: Well, they hold that, you know, the King James version
is the only version that's you know, sure inspired, right,
and I think they only affirmed the sixty six books, right.
I just wondered what you would say in response to that.
Speaker 5: Well, there's a lot of different ways that you could
go about responding to that. The first is that ironically, historically,
the King James version included the apocrypha, So if you
have an old KJV, you'll notice that it includes the
what they call the apocryph for the Deutero canonical book. Secondly,
why are we supposed to believe that a monarch If
you're an independent Baptist, you're pretty much hate monarchy. Why
are we supposed to believe that a monarch was somehow
the means by which God providentially produced the supposed, you know,
infallible Koran version of the Bible, the KJV. Beyond that,
there's no reason to accept the Protestant Canada scripture, beyond
the fact that Protestants just arbitrarily say it's the right
Canada scripture. Because m Jews, well, who decided that unbelieving
rabbinic Jews determine the canon for the Church, So pretty
much all their assumptions are fundamentally stupid.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think one of them said that, like.
Speaker 13: That Ortho and Catholic canon, nobody really uses it some
weird objections, And then I think one of them said
that the Dutero canon wasn't really decided upon until like.
Speaker 6: I forget what he said.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's yeah, it's just simply not true. You
can read the Church fathers throughout the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth centuries. They cite liberally from the duterocononical texts, and
they do not typically distinguish between what status they have.
There's a couple of fathers that do, like Saint Jerome,
but even Jerome cites the duter canonical text throughout his
theological argumentation, and so a lot of the times processes
will say stuff like, well, they didn't they didn't use
the Dutero canonical text to prove theological arguments. Yeah, they do,
in fact, and Jerome is not going to be any
help to a Protestant because Jerome believes in the perpetual
virginity of Mary. Believes in the episcopacy. He submitted to
you know, his bishops. You know, he's believes in relics.
He wrote wrote a old treatise against the Helvidius and
Vigilanteus about relics and Mary. So, I mean, there's nothing
Protestant about the choices that they make for the Canon.
It's just literally just arbitrary. That will God work through
the king to through King James, by the way, King
James and and that whole crew, like they're they're monarchs.
Like why would a Baptist follow a monarch? It makes
no sense.
Speaker 13: Well, yeah, that's that's about all I had.
Speaker 5: Thanks for that. Yeah, just look up kind of some
history of the Canon and the formation of the Canon,
because it's really the Council of Trollo for the Orthodox Church,
which is loosely speaking our canon. Eric Clementino. But that's
a great question. Yeah. I don't think we've ever had
a KJV only person calling what's up?
Speaker 6: Man? Yeah?
Speaker 14: Yes, so I am an Afrit guy, and.
Speaker 5: Flow down your what.
Speaker 14: No I heard before you have been a traditional Catholic. Yeah,
I don't know if you were SSPX or if you
held a Seevacantist position, and I also I am a
critic of Vatican two. And what made you reject the
Seevacantist position and the SPX position made you commercial orthodoxy,
That's my question.
Speaker 5: There were several events and several things. It wasn't like
one single thing. Yeah, I spent Even when I was
of the opinion of set of a contism, I still
attended the SSPX mass because it was the only mass
that I had access to. So yeah, I was a
trad cat for many years. I would say, maybe age
twenty three until twenty nine ish, somewhere in there at
twenty thirty, so about seven years of my eight or
nine years of Roman Catholicism. I was a trad cat
and a pretty hardcore one. Eventually, what I came to
I think the first difficulty was the question of the
Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you read Vatican One, it's very
clear that you have to follow the Universal Ordinary Magisterium,
that it's guided by the Petrion Terrorism. So that meant
I couldn't hold to the SSPX position, which is pretty
much premised on rejecting many decades of Universal Ordinary Magistriium,
including even things like the sainthood of John Paul the
second and other people. So that led me into the
stay of position just kind of as a logical necessity
for like I said, several years and then I realized
that the set of a constant position is probably about
the equivalent of Protestantism within the Roman Catholic world. It's
just the most factionalized, divided, split, splintered, and actually a
bunch of crazy people. So I spent many years in
a lot of those different groups and circles, and I
went to you know, Mass is held in people's homes,
and people's in you know, Hampton in Mass. I mean,
I've done all of it in that domain. And I
started reading the Orthodox stuff Church Fathers in about two
thousand and seven, and that's when I really started to
have doubts. But I wasn't ready to convert yet, and
I would say it took me another three or four
years before I read what I think is probably the
best critique of the Roman Catholic or excuse me, the
set of constiosposition, which is just simply that you have
these statements in Etsy Multa and other encyclicals that pretty
much equate to the rejecting of the set of a condisposition. So,
in other words, for set of a contism to be true,
you would have to reject Etsy Malta. And what's rejected
in nets E Malta amounts to a rejection of the
set of a consta position. Even though it's against the
old Catholics. The arguments that are made in Etsy Multa
apply exactly perfectly too set of contism. And so the
other thing that I read was John Pontrello's book Set
of Delusion, where he argues that there's really no way
to have a papacy. Ever, again, this leads to the
conclavist position. So if you want to go be a Conclavist,
I mean I think, I think if you're at that, I.
Speaker 9: Follow you.
Speaker 14: And and and then also I mean, you have been
a Catholic for a long time, and and I assume
being a Catholic, you did believe in all the Mariana positions,
for example the Fatima one. Do you think they're all
fake or what's your opinion like for example the Fatima apparitions.
Speaker 5: Well, when I was a Tradcat, I had no problem
saying that there are apparitions, but I always held to
the position that dogmatic revelations trump apparitions. So I mean,
I was fine admitting that there were apparitions, but they
didn't play any like crucial role in my approach to doctrine.
And I remember, I mean, I spent time as a
trad cat going down the Sister Lucy Lucia rabbit hole
and know what she replaced and what she cloned and
all this nonsense, and it was all just ended up
being idiotic, because yeah, I don't believe or put any
credence in Rome's claims of miracles now, so whether they're
all faked, I don't know, but it wouldn't matter anyway,
because we're told not to follow signs and wonders, but
to follow what's been revealed. So if you base your
faith on signs and wonders, how are you going to
tell a Coptic person that they shouldn't be Coptic if
Mary appears in zy Tune, Egypt to the Coptics.
Speaker 14: Well yeah, well clear, Yeah.
Speaker 5: So apparitions can't be the deciding factor as to which
faith is correct. And by the way, I've talked to
trad cats about this and they'll actually argue, oh, well,
I guess the apparition of Mary means that Mary all
So is revealing herself to the Coptics. So they're part
of the Rumman calolary. So in other words, they ended
up making it an argument for a humanism. So it's like,
I mean, are you a tragct or not?
Speaker 6: So you know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, But also but also there have been multiple faked apparitions,
and the CIA is on record. Even E Michael Jones
admits that he thinks that some of these Magiagori and
other ones are fake.
Speaker 14: Sure, yeah, sure, I mean I just think, like, for example,
the Fatima one.
Speaker 9: So documented, Well, hold on.
Speaker 5: It's so document I mean there were fake there were
fake news stories in the eighteen nineties. So how do
you know it's documented because a newspaper told you that
a bunch of villagers in Portugal saw this. How do
you know that?
Speaker 14: I mean, I mean they were living under a socialist true,
and all the media was socialists, and they came there
to prove that that this guy were just and that's
when the miracle happened.
Speaker 5: And then that's why, Well that's that's the narrative about Fatima.
But I mean, again, there were fake news stories in
the eighteen nineties. Look up the bat people in the
Moon story. It's a famous case of the earliest fakings
of news stories I'm aware of. And you don't think that,
like if they wanted to look, here's an argument I
make that if you look up the purpose of Fatima,
Fatima seems to target Russia, and doesn't it just magically
happen to align with the Anglo American establishments designs during
the period of the Great Game against Russia of course,
so it's an anti Russian, pro World War One type
of message that if Russia doesn't convert to the papacy,
Russia will spread her errors. Well, did Mary not know
that Marxism communism is not from Russia. It's not a Russian.
Speaker 14: Russian it's more anti communism. I mean it's yeah, sure,
but I mean didn't.
Speaker 5: Well sure, all right, what are you saying? Well, the
elite are communists, so they wouldn't want an anti communist message. Well,
I don't think that the elite. I think the elite
are above communism and capitalism. They are both. So the
people who wanted a World war at one point were
pro like the Rothchills were pro gold Standard and with
Churchill as they're underling. No, they were at one point
publicly against communism but also secretly supporting it. So no,
you can't go by like the public pro or anti
communist stance necessarily to determine whether or not the elite
or or not supporting something, because the elite will play
both sides of these kinds of things.
Speaker 9: Well I guess, I guess, yeah, that was yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, how would you? I mean, I got the
thing pulled up here. It's a Catholic website talking about
Marian apparitions at the Coptic Church in Egypt. So does
that prove Coptic theology? It was seen by it was
seen by thousands of people too.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I would just say, like like the de narratives
of the Fatima appression, for example, like it's it's it's
very obvious that that Portugal, Portugal was under socialist regime.
The people who were going there, they was going there.
They were going there to prove that the disguise are crazy.
That's there was the recently went there, and that's there
were many many commercials. There were photos of the of
the Sun and the Midea because and everything, and the
New New York Times truth about it.
Speaker 6: Everyone.
Speaker 5: You don't think that, okay, but you don't think there
were fake news stories at that time. Nobody fake news stories.
Speaker 14: Yes that like with that, No, in that Fennow, in
that Fennow.
Speaker 5: No, I mean again, that's just simply false. There have
been fake news stories since the eighteen nineties. Look up
bat people on the Moon. It's a famous case that
duped all the intellectuals of the eighteen nineties. They literally
thought there were bad people on the moon because a
prominent public newspaper, Chicago Sun or Son Tribune or something
like that, printed a series of articles claiming that the
scientists had proven that there were bat people on the moon.
It's a famous case, and this is way before Fatima.
And I'm just simply making the point that it's just
it's not true that there were not fake news stories
on a large scale, and at the time of Fatima
there were. That doesn't prove Fatima mistake necessarily, But my
point is that what's we'd have no record of what
was seen in this village beyond these supposed newspapers.
Speaker 14: All right, torn sure, and yeah, yeah I think that, yeah,
I think that was my Yeah. No, again, what was
your main argument against like this is a county's position,
and like because yeah, well.
Speaker 5: If you read John Pontrello's little book, Seat of a
Causees Delusion, he'll make a series of arguments that, for example,
you cannot have the fundamental essential components of the definition
of the church a law of Vatican One in the
Roman system undergo a massive change such that the Roman
see loses its visibility. And what I mean is not
even in reference to a period of a brief vacancy
until another opponent or occupant occupies the sea. I'm talking
about the complete loss of visible unity of the entire
church structure for seventy eighty years, which is no longer
in Rome. If you read Vatican One, that's clearly not
seen as a possibility at all. It's a foregone conclusion
that that can happened, because it specifically says that there
will be successors in the Seat of Peter until the
return of Christ. It does not say until some undefined
end times and then there's one hundred year vacancy or
whatever bull crap that stead of a contest put in
there to make it work. It says until the end
till the return of Christ. So if that position is
gonna work. You've got to have successors until the return
of Christ. You can't have this seventy eighty hundred year
vacancy of no popes. Plus all the people who would
elect the next pope are all now also outside the
church and apostates. How are you going to get another pope?
This is where you get the idiot cult people at
Palmar Detroita who believe they've elected a new pope through
a Marian apparition, or you get the Conclavists who believe
it because and they have the argument is that you
have to have popes until the end of the world.
That's what Betican says about Itican one says, So it's
a dead end position. It's a defeater. It doesn't work.
Speaker 14: Yeah, yeah, you should debate some some setivan.
Speaker 12: Have you invited someone like.
Speaker 5: Yeah, actually, I've asked Jerry Madditis multiple times over the
years to come and debate it, and he won't do it.
Speaker 14: So all right, all right, yeah, thank you for letting
me speak.
Speaker 5: Great questions. Appreciate it. Yeah, I mean read Set of
a Concious Solution by John Pontrello. I also did a
three hour talk on the book uh set of a
conscout solution Liberals against Leftists. By the way, John Patrello
became War Talks. What's up, dude, what's up dude?
Speaker 9: Anybody?
Speaker 5: Hey, what's on your mind?
Speaker 9: I have an idea.
Speaker 15: I wanted to get your interpretation on it. I'm still
reading through the bib On. I'm trying to figure out things.
So I have an idea though, and I would like
your interpretation on it.
Speaker 9: Okay, So there's a I believe that.
Speaker 15: God limits himself. He limits himself because if he was
all powerful, it would be easy choice.
Speaker 9: God is good. We just we don't need any faith,
and so he limits himself.
Speaker 15: And in some of the scripture it was stated that
Argentel Michael basically wouldn't accuse Satan of anything because that's
not really. He's not powerful enough, He's not God. He
needs God to sort of back him up. And in
my mind that means that Satan is kind of like
an all powerful not obviously not as quite as as
God himself. But my question is if that is true,
if Satan is an all powerful kind of like God,
maybe maybe the world itself is being pulled towards an
equilibrium good versus evil, always being pulled to the center,
and in the center.
Speaker 9: Is where we human beings get to choose.
Speaker 15: We choose good side versus bad side. He's not God's
not going to come.
Speaker 9: To face to face and say this is me.
Speaker 15: It's easy to believe, right, It's going to be more
of a more of a It has to be a choice.
And I was wondering for I was wondering if you
had like any input on this, because I do believe
God is all powerful.
Speaker 9: He is the one true King. He can do anything.
We have to build a relationship with him.
Speaker 5: So this is kind of so the first thing I
would say, it sounds like this is like a Manichy
and Gnostic duelist type of position. So, no, Satan is
not like the co equivalent or the flip side of God.
Satan is a creature, and so everything that is created
is very much so inferior to the uncreated. God alone
is uncreated. So anything that has a created status is temporal,
subject to change, flux, limited, finite, et cetera. So angels
and we believe Satan Lucifer is an angel, He's basically
equivalent to a cherub or some high ranking angel. According
to Ezekiel. So the reason that Michael says in that
discourse that he would not rebuke the double is because
of the ranking of the authority, in the same way
that David doesn't rebuke Saul. Even though Saul is a
wicked king, Saul still had authority, and so he was
respecting the authority structure that was set up. So it
has nothing to do with like Satan being almost almighty
or close to God. No, he's not anywhere close to
almighty or God, because only God is almighty.
Speaker 9: And if you think then that.
Speaker 15: God wants us to be sort of in a in
a continuous center, being continuously centered, so that we have
to choose good evil kind of thing, do you think
he is trying to just you know, push just enough
so that it's just always somewhat in the middle, there's
always a choice, or do you think there is an
end goal Everything will be good eventually.
Speaker 9: Kind of yeah.
Speaker 5: Paul says that all things will be God will be
all in all, will be all in in all, So
eventually good will be completely the norm and there will
not be any possibility of deviation or rebellion. So evil
will be completely stamped out. But evil doesn't have being
or substance. It's a privation or a negation. It's not
a thing. It's an action against the good is all
that it is. So to restore things to the adenic
state would be to simply remove the possibility of that negation.
It's not a destroying of anything physical or substantial.
Speaker 15: So so you I understand really basically there is an
end goal. The end goal is to create all good
heaven on earth and really to to get rid of evil.
I mean basically there there is that objective goal.
Speaker 5: Sure, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, So we believe it's a
restoration of all things to their proper natural state, which
is what Eden was.
Speaker 6: And so.
Speaker 5: Evil was not what God intended according to the Deutero canon.
It's something that went against his will. He tolerated it
and permitted it, but will through the actions and resurrection
of Christ, restore the entire universe to what was intended
to be the case in Eden.
Speaker 9: Then then why do you.
Speaker 15: Think God does everything that he can to push is
good to get rid of evil?
Speaker 9: Or is he letting us kind of choose it or I.
Speaker 5: Think he Yeah, we synergize and participate with God. So
it's not an all all one sided thing. He intends
for there to be a period of training up in virtue,
a period of you know, choosing the good as you're
putting it in to become like him before the restoration.
Speaker 15: I appreciate. Do you have, like any kind of scripture
I can look up that comes to mind? Person clarity
on this about what about God's pushing of the synergy
between human beings and God and his end goal of
being Yeah.
Speaker 5: So basically Colossians one, two and three in Romans eight
describes the cosmic scope of everything that we're talking about.
Speaker 9: I really appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So to the Calvinist dude in the chat, if
he doesn't want to call in, he just boot him. So, oh,
I don't have a MIC, but I don't have a
I only have a dial up phone. But he's sitting here.
I don't have a I don't own a mic, but
I'm a presepper. Oh no, Mike, all right, Well then
too bad. This isn't a vehicle for you to just
yap and spam the chat. So it's it's a vehicle
for people to call in and debate. So later, dude,
I'm talking to the dude in the chat, not the
guy that called in so you call in here through Twitter.
He has a rotary phone, but he is typing on
the internet. I can't tell. This dude has no name.
Al o' kwan al Okwan, Hakeem olaja wan. Oh wow,
that was fast.
Speaker 12: Hey, jail's it going?
Speaker 5: What's up, dude?
Speaker 6: Hey?
Speaker 16: I just wanted to bring a different kind of perspective
a little bit and maybe a little bit of follow
up too. I'm not here to cause any trouble. I'm
not here to mock. I'm just just bringing up a
different idea.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 16: So back in the day, I remember, you know, I mean,
not that I was from a thousand years ago or not.
Just from my readings, I was aware that a lot
of these debates were kind of solved with sword and shield.
And my question is, why are we going back and
forth debating with these people when we should be killing them?
Speaker 5: Okay, good job, Fed, Yeah, I mean, if you think
about it, Yeah, that's really funny. Okay, Yeah, go fed
elsewhere fed X maybe joe Ed Lopez, what's up?
Speaker 6: Hey? So? Okay, so ring orthodox. I know there's a thing.
Speaker 1: About salvation only found in the church.
Speaker 8: What's your thoughts on when people say, well, the thief
on the cross was you know, accepted into the kingdom.
Speaker 5: Well, the thief on the cross was Orthodox, So what
do you mean, Well, like salvation has to come through
the church.
Speaker 6: There's no church stablished right now.
Speaker 5: Well, the church is the mystical body of Christ, and
so the thief on the cross is joined to the
mystical body of Christ on the cross.
Speaker 17: So even though he didn't have understanding of the Trinity
or any other traditional doctoral.
Speaker 5: Well, we're not saved by our degree of understanding. We're
saved by our repentance and humility. So understanding comes along
with that. So no, it's not like you get a
thhd to be saved. You're you're saved through repentance and humility.
But that's great. It's a question. I understand what you're saying. No,
I don't think that you have to master all the
theology to be saved. But to the evangelical person in
the chat, if you're not going to call in, this
is not for you to spam your complaining about people
saying cuss words. So either come in the bay or
you leave. It's not for your virtue signaling here, what's
this person's name. They already get booted where they go.
Hold on, I need to put this on lot where
I see all the chat because I forgot to do that.
There we go, Mario, the tri yun yahweh okay. So
anybody using this goofy Hebrew names for God, we already
know what kind of nonsense this is. So Mario, either
you call in or you get booted. This is not
a place for messianic heresy. Chat Aw, what's up, hi dai?
Speaker 9: I have a question about baptism.
Speaker 18: Are there what counts as I mean, I know what
baptism is, it baptism is, But what I'm getting at
is does it have to strictly be within the Orthodox
Church to be counted as baptized?
Speaker 5: I mean yes, because only the Orthodox Church can give
you the faith. You can't divorce the sacraments from the
faith and the community that gives it to you. So
it's the Roman Catholic position that thinks that atheists and
Muslims can baptize you. We don't believe that you have
to be baptized in the Orthodox Church. And that's why
nobody prior to the early medieval acceptance of the idea
that pagans and atheists can baptize you. Nobody ever taught
that until Rome worked that out via the presuppositions of
Ex Opera Operato that Augustine had. So, yeah, you have
to be baptized in the Orthodox Church with Orthodox katechisis.
Now does that mean that I'm therefore damning everyone outside
the church. No, I don't know people's destiny outside the church.
Paul says that it's not our job to judge those
outside the church. But I know that for you to
have correct Orthodox baptism, it's in the Orthodox Church that.
Speaker 6: I do know.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 18: So I mean if someone is baptized, say in some
Lutheran or even an Evangelical church, with that being null
and void and null I actually count as baptism.
Speaker 5: Well, the church can determine that maybe you were baptized
in the correct form, in the correct words, and in
the correct ritual. But the heresy in our view, and
ironically even Augustine believe this, even though he recognized the
quote validity of the baptisms outside the church. The impediment
to the reception of the grace is the heretical confession.
So sometimes the word church receives people from those groups
via the rejection of the heresy. Sometimes the church determines
that you need to be baptized because it didn't even
count as a baptism. For example, some of the novsorto
Catholic churches baptized people in the name of the land,
the sea, and the air, so that by most, hopefully
most Orthodox priests and bishops would not even be considered
a baptism at all. So that can be abused because
there is a degree of economia there, and sometimes that's
abused for the purposes of a humanism. But the basic
principle still stands that yes, in order for the baptism
to be an Orthodox baptism, it needs to be the
Orthodox Church baptizing you. And if the church decides that
you don't have to be baptized because the ritual is doncorrectly,
then the impediment to the reception of the grace is
removed by the rejection of the heresy. Okay, great question, Yeah,
we get that question all the time.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 5: Cal let's see, we got a bunch of people here.
Let's see. Uh whoa, we just got ten people online
packed up. Now some people have been waiting for a while.
Let me find somebody's been waiting for a good while here,
Jaguar has been waiting. What's up, dude.
Speaker 17: Oh hi Jay, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 5: Hey, So, I'm uh.
Speaker 17: I wanted to talk about the Catholic perspective. I've been
mostly convinced by Orthodoxy over the past couple of years,
but I've been looking into the Catholic side more try
to make sure I don't have any blind spots or
too much of a bias. Sure, but it seems when
I when I see debates on the two, there's a
lot of quote mining on both sides where this guy
this church father said this, and that church father said that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, everybody engages in unquote mining, which is yeah, which
is kind of unfortunate, but yeah, and it.
Speaker 17: Would see to me the burden of truth is much
higher for Catholics just to the nature of them claiming
authority over the whole.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the Vatican One claims are pretty you know,
heavy duty claims. Yeah. So yeah.
Speaker 17: One thing that I noticed it seems if the pope
is who they say he's supposed to be, that it
seems like one of their strongest arguments should be examples
of how modern popes are acting and behaving, and it
seems like that's the last thing.
Speaker 5: They want to talk about. Yeah, I think that's the
crack in the armor that they feel like has to
be avoided. And it's not just the quote behavior of
the popes, because they're always going to deflect and say, well,
we never claim that the pope is impeccable. He's just
theologically infallible when he's speaking execathedral blah blah blah blah blah.
But that's missing the point that some sins in Catholic
theology are unique in that they rem you from the body,
those being heresy, schism, and apostasy. Those are unique sins
in Catholic moral theology and canon law, which are still
on the books. It's still in the modern post nineteen
eighty three John Paul the second Canon law that if
you commit heresy, apostasy, and schism, you are excommunicated ipso
facto laate sententia, that is, without any declaration of an
authoritative body, by virtue of the action itself. The same
penalty is given for the example, for example, for Catholics
that procure an abration. If you, as a Roman Catholic,
a faithful procure and abraution. You are supposed to be
immediately excommunicated for that action. It doesn't require the bishop
meeting in a sonata a council and pronouncing you like
you know Beckett and the movie back, Oh Got Way,
Excremator Kiko. It doesn't require any of that. That's what
the word latte sententia ipso facto means. So ninety nine
percent of Roman Catholics don't know that. They don't they're
not aware of that. They don't know their own theology.
They just assume because they repeat all the pop stuff
that their car salesman. Apologists all put out online that
the pope's not impeccable, he still has sins. He's just
infallible when he teaches theologically for the entire church. And
so I don't have to accept anything that Francis says
except when, except when, I deem that he's teaching theologically
for the whole church. And it doesn't work like that.
That's not true, true right when and Vatican one says
that you're not just bound by extraordinary magiesstarium, you're also
bound by the universal ordinary teaching, which is infallible just
as much as extra extraordinary is and you're also bound
by his ordinary teaching, which is fallible, but even though
it might error, you must submit with docility. So there's
no room for this papal minimalism that they're trying to
push to save the position. It doesn't exist. It's nowhere
in the mind Vatican one. It's a post Vatican two
invention of the Neotrads who want to save the position
and make it work.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think I saw in a debate.
Speaker 5: It may have been when you did where a didn't a.
Speaker 17: Pre us pope say that you're basically excommunicated if you
worship in another religion's temple and then hush pots.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Mortalium Animos says. It's famous and cyclical from nineteen
twenty eight to Pisti eleventh. It says that if you
participate in the interfaith gatherings, it is apostasy.
Speaker 17: Okay, So if that pope was able to time travel
and show up, he would excommunicate the popes.
Speaker 6: That we're here now.
Speaker 5: He would probably say it's the it's the great apostasy
the church is, you know, yeah, exactly, Yeah, I mean
I don't know what he would say, but something like
that probably. Yeah.
Speaker 17: One last thing I wanted to ask, didn't because they
bring up Peter as the kind of the baseline for this,
But didn't Peter start more than one church?
Speaker 5: Yes, he is the uh, the founder of multiple sees,
the Patrian Seas. Even as late as Saint Gregory the Pope,
Saint Gregory the Great, he calls the Patrian seas, Rome, Alexandria,
and Antioch. Those three are called by him in his
letters the Petrine Seas. And so what Rome does in
order to counter this is say, well, but Peter died
in Rome, so it's the one that really gets the authority. Well,
where did that come from? That's just made up? Well,
I mean it's not made up. It's true that Peter
died in Rome. But if you look through the evolution
of the arguments for papal supremacy and power in universality
and all that, it's an evolving thing. A great book
that just came out that discusses this is Sishinsky's book
Papacy in the Orthodox, which really you only need to
read for this for what we're talking about, you just
need to read the chapter that deals with like the
first to seventh century, which is about maybe thirty forty pages.
It's chapters four and five. Those chapters really make this
point very forcefully that you have the idea of yeah,
Peter died in Rome. Yeah, there's you know, there's a
there's an honor that's due to the Petrine seas and
particularly because of it being Peter and Paul. So it
is always traditionally called the see of Peter and Paul.
If you go to Rome and you go to the
latter in Basilica, which is the old traditional first Millennium
seat of the Bishop of Rome, it honors Peter and Paul.
Even in the Vatican, Peter and Poel are situated up
front as if they're equal, right, But the argument of
Vatican I and Leo the thirteenth in statist Cognetium is
that you cannot say that Rome is great because of
Peter and Paul. Paul has nothing to do with it.
It's only Peter, because Peter's a martyr there, and the
blood of Peter in Rome is part of this idea
that just evolves that that therefore gives the Bishop of
Rome this wild infallibility universality claim that he didn't have
until centuries later. Okay, well, yeah, I'll check that book out.
I appreciate you. I just wanted to bounce all the
thoughts off you. So Yeah, and everybody should read Mortalium
Animos of nineteen twenty eight, the famous paper and cyclical
absolutely condemning any form of the humanism and religious interfaith
prayers and gatherings. And at that time, keep this in mind,
Pope Pious the eleventh was merely talking about other so
called Christian groups. He's talking about Anglicans, Orthodox and Evangelicals.
He's not talking about praying with freaking Muslims and Jews
and moss and Synagogues and Pagans and Buddhists like John
Paul the Second did so the post Vatican two popes
went light years beyond even what was in the mind
of Pious the eleventh to condemn. Does that make sense? Yeah,
that sense. He's just saying, Bro, you can't even pray
with Anglicans, how much more can you not pray with
freaking Buddhists.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 17: I think overall their claims are are pretty pretty ridiculous,
and they were just not at anywhere at the level
they would have to be at about what they're What
they're trying to say is what it seems like to me,
I'm not very smart or well educated on this, but
well you.
Speaker 5: Don't have to be an expert on it to see
pretty clearly that the if you read that Skrushinsky chapter,
you'll notice that, oh, it's an evolving thing, like this
idea of you know, for example, Rome was always listed
first because it was the sea of where Peter and
Paul were martyred, so there's an honor that's given to Rome.
But the fact that say, the Council of Nicea lists
Rome as the first of the seas by you know,
eight hundred years later, that has evolved into like total autocracy.
So it's clearly an evolution. And here's the irony. This
is another key contradiction. If you read Vatican one, and
if if you read Sati's Cognitium of Leo the thirteenth,
these are very important, you know, papal documents about the papacy.
They argue that it's not an evolving thing. So it's
later Roman Catholic apol je x post Cardinal Newman that
adopted the idea that, well, the way to actually defend
and prove this papacy stuff via Vatican one and what
Vatican was claiming is we have to concede that there's
an evolution in this idea. It's a seed that grows
into a tree. But Vatican One and Pasta Attornis and
Satis cognitiitum reject the idea that it evolved. In fact,
they claimed that it was always universally the case from
the earliest days of the Church. So it can't be both.
It can't be something that was always universally held and
true and something that was a seed that evolved. Those
are mutually exclusive ideas.
Speaker 17: Yeah, I mean, everything about it just seems very arbitrary
to me on their sides.
Speaker 5: So, well, have you read Dictatus pape I mean, yeah,
I have it.
Speaker 1: I watched debates on YouTube.
Speaker 17: I haven't really read anything to be honest about this topic,
but I probably should.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, this is when you know, in the
eleventh century, the pa it becomes a geopolitical world power
estate and actually takes on all the machinations and operations
of the state, including warfare intelligence agencies.
Speaker 6: So what year would have been this view?
Speaker 5: Approximately, the Tatas Pappi is ten ninety, but it's under
the papacy of Greg Gregory. This seventh and this is
called the Gregorian reforms. This is when you have a
vast change in the ecclesial structure in the Latin Church
from what was previously the model of the Orthodox sonodal
Church and in the these are called the Gregorian reforms
because it turns the Latin Church into the papal church.
And this is well known. This is admitted now by
Eastern Roman Catholic scholars. Devornik Sishansky used to be a Unia,
it became Orthodox. It's admitted by Kongar and others. It's
by the way, if you just read the Vatican's recent
declarations on on Orthodox discussion, the Alexandria document from June
of twenty twenty three, it admits all this. So the
Vaticans basically admitted all this. Okay, I will check that out.
Speaker 17: Yeah, I mean, I honestly I wrote off the back
when the news with the Catholic Church and the PDF
file stuff was it everywhere. I completely wrote off ever
even considering it until more recently when I've learned about Orthodoxy,
and then I thought I should give it a fair shake, or.
Speaker 1: At least try to so.
Speaker 5: No, I think it's good to know their arguments and
know like kind of what the I.
Speaker 17: Mean, when you only hear their side, they can sound convincing.
Speaker 5: If if well, yeah, I fell for it, I fell
for I fell for papal quote minds. I fell for
forged papal quotes back in my twenties. That's why I
was Roman Catholic. Yeah, so yeah, great, great question A
long time so well same here. So I get you
like to become orthonoxy Yeah, great questions and keep looking
into it, keep searching. California Prepper, what's up? I'm you, dude?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me? All right?
Speaker 5: I'm driving, Hi, know what's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 5: Hey Jamie? Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 9: I have a question.
Speaker 19: I have a family member who likes to flirt with
the Gnostic ideas, and I tried to have discussions with him,
and he likes to quote like the Infancy.
Speaker 10: Gospel of Thomas and say also, like.
Speaker 19: Hey, the church throughout all this scripture because there they
were corrupt. They wanted to like have their own power
and not have any other ideas in there.
Speaker 12: How would I respond to some sort of argument.
Speaker 5: Like that, Well, I mean, this is always what gnostics say.
But when you really get into the Gnostic worldview, you'll
find out that it's like really contradictory and really arbitrary.
For one, there's not one Gnostic worldview. There's not a
Gnostic tradition. There's a ton of different Gnostic sects from
the first, second, third century, and they're all over the place.
They range from extreme asceticism to extreme indulgence to ritual magic.
I mean, they're essentially all over the place. If you
read the first few hundred pages of Saint Aaronais's Against Heresies,
the first few hundred pages is him listing all the
Gnostic sects of the second century. So there's not a Gnosticism.
So the first thing I would go about trying to
demonstrate to this person is that ultimately the position that
he's got is itself very relativistic. And I've never met
a Gnostic who's not a relativist. Doesn't mean there might
not be one out there that believes in objective morals,
But if your position is a relativist, you know, moral framework,
it's pretty easy to refute that. So I would just
point out do a basic presep of his ethics and
morals as relativistic, and if the morals and the ethics
are relativistic, then is gnosticism also relativistic? So if it's relativistic,
then it's not true. To be true requires it to
have universal truth value, and if gnosissism is relativistic, then
it doesn't have that. It's it's a fundamental epistemic contradiction.
Speaker 9: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 19: Any resources that you can guide me towards for extra
stuff to learn, Yeah.
Speaker 5: I've done. I did a talk on Ieronaeus against heresies,
and I have two talks on my channel that are
old critiquing gnosticism, so just look up Jay Dyer Gnosticism.
I also did a whole talk on Yarslav Pelicon's Volume one,
which covers the history of these early sex and gnostics.
It's a it's a classic sort of seminary text. Peter
petites us, Uh, what's up, dude? What's a hook do?
Is this your first time on the internet, Jaye?
Speaker 10: Hey it is doctor Pete. I don't know this talk
like jumped for a few seconds, but hey, thanks.
Speaker 6: For having me.
Speaker 10: I'm a cradle Orthodox. One of the comments on sort
of the moving target of the understanding of marriage and
the Roman Catholic Church. You know, recently we've heard of
them discussing topics about homosexual marriage, transgender concepts. As an
Orthodox Christian, I never really quite understood a lot of
these discussions. Some rules don't seem that we can break.
Others seem like they've they've broken them unnecessarily. I think
back to why and how priests used to marry the
Roman Catholic Church. I can tell you my father was
an eye surgeon and a priest.
Speaker 12: And he had five sons.
Speaker 10: And I don't I don't know why in this age
of secularism, humanism, that we don't just go back to
our roots and free a billion Catholics from having to
endlessly defend a fallen position, which is sort of putting
priesthood against the sacrament of marriage. And I'm just trying
to understand the mindset of Roman Catholic in terms of why,
why that's not something they're willing to compromise on. When
you consider that they're willing to compromise on, you know, well,
let's just say making room for homosexual marriage.
Speaker 5: In the Christian Church. That's a great point. Yeah, if
you're going to compromise, or from what you see as compromise,
would why would you not go back to the tradition,
which is actually the old ancient tradition of married priests.
I think most Roman Calics don't even know that. They
don't realize that that they think that that's a Protestant argument,
So they hear something like that and they think, oh,
that's Protestant, So they just assume kind of default, that
married priests are abnormal when they're actually the normal, you know,
ancient normal state. They also aren't aware that the Council
Trello affirms married priests, and that the sixth and seventh
Councils affirm Tullo. And then they don't even realize that
the papacy, especially the seventh Ecumenical Council, also by default
a firm Trullo. So at one point they did a
firm married priest and then didn't. So they're just not
aware of and they're usually very reticent to accept any
kind of historical arguments like this because it's it's an
und They see it as an unfalsifiable system. Uh So,
and you know, the reality is, and I was I
was a track cat, I was in that world for
almost a decade. The reality is that it's like all
over the place. There's not really a Roman Catholicism. The
only thing that quote unites them is this verbal acceptance
of being Catholic. When you know, you can have one
guy over here who thinks that the Crusades are true Catholicism,
and you got James Martin over here who thinks that,
you know, the essence of all Sism is Skittle's marriage.
So they're all over the place.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it just seems like low hanging fruit.
Speaker 10: You know, like in order for us to embrace the
twenty first century and like move forward to more substance
of discussions, can we just solve this marriage dilemma resulting
in so much carnage and and allow Christians to kind
of clean themselves off.
Speaker 6: And move on to higher end and topics.
Speaker 10: Right, But you know, I just it just it reminds
me of when Kamala Harris was asked, you know, are
there any mistakes you've made over the last four years,
and she said I couldn't think of any. I just
I just feel like it's so disingenuous, and when there's
something so important and meaningful, Yeah, why not just take
that off the table from discussion?
Speaker 5: And also it's you know, it's a great point. Thank
you for your questions. And also I think they you know,
it's not so much the Catholics sort of on the ground,
or the priest even it's it's the fact that the Vatican,
in my view, is a captured institution for the global elite.
So they're not going to make any moves back in
the direction of wholesome integrity, family and all that because
they're captive to a greater geopolitical power which absolutely has
no interest in the wholesome hades. What's up, yop, what's
on your mind?
Speaker 9: Can you hear me?
Speaker 11: Yeah, just from the other guy who was talking about
the nacissism for his friend, I did want to bring
up that and also a great argument against narcissism if
you want to hit it from like a more historical
view that he was talking about the Gospel of Thomas
and all the other gospels, but all of our New
Testament gospels can be actually we're actually quoted by really
early church fathers near around one hundred AD. All of
did Gnostic gospels were quoted. We didn't even exist until
about three hundred and eighty or four hundred and eighty
after So.
Speaker 9: Even if you were to. He doesn't think you're pre
he doesn't go for the precept.
Speaker 11: None of the Nastic Gospels are anywhere near the time
of the Church Fathers.
Speaker 9: There are one hundreds of years after.
Speaker 5: Yeah, great, great point. Yeah, thank you. And also like
the stories that you read in there are kind of
wacko and crazy, but I mean you have basically some
of those making their way into the Quran. So great point.
Classic husband. What's up to the trad? Cats in the
chat call in? Hey, what's on your mind? Maw you there?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Hey, Jamie, you're cutting out?
Speaker 6: Bro?
Speaker 5: Maybe call back? Call back in? Pop out, pop back
in because we can't hear you. Tribe called Jake, what's
up dude?
Speaker 6: Yo?
Speaker 1: Sorry, I thought you called somebody else.
Speaker 9: I didn't realize you were calling me. How you doing
Jake's nd Hey, I had a question.
Speaker 20: I was debating a friend, one of my you know,
previous Protestant friends, and uh, from what I understand after
listening to a lot of your content on Protestantism, there's
like a It's like you make the case that mainly
it's issues with the position start from an epistemological perspective
and and you kind of attack the Protestant position.
Speaker 5: Well sometimes, I mean sometimes I argue from history. Uh
so it just kind of depends on what Protestant I'm
talking to.
Speaker 9: Sure, Yeah, that's actually a good point.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, are you there?
Speaker 6: Hello? Hello? Yeah, I can hear me.
Speaker 5: Yeah, go ahead. So it looks people's connections are going out,
So maybe pop back out, pop back in. I'll come
back to you the last two guys, ell, I asked
five dollars. Have you ever covered the incidents at Waco,
Reby Ridge and Oka se Uh? Yeah, but it's been
many years. As we talked about that, I remember the
Terrence Yankee story is spooky and memory Hole. Do you
mean spooky in the sense of like being a spook
or just creepy?
Speaker 6: Uh? The uh?
Speaker 5: What's the ok See documentary? It's a really good documentary
they put out maybe ten years ago. And I'm going
blank on that, but that one was a good when
everybody watched that. But yeah, I mean I've been listening
to Lord Voldemort since two thousand and three, so I
was there for all of that period when he covered
all that stuff extensively. Also, if you can find it,
one of the best things on OKAC is James Corbett's
deep dive into Tim McVay. That's a really important one.
I don't know all the details of Ruby Ridge. I
know a decent amount about Waco. I remember one of
the first documentaries I watched from Lord Baltimore was Wake
Up or Waco. Yeah, wake Up or Waco. I know
a little bit about Ruby Ridge, but not a whole lot,
but thank you for that. Yeah, just check out Corbett's
thing on McVeigh and how he was sheep dipped in
the what is the I don't can't remember that OKAC documentary,
but it's really good. Haiti's on Dad thirty dollars day.
I void you enjoyed your video with Dean about Book
of Revelation, specifically the point of learning from those people
who are non Orthodox. Well, we shouldn't be surprised. I
mean this is if you read the Church Fathers is
a pretty common and I mean, you know, Basil said
you should get a classical education. Basil and the Cappadocians
relied heavily on Origin, even though everybody knows Origin was heterodox.
Augustine relied heavily on the commentaries of Tico, the donatist
so this is very common and many people have, you know,
read Tourtullian. Tourtolian ended up heterodox. It doesn't mean that
we can't, you know, read and gain insights from Tertullian,
and I mean same principle for Plato and Aristotle. I
mean John Damascus, Saint Maximus, they read Porphyry, Plato, Aristotle,
they read all these guys and gleaned great points. If
you read Fount of Knowledge by Saint John Damascus, it
relies heavily on Aristotle. So the idea that I never
read anything but an orthonox person it is just kind
of a weird. It's almost like a weird Protestant solo
scriptura attitude, which is just not even accurate or history.
I say this because I was Orthodox, and I got
an Orthodoxy from watching a lot of doctor Michael Heiser. Yeah,
Michael Heiser. A lot of people don't know this. He
was a subscriber to my website for many years and
although we uh, we never chatted. I don't think we ever.
There might have been an email at one point, but
we never chatted personally. I always intended to get him
on to do a podcast before he passed away, but Yeah,
I read doctor Heiser over the years. I remember reading
his Divine Council stuff, maybe even as early as like
two thousand and seven. So yeah, I think he was
very insightful for his exegesis. I mean, I've got liturgical
I've got books back here by Anglican liturgical scholars and historians.
I've got books by UNI eight historians and scholars. I mean,
it's kind of obvious that there are truths, and people
have truths and wisdom and knowledge even outside of the
Orthodox Church bill Ward ten dollars. There are those who
say that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity comes from
apocryphal text. Well, it's true that the pro Evangelic of
James and these kind of things are not quote in
the canon. But from the Orthodox vantage point, that's not
really a problem because for us, there are traditions, and
there are true traditions outside of the canonical texts. So
there might, for example, be an oral tradition that's outside
of the written biblical texts that was passed down and
maybe somebody recorded it in the proto Evangelic of James
or some other thing, or it got recorded in a
liturgical setting or a poem or whatever. And so although
we wouldn't necessarily claim the entire document or the entire
non canonical text as part of the tradition, those texts
can have elements of tradition. For example, the Dedicate has
true elements of tradition, but we don't accept everything in
the day. It's not part of the cantonscripture. But many
church fathers thought that the de Decay was canonical. Many
church fathers thought First and Second Clement were part of
the New Testament. So even though some of the documents
that these tech are, these kinds of texts end up
being pseudobigrathha or pseudonymous or outside the canon. The Book
of Enich is cited in the Book of Jude, and
so we would say, yeah, the Book of Enich has
true tradition. There's nothing anti orthodox about that. It's obviously
is true. But it doesn't mean that I have to
put Enoch in the Cannonscripture on the same level as
the Gospels or Paul. Right, So I think in the
Orthodox Church we recognize levels of this stuff. That's why
in the liturgy the Gospels are given a place above
Paul and above the Old Testament. So there's levels to this,
and usually the people that say this kind of stuff,
it's just really based on kind of really low tier
Protestant objections. But great question, Bill, they say the concept
was created around the year three hundred. The problem with
this argument from a Protestant is that this cuts both
ways because if you're going to require a written proof
of a document of a doctrine post eighty three hundred,
which is what the argument assumes that In other words,
a Protestant saying I'm not going to believe anything from
this patristic period unless there's quote written evidence after the
year three hundred or something like this, there's no where's
the Protestant canon prior to the year three hundred. It
doesn't exist. So you see how that cuts both ways,
and that what that shows is that the Protestant doesn't
actually hold to that principle. It's a double standard that
he's erected to where he's saying, well, i have my
Protestant canon, which doesn't have any real hardcore evidence for
existing prior to the year three hundred, but I'm going
to require that you give me the written textual evidence
for perpetual virginity to marry prior to three hundred, so
you see, it's an arbitrary doubles. Their own position doesn't
have that which is built on soul scripture. For the
most part, storm the cat ten dollars. I started reading
the Book of Revelation Explained trilogy by James Jordan Dean Ardell.
It's really good. Yeah, for those that are interested. We
did do this interview the other day. My godfather has
spent the last four years kind of collating the lectures
of James Jordan over the years on the Book of
Revelation into this three volume series, Revelation Explained, which is
available at his website deanw Arnold dot com. And if
you go over to the interview that we did, the
book links are in the show description. I've not had
a chance yet to get to it because I'm reading
this espionage book that we're going to cover next. I'm
almost halfway through it, Black Gold Spies, which is really
really good and it actually relates to theology because a
lot of these spies used religious cover. So but I
do look forward to getting into Dean's Dean's presentation of
James Jordan, because Dean add it did a lot of
edit fun seven seven seven j What are your thoughts
on the Dark Soul series. It's very low heavy and esoteric.
I tried playing it, and I'm sorry. I mean, so,
there's a couple of things going on here when it
comes to I saw. I'm not a huge gamer, but
I like to, you know, maybe on maybe one night
a week, I unwind. And this is really only when
it's winter and it's freezing and you can't do anything outside.
I might for a night or two a week unwind.
With a video game, usually it's something that is not
infinite plays, do you know what I mean? Like, I
like a game I can beat in ten twenty thirty hours,
which is the way they used to make video games,
because I don't want to live my life in a
freaking video game. So, for example, I was interested in
the new Zelda, but then I noticed that, oh, this
actually has like hundreds of hours of playtime more than
the previous Zelda. Well, I'm not I don't My time
is valuable. I'm not gonna. I don't want to put
hundreds of hours into Tiers of the Kingdom or whatever.
It's just too much, dude. Just give me a freaking
Drake's Quest Uncharted. You know, tomb Raider eat Resident Evil
that I can beat in eight hours. That's fun to me.
And also, I mean Black Ops is fun, but I mean, honestly,
like it's so addictive, like you just get addicted to
sitting there and you know, trying to trying to get
headshots for like eight hours. It's like, I just can't
do that, like this, My time is too valuable to
blow it on the even Black Ops. So when you
say Dark Soul series, I remember trying out one of
them and like, if it's gonna take me hours just
to figure out the freaking mechanisms and controls, I mean,
it's just too much. Man, I can't. Like video games
have gotten way too dorky and complex, and they used
to be fun. I'd rather just play Mario Kart with Jamie.
That's way more fun than sapping five thousand hours into
some you know, soy realm, I'm just joking. I mean,
I've always liked role playing games. I've always played. I
played every Final Fantasy, so I get it to understand
Storm the Cat five dollars? Do you think the verses
were paular books? The judaizers are sufficient to refute modern dispensationalists.
You know what, that's a great point, I mean ideal, like, yeah,
basically you would think they would be. And you know,
even when I was a kind of a nube, you know,
reading the Bible for the first time ages eighteen, nineteen twenty,
I actually had a dispensation. I've got my Skollfield study
Bible over there still. I remember even being like struggling
with some of those verses. I remember like, like, what
what if dispensationalism is true? Why is Paul speaking this
way in these in these texts? It's just it was.
It was a struggle. So I think that's a really
key point, storing the cat. But you know what's funny
about theology is that a lot of times the stuff
that you would think is clear and sufficient, a lot
of times it isn't. Quantum comment are five dollars. What's
the response to the Protestant that says, so scripture is wrong?
Are they even Protestant at that point? Well, that's a
good point. I mean, if a Protestant is saying solo
scripture is wrong, then they're departing from the Classical Reformation tradition.
So you know, you're not really Protestant. If you don't
believe in the solos, I would argue you're something else, right,
maybe you're moving in the direction of high Church Anglican
or something like that, which is what we've seen a
lot of Protestants like, right, like James Jordan. Right, James
Jordan was at one point hardcore Calvinists, you know, reform dude.
And then you know, over time he's moving and now
he's wearing he wears a collar, and he's dressing up
like he's an Anglican. And you know, even though he's
not actually an Anglican, you would think he's an Anglican
by the way he looks and dresses right, and he
wants liturgy, and he wants this and that. So I
mean I would. I would. So if a Protestant said, well, look,
I don't believe in sold the scripture, so why should
I believe your I would just say it, Well, then
give me a coherent account of where we get the
cannon and how that comes about, right, I mean, in
other words, you can't. What you eventually learn is that
you can't divorce the Bible from history. And if you
can't divorce the Bible from history, then it's intimately necessarily
bound up with the community that put it together. And
so then the question is logically, well, what was that community,
what was the belief system of that community? Well, guess what,
it's not Protestant. There are no Protestants in the first
thousand years. And that's the community essentially that puts together
the Bible. So sounds like your buddy quantum commenter is
actually on the right track. California Prepper. Two dollars and
twenty two cents. Here are some shekels for your time.
Thank you appreciate that. Clarity conversation. Five dollars. Do you
know about this dude called truth unedited on YouTube?
Speaker 6: I do not.
Speaker 5: He has seven hundred and fifty thousand subs and he's
Hebrew roots. So well, here is my issue. Here's my
challenge to you, Truth Unedited. I will challenge you to debate.
He put out a video against all the church fathers.
You should call out this dude for a debate or
something like that. I used to listen to him before
I became Orthodox many years Jay. Hey, thank you appreciate that. Yeah,
Truth Unedited, I challenge you to defend your stupid heresy.
MKG ten dollars. Jay, I'm currently doing We're gonna go
back to Q and air in a second or a debate.
I'm currently doing cover to cover reading of the Bible.
I read the story Jacob and he saw. What is
your understanding of God rewarding Jacob and his mother get
Isaac blessing. I read a few interpretss. What do you
think about this? Well, I do think Jacob represents Israel.
So he and he's you know, he gets the name
and he's gets the blessing because I think there's something that,
you know, prompted God to choose the Jews to be
the people from whom the Messianic line would come. So
the purpose of the nation of Israel is to produce
the Messiah. That's their purpose. And yeah, there's ancillary purposes
in Deuteronomy that they would teach the nations and be
a guide in the law and all that, but they didn't.
They really failed at that mission. But they did succeed
in their ultimate mission, which was to produce the Messiah.
So they are an image. Jacob is a kind of
an image of Israel and the people of the Old Covenant,
and both for the positives and for his law. So
I think that's the that's my initial thoughts on Jacob.
Obviously you can go a lot deeper. There's a lot
of typology, there's a lot of symbolism in all of
those Genesis stories. But off the top of my head,
I would say that that's kind of the first point.
Anonymous ten dollars Jay, Sorry my phone cut out. I
was questioning you to. My question was, how would you
sum up the epistemic issues with the Protestant position. Well,
remember that the epistemic issues relate to ultimately what we
call normative authority. So we're not making the challenge that
a Protestant can't know anything, or that a Protestant can't
tell you what's true. That's a bad argument a lot
of times. Roman Catholics, for example, when they when they
debate with a Protestant, they'll say something like, well, you
don't have the pope, so you don't know what doctrines
are true. This is a really low tier dumb argument
because it just moves the problem back a step that
assumes that you're interpreting the documents of the papacy correctly. Right, So,
now there was a Roman Catholic will say something like, well,
you know you're a Protestant reading the Bible, that's your
private interpretation. How do you know that interpretation is correct?
That's why we have the pope. Well, again, that's moving
the problem back a step, because now every individual Catholic
just has more books and stacks of stuff to read,
much of which is way more boring than the Bible too,
I might add, to try to figure out what the
proper interpretation of the papal documents is. So nine percent
of the Roman Catholic pop car salesman apologist ignore this
and just move the problem back a step. And smarter
Protestants know this and figure it out. And they usually
make this point right like a, I don't know who
is a smarter Protestant. I don't even I don't even
know if I can even say that there are smarter
Protestants anymore. Maybe there's not. I'm being silly, but if
there were a smarter Protestant, they would say something like
maybe James White even said this at one point, who
I don't have any respect for or care for at all,
but I think he did make this point one time, like, well,
don't you have to interpret the Protestant documents? I mean
the papal documents. So I just this is just a
really bad objection if you know epistemology. So I think
a better objection to the Protestant position is normative authority,
which is the point that, well, did Jesus actually leave
any body of people that have authority to bind anyone's interpretation?
And that's the better way to frame it against the
Protestant because every Protestant believes that they have right a
private judgment. Nobody can bind their conscience. That's a classical
Reformation teaching, freedom of conscience, freedom of worship. You don't
nobody can tell me my reading of the Bible's wrong. Well,
but did Jesus provide a means to solve disputes when
their were disagreements? It's kind of like whether there's the institution,
but you need a body of people to interpret it,
hence the Supreme Court. So is there a group of leaders,
namely the episcopacy, that can interpret these documents with authority?
So it's not just can they they're the only people
who can interpret it. Everybody who reads the Bible will
have to interpret you. Now, you're just going to interpret it.
But when the church has disputes, and disagreements in history.
When they met together in councils like Nicia, well, clearly
they thought they had the authority to bind people's interpretation,
because if you don't believe in the Nicene interpretation, it's
you're excommunicated, you're an Arian, you're outside the church. But
in the realm of Protestantism, it's premised on in the
Classical Reformation doctrine, the right of private interpretation. Nobody has
the authority to bind anyone to that interpretation. So hence
the chaos. That's the better way I think to frame
the debate with a Protestant Classical Do you want to
try again? Hey, Jamie caund you maybe a Jamie Jamie.
She came in here and I'm mister what's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 12: Hey, what's going on?
Speaker 3: Jack?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 21: Yeah.
Speaker 22: So it seems that the Latins on Act have been
absolutely fuming over their little wax figure scandal.
Speaker 5: I haven't even paid attention.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I had one.
Speaker 22: Guy just randomly tell me that you're actually going to
convert back to Catholicism for.
Speaker 5: The third time. Oh yeah, sure, Well let's just add hominem.
So no, I'll can guarantee I'll never be a Roman
Catholic again. Why would I mean, why would he even
say I'd be Roman Catholic again? If that's the thing
that I'm making fun of, Like, I don't know what
if I was ever converted, I don't know what I
would ever convert to. But I mean, it wouldn't it
wouldn't be to this entity that's like openly bringing in
people to destroy the country. And I'm talking about the
the Catholic NGOs that are open borders, right.
Speaker 12: Yeah, That's actually what I was gonna ask you about,
is that it.
Speaker 9: Seems that.
Speaker 23: The calls for master legal immigration as well as all
the Catholic NGOs are pushing for this, but at the
same time they're doing things like calling out the persecution
of the Canonical Church in Ukraine.
Speaker 5: Well, the there's nothing that requires evil people to be consistent.
So the fact that you know, Francis throws a bone
to trads here and there, which is just I mean,
the Vatican's always done this.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 5: What he's talking about for those that are not on
X was some profile, this annoying profile that I ended
up trying to debate with, and he never made an argument.
He just like restated the Roman Catholic position. So people,
you can look this up. This is not me, like,
I'm not maning. You're gonna see other Roman Catholics make
this point, right, So he tried to say, oh, look
look at the incorruptible Roman Catholic saints. So you have
this gamer kid who was just canonized then supposedly Vincent
de Paul, John Bosco, and Padre Pio. Right, so oh,
look here the proof of Roman Catholicism as a miraculous institution,
because look, these people haven't decayed, they haven't decomposed. Well
did you know that as this Roman Catholic underneath here
admits Vincent de Paul's face is encased in a wax mask.
Carlo Acutus is also covered in wax, as is Saint Bosco,
John Bosco, Padre Pio is covered in a silicone mask.
I believe these people are holy, but we have to
recognize that it is admitted that they're all preserved in
wax en casements and even silicone. So I'm sorry, but
that's not an incorrupt and that's why I was making
the jokes that, Oh, I guess that makes Taylor Swift
now you know, the next saint to be canonized, because
look there, she's incorruptible, right or people were putting pictures
of linen up. Linen's encased in wax. I mean, it's
just like such a low tier bizarre thing. If Roman
Catholics realize that it's admitted that they're encased in silicon
and wax, So why would I accept that as a
miracle that this is. You know, it's not incorruptibility. This
is ridiculous, are you there?
Speaker 22: Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's not even like necessarily what
you would call it requirement for someone to be a saint.
But they're really levying on it that look how cool
and important it is. And it's straight up looks like
it's from a wax museum.
Speaker 5: No, but you understand that the Romancalogic Church admits they
encase they're incorruptibles in wax and silicon. It's not a
conspiracy theory, it's not an atheist objection. They admit they
do this. Just look it up. The other Roman Catholics
are admitting they do this, and this guy is saying,
I almost left Catholicism when I found out that the
that these are wax encased people, they're not necessarily incorruptible.
And the guys, the guy who posted it, said, well,
but they're incorruptible underneath the wax. That's how do we know.
I mean, that's okay, sure, that's your assertion, But I mean,
aren't there ancient Egyptian they find like embalmed mummies that
looked very well preserved for centuries of you know, millennia
of being in a sarcophagus. I mean, does that mean
that so they're incorruptible mummy saying we've got to worship
Pharaoh now, thank you. It's just a stupid argument.
Speaker 22: The cavan that they find like frozen inside of rivers.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, there you go. So Saint Saint Caveman, saint
in Sino Man. Right, we got a Brendon Fraser is
a saint now because he was in Sino Man. Saint
Brendan Fraser Caveman, pray for us. Yeah, great points. I
actually forgot about all this Twitter nonsense, and I guess
it's because this guy's We got half a million views.
Speaker 6: On this.
Speaker 5: Only I thought I had more comments, but it was
one hundred and sixty two, which is a pretty good
amount of comments. But I mean, I look, it's kind
of like the apparition stuff, right, So does an apparition
prove wrong Catholicism? I mean, if it does, then does
it prove Coptic Christianity? And they never they never give
you an answer to that. They just say, well, Mary
is trying to make them Catholic? Where did when did
Mary try to make them Catholic in the ITU and apparitions?
None of the Coptics became Catholic from that. But yeah,
great point. I forgot about all thet Madam Tussaud's a
Saint factory over there at Rome. Uh dude, I went
to Ripley's. Believe it or not. I didn't even realize
in I was in the presence of relics.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: Y'all ever been to the thing out in the desert?
And if you're when you're driving to New Mexico and Arizona.
When you're driving through New Mexico and Arizona, you start
seeing all these billboards about the thang, right, and then
you pay a dollar to go see the thing while
you're driving out to California. Right, this, this is it
right here, see this, and then when you you see
that glass encasement right there next to that uh gorilla
head or whatever the hell that is, that's right here.
I'm gonna ruin it for all, y'all, because when you
pay a dollar to walk through the museum, do you
know what the thing is? It's just a mummified woman
and a I guess her baby, that's what the thing is. Well,
I didn't even realize the thing was a saint, saint thing.
What's that saint thing? Pray for us, Saint Vladimir Lenin,
Pray for us, because all you gotta do is be
encased in wax and you're in incorruptible, and that proves
your religion. And you see how stupid this is. Y'all
gonna ask for the intercession a saint thing. And the
Roman Chalacs are just mad because they know that these
are really dumb arguments. And the only people who would
fall for this are the most gullible goobers out there,
the people who have it's like the people who believe
in the thing, right like, Oh, that's that's a real
alien over there. It's not an alien. It's just a
mummified woman in her body and it's I guess again,
so like and what determines incorruptible. If you could put
wax on it and it's incorruptible, then I mean, have
y'all not seen v I lenins in case in wax.
And then when I brought that up, they were like,
it doesn't count because he was evil. What do you
mean it doesn't count? Like it's the exact same thing
that you're arguing. Right, So here's lenin. Look how preserved
he is and they admit he's covered in wax. Good grief, dude,
slow boy, Brandon five dollars Jay. When I'm debating atheists,
I can't get them to concede to God with tag. Well,
then move on. I don't know how to use tag
to show that the Trinity is true. I just did
of it. Somebody just actually found where I talked about
it in an old video because everybody asks this, I'm
not mad at you. This like this comes up like
every day. So let me see. Uh, I think I
know which video was they put this? They timestamped where
I talked about this one Drake monotheis, where did I
talk about trinity? Let me find this guy's comment? Where's
the what the heck? Okay, let's see how does the tag,
how does tag prove trinity? I'm going to pin this
comment since everyone asked where did you cover this? So
top ten bad arguments for the transcend argument for God
is the video and the argument is at one nineteen.
Speaker 24: Forty three right there on you dude, there you go,
I penned a dog Is this your first time on
the inner webs? I need a ginger Mercury.
Speaker 5: What's up, dude? Mercury? You over there in retrograde? Right now?
You're retro grade?
Speaker 6: Sorry? Can you hear me? Hey man?
Speaker 14: My friends start introduced me to some.
Speaker 25: Of your videos, and I'm intrigued. One of the areas
of literature, I very broad knowledge of literature, it seems like,
you know, is the enlightenments through Anglophone analytic philosophy to
American pragmatism. You say two dogmas in particular.
Speaker 9: So I guess what I just wanted to do here.
Speaker 25: Is making American pragmatists a case for solo scripture. I
just see where you pull holes in it, right, because
I think there's a shared Germany to go background there.
Speaker 5: How would American pragmatism have anything to do with solo scriptura?
Speaker 25: So there's a turn Western secular philosophy from epistemology to linguistics.
I think there's a linguistic turn in Western philosophy, which
line really seems to epitomize, right, I think we can
just stop and see if you agreed every.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, the.
Speaker 5: Two dogmas eventually becomes a debate about the circularity of
lexicographers and dictionaries and definitions and self evidence, and so
he argues it's a big circle, and yeah, that's linguistic philosophy.
Speaker 9: Yeah, clearly influenced by vicken Stein.
Speaker 6: I think he's like a ghost in the.
Speaker 25: Background and ultimately culminating in Richard Gordy's critique of all
of Western philosophy as an attempt to hypostatize reason as
a mirror of nature, as he titles his magnimout this
in my opinion.
Speaker 5: Okay, but just let me stop you right there, because
I would just simply say that solar scripture has nothing
to do with any of that. It's a historical question
of the formation. Well, it's too things. It's a historical
issue hold on of the formation of the canon. And
then secondly, it's an issue of whether or not the
principle of sociator itself is true. So those are the
two things. So what does that have to do with
modern pragmatic linguistic turns.
Speaker 25: If you believe in solely the word John one one,
then a turn from epistemology to linguistics.
Speaker 5: What do you think the word is? And what is
the word there that?
Speaker 9: What is language itself?
Speaker 5: No, that's not the word in John one is the
second person of the Godhead. It's not language.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the word is literally the word.
Speaker 5: No, it's the second person of the Godhead, who's identified
in John one as Jesus, the second hypostasis. It's not language. No,
you're wrong, So you have an assumption about what John
one is about. It's not language. It's the person of
the word.
Speaker 9: I don't have an assumption on a reason.
Speaker 5: You just literally told me that it's language, and you
said you don't have an assumption. It is not language.
It is the second person of the Godhead. He is
not language.
Speaker 9: I mean, using on the scripture right now, the word what.
Speaker 5: Does John want identify as the logos? Well, who does
it identify as the logos?
Speaker 9: The word was God?
Speaker 6: The word was with God in the word was God.
Speaker 5: Who is it Is it a he or an is? Language?
Is an it?
Speaker 6: God is a he?
Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerned, I.
Speaker 5: Don't care what you're concerning. Which one is it? Is
it the second person of the Godheadho is a he?
Or isn't an it? All right? Goodbye?
Speaker 14: Huh.
Speaker 5: Listen to my listen to my wife.
Speaker 6: Huh.
Speaker 9: You're not letting me finish.
Speaker 5: Because you're saying dumb stuff. Obviously, it's not language that's
an it. It's a he, a named entity. Goodbye. That's
why there's no linguistic, pragmatic Americanist argument for soul scripture,
because you literally thought that the logos of John one
is language and not a divine hypostasis Isaiah.
Speaker 4: Huh.
Speaker 5: That soiler as far as I'm concerned, Well, let me talk.
What's up? How you doing?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 26: I got a question about about tag.
Speaker 5: You know, maybe we can have a discussion on it.
So okay, can you?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 26: I know, I I agree that the argument is an
argument between paradigms, and but I'm trying to learn more
about how can we support the paradigm of of God?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 26: So, like I get the question a lot when I
try to argue TAG as to like what is the
mechanism in which God gives us knowledge, and I don't
really know where to go from there.
Speaker 5: So the Christian worldview presents a specific paradigm of epistemology, metaphysics,
and ethics, and so all three of those things are
what you're arguing for, I think when you're arguing TAG.
So TAG is a supra argument that sort of encompasses
like an umbrella, those three domains of a worldview. So,
for example, Christianity has a specific metaphysic about the natural world,
about the regularity of nature, providence, etc. Those things are
the basis, for example, of induction, and so induction is
possible because of the Christian metaphysic of divine providence, etc.
So that's one example to where induction or identity over
time is not a problem in a Christian paradigm because
the entire Christian ethos and metaphysic has God creating the
world with things having natures, things having secondary causal powers,
et cetera. So if you're having that metaphysic, then that
explains and grounds how it's possible to have those things.
Doesn't exhaustively explain every element of a worldview or every question.
It makes possible those things. So that's I think a
lot of people mistake the transitional argument for an exhaustive
explanation for everything, or an exhaustive explanation for every aspect
of a worldview. No, no, it's an explanation for how
it's possible to have those things, which is a meta
level argument. So the atheist paradigm, for an example here,
contrasted to that paradigm, how does it even make possible
knowledge or metaphysical claims at all? So the argument is
not about the claims themselves in terms of whether there's
telos or whether there's this or that. It's a question
of whether the worldview makes it possible to have metaphysics
and knowledge and ethics.
Speaker 26: I mean, I don't even see a way that they
can they can get out of their own senses. And
it seems like on the same hand, they're trying to
say that everything they get or practically everything they get,
is via their senses.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, and even the senses doesn't even make sense
that that assumes that there's reliable, meaningful information and data
coming in from the external world that's distinct from you know,
merely sensual reactions of you know, hot cold. This kind
of stuff, like even hot and cold assumes that there's
some kind of like meaningful data interaction with an external world,
none of which has actually proven. They just assume it, right,
And and that's what I was gonna say.
Speaker 26: On the same handy, they also say that your senses.
Speaker 5: Are also not reliable, exactly when I asked them to.
Speaker 21: Like so it's just I don't know how they do it,
but like, so.
Speaker 5: Let me, let me let me well, and not even
just not reliable, but like, what's the difference between you know,
like when my when my hand reacts to a hot
stove and I and I jerk my hand back because
of the heat, Like what why is that a an
instinctual sort of non important, not meaningful action versus the
information that comes in when I look at and touch
the book, right, So it's like this is a meaningful,
information rich activity looking at the book and touching it, smelling,
licking the book right, tasting to see what it did
that versus like the instinctual things of yawning or whatever,
like things that are not supposedly meaningful or information coming
in from the external world that doesn't really Like there's
there's an assumption that oh, that's a class of things
that matter versus all these other things they don't matter. Well,
if I'm just a meat bag and this is just
like random stuff occurring, there's no classification of meaningful actions
versus non meaningful or instinctual actions versus rational, high tier sophisticated.
They're all just it's all just the same bunch of
things happening which have no meaning.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, well, I don't even know.
Speaker 6: I don't even know.
Speaker 9: Like usually what they mean by meaning in.
Speaker 26: The first place is just what they're privy to, like
what they like, you know, so I don't even think,
you know, I don't even think that they can get
out of that. But let me let me ask you this,
and uh, you know, I won't take up too much
of your time.
Speaker 12: I mean, I could talk of all day about it.
Speaker 26: But so I'm having trouble.
Speaker 5: Let me let me put it this way.
Speaker 26: How can I know? Right, Let's say that you're you're
saying that God is giving me information somewhere, right, Like
I get divine providence that that you set up the
world in such a way where it acts regular because
he created it right, and he's instantiating that at all times.
Speaker 17: Therefore we can know that.
Speaker 26: Our past future, well, we don't even need the past
futures because we have information about future futures.
Speaker 5: Right, I get that, But I don't.
Speaker 26: I'm having trouble on the epistemology side.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 26: I think I understand the metaphysic of it, and I
definitely understand the ethics of it, but I'm having trouble
on the stomology of it.
Speaker 5: Okay, what specifically, I don't know how.
Speaker 26: I can know that divine divine providence is what is
keeping it right.
Speaker 5: Well, the argument is that ultimately it's a theonomous of pistemology,
meaning that it's grounded in the divine revelation that God
maintains the universe through his energy of divine providence. So
the way that we know it is because of divine revelation. Ultimately,
we're not knowing it in the sense of like, oh,
we did an exhaustive, you know, computer data analysis of
the natural world that tells us that there must be
a being that's providential. No, it's it's literally from divine revelation,
and so, well, how do you know that revelation's true? Well,
the way I would know first and foremost is because
of the reliability of that worldview. In other words, the
worldview itself is what makes possible having knowledge or metaphysics
at all. So, in other words, the epistemology is grounded
in the revealed doctrines, the revelation of God's self, disclosure
of who he is, Trinity, et cetera, his third eye God,
perspective of history.
Speaker 26: So is something is it something like, through through the
world we can observe divine providence, right, and you would
call that observation revelation.
Speaker 5: No, I'm saying that the way that I know that
providence is the answer to the question of induction and
the regulatory of nature is because of divine revelation. Divine
revelation tells me that God created the world in a
regular way that in Genesis won the seasons will continue
until the end of the world. The seasons act as
a kind of a you know, world clock, until there's
an end of the universe, whenever God determines that to be.
So that regularity is not something that I just want
to you know, Like, so I go out and I
look at the seasons, and yeah, I see a kind
of a regularity. But the basis for why I think
it's divine regularity would be divine revelation.
Speaker 6: Okay, I get that.
Speaker 26: Maybe I could have been more clear when I said observation,
because like I think, I consider reading reading scripture and observation.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, no, so that this is this is
so the faculty of reading, or your senses and sense
data is not the equivalent of revelation because your faculties
are created faculties. Divine revelation is God's own self disclosure
of himself, which is of his own divine thoughts or
low gi or divine ideas. That's uncreated divine revelation. And
so your created faculties and senses are perceiving the uncreated,
sometimes to the created and ultimately antheosis we hope eventually directly.
Speaker 9: Okay, I got, I gotta, I got some of that.
Speaker 5: I think it would for me to absorb all of it.
Do you do you have any good Let me give
an example. So, like when you're observing the natural world,
that's not divine revelation. Correct, Yeah, that's you observing the
natural world, and you can do what Saint Maximus calls
a kind of natural contemplation to see the divine behind
that or through that, and in a sense it could
potentially become divine revelation because he says something like when
we see God, we eventually see all things in God. Right,
so it's it's potentially revelation, but just perceiving the natural
world itself is not necessarily relationship. Yeah, yeah, right, right,
I get that.
Speaker 26: I think that I need to study moral on on exactly.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that you
did good there. It just seems like divine revelation is
a huge topic.
Speaker 5: Well, I'll tell you what to read on this, uh,
the this Saint Justin Popovich's chapter on Saint Isaac the
Syrian called the Mystery of Knowledge, and there he will
distinguish revelation, knowledge, et cetera. It's a very good chapter.
Speaker 9: Okay, all right, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Thanks. Yeah, it's in the book Life in Christ by
Saint Justin Papovich and FDA. If you wanted to comment
on any of that about revelation, feel free. Welcome everybody.
We're having open debate. We've had some great discussions so far.
We had one kind of wacko fed dude who was
going crazy, but pretty much on the whole we've had
a really cool, calm, civil discussion. We had that one
kind of goofy Protestant guy. So we're batting about eight
for ten today, eight for ten for quality versus crazy Palestine. Palestine.
By the way, if you want to follow me on
Exeican only, right over here and help me out. I'm
almost two. What's up, hi, Jake, Thanks for the mic.
Speaker 6: Man, my first time here.
Speaker 21: I'm a Muslim, I thought, Yeah, so I I am
not that much knowledgeable on uh like the different Christians
six I know, like alltho those Catholic and I have
a few questions for you, but I just wanted to
We're Orthodox here, so go ahead, Okay. So I just
wanted to ask if your questions before that, like, have
you studied the religion of Islam like at all or
or Quran?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I mean I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I've
debated all of your top guys for the last five years.
Speaker 9: Okay, cool.
Speaker 21: So the on the one, I think the main point
that most Muslims say is like, as you said just now,
that the Bible.
Speaker 9: Was written like and depending on the.
Speaker 5: People that were there who wrote the Bible.
Speaker 9: Because the Bible has been changed.
Speaker 5: Well, no, that's your assertion. But hold on, hold on,
that's your assertion that the Bible was changed. And what
is your actual evidence or proof of that, because the
Quran does not say the Bible was changed.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 21: No, But but you just said that, you know, the
writings in the Bible depended on the people that No.
Speaker 5: I said that the collection of the books, which we
call the canon. In other words, the canon means the
books that were decided upon to go into the Bible,
which is this big collection here of a bunch of
the Bible is a bunch of little books.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: So what I'm saying is that the community of people,
namely the church of the first seven eight hundred years,
is who determined what books go into this big book.
That's what I was saying. I didn't say they changed it, right, right.
Speaker 21: So the original version is still there, like it's still exists.
Speaker 5: Yeah. If you look up the comparison of the manuscripts
of the earliest versions of the New Testament, there's about
a ninety five to ninety seven percent unanimity and accuracy
amongst the various manuscript traditions. That's the highest amongst any
of the ancient texts.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 21: But then Quran does say that, and you you probably
know already that we have very high like we think
Christians are the closest to us, like because it also
mentions because they have love in their heart right like
the Christians.
Speaker 5: Well, the Qoran also says that people who believe in
partners with Allah or idolators and should be killed. So
now I don't think you actually believe that we're close.
Speaker 21: No, that's very upcoming. Quran says that Jesus was a prophet,
a messenger and not a son of God.
Speaker 6: But Christians have like changed it or.
Speaker 5: No, I understand that. That's what you say, we believe.
I understand that. But what I'm arguing is that in reality,
the Quran also says, and I believe the Quran contradicts.
I know you don't think it does, but I believe
that it does. So we have competing We have competing claim.
You believe your book is correct and doesn't contradict. I
believe my book is correct and doesn't contradict. My argument
is that the Quran itself, for example, in five forty
six and forty seven, says that Allah revealed himself in
the Torah and in a previous revelation. And so is
it true that all those words can be corrupted?
Speaker 9: Yes, people, people corrupted it, right, Well, I.
Speaker 5: Thought it's all on. So then then the Kuran could
be corrupted if people can corrupt all his words, right,
So that's where.
Speaker 9: I'm coming at. So in Quran Allah has mentioned that.
Speaker 21: He's taken responsibility by himself, that this book will never
be changed because there's the law.
Speaker 5: But wait a minute, it was his work. So he
wasn't responsible in the prior revelations that the humans corrupted.
He wasn't responsible for those, but he's going to be
responsible now.
Speaker 21: No, but he gave an open hand, like he gave
people the responsibility to be you know, good.
Speaker 5: Okay, so Uthman and all of that with the burning
of the various korans, was that also his responsibility or
how did that work?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 3: No, no no.
Speaker 9: So so Quran doesn't like book doesn't matter?
Speaker 5: I tell you why, because the book doesn't matter of
the prophet, right, the book doesn't matter? Seth, sir? What's up?
The book doesn't matter?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 5: So what's up? Yep? I should probably hop off and
hop back in.
Speaker 27: Uh, it's kind of I got him at the worst
possible time.
Speaker 5: So that's fine. Yeah, come back when you're ready. Roscoe. Hello, Yeah,
what's up? Yeah?
Speaker 8: I have a question about uh, absolutely define simplicity from
a perspective.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 8: I was talking to my Irani and she a friend,
and he said that Allah reveals himself through intermediary created
principles like the moms or the created bigo.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and then it just moves a problem back a step.
So I was listening to all of doctor Khalil's talk
on all of that and everything that he was critiquing
the other positions for He's in the exact same boat.
Because if Gabriel gets the revelation from Allah and then
and then Jabriel makes it accessible to the humans, Jabril
is still a creature. So how is he getting these
uncreated words?
Speaker 8: Well, they don't believe it's uncreated like she has will
say that for example, the Quran doesn't it does it does?
Speaker 12: It can be corrupted in their religion, that's what they believe.
Speaker 5: But I'm saying that I'm not talking about the book.
I'm talking about the revelation from the eternal Scroll or
whatever to that Jabril is. The problem is between Allah
and Jabril. It's the same problem because Jabril is a creature.
Speaker 12: So are you saying that, like, how does Jabriel ground
this knowledge?
Speaker 5: The problem? So, if you watch doctor Khalill's lecture where
he critiques the Ashari and the Wahabbies and all of that,
he talks about the different positions and he says that
the the way that the going from memory, the way
the the Shari discuss it is that they don't believe
that Allah has parts, but they do believe that there's
this uncreated Qur'an. And so how is there an uncreated
Qur'an that's other than a law? And so my point
is just simply that if he believes that there's an
uncreated or achievement that there's an eternal tablet, that it's
still there's still a gap between the uncreated, whether it's
from Allah to the tablet or whether it's from the
tablets to Jabril. The problem still remains. If there's nothing
like Allah, then how do you get any point in
this chain of a created similarity to the uncreated.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's what I asked him, and he, I guess,
uh prevaricated. I tried forcing an analogical predication which could
contradict his ads, right, but he kept on saying that
the action is only done through the imoms from all
of creation and that these are creative effects and they're
not like Allah.
Speaker 5: Well, a creative effect does not like the uncreated.
Speaker 8: So this Mexico, what I tried saying, like, for example,
is Allah's knowledge uncreated?
Speaker 5: How do you share this?
Speaker 12: How do you share a similarity to what what knowledge
Allah has revealed to you?
Speaker 8: He said, you appeal to the logic of Dionysius and said, well,
Allah is not lacking.
Speaker 12: And knowledge he surpasses it to the extent that.
Speaker 8: He's not lacking, but it's sort of overflowing in him,
and it's so is it's sort of super knowledge that
cannot be compared.
Speaker 5: Well, how does he know that?
Speaker 6: Though?
Speaker 5: I mean, he would have to have access to the
thing that he says is in question.
Speaker 1: It's in his Uh.
Speaker 8: I'm pretty sure some of these shiah hideas and then
thems no.
Speaker 5: But I'm saying that you can appeal to that, but
that's still begging the question that how do we know
that it's actually matching up to the thing that's beyond.
Speaker 12: Yeah, there's no predication for them as all apathetic.
Speaker 5: So yeah, That's what I'm trying to say, is like,
you can't have a totally apathetic system. At some point,
you're going to have to have something catapatic to be
able to speak about it. But they've already sort of
shot themselves in the foot with their either their ADS
or just the you know, Quran forty two that there's
nothing like a law.
Speaker 12: Okay, I guess I'll have to investigate it a little
bit more to explain it to him.
Speaker 8: But do you have any books critiquing this sort of
neoplatonism and the ADS in general that you can we're
just online resources.
Speaker 5: In general, I mean all the Orthodox Church fathers, I
mean especially the cab Docians, like when they're responding to Eunomius.
Eunomius is a Neoplatonist. So every argument for the essence
introduce sinction is by default an argument against the ADS
Neoplatonic Roman Catholic position.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I've seen some of these quotes, but honestly, I
think that only really maps onto like a worldview where
there's Christian presuppositions. You know what I'm saying, We're like
is a common sort of revelation. It doesn't really exist
in the Muslim worldon.
Speaker 5: Well, okay, but said, but what I'm saying is that
the way that we go about critiquing neoplatonic movements and
presuppositions is more than just I mean, there's internal problems
with those positions to begin with. For example, when the
last time doctor Khalil came on here or some of
his students, they were actually arguing that it's not neoplatonism,
it's actually from the Quran. And I'm like, so the
Qoran didn't get this from the positions that were centuries
prior to the Qoran, No, I mean, which I think
is kind of retarded. So I just ask your friend
if he believes, like, in other words, it's cribbed, like
most of Islam is cribbed. And so whether it's Islam,
it's whether it's they're cribbing from the Talmud or from
Christianity or from Orthodoxy or what the shiahs, they're cribbing
from neoplatonism. And they'll even kind of admit this, but
then when you ask them if it's borrowed from neoplatonism,
they're like, no, it's from a lot, it's from the Kuran.
So it's like, how is it from Allah in the Quran.
If it came from Platina centuries early, I think it could.
Speaker 8: Be similar to like a logo supermatico as sort of
like semi perennialism thing.
Speaker 5: They didn't try to argue that maybe they maybe they
could go that route, but no, they were actually just
saying that, no, it's not actually from Plato.
Speaker 12: And it's like they say it's original.
Speaker 1: Yeah, wow, I didn't know that?
Speaker 12: Is that I thought too?
Speaker 5: They don't say that, well, maybe this was just like
misinformed students of his or something. I don't know, but right,
but I mean what I'm but still like the point
would still stand, Like even if if that's the case,
then was that revelation from Allah prior to the Quran?
And I mean, does did those that I'll get corrupted
to all his words get corrupted? I thought all his
words can't get corrupted.
Speaker 8: They don't believe that actually, Like they say that the
Qur'an in some places has been like burned or taken
out or at itude.
Speaker 5: Right, I understand that the shields will admit that. But
what I'm trying to say is like, then at what
point is the is it the true revelation They're going
to say it's the real tablet.
Speaker 12: Right, Yeah, so there's like no consistent Okay.
Speaker 5: So but how do I know where's the access to
the tablet? Where does that come from? Where do we
get that? How do I know what the infallible emoms are?
And how am I supposed to know and follow them?
It's just it's just moving the problem, like from one
created thing to another created thing to another created thing.
It's like the just kicking the can down the road
in terms of a pistolalogy. All right, anyway, good questions. Yeah,
I'm not super well read on the she is, but.
Speaker 6: I'm not.
Speaker 5: I mean, you could critique Neil Platonism on just the
way that we would critique Platonism, like why is there
an like what is the emanation from the one? And
like why is it of a lesser diminished status? And
you know, like Platonism, like how do we know that
the one is ontologically superior to the many? That's a
Hellenic presupposition that is just stated and asserted. How do
we know that that's the case? Because the system rests
on these kinds of metaphysic assumptions, which are all from
Hellenism and then they'll just turn around and be like,
now it's not from Hellenism, it's from the Coron. So
I just don't know how you go about something like that.
But aside from all these metaphysical disputes, like, did anybody
just watch the doctor Khalil sam Chumun debate, I mean,
Sam Schimun demolished him. So X trip, what's up? What's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 5: X Trip? I'm mute.
Speaker 6: Hey, can you hear me? Hm?
Speaker 12: I just got a quick question for you.
Speaker 22: What do you think of the position that the modern
Jews of today are the descendants.
Speaker 25: Of flam.
Speaker 5: It's crazy lunacy. Who believes that Jews are the.
Speaker 17: What right are you familiar with the Dustin Nemos.
Speaker 1: In his works?
Speaker 5: No, ro, I'm orthodox. Why am I going to be
following some quack weirdo Protestant guy? Like, is this like
Christian identity stuff?
Speaker 6: Is that what that is?
Speaker 9: I got sort of all right.
Speaker 5: That stuff's all retarded. Man, Come on, that's that's not
even worth That's not even worth anybodace don puppet, I'm
debating with a puppet. I pull it, oh, puppet.
Speaker 12: We love the Jews, unbelievable Jews not so much.
Speaker 9: We don't love the jay. I'm at Protestant, Can you
hear me?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 9: I'm an attorney as well.
Speaker 28: My other attorney Buddy and I are listening to you
right now, and we've been listening to you for a
few weeks now. He said something fifteen minutes ago about
the judiciary and kind of compared the ultimate authority of
the church having the judiciary like co comparing it to
the Supreme Court of having like a final say this
to the authority of what. Yeah, we had actually brought
that analogy up earlier. We are wrestling with Apostolic succession
and we're listening to you a few other people. How
do you deal with the objections that that's too restrictive,
that that presents some issues that like originalism would present
where there's not this golden era where the church was
unified or that like on the Day of Pentecost they
were all unified in spirit, but they maybe not necessarily
had gone through all these problems of heresy that encounters
later on down the line. And to the second point
of that, as you could respond that the critique of
Protestanism of just us you know, I can go with
some bodies and get my Bible and say this is
what it means. How do you respond, how that's any
different other than the time period for those councils who
also would kind of go in before the Bible or
with some of these scripts or some of these people
that knew Jesus and iron things out, or are they
kind of doing the same thing that separates us now
from what they did?
Speaker 5: Right, Well, if you listen to answer the second part,
I said specifically that it's a Roman Catholic objection that
you hear all the time to Protestants that I don't
think is a very good argument to say that you
guys are just reading your Bible on your own, and
you all are coming to your own interpretations, and so
therefore the papacy's necessary. That's like ninety five percent of
the pop Catholic car salesman apologists. I specifically said, that
is not a good argument, because everybody's in the same boat.
We're all going to be reading the Bible and trying
to figure out what it means. We're all going to
be relying on our interpretation. That's unavoidable. But where we
differ between Catholic protests and Orthodox is the means that
we're going to be using or relying on to interpret
and get that meaning that data. For the Orthodox, it's
a collection of a lot of different things that we
don't pick one thing out like, oh, I just followed
this church father, I just follow this guy, I just
followed this book. For us, all these different things, whether
it's participation in the liturgy, whether it's reading church history
and church fathers, reading the councils, reading the Bible, lies
of the Saints, all those things are going to be
combined to be part of our ethos for where we
get the data and the meaning and the interpretation. If
you're a Roman Catholic, ultimately your ultimate epistemic principle is
not the Bible. It's not your private, you know, experience.
It's what the popes have determined. And then you got
to like grapple with the papal documents and the councils
and where the popes confirm the councils. So that's the
ultimate epistemic principle for the Roman Catholic. For the Protestant,
it's ultimately you and the Bible. I'm not saying that
Protestants don't like church history or councils or whatever. But ultimately,
the final authority of soul scripture is the only infallible
guy for the church is the you know, Protestant Canada scriptures.
So well, that's the epistemic existential dilemma that everyone's in,
and everybody is going to say and believe, well, I'm
relying ultimately on the Holy Spirit. Where we differ is
the means. The Orthodox is going to argue that the
means to determine the scriptures and the divine what divine
revelation is is going to be that holistic stuff that
I that I listed. For the Roman Catholic, it's going
to be the decisions of the popes. For the Protestant,
it's going to be ultimately you and the Bible. So
I would argue that the Church in its history disproves
both the papal and the Protestant approach to the means
of knowing revelation. That Church history in the first thousand
years demonstrates a consistent principle of the Church using the
Church fathers the scriptures and deciding what books go into
the scriptures, and apisodic succession was there before the Bible
was there. That's why Paul says the Church of the
pilarm ground of truth, not the written text. The church
produced the written text, and so apisodic succession is a
presupposition for having a collection of books known as the Canon. Secondly,
I would say that it's just an analogy to the
Supreme Court to illustrate the principle of normative authority. So
in philosophy we make a distinction between the individual existential
dilemma of how do I know what's the true church.
It's a separate but kind of related question of what's
called normative authority in ethics, which is the question of
is there any body of people that has the authority
to bind people to an interpretation or to bind consciences
and by extension, to excommunicate people, et cetera. So the
Orthodox argument is that, yes, you do also need It's
not that the Protestant can't read the Bible and figure
out things and see, oh, yes, the Bible teaches Jesus
is divine, he's the son of God, he died on
the cross. Right protests most of the time get all
that correct. So it's not necessarily an individual epistemology question.
It could be, but usually what is that root here
is a question of did Jesus provide the Church, any
historical body of people with authority to bind consciences? And
that the reason I word it that way is that's
what directly contrasts to the classical Reformation doctrine of freedom
of conscience, freedom of private interpretation. No authorities can bind
you to your conscience. So do you see how it's
two different questions between individual existential certitude versus the historical
question of a public body of people like the Supreme Court,
who can bind people to an interpretation?
Speaker 28: Yes, but how would you respond to.
Speaker 9: The idea that those that it would be.
Speaker 28: A cop out for someone who's used an Orthodox to say, okay,
so the person who was next to Jesus on the cross,
he might not have identified as he's an Orthodox, but
he was just an a normative pas sort of all
drains lead to the ocean. Or like what about the
coal miner in early America who hasn't encounter with the
Holy Spirit and God starts this movement in him, maybe
in his family, but he never even hears about the
Orthodox Church.
Speaker 5: Well, our position is that the normative way that people
are joined to the mystical body of Christ, which we
think is the Orthodox Church is through baptism and catechisis
now God has the means by which he can join
people to that body extra normatively and by his own power.
So the thief on the cross doesn't have to hear
the whole message of you know, I mean he didn't.
He wasn't even alive yet four Paul's Epistles, the Book
of Revelation, right, So it's not the amount of knowledge again,
it's the attitude of humility. And we believe as Orthodox
that he actually was joined to the Orthodox Church. We
don't believe that there's this like later period in the
seven hundreds where there's this entity that pops up called
the Orthodox Church. We believe and if you read the
first second third century Church fathers, they teach the same
things for the most part, on the big issues that
the church fathers after Nicia teach. So we don't believe
that there was some vast change, you know, after the
Council of Nicea as opposed to the pre Nicing fathers,
or that there was some vast change by the Prenesen
fathers over the teachings of the apostles. We think they're
all in harmony, and you can read the post Apostolic
Fathers to see that, you can read Ignacious, you know, Polycarp, Clement.
All of those things will show you the continuity with
the teachings of the Apostles. So I don't see that
would be a cop out. Yeah, that was a great question.
I feel free to call in anytime now, guys. I've
got not a whole lot of time left because I
have a interview a big name person that we're gonna
interview here in a little bit. I don't I think
we'll just pre record it. I don't think it'll be live,
but it'll probably go up in the next few days.
You'll see who that is important person who left liberalism,
and so we're gonna talk to her about what prompted
her to move in that direction, what convinced her of
the problems of the left, and why she's moved more
in our direction to all the way where we are.
But she's left the death cult of the left, the
left death cult, which is good news. So I'll be
leaving her in a minute to talk to her. When
to remind you guys too, that we have a show
sponsor who is chalk dot Com. Choq dot com, head
on over here to chalk and be sure and use
a promo code J forty four life that is J
forty four l I f E to get forty four
percent off all those great chalk products. It's a great
thing if you want to experiment with. You don't have
to use that recurring promo code there. You can also
use J y forty to just get forty percent off
any of the products. So if you want to test
out that performance, stack JAY four zero to get forty
percent off just a base test run there. But if
you use a promo code J forty four life, you
can get it coming on the regular. You're gonna love it,
especially the ton kettleie. Especially the action to point oh
chad mode is really intense, so go easy on it.
It's definitely a great pre workout if you want to
test it out. But my favorite, of course is talk Catalite.
That's why I have so much energy to do so
many streams all the time, and we still go into
our workouts when we're not struggling with freaking stomach aids
or whatever. I had for for several weeks or two
weeks was a nightmare. Walmart welch one dollar. Have you
heard of Steve Stefan's his Stephan, then this mays be
making of Stephan from setting out loud Stephan's history of
the world, I have not. He's a normy science man.
He asserts higher criticism as the true history of the Hebrews,
very much like Mythvision. Well, I think you guys all
saw that when we did our impromptu debate with Derek Mythvision.
It didn't go very well. Ninety nine percent of the
comments were kind of laughing at him and you if
you remember, he said he would he would be at
million or whatever, he would have the biggest channel on
this stuff by the end of the year, and his
prophecy did not come true. MKG. Five dollars. Sorry, do
I have more characters? To be specific? My question was
what are the means by which they get the blessing
from Isaac. The interpretation that makes sense to me was
that he was breaking his hip or the punishment later
down the line. I'm not sure. I'd have to think
about that. MKG. I appreciate the question. Maybe remind me
in the chat next time. I'll have to go and
think about I've got a bunch of Genesis commentaries. I
have to think about that. I'm not sure Walmart weigh
ninety six one dollar. All right, that was the normy
science man question, Dave two fifty? Can you recommend a book?
Can I recommend a book? Have you read Rulers of
the Evil Supper Saucy?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 5: Never heard of it, man, I highly recommend it. It's
out of print. It sells for three hundred to one
thousand pounds. Okay, what's it about Rulers of the Evil
Tupper Saucy? What's it about?
Speaker 6: Dude?
Speaker 5: Sounds crazy? Jony h five dollars twenty five cents. Thank
you for your work.
Speaker 6: Jay.
Speaker 5: What do you think of the massive influx of Islam
into Europe? Well, I've done many talks on that as
an older Fabian socialist plan to bring in Islam all
throughout Europe. If you look up all the books that
I did on the Milner Fabian works, they planned one
hundred years ago Vampire fo five dollars. They openly said
they wanted to do that one hundred years ago. I
recall you was talking about a scenario where old parties
would fall out of favor and then a technocrat would
run and he would be elected and turn out to
be a pro surveillance state. Old parties have fallenut of favor,
and a technocrat would run. Do you remember the video
or the book? I'm sorry, I don't remember what you're
talking about. Old party? Do you mean old political parties
all a favor? A technocrat runs and he's elected and
he brings about a surveillance state. I'm not sure. I
can't think of any books I've read. You like a
fiction book, a sci fi dystopian book. I can't think
of anywhere there's any scenario like that. But maybe you
don't mean a sci fi as maybe a Philip K. Dickbook.
Speaker 6: I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 5: By the way, we're I think we're going to do
our next fiction book. I think I'm going to do
Ubic by pkd that'll be fun. I'm pretty sure Ubik
predicted the Internet, right. I haven't read it so, but
I've heard that. So we'll check that out. Andy Mont
has three dollars? What's up today? Are there any books
that disprove theistic evolution? I mean the most famous is
Father SI from Roses Genesis Creation. Really, man, guys, remember
too that if you go to the Jason Alis's shop.
You can get signed copies of Esoteric Hollywood and that's
going to be a great weird Christmas gift if you
want to give your relatives and your normal relatives to
wake them up through movies a weird Christmas present, Esoteric
Hollywood one too. They're all signed copies at jason Alysis
in the shop. I got a little bit of time.
Let's say if we've got one more question here, last
question before I have to go do this interview. We
got like thirteen people that's crazy. Next in line is Dan.
What's up?
Speaker 6: Dan? Hey?
Speaker 1: You there, Yeah, I just gotta I got a question
for you.
Speaker 6: It's not so much at debate.
Speaker 27: You said earlier in the chat that you'd be willing
to answer questions.
Speaker 6: That's still true.
Speaker 5: You look at you debate.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 27: I was listening to a lecturer last night that John
Lennox did at the Stanford School of Medicine that was
kind of.
Speaker 12: About suffering, and.
Speaker 27: You could imagine that they probably they have to deal
with a lot of crazy things like kids with cancer
and stuff like that. Now, I'm not gonna ask the
question of why just suffering happy happen? But what it
did make me think about is if we are just
supposed to be thankful when things don't turn out our
way with prayer, Like why do we pray if we're
supposed to be thankful in the moments that things don't
work out, because that's God's plan for us, and he
must want us to learn something. If we're just gonna
get whatever we're gonna get, why do why would we pray?
Because it almost to me kind of comes down to
like a free will question, like why pray if we're
just gonna get?
Speaker 5: No, we don't just get whatever we're going to get.
I mean, God has chosen to condescend to have a
reciprocal relationship. So there's a really good paper that doctor
Bradshaw wrote about reciprocity. I think it's his. Uh, it's
in his book on the Energy's the one that's collectionable
the essays. There's a section in the first essay that
talks about God willing and wanting to have reciprocity. So
it's not the case that we're just going to get
whatever we get. We actually wants us to participate, and
he's chosen to react to those that do pray and
talk to him.
Speaker 27: So there's if we do pray, there's I guess potential that.
Speaker 6: We could swim in one direction or another.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, if you read the Book of Amos,
that's the whole point of the Book of Amos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, I appreciate your time.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, sir.
Speaker 5: It's a great question.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: I thought there was a video recently about this that
popped up that was gonna share it, but I don't
see it anyway. Yeah, look up Bradshaw and reciprocity. All right,
Thank you guys. A lot of great discussions today, overall,
pretty good comments from everybody. You can support my work
right here through the bitcoin wallet qr code if you
want to support me with bitcoin right there. Thank you guys,
and everybody, have a wonderful week. Remember that tomorrow, I
think tomorrow once, Yeah, we're going to be doing our
British spies that made the modern world, this excellent book
by French historian Galsmunier, and we'll be talking about all
these famous British spies and Napoleonic ara spies, which I
didn't know anything about Napoleonic era spies. These people were crazy, dude.
They were doing some wild stuff and it's crucial to
understanding how we got the modern world, how did the
Middle East come to be how it is. Well, you
can't understand that without understanding the Napoleonic era and the
British Empire. Napoleon wanted to take all of these areas
from the British Empire. He didn't succeed in doing that,
but this led to where we are today in the
modern world, with the carving up of much of the
Middle East and what's going on there today. So you
have to understand this background, and you need to know
who these people are. They're very famous spies and operatives,
and nobody talks about this. Nobody ever mentions these histories
except over here on my channel. And hope you guys
appreciate it. We'll be talking about that tomorrow in the
afternoon as we cover black Gold Spies and uh the T. E.
Lawrence type material or about have a good night, h