Speaker 1: Suss all right, welcome another installment of the madness and
the insanity, the fun that we call Open Debate Forum.
Today's topics are anything related to evangelicalism, dispensationalism in times, prophecy, nation,
state of Israel, church history, the papacy, Roman Catholicism, Islam.
I didn't have space to put Muslim or Islam in there, Calvinism,
you name it, all those topics. First up, as Julio,
if you hit yourquests to speak, I'll bring you up
and you can discuss what you'd like. That applies to
everyone but Chase Haggard. Everyone else is allowed to speak.
Chase Haggard is not allowed to speak. Julio. I tried
adding you. It doesn't let me add you. So I
don't know what issue is. So there were several evangelical
guys who said they were going to come to debate.
I doubt that they actually will show up, but we're
gonna have fun. Nonetheless, if they don't show up, feel
free to time in ask questions. Just hit request to speak.
If you have a debate topic, you're welcome to hop up.
Have the microphone put me in my place. I'm really
looking forward to getting demolished and smashed. I got smashed
by a misfit patriot. I got smashed by Bryce and
Gray and some of that crew said they're gonna come
smash me today. So I'm hoping that I can come
get smashed. I'm really a year to get smashed. If
you now, there's some wine moms too. I sent the
link to a couple of wine moms. I sent it
to a Mormon woman who was talking smack.
Speaker 2: So we should be getting some action, getting a little play,
get a little bit of you know what, but.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's like I even sent it back to Donnie Darkened.
I didn't realize he's a lunatic that thinks that Trump
is the Antichrist. So we're talking about somebody actually even
way whackier than I thought. Like when he said that
the councilor and I see happened in three hundred and
they created the Bible, I was like, Okay, we got
we got some low tier trash on hand, but Trump
is the Antichrist. Wow, it's like even it's even next level. Dog. Well,
while we're waiting for any of those wonderful intelligent beings
to make their way here. Does anyone else have any topics, issues, questions, discussions?
We are not on YouTube, So what would you like
to talk about? Hit request to speak? If you like
to come up and I will give you the microphone
and you can speak. We have our first beloved speaker,
who I've forbidden to speak, but I'm going to now
revoke my papal van on speaking for this person. He
is now unexcommunicated from speaking, and he may now speak.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to just wanted to come on and
let people know that I'm not forbidden to speak. I've
overpowered Jay with my sheer will and a force of
masculine magnetism. So I just wanted to show that domineering.
And I know who the Antichrist is. It's not Trump.
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't want to get into that right now.
Speaker 1: And we do have vegans that have seemed to there
are vegans who present the pretty strong evidence that Tristan
might be Antichrist. I'll just say.
Speaker 5: That, let's let's just leave it at that. Let's just
leave it at that.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe as a child, maybe I sometimes didn't get,
you know, to finish the last bowl of ice cream.
Numerous times and could that be indicted if someone being
the answer Christ Maybe maybe not.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, we can't exclude any evidential possibilities in this kind
of a scenario.
Speaker 6: What what's up, Hey, Jay, thanks for bringing me up.
I just had a question about like dispensationalism Calvary and
in regards to like Calvary Chapel churches and kind of
like their connection to the intelligence Asien seasons. I don't know,
maybe the CIA something that I noted, Like I used
to go to Calgary Chapel churches. I'm leaning towards Orthodoxy,
but I used to go to Calvary Chapel churches and
I saw, like right after the October seventh attack and
when there was a major protest in the most sort
of western world, like kind of like pro Palestinian protests,
all of a sudden, the pastor the churche that I
used to go.
Speaker 5: To was pretty big.
Speaker 6: He's change into his stern every Sunday. It was about
the necessity of Israel, the necessity of like what what
how much do you owe or your allegiance to Israel.
Speaker 1: Or yeah, they're all paid off by various foundations and things.
Tanks very well known. They've been paid off for a
long time, just like John Hagey.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and he used to sometimes even brag about the
pastor with sometimes even bragged about like, oh, my connections
in the intelligence seasons. He has told me that this
was happening or the or like the the Arc of
Noah is like on the on the in Turkey on
the mountains. And then the intelligence agencies have told me
because they have pictures, and I'm like okay.
Speaker 1: And then if there's a lot of con men in
the Calgary Chapel, in fact, a lot of the people
in our circles, like we father Deacon and Aias was
raised in Calgary Chapel and went to Cay Calgary Chapel
High School. So yeah, we we we know quite a
bit about that on our side. I think the CIA connection,
if I recall, was Lonnie Frisbee. He's one of the
early founders of the Calvary Chapel.
Speaker 6: But what is your impression about like of them like today,
Like I mean, do you think most of the other
branch that was set up like that, but most of
the other other other ones that were open later on,
do you think they're still kind of like pretty pretty
connected with the intelligence agencies, or they're like kind of
like doing their own thing or b.
Speaker 1: I would assume that they're still loosely connected. I don't
know how extensive it actually is, but I mean I
think they definitely push, you know, various versions of dispensationalist
type views. Maybe not a full on, you know, Schofield style,
but there's still like a rough dismensationalism.
Speaker 6: They still teach, yeah, around that time, like every week.
So the the the actual Sundays we will go to,
they would they would do worse, buy worse. They will
go to the entire Bible right and totally abandoned that,
and every Sunday it will be about necessity of Israel
and how much do you and how much do you
always rile or the Jewish people? And I'm the glad
couldn't glass this time.
Speaker 1: Well, the reason for this, as we talked about last night,
is because all of these Protestants and Evangelicals are not
in the church, and they don't have the church, so
they're missing the fact that the Church is the fulfillment
of the typology of Israel, and Israel is divorced, as
Joseiah says, and as the Book of Revelation says, when
the bold judgments are poured out on the city where
Jesus was crucified, that's all seventy eighty's punishments that fulfill
Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four. So all that
proves the divorce of Israel. And yet God God kept
the Covenant, because as Ezekiel sixteen and Jeremiah thirty one
and thirty three say, the New Covenant, which is not
according to the Covenant with Moses, is the covenant that
fulfills all the previous covenants. That's why I second for these.
One says that all the promises of the Covenant are
yeay in Christ. There's no such thing as a dual covenant.
There's no separate covenant for Jews as a nation state
because the nation state of Israel literally was a type
of the Church. As Galatians six sixteen says, that's all
I have.
Speaker 6: Thank you, thanks for bringing me.
Speaker 1: Up all right. Next guy raised Us says that we
don't know our Bibles, and he's going to set it straight.
He says, the Orthodox don't know the Bible. Go ahead,
you got an unmute dog do a mixtape for us.
Speaker 7: Okay, So first of all, you you're actually you're wrong
on the account of the Jewish people. And secondly on
the issue about Israel and evangelicals. I'm an Injuria and
I've lived in a journal all my life. I've never
had anything to do with your intelligence agency. Yet the
Bible speaks for the Jewish people, if you.
Speaker 1: Read Picks, the Bible speaks for Christianity. Hold on, what
does say who does glacious threes say? Is the fulfillment
of thea?
Speaker 7: Can you come down? You mistake you guys, mickeys. You
flesh out one scripture and you forget.
Speaker 1: That literally for the previous guy ten scriptures? What are
you talking about?
Speaker 7: Can you listen to me?
Speaker 1: The Book of Doations three? Shut up round booting you.
What does Galatians three say?
Speaker 8: The problem that you guys.
Speaker 1: You can't even form sentences. You wanted to refute us,
and you can't form a sentence.
Speaker 7: A research on the timeline we do your books? Reaching
ross was reaching off that galicians should.
Speaker 1: Anything to do. It has nothing to do with who
the fulfillment is, the timing of the writing, has nothing
to do with who the talk to. This this is
what these people are this is the stupidest people on
the internet. That's funny. Okay, I'm.
Speaker 8: Here, ye all right, Well I actually had two questions,
but I'm I'm gonna leave with the person.
Speaker 1: So all right.
Speaker 8: So the other night when you were baiting the whatever
whatever the guy's name was, mister Patriot, I was. I
was one of the ones he was calling the sim
because I just just like, just like Chase said, not
not Chase Haggard, the other Chase, you know, the one
from whatever podcast. Just like he said, I've seen him
like on the timeline like a lot the past couple
of weeks, you know, just like trying to trying to
counter counter you know, like the anti Israeli stuff or whatever.
And I've seen absolutely nothing about him in regards to theology.
So me and a couple of the a couple of
gods that I'm sure they follow you, like, we asked,
like we just left comments like do you, like, do
you actually know anything as far as theology specifically? I mean,
he didn't, he didn't necessarily like react to my.
Speaker 9: Guy.
Speaker 8: He was he responded to specifically, And that's the one
that you saw where he said it doesn't matter if
the argument is garbage. Uh so I kind of like
we I'm assuming everybody else like kind of anticipated what
was gonna happen. But Jack, you still hear.
Speaker 1: Me you're cutting it out sort of. I mean I
heard I'll drop down to come back in Nylis Nilos.
You want to talk.
Speaker 10: H mister Dyer, Thank you. I appreciate that. It's good
to be on the show.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 10: Players finally gets to talk to him, big fan. Been
following you for a few years, big fan of Alex
for a very long time.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 10: Uh, it was really pleased to see your work that
you've been doing with Sam Hyde. I met him in
person at one of his shows, uh not too long ago,
and I, uh, you know, I mentioned, you know, hey,
I appreciate the great work that you guys are doing,
and uh, you know, I hope you you know, I
don't know if you've orthop told him, but I mentioned
to him. I was like, hey, you know, you're looking
into orthodoxy. I uh, you know, I hope you continue.
Speaker 1: To do so.
Speaker 10: And he's he gave me this kind of strange look.
He's always kind of like tearing up a little bit,
and I, uh, it was it was funny. I found
out after the show that there were a bunch of
other Orthodox people that had gone up to him and
said the same thing and asked him the same question,
and you could tell that we were like, we were
like styopping him into uh to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: So that was.
Speaker 10: Yeah, sorry for that for the ramblings story. I just
had to share that with you. But I really appreciate
art work. I had some yes, So I just want
to preface this with a statement, I'm a baptized Orthodox.
These are not my positions. These are positions that I'm
trying to argue people out of, and I hot to
source your arguments in order to do that. And it's
partially my fault because I would like read pill people
before discovering the church, and now I'm like having to
undo the damage I've done because a lot of the
things that I used to iss, I used to hold
her you know, heretical, and so a lot of this,
I guess is penance on my part. So the first
question I had is, so, what is your strongest argument
for refuting I guess what. I don't know if you're
familiar with the whole Tartaria mud flood hypothesis, but one
of the arguments that people in that sphere of thought
think is they refer to what they call the little
season of Satan. Essentially, I assume this is after the
millennial reigin Satan is loosed for a time, and their
argument is that will the you know, Christ has already
come and gone, and that we're essentially the descendants of
those that were left behind and and we're like in
this last season of temptation. And one of their arguments
for this is it's like, well, there's no there's no emperor, right,
there's no acumen a, there's no orthodox monarch really that
you can point to, and that is kind of a
sign of that we're in that little season and the
torments that we're enduring, you know, sort of like I
believe with Saint Pas he said that the trials of
those living in the last days would be equal to
those of the apostles, you know, sort of along that
line of thinking, what's your can I can I get
your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I think all the Tartaria stuff
is absolutely retarded in a waste of everyone's time. Somebody
tying in Tartaria to the end times just sounds like
next level Skitzo. So I don't even know that you
could reason with people that think this way. First of all,
the history of the Church is very clear in terms
of things like apostolic succession, the teachings of the church fathers,
documentical councils. There's no gigantic loss of time. If if
there's some of the people that if I recall, they
hold to like vast changes in the in the dates
and like we're missing centuries or some kind of nonsense
like this Chase humoicism.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they.
Speaker 4: I know, Tartaria people, and it's just I mean, it's
it's a it's a cool like sci fi story. I mean,
you can just respond by just just explicate, like the
history of Aracus. I mean, that's the same that holds
the same level of justification, justification and actual historical veracity,
because they're they're just saying, oh, we lost all this time,
Well how do you know that? And then there they'll
make claims and reach back into this lost area of
time and just pull things up and just it's just
all arbitrary.
Speaker 5: Like there's also questions.
Speaker 1: There's also no millennial reign, like a we're not pre millennialist.
You cannot believe in a literal millennium in the Orthodox
Church just gets condemned as a second ecumenical council. So
this sounds like a mix of like Protestant premillennial stuff
with weird tartaria conspiracy theories, and it's all just pure gibberation.
Like like Chase said, it's just at hawks. So, I
mean history the Church are very clear in terms of
things like a succession, so there's no like hidden there's
not like a missing thousand years or whatever these people
say it's just crazy.
Speaker 5: But yeah, but how do you know that.
Speaker 1: Because what I just said, like we have the successions
of the bishops, I mean, unless you want to say
that a succession went away and like what we have
today is all fake bishops and.
Speaker 4: Well, and that's the thing is is you're gonna you're
gonna claim this lost period of time but then still
appeal to things that rely upon an accurate historical record.
Speaker 5: It's just really goofy.
Speaker 1: Also, I'm not I mean, I don't know that there
is any guarantee that there would be some ever living
Orthodox monarch. And to say that we are living after
the end of the millennium, the millennium is the Church.
The Church is the Kingdom. The Church is still here,
so it hasn't ended or gone away. The other thing
is that you need to look into partial preterism because
this cures a lot of this stupid evangelical based in
time speculation. And even some of the Orthodox people and
the monastics can go crazy with these end time speculations.
I mean, this is pretty well known. A lot of
monasteries and people go crazy. You have people in Greece
saying that furbies were Antichrist. You had people in Greece
saying that barcodes were the mark of the Beast. I mean,
it's just crazy speculation stuff. But I don't even listen
to tard target people, so I don't like, I don't
know that much about it. I think Chase is basically
marrying a girl from Tartaria.
Speaker 5: I think, well, the thing is understand Tartaria.
Speaker 4: You need to understand the Spacing Guild and the intergalactic
spice trade.
Speaker 1: I thought you were marrying Princess Irulan from Tartaria aka Irakus. Correct.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, but you're not even gonna address all right,
I'm just gonna mute you're gonna address anything I'm saying.
Speaker 1: You know that in this in this space, all I
do is mute people. There was a guy saying that
yesterday all you do and there's mute people.
Speaker 5: I mean I'm muted right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even though the only mute button mutes everyone, which
I never No one's always muted, So no space is
always muted. The only muted space is the space that
Chase occupies.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's real funny from somebody who doesn't even realize
that mudflows wiped out all of history exactly.
Speaker 1: There was a mud baptism like Noah's flood.
Speaker 4: Well, what people don't want you to know is things
in Hollywood, like like the the mud wrestling scene from from.
Speaker 1: It's a secret symbol. It's a symbol telling us what's
going on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's actually a symbol telling us what happened back
into Tartaria.
Speaker 5: It was in the World Faral movie. Oh what's it called?
Speaker 12: Yeah, hi guys, I just just real quick, I just
I was wondering if I could address the concerns of
the last collar and just make mention of what is it?
I think second Theologians, wasn't it. Yes, that's the New Bible.
Hold right where he talks about you know, there's so
many New Testament passages. Back when when I was a Protestant,
I spent a lot of time refuting these kinds of
you know, nonsensical skill field type dispensational.
Speaker 1: Arguments. And the New Testament is so.
Speaker 12: Rich with with passages that clearly refute this talking about
the resurrection.
Speaker 1: You know, they.
Speaker 12: Let's see, they will know whise precede those who are
who are are dead in Christ, but they will rise first.
You know, I I used to be really good at, uh,
you know, reat reiterating these passages. But I was wondering
if Jay, if you could maybe mention some of the
stuff and Matthew and second Thessalonian or second Theologians, and uh,
you know, some of the other passages that just clearly
show that on you know, on that last day, all
that are in the grave, show here his voice the
righteous under the resurrection of eternal life.
Speaker 13: Right.
Speaker 1: So John five, you're right when you compare that to
what's in for Thessalonians about well the resurrection, it's the
same thing. It's the last day. So in dispensationalism, you
have two comings of Christ, which is retarded at the
end of time, right, So he comes back and sets
up a millennial kingdom and then he quote comes back
for the for the resurrection. So it's just stupid, right,
There's no two comings of Christ at the end of time.
There's one bodily advent with a resurrection where we are
caught up in the clouds. That's it. And that's why
Jesus speaks of the Last Day, not two last days.
One when he comes back and sets up a thousand
year kingdom in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices and all this nonsense,
which Hebrews says is Antichrist to go back to that.
So imagine Jesus coming back and setting up an Antichrist
system which he wiped away in seventy eighty, which is
so this is how stupid this is. But yeah, the
first resurrection is baptism because that makes you a member
of the kingdom. That's when you are resurrected into you're
a son of God through water baptism. This is what
Jesus says about the first resurrection Revelation twenty first Resurrection,
and then the second resurrection is Bali resurrection, and then
that's it. There are there's no charts with dates and
years and months and codes, and like all that stuff
is just a bunch of evangelical nonsense. The Book of
Revelation is largely about the Roman Empire and the destruction
of the Temple in seventy eighty. Thus John wrote the
Book of Revelation prior to the destruction of the Temple.
And that's how the book makes sense. It actually all
makes sense. And that's why Neuron Kisar is neuro Caesar.
When you look at when you tabulate neuron Qsar, it
comes out to six sixty six. It's like the one
valid biblical instance of Gamatria. When John says his name
is sixty sixty six, Nero Caesar is sixty six. And
guess what. There's a textual variant the Book of Revelation
and it comes out to sixty one six. And one
of the textual variants, guess what, neuron Caesar also translates
to sixty one six. Can go either way. Why would
John write that encode? Because John's writing under the Roman Emperor,
and so he's writing two the seven churches. They would
be persecuted if he said, hey, the ruler person in
the churches is Antichrist. So he wrote the name as
a code, as Jews often did, and Gamatria is not
what idiots on the internet say about the movie PI
or like trying to predict all the future, like the
idiot that Jim Bob and Andrew debated Zach Hubbard. It's
just the way that Jews would use and tabulate numbers.
They didn't have Arabic numerals, and so Jews, just like Greeks,
would use their first ten letters four numbers, and ultimately
the whole system could be a number. So that's the
action origins of Gomatria. And it could also then be
used if you didn't know Hebrew, for example, you could
write encode, or you could write different numbers. So that's
basics of history and Biblical theology, nothing to do with
what idiots on the internet do with.
Speaker 14: Like I put in the Hitler in the Demitria code,
and it told me he's gonna be the Antichrist, all
this nonsense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks, I really appreciate that. Yeah, it's that's a
pretty thing to refute. It is, and it just astonishes me.
Speaker 12: I mean, I personally know people like Hebrew roots type
people who literally believe a lot of them, a lot
of Evangelicals literally believe that Christ is coming back to
establish an earthly kingdom for a little literal thousand year
reign in Jerusalem, is going to reinstitute the animal sacrifice,
and if the nations of the earth don't come and
participate in that animal sacrifice, they won't get rain. That's why,
that's why it seems to me that this would be
the perfect recipe to completely deceive uh, Protestants and Evangelicals
into accepting sure, some kind of anti Christ reign in
the future.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's the absolute perfect recipe.
Speaker 12: You couldn't come up with a better prescription to deceive
you know, these uh, these people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it certainly could play out like that. That's why
we have to stress, as I often do that every
time some want well, almost every time someone Tennis quoted
the New Testament, it's not quoted about the end of
the world. And this really ends all pre millennialism, right.
Premillennialism is based on the idea that the Kingdom of
God starts when Jesus returns to set up an earthly
structure in Jerusalem with a new temple terrain. Okay, they
think that because they think the famous Messianic psalms on
one ten, Sit in my right hand until I make
your enemies your footstool is about the Second Coming, But
every time it's quoted in the New test someone about Christ,
it's about his ascension. So they're confusing the ascension with
the second Coming. Super fundamental, obvious mistake. And this is
precisely why they don't understand that the Church is the kingdom. Well,
what does Jesus say to Peter, you are the rock,
I will give you the keys of the kingdom. That's
Peter's role as the corfeus, the mouthpiece of the apostles,
not pope, not Vatican one stuff, just the mouthpiece of
the apostles. The Orthodox term for Peter is the corfaeus,
Greek term for the mouthpiece. He's the mouthpiece of the apostles.
He's the symbol of the apostles because of his confession.
But Jesus says the same thing in Matthew eighteen to
the entire College of the Apostles, which that guy said
thought was a university. The College of the Apostles just
means the entire group or the entire synod of the apostles,
and they're said to also have the keys of the kingdom.
Keys of the kingdom means the ability to preach, to
remit sins, and to offer the sacraments. That's what the
bishops or the episcopate do. The episcopate is a Greek
term that used multiple times the New Testament for the
successors to the apostles. If you read Timothy, Paul lays
his hands on Timothy, tell Timothy to do the same
thing for his successors. So there's a direct Apostolic descent,
which is mirrored on the passages in numbers eleven and
other attacks in the Old Testament. When the laying out
of hands passes the Holy Spirit, it's no longer an
ironic biological priesthood. It's now a spiritual priesthood of the Church,
which is a fulfillment of the ironic, livid priesthood. It's
the Melchizdukian priesthood, which Paul says that hebre was seven
is superior to the ironic. So everyone who wants to
go back to temples, animal sacrifices and all that is
negating the Kingdom, negating the Church, negating the history of
the Church, and going back to something that is retrogade,
and is the type you're forsaking the fulfillment for the
type that's so stupid. This is all right open for
anybody else who wants to talk about it. We can
go to any of the text you want hit request
to speak. I'll bring you up great points there from Paul.
And I know this too directly because when I was
eighteen nineteen twenty when I started reading the Bible. I
still have my prophecy I think I have. I have
my Schofield Study Bible. I don't have my Prophecy Study Bible,
but I'm looking at my Scholfield study bubble right now.
So I went through all this. I saw it firsthand.
I was raised Baptist. I know all about pre tribulation
rap sure in the end times. I used to be
a pre millennialist. I used to argue for all this stuff.
And then when I understood that all the covenants are
not contrasted and planned bees, but they're all the same Covenant,
and that salvation was always in Christ, even in the
Old Testament, and that the millennial reign quote unquote begins
when the church is set up. That's it. This whole
heresy falls away. And then when you understand partial preterismthew
twenty four, it's over all this heresies is done. What
you would think is obvious if you just read Galatians
and Hebrews. But you know, I don't think. I don't think. Actually,
most of these evangelicals that think that they're like super
Bible based, they don't actually know what the Bible teaches
like they're literally ignorant of it. But they're always touting
their Bible knowledge. Like that guy that Nigerian got earlier.
You Bible ibra da? Are you gay? Why do you
nothing with the baboo? Who wants to come up see here,
request to speak? I'll bring you up, baby. I think
I've got book over here. If you disagree, if you'd
like to come to the head of the line, if
you'd like to discuss.
Speaker 14: Bible prophises. Who wants to talk about Bible prophecies and
the blood moons of Israel friends, the Bible teachers, the
pretipulation and rupture.
Speaker 1: I could do a really good fake preacher voice. By
the way, I can even do it, John Hagen. If
you want blood moons of Israel, we don't have any
blood moon promoter promoters. What about any moon moonpie promoters.
Anybody believe in moon pies. I know John Hagy does it.
Definitely believes in the moon piths. No one, No one
wants to come up and discuss. There's no defenders of
this stupid theology. By the way, in Hebrews, that's why
Paul cites someone ten in Hebrews to prove this point.
Sit at my right hand, so I make your enemies
your frystal right, So kingdom is now hushed tones and
then David hushed and then David Yo, what else?
Speaker 15: Yes, sir, question about the prophecies from the Old Testament
regarding Israel. That's say I will come back to its land.
How would you interpretuce?
Speaker 1: If you read the Book of Acts, those passages are
interpreted as the event of Pentecost. So the Jews in
the land right at the time of Pentecost. Peter says
that the rebuilt tabernacle of David is the church. The
joined together two six that Ezekiel talks about is the church.
Read Ezekiel sixteen. It's the same passage. Excuse me, It's
the same topic as Jeremiah thirty one and thirty three.
So when Ezekiel sixteen says that Syria and Sodom will
come into Israel and be a daughter of Israel. How
could Syria be a daughter of Israel? How could they
be together in a covenant? The only way they can
be together in a covenant is the fulfillment of all
of those promises in Pentecost, which is the reversal of Babel,
which is the kingdom, which is the Church, one Lord,
one faith, one body, one baptism. Thank you. Yes, if
you look at Peter's sermons, Stephen's sermons and acts literally
explain these things. Okay, thank you for having me here.
What's up, David? I'm you, David. Where'd you go Christmas? Rex? Yeah?
What's up? Man? Yeah?
Speaker 16: Like, what about the non denominational churches?
Speaker 1: Are they?
Speaker 17: I mean, it's kind of like up in.
Speaker 16: The air whether they're like dispensationalists or not dispensationalists. And
I just wanted your your thoughts on on the non
denominational movement and if dispensationalism is spread throughout those churches,
because I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I'm I don't know the extent, but I'm sure it's everywhere.
I don't but I have no idea how expansive.
Speaker 17: All right, well, I'm not here to defend dispensationalism.
Speaker 1: So uh huh do you want to defend Catholicism.
Speaker 17: I'm not a not really a theist.
Speaker 1: You're not a theist? Do you have catholic in your bio?
What do you mean?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 16: I mean I'm not you know, I'm not apologetic or
anything like that. Uh, Catholics are those, you know, the
one true faith?
Speaker 1: How do you know if you're not, if you're not
able to defend that, how do you know?
Speaker 18: What do you mean if you're not.
Speaker 1: Able to defend it?
Speaker 17: I'm just not very good at debates and stuff like that.
I don't, you know.
Speaker 16: I read a lot. I came back to the faith.
I have a lot of Protestant friends. Catholicism seems like
the the most true church, I mean ever founded by Christ.
Speaker 1: Well, but what how do you know that?
Speaker 11: Like?
Speaker 1: What are the what are the main arguments you think
make it true or the one true faith?
Speaker 17: It's the rock in which the church is built. I
mean it was Orthodox.
Speaker 1: The Orthodox Church believes the exact same thing about the Yeah.
Speaker 16: Okay, yeah, I don't Yeah, I mean to me, I'm
not you know, I don't care if you're Orthodox or Catholic.
Speaker 1: I think those are are the so I don't have
to be to be well.
Speaker 16: The one true church is the you know, the Church,
the Apostolic churches, you know, Orthodox to the Church. I
don't know, man, I'm just I'm Catholic. I'm culturally Roman Catholic.
If I was born in Greece, I probably do.
Speaker 1: Usually it falls back on a cultural thing, which has
nothing to do so if I'm if I was raised
a Buddhast, is buddhism't true? No obviously, okay, So what
you're born and what you're raised has nothing to do
with which one's true false? Right? Uh, it doesn't know, Okay,
So it's doesn't matter if a person's born in Greece
or if they're born in Ireland as to which one's career, you.
Speaker 16: Know, I, like I said, I don't know, Okay, fair enough,
I'm Catholic, Spaghetti, I'm new.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 19: Yeah, hey, Jay, I saw you Patriot and I thought
it was really funny, but it actually made me kind
of sad because my mother is a dispensationalist, and she's
very stubborn and not like the brightest bold and when
I saw you debating him. It made me, uh, it
kind of just reminded.
Speaker 20: Me of that, and I was wondering if you had
any sort of arguments I could tell somebody who was
not bad faith like that, but also just a suburb
you know, kind of disconvinced.
Speaker 21: But this is a bullshit.
Speaker 1: You know well, I mean, if they're not going to
listen to, like, you know, the texts that talk about
the divorce of Israel, I don't know what would be convincing.
I mean, Matthew twenty one. If the Parable Divine Dressers
Jesus says towards the end of the Parable that the
Kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews and
given to the Gentiles, and that means, yeah, I show
the largely gentile church. So if they don't understand that's
the divorce of Israel, Like, what does she say that is?
Speaker 8: Dude, I couldn't tell you.
Speaker 19: Her explanations hinge on like emotional, you know, Hamas's bad
kind of arguments. So it's just really sad, to be honest.
Speaker 1: The only reasons I have to do with them, I'm
not making exactly exactly.
Speaker 19: The only reason I'm even asking you is kind of
because I figured you'd get a laugh out of it,
but like.
Speaker 21: There's really no hope.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing right, Well, I don't know. I mean, you know,
it just depends a lot of times. We can't like
debate our parents into a position. I mean, my mom
is still influenced by this sort of Baptist dispensation and
stuff too, So it's just not really probably going to
go anywhere if you're trying to convince your parents of
a position, because parents are never convinced by like a
child arguing with them, even if the parents are wrong.
Speaker 19: So well, my dad's argument that I'm older than you,
so I know what's more true.
Speaker 1: It's just from the ultimate boomer age card, Like every
boomer pulls this, you know age cards.
Speaker 19: Yeah, it's like true in everything I tried to talk
to them about, whether it's geopolitics or anything. They're just like, well,
you know, I was around when we had to hide
under our desks for the nuclear drills, so I know
that we can never be friends.
Speaker 1: I've heard the boomers. They like it's like one boomer
says this, and then the rest of them like repeat it,
Like what does hiding under the desk for a new
Cup to do with anything, anything to do with like
good argumentation or like it's.
Speaker 19: This Yeah, media, you pretty much know you know exactly
what I'm talking about, and I figured you could get
a laugh out of it. But it really is sad
at the end of the day. Man, then we just
have to pray for these people, you.
Speaker 1: Know, really, yeah, I mean, if they can't read Galatians
in the Book of Hebrews, both of which are written
to refute this very error, which was one of the
earliest errors in the Church, and if they can't read
Acts fifteen and see that, you know, the Church obviously
decided that Gentiles don't support and keep Jewish traditions. I mean,
I don't know what to say other than just I
don't know, like, uh, has sony did you want to? Yeah?
I guess, just love your parents instead of trying to
debate with him. That's one thing I've learned.
Speaker 8: Uh huh, all right, cool, let me make sure can
you still hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah? All right, cool? Just making sure.
Speaker 8: All right, So I'm actually gonna switch out the question
I had earlier. I guess there's been enough you know,
discussion about the whole misfit patriot things so I'm gonna
just move it, move that along. Can I ask you
a Can I ask you a political question, like specifically
about Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, let's ask the misfit patriot question first, because it's
still relevant because apparently there's way more uh you know,
dispensational minded evangelical people out here than I expected.
Speaker 8: Well see, I will. I'll basically just skip to the
end of it then. So all right, so at the
very at the very end, like sense, right before, right
before you, right before you booted him. You know, when
he did the whole he did the like retar voice thing.
I'm like, he didn't he didn't finish it, but it
was it was clear as they what he was about
to go into was was just arguing numbers with you.
So he like he was getting ready to say, I know,
he spent something out like however many yeah, yeah, of
that type of thing. So like that's that's that's pretty
much all of us. Well, I guess it really wasn't
a question. I was actually just gonna make a point
that I've seen him, and I saw some and I
saw I saw like all up and down like his
you know, his replies or the people that actually still
agree with him after after even watching it, Like, I
don't understand how somebody could see that and then still
side with them.
Speaker 1: But you know, they're well, I mean, I don't even
know what that's supposed to prove that So what just
a bunch of Protestants have an erroneous view about in America,
about theology. I mean, all that, that's all that proves
it's just a fallacy. First of all, that the majority
make it true.
Speaker 8: Yeah, you see, but that's but that's like, that's I
actually wanted to see, like whatever whatever he was gonna
say next, because obviously it was gonna be places either way.
But regardless of he just appealing to killing the majority
of you. So I'm thinking that he say, since they're
that many many people that agree with him, like I
guess the ironically enough to be an argument that left
his shoes all the time against us, that since there's
x amount of people that agree with his position, ours
doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Because yeah, well yeah, I think what people when people
when people do that, they're looking for rhetorical points. They're
trying to score points to the audience to where they're
forcing you to say that the majority are wrong and
so therefore you're being divisive and this kind of stuff,
that's what he's going for.
Speaker 8: There was something he something he did earlier in the
debate where he was essentially just trying to be tangentially
correct about stuff. I think that's even I think that's
way worse than like people that just try and like
appeal to majority, like you know, being what's the worst.
But it may it may even be equivocation, not just
being pedantic. But yeah, that's that's pretty much. That's pretty
much all I was gonna say about.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know what, what did you want to say
about Trump? All right?
Speaker 8: So, and and I like, I'm not sure if you
said anything about this recently. I tend to catch every
single stream.
Speaker 22: I don't.
Speaker 8: I don't normally catch the spaces unless they're also, you know,
like on YouTube. So you may have said something about it,
and I just did, and I just missed it. But
obviously I agree. I'm glad he's doing the whole, you know,
a bit cool thing. I'm not like Pepe the Frog,
if you you know what I mean by Pepe the Frog,
I'm not. I'm not a doomer when it comes to Trump.
I don't think he's I don't think he's sold. I
don't think he's some.
Speaker 9: I don't.
Speaker 8: I don't take it that serious as far as it
as far as it comes with Trump or whatever. So
I honestly like my question it kind of just BOI
was up, like, how do you how do you feel
about like how he's done so far? I guess in
the in this current administration, because I do I do
agree as far as like with Pepe or whoever, anybody,
anybody has been like kind of like kind of shipping
on them for the past couple of months, Like this
whole Israel thing is is completely it's completely going overboard,
like not just the support, but it's just it's like
a complete disregard of you know, like us over here,
not just him, but obviously every single person he has
up and down his cabinet is absolutely ridiculous. But I
just I just wanted to get your opinion on that
because I think one of.
Speaker 1: The biggest mistakes is that it's all staffs, people of
this very evangelical mindset that we're talking about. I mean,
making that ridiculous con man woman the faith and value
as a woman or whatever she is, that paula TBN
clown I mean, that's a huge fail, but I would
say that, you know, it's all the other stuff he
has done is at least way better than I would
have hoped for. So, you know, I just when good
things happen, I'm like happy because I expect the worst
in politics. So when ever there's anything good, I can
just be pleasantly surprised because I expect the worst. Let's
see doctor Pete and then we'll go to some of
the people in line. We go to seven people. You
got I'm your dude.
Speaker 22: Oh hey, Jay, they must be a little bit of
a delay, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Now? Yeah?
Speaker 22: Hey, A quick question for you. I thought it was
just brilliant insightful about this. This numeric number of six
one six or six sixty six has a time stamp.
I just want to explore that a little bit more,
double click on it. Based on that reference, then, what
can you say about events and revelations that are exposed
sort of following that passage before? Like, is there anything
else that you would correlate with with references of kingdoms
on Earth? I mean, was I always was thought that Constantine,
the greats Vizantium was a thousand years on the ground,
But no, I just wanted to hear more about what
your thoughts were on that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I don't I don't know that I
could specifically identify events after that passage with specific events
in Church history, because I think that many of the
events in the immediate context deal with Nero Jerusalem and
the destruction of Rome. I'm excuse me, the destruction of Jerusalem.
So I think that the whore that aligns with the
beast is the high priest aligning itself with Rome, for example,
the Crucifide Christ. That's why the city in Revelation is
explicitly said to be the city where Jesus was crucified.
So I mean, I think John left us no doubts
as to who and what the identity of the city is.
It's the nation state of Israel undergoing the chastisement that
is mirroring the previous defilings of the Temple, the abominations
of desolations that we read about in Daniel nine and
in the Book of Maccabees and in the Babylonian Captivity.
So these are previous defilements of the temple and what
Jesus talks about in Matthew twenty four and twenty one
are the defilement of that existing temple in his day,
Herod's Temple and the destruction of that temple in seventy
eighty by Titus Vespasian. So you notice this mirroring effect
that occurs. There's no possibility for an Orthodox person to
say that the Byzantine Empire is the millennial reign, because
the Second Ecumenical Council forbids any form of killism, which
is any form of literal thousand year reign. So it's
not a thousand years. That's what the Creed says. This
kingdom will have no end, so it has to be
the kingdom is the Church. The Church is eternal. Hence
the Church the kingdom has no end. But I think
that aside from a lot of the historical context of
the Book of Revelation, which we can I think pen
on the Book of or that's give me the time
of some of the events are describing the Book of Acts.
Some of what's in Matthew twenty four is in the
Book of Acts, and then that mirrors as a prototype
the end of the world. So the destruction of the
temple is a little miniature cosmos when the temples destroy.
That's a sign of the final destruction of the entire universe.
And so what happens is then mirrored at the very
end end of time whenever, that is when we have
the final Antichrist and his attempt to you know, control
everyone and enforce the worship of the beast. And there
will be some probably apostate church, which is the false
prophet in the Book of Revelation, all of which again
is mirrored in the first century in terms of partial preterism.
So most of the church fathers, when it comes to
especially Eastern falls, Saint John Christis, sat Athanasius Cyril of Alexandria,
they will interpret the passages like Luke twenty one in
Matthew twenty four Daniel nine as fulfilled in the partial
Predoros first century. Since so even the epistle Barnabas, the earliest,
one of the earliest texts, explicitly says a post apisode
at text. It especially says the seventy eighty is a
fulfillment of a lot of these things. So that's my
answer that milk, Miguel, what's up? My godfather, by the way,
just put together and edited a thousand page commentary on
the Book of Revelation, So we did a whole podcast
on that written by James Jordan and then edited by
my godfather's Orthodox so he kind of tried to shape
it up a little bit so that there wasn't much
Protestant influence in it. But the three volume series called
Revelation Explained by James Jordan is out that my godfather edited,
and it's a really cool series on days of Vengeance
in the Apostle Seeing Anti Christ book from Jordan Reil Monastery,
a little like fifty page pamphlet book. It's good and
it makes the point that I just made the very
beginning that seventy eighty is a type of the end
of the world. Miguel h Gotta, I'm mute. Miguel Bathe Gotta,
I'm mute. Can y'all know? Amy?
Speaker 5: Hi?
Speaker 1: How can you? Hey? What's up? What's up?
Speaker 23: A question about dispensationalism. Do you need to support Israel
to be a dispensationalist, because that there's like of two
sides here. You have people who think that Israel is
important for the end times, and then they support Israel
and think that we have a mandate two. And then
you have people who take like a really metaphorical view
of Revelation. So my question is what about the view
that Israel is important for end times and that if
you if we look at the Jewish Messiah, he actually
has a lot of similarities with the Antichrist in Revelation,
right because the Jewish Messiah. They believe that the Jewish
Messiah is going to come down.
Speaker 1: Okay, so some dispensationalists will even admit and believe that
there will be a Jewish Messiah that will deceive Jews.
But every dispensationalist in terms of the history of this movement,
from Schofield Darby all the way up to you know,
John Hagar whoever, absolutely believes in the mandate for Christians
support to support the secular nation state of Israel. So
you cannot. I've never heard of a dispensationalist who doesn't
believe that. It's kind of wrapped up in the whole idea.
But no, the orthodox position does believe that there will
be a future conversion of the Jews. Most of the
Church fathers explicitly say this. So now that is not
the two things are not equated.
Speaker 23: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: I was worried.
Speaker 23: I was a dispositionalist, even though I'm against it.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, So dispensationalism is this idea that from
Schofield and John Nelson Darby, particularly the Scofield Bible, is
what popularized it. The idea that there are a series
of conflicting ways that God has chosen to work with mankind.
So when Avenue failed, that was Plan A. God instituted
Plan B right, the Covenant with Noah. When that failed,
God instituted the next one, which is the Covenant with Abraham.
So because God said that the Covenant of Abraham is eternal,
Jews think our scimun dispensations think that the nation state
of Israel has what they call a dual covenant, that
they have a covenant that was always with Him as
a nation state. So they do not see the Kingdom
as the Church. They do not believe the Church is
the Fulfillment and the Telos of Israel. They think that
there's two covenants running parallel. There's a God, a plan
that God has for the Church which is separate from
the nation state of Israel. And then Jesus returns after
the seven year Tribulation to set up an earthly kingdom
in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices and a temple. So that's
the basics of like classic quote dispensationalism all the What
they mean is, in this classic sense, there's seven dispensations
of different plans as to how God worked with man.
But in the Orthodox jew and in all classic Protestant views,
there's only been one way to be saved in any age,
whether it's Noah, whether it's Abraham, it's faith in Christ
literally the only way. And so the sea that's mentioned
in the Abrahamic prophecies or scim me promises of Genesis twelve, fifteen,
seventeen twenty two, that seed is the Messiah. He is
the Seed, as Paul says in Galatians three in Romans four,
so the only way to be a member of the Covenant,
and there's only one Covenant, is to be in Christ. Hence,
in Romans eleven, Paul says that Jews are grafted out
from unbelief, Gentiles are grafted in, and if Gentiles don't believe,
they'll be grafted out, and Jews can be grafted back in.
But the grafting is to one tree, not two trees,
not multiple trees. One lord, one faith, one body, one sheep, fold,
one tree, one vine, et cetera, et cetera, one kingdom,
and you're either enter out based on faith in Christ.
There's no dual covenant. But it also doesn't mean that
there's no such thing as Jews or that there's not
an as chetological place for a future conversion. David Yo yo.
Speaker 24: Yeah, so I had a question about Saint Paul. So
when Saint Paul writes to the churches and his epistles,
we can see that he refers to the believers as
saints as ichioi, the holy ones, which means holy in Greek.
Speaker 11: So why does he call them holy if they were
not holy yet?
Speaker 1: Because he's intending to spur them on to what they're
called to. So they have the potentiality for that, and
then they're called to that. That's why he says, you
have to persevere into the end.
Speaker 11: Okay. So they have the potential to be holy, but.
Speaker 1: Well to be what we call a saint in the
sense of like making it to the end of your
life and dying in Christ. Now there are people who
are holy in this.
Speaker 11: Life too, Okay, God, so these people can fall off.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's multiple places throughout and that's not where you're
warned of.
Speaker 11: Right, Okay, that was my concern.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 11: Felt you know.
Speaker 25: I had a question. It was specifically on christology and
the hyposthetic union. And my question is because Christ, like
in the an Orthodoxy, Christ shares the same nature as
the Father and the Holy Spirit because he's God. And
when Christ, say, for example, feels something like the crucifixion,
he feels pain the how because his essence, because he's
two persons, I mean his two wills, like human and
also God. And my question is, how does this human will,
which I mean his divine will, which comes from his
divine essence, how does the Father not also feel that
since he shares the same.
Speaker 1: Essence, Because the divine will, just like the divine energies,
are uniquely actualized in each person in their own way
or mode or role. So the Son has a unique
role or mode according to his person or hypostasis by
which he enacts and actualizes this single divine will. So
even though there's an inseparability of operations, it doesn't mean
that there's not a distinction in mode.
Speaker 25: And by that same extension, how could for example, when
Jesus says I am the father or one?
Speaker 11: What does he mean by this specifically.
Speaker 1: One in terms of nature, one in terms of pericuesis
which is divine in dwelling. So they perfectly in dwell
one another, and they perfectly share the same essence.
Speaker 25: But can can Jesus also share in the attribute of
like I'm trying to remember, of begetting another divine person
for example?
Speaker 1: The no, because that's what we call a hypostatic property,
because that picks out one of the persons. Those are
the properties that are not shareable or communicable. So the
Father is the sole cause found an archae, so he
alone can beget or cause another person. That's what picks
him out as the father. Thus Jesus can't have that
property because that would make him the father. So these
are called hyposthetic properties. But the other things that we
call attributes or operations or energies, those are the things
that are common to all three persons. And as the
Cappadocians teach, there's nothing in God that is between two
or just excuse me. Anything that God has is either
a hyposthetic property proper to one person, or it's a
common attribute common to all three. That's it. So like
love a lot of times you'll hear like Roman Catholics
say that this Holy Spirit is love. Now, the Holy Spirit,
just like the Father and the Son all have the
attribute or energy of love. So operations or attributes are
not persons. Do that makes sense? Yeah, So it either
has to be It either has to be a property
of one person, like the cause is the Father, or
it's something that all three share, like love, glory, omnipotence,
et cetera.
Speaker 25: If because I come from a sort of Muslim background,
that's why I asked, because I sort of struggle with understanding.
But if the Father, for example, has the he only
has he he alone has the property of begetting another
person does wouldn't that make the Father a different grade
of divinity in the in the sense of the divine nature.
Speaker 1: Because that's why it's a property a person and not nature.
So being the cause in the Godhead is what picks
out the person of the Father. It's not a property
the divine nature. So again, the first point that you
want to understand in our theology is a distinction between
nature and person. Nature is what's common and person is
what's particular or what individuates. So I'm the person Jay,
you're the person, Bob. Personhood picks or hypostasis picks out
the individual, the subject or the agent. The nature is
what is what picks out what's common between us. What's
common between you and I is human nature. So if
you think about a father and a son, a father
is greater than the son in one sense, in that
he is the cause of the son, and the son
submits to that father in terms of his role of authority.
And this is why we call it monarchical trinitarianism in
the Orthodox Church. But if you notice between a father
and the son, even the human example, the son doesn't
have more human nature or less human nature than his father,
even though his father is the source and his father
has authority over him. So in the same way, Jesus
says everything he has he receives from the Father in
the Book of John. But that doesn't mean that anything
that he has is lesser, because as the divine nature,
it's common amongst all three. There's no such thing as
levels or degrees of divine nature.
Speaker 25: Okay, in that sense, with the Jesus also receiving because Jesus,
because I see a lot of people like I don't
know what's your position on Jesus Jesus not knowing the hour,
but is it specifically him also receiving that knowledge from
the Father as well.
Speaker 1: It's a use of rhetoric, just like when he says
that there's no one good.
Speaker 25: I was I was going to ask you specifically, because
I remember one time a Muslim gave me the argument
that it's the distortion of the text and the apparent
meaning of the text, because when he says only the
Father is good. After Jesus says that to the man
approaching him, the man stops calling him good.
Speaker 1: No, it's again, It's just it's a common technique in
the Gospels to use rhetoric. Jesus says, cut your hand
off if it causes you to sin. Okay, he's not
telling you to literally cut your hand off. That's just
an exaggerated rhetorical statement. In the same way, he says
there's no one good but God well, but he also
says that the good Man of the good treasure of
his heart, brings forth good things. So is he contradicting himself. No,
I mean, if you read the pastes where it says
that not even the son of Man, if you go
a few verses down, the apostles say we know that
you know all things. So even within the very passage,
it still ascribes omniscience to Christ because he has a
divine nature, as you pointed out earlier, but his human
nature did grow in wisdom and knowledge, and so there
is an element of mystery there. But it's not a
contradiction because Jesus is a divine person with a divine
mind with omniscience, even though the human nature did grow.
Speaker 25: Is there a way for because typically in the way
as a Muslim conceive wills and natures is how can
it not be that a person with two wills, divine
one and the human one, how can it not make
up two persons?
Speaker 1: How a property of nature and not a property of person.
This is what I was saying earlier, is that fundamental
to Trinitarian theology and Christology is the distinction between nature
and person. And you would be correct if will was
a property of persons, but it's not. It's a property
of nature's and hence in the trinity there's one will
and three persons. But good questions. I appreciate that. Tron,
What's up? And then we'll go to truth and emulator
and ultra kool aid and David, I'm you.
Speaker 26: Hey, So I just had a quick question of hoping
you'll settle a debate between me and another guy. But
when you are doing the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church,
when you're taking the Eucharist, do you participate strictly in
God's energy or do you or do you participate in
His essence? Or do you believe that the essence is present?
Speaker 1: No one participates in the divine essence, and no one
believes this, not even Roman Catholics. What you're partaking of
in the Eucharist, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria says, is
his applied flesh. And Cyril says in the Two Letters
to six Census that is the uncreated grace and immortality
and power of God that deifies the flesh of Christ.
In other places, Cyril calls it the energies. So it's
not in either or you're partaking of the deified flesh,
including the uncreated energy of Christ.
Speaker 26: Okay, but I guess do you believe that the essence
is at least present?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: The essence energy distinction is fundamental to all the Christian mysteries,
and so we believe in apathetic theology, which means that
you never see or partake of the divine essence. Nobody
teaches this, not even Roman Catholics, not Protestants, not Orthodox.
So even though the divine essence is present in some sense,
you're not partaking of that because no one sees or
partakes of the Divine essence. We would be persons in
the Trinity if we took particular the divine essence. That's
why there's the essence entergy distinction. And according to Saint
Basil that the energies come down to us, but the
essence we do not know in Letter two thirty four.
So in the Eucharist, the same principle applies. You're partaking
of the fullness of divinity and yet not the divine essence.
So it's not in either or, it's a both, and
that includes the notion of mystery. Hence the mysteries.
Speaker 26: Gotcha. Thank you for settling that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: It's a good question. And also, like you know, when
Christ is present, the divine hypostasis of Christ is what
becomes incarnate. It's not technically speaking, the Divine Essence that
became incarnate. It's a divine person with the divine Essence
who became incarnate. And that's why in the Icon Council
it says very clear as day, when we pick out
Christ and the icons, we are not drawing an image
or circumscribing the divine Essence. We are picking out and
circumscribing the hypostasis of the sun. And that's the divine hypostasis.
As the council says, John, what's up? Got un mute? John? Hey?
Speaker 9: Sorry about that. So a question for you. I was
raised I would say dispensationalists didn't know it at the time,
but I'm just now sort of had an experience. I
believe in God now. But if you were to set about,
you know, learning about the Bible, is it enough to
just take each book and know who the author and
who it was written to and read through it for
yourself to come to this realization.
Speaker 1: Realization of what.
Speaker 9: I'm sort of sorry. I just followed you, and it
sounds like it sound like you're coming from more orthodox
side of things, maybe Catholic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Orthodox Christians are.
Speaker 9: Okay, And I did hear listening to one of your
previous things, you said that Protestants, which I would say
I was raised Protestant are heretics. Is it possible to
be a Protestant and not be a heretic based on
certain things you believe? Or do you have to be
part of a unbroken of the original Church.
Speaker 1: Protestantism is a public confession of a specific body of
teachings in terms of classical Protestantism, like the Five Solos.
So the five solo is constant to what it means
to be a Protestant historically classically. So if you confess that,
that is immediately at odds with multiple teachings of the
Orthodox Church, the Early Church, the Ecumenical Councils, the Icing Creed,
et cetera. So to reject the Nicing Creed is to
place oneself outside the bounds of classical historic Christianity. So, yes,
Protestantism has a confession is heterodox, But that doesn't mean
that I'm judging every single individual Protestant thing. You're going
to Hell, You're damned. I don't know people's destinies, and
we're not told to people's destinies. God is the ultimate
judge of that. But we have the duty to tell
people that you do have to come into the Orthodox Church.
Because Paul says there's one Lord, one faith, one body,
one baptism.
Speaker 9: Okay, that does make sense now, So it seems like
in the Orthodox Church they sort of promote like you're
not individually learning the scriptures by reading it on your own,
you're coming up through.
Speaker 1: The church.
Speaker 9: And so I guess that's well, an individual can read.
Speaker 1: The scriptures and learn, but an individual also can misinterpret
the scriptures and come to all kinds of crazy conclusions.
So it's not that you can't do it, it's just
that it has to be done in the context of
the mind of the church, which is the mind of Christ.
Speaker 9: Okay, right, And coming up through the Orthodox Church, is
that how it's taught pretty much just knowing the context
or the history of the book, who it was written to,
and what time period.
Speaker 1: Well, actually, no, I would say, I mean all those
things matter. They're definitely part of Exegesus. But for us,
the Bible is a liturgical document, which means that it's
meant to be heard throughout the year in the readings
in the church of the liturgical cycle. And that's because
just like Judaism, Christianity inherited the Temple Synagogue system of
daily readings electionaries, et ceterup and liturgical worship. So the
real setting in context and milieu is within the liturgy.
But that doesn't mean that an individual can't read the Bible.
It's just not the main sort of setting for the Bible.
But good questions. I appreciate that truth matters, gonna unmute
truth matters.
Speaker 9: Hey, Jay, how are you doing?
Speaker 1: Good? What's up?
Speaker 27: I had a specific question I had asked you before,
but you didn't respond, actually blocked me. Good faith question
on what your view on why full pretterism is not
found biblically and I'm not using the creeds, not referring
to church history just from scripture.
Speaker 1: Why, well, there's no such thing as just referring to
the scriptures because you don't have the scriptures. First of all, explain, well,
you don't have the right Bible, So why would we
listen to you about the interpretation of the book when
it's not your book and you don't have the right
list of books.
Speaker 27: I mean, I'm not I'm not denig rating the role
that the Church fathers did. I'm just saying specific, but the.
Speaker 1: Church fathers determine what books go in the Bible, So
how can you when that's prior to the Bible. How
can you toss that out as secondary when it's prior
to the Bible.
Speaker 27: Well, I mean people can be infallible, just as you know,
the Apostle has gotten arguments themselves and they didn't agree.
And so specifically, I think I saw you mentioned on
YouTube that, for instance, the events of seventy eight AD
were a type and shadow of the destruction of the world,
which I don't see that in scripture.
Speaker 21: I don't see where it mentioned.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter what you think is or is
an a scripture because you don't have the right paradigm
or the right scriptures. Again for the second.
Speaker 27: Time, even using that, even using the scriptures that the
Church fathers and all of the Orthodox people, which I
have no problem with the Orthodox Church, it's specifically aschatology
I've never heard or.
Speaker 1: We do have a problem with the Orthodox Church because
if you don't believe in the Second Advent, in the
bodily resurrection as a universal cosmological event, you're heterodox and
you're not in the Church. You're not even a basic Christian.
Speaker 27: Not necessarily because necessarily, because the.
Speaker 1: Church teaches that you have to believe in the Second
Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection.
Speaker 9: I understand that.
Speaker 1: So you don't believe in the body resurrection.
Speaker 27: I believe that the resurrection from hades A hadan resi resurrection.
Speaker 1: Stop redefining the terms in the sense of what the
Niceno Constantapolitan Creed says. You don't believe that. Therefore you're
not within the bounds of historic Christianity. You're not a Christian.
Speaker 9: I know that it's not in the bound.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So you're having and you're not in the
church exactly, But you have to.
Speaker 27: Understand what I'm saying. The Nicean Creed takes its statements
from Matthew twenty four and any partial preterist.
Speaker 1: All right, enough of that, human I'm you. These people
are idiots. I mean, Paul, it's like you cannot deny
the Bali resurrection and call yourself a Christian. And Paul
says very clear a today that all humanity will be
resurrected in one Christia is fifteen on the pattern of
the extent of Adams Sin. This is why all the
wicked are also resurrected. And so that's not even we're
talking to these people because they're literally Manicheans. They actually
think that history, evil, et cetera, continues on for all eternity.
They actually think that the Second Coming and the Resurrection
have already happened. They're literal gnostic Manichean heretics. And you
heard him admit it too. He doesn't believe the creed
human emulator. Hey, Jay, can you hear me? Awesome?
Speaker 21: Thank you so much for doing these.
Speaker 1: It actually is very helpful. I just found your.
Speaker 18: Channel from this guy who's Catholic, I think, but he's
thinking about the very orthodoxy, and so I've only gotten
a to watch a couple of year debates. But I
was wondering, what are the best arguments you hear specifically
from atheists, because I used to be an atheist until
I converted that like are logically coherent both against like
classical theism, then to Christianity than to Orthodoxy. Specifically, if
you could go through those or if that's too.
Speaker 1: Bad the top for evangelicals, dispensationalists in times, Catholic Protestants,
so not be need to be rude is not the
topics today, totally, Dallas, what's up? Got one? Hey? Jay?
Speaker 11: How's it going?
Speaker 1: Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 13: I was just wondering if the Orthodox Church or the
Fathers actually taught like how the conversion of the Jews
has played out, because I know a dispensationalists believe about it.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. There's no specifics. We don't know
exactly how it happens. All right, question Ultra Violet? Are
you there?
Speaker 28: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 29: Okay, So I had a question about Zachariah fourteeneen sixteen?
Speaker 8: Is that talking about a physical reign of price on
earth and.
Speaker 1: Orbout that it's a present reality in the church?
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay.
Speaker 8: The nation's having to go towards Israel to celebrate Israel
is the escalations.
Speaker 1: The celebration is the liturgy. What does Act sixteen say, sixteen?
What does Act sixteen say is the tabernacle.
Speaker 21: Church?
Speaker 1: Are you there?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 1: So there you go? So yeah, the Tabernacle of David
that has rebuilt is the church according to Acts sixteen.
So Zachariah is fulfilled in the church.
Speaker 8: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: The meal that everyone's eating is the liturgy.
Speaker 5: Graham, Hey, j can you hear me?
Speaker 13: I was just listening in and hearing you argue with
that other evangelical I grew up evangelical man a night,
and I'm.
Speaker 21: In the coming line going to be starting to go
to an Orthodox perish with my wife done.
Speaker 13: But mostly from listening to your stuff and your debates
and stuff, we're kind of that tipping point.
Speaker 21: Anyway. One of the things I was going to say
and suggest when arguing with Protestants and evangelicals, unless you
can get them to admit to some sort of relevance
of church history and like drawing.
Speaker 13: Ideas of how to interpret the Bible from early church
fathers and stuff, it's really no point in arguing from
a biblical basis.
Speaker 1: Because that's why, because they're just they're never going to change.
Speaker 21: They're just going to disagree and say, well, that's not
my inter.
Speaker 1: And they're going to throw a bunch of other verses
that contradict whatever you're saying.
Speaker 13: So yeah, exactly, it's just like a big quote mining
game basically, and whoever has the most verses.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why the whole purpose of undercutting at all
with the Canada Scripture shows that the Church is prior
to your interpretation of scriptures. The Church determine what goes
in the book.
Speaker 4: Well, and that's why none of these spam Protestant SOLA
scripture accounts like these goofy people like autocorrect or Sola
Chad will ever join VC or have a Twitter Space
debate because they know that if we don't allow them
to just spam random Bible versus that they can go nowhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Also a lot of these accounts are fake grifter accounts,
like that woman from a few weeks ago, that Patriarchy
woman that looks to be a fraud account. So there's
no telling how many of these evangelical accounts are also
probably grifters or fake ass dumb rappers.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's no telling how many of them are mine,
And so people shouldn't dig into it or ask any questions.
Speaker 5: We should change the topic.
Speaker 1: They're all chases socc accounts. David, Yeah, what's up, guys,
what's uh? First? Yeah, I just want to say I
appreciate all the work you do.
Speaker 5: You really helped me get out of prostantism, which is great.
Speaker 1: Cool.
Speaker 30: Yeah, And I actually did you know it's funny that
you guys were just talking about that, you know, just
the machine gunning that.
Speaker 21: They do a Bible verses where they're like, well look
at this, look at this.
Speaker 1: It's actually just dealing with that.
Speaker 30: Have a reform buddy, and it's like it feels like
you're just kind of talking to a wall at that point.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because it's like no matter how many Bible.
Speaker 30: Verses one quote, it's like, well look at this Bible verse,
this refutes you.
Speaker 5: And then they just like spit out like another two
or three.
Speaker 8: Then it's like there's no point.
Speaker 30: Just like the last guy say, it's like once you
go back to like the presuppositions and like, okay, well
how did the early fathers interpret this?
Speaker 1: Like how did they read that?
Speaker 30: Then it's like it completely refutes them, and they're like,
well it doesn't really make sense to but on what
This has nothing to do with the question I had
as far as like penal substitution is there?
Speaker 5: Do they have any good argument for that? Because it
seems like when you kind of point out the error
in the penal substitutionary toment, there's like no wiggle room there.
Do they have like a good argument for that.
Speaker 1: It's just what they read into. By the way, earlier
I said Acts sixteen, I meant to say Acts fifteen sixteen,
where Peter says, after this, I will return and rebuild
the fallen tent or Tabernacle of David. I will rebuild
its ruins and restore it, which Peter interprets as the
resurrection of Christ's body and the Church. So it's not
a prophecy necessarily of the nation state of Israel. Two
thousand years later, I was saying Acts sixteen earlier, and
it's Acts fifteen, verse sixteen. That's why I wanted to
stress that in case somebody's listening and heard me say
that about the Tabernacle of David. Anyway, Also, remember that
throughout the New Testament the word, when we see word,
Protestants assume that it's referring to written texts, and Peter
and Paul identify their preaching and oral teaching with quote
the word. Also, the Word is a divine person and
not a book in John one, so they're just equivocating
and collapsing word into written texts every time. And it's
not written text every time. Sometimes it is a written text. Yes,
you can call the Bible the Word of God, but
also the second person, the Godhead, is the Word of God.
And Jesus says, you search the scriptures because you think
that it is in them that you have internal life.
When is they the bear witness of me? The very
verse that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees with rebukes all Protestant
sol scripture of proponents as well. And also remember when
Peter says that he preached the word of God, Paul
says he preached the word of God. That's oral teaching
in acts. I think it's twenty Paul says he taught
for three years, day and night in Ephesus to catechize
Timothy in the church at Ephesus. And how much do
we have have a Paul to Ephesis. We have three
letters to to Timothy and one to the Church of Ephesus.
So did he just recite the scriptures for three years?
This is what Protestants think. It's so silly. It is
if you go watch the debate that I did with
me and doctor Branson versus Dale, the Protestant. I'm not
trying to say it's like the best Sole scripture debate,
but the reason it's so good is that doctor Branson
knows a lot about Jewish history, and he actually demonstrates
that although Protestants think they're following quote Jews or the
traditional quote Hebrew idea, when they're solar scripturists. Jews and
Hebrews were not solar scriptura proponents. They believed in tradition
as well, and they believed in a synodal rabbinical approach
to interpreting and judging from the law, which is not Protestant.
So Protestants are completely ahistorical, even when they try to
think that they're just following the Jewish model of solar scripture,
when Jews weren't soul scripture. David, he dropped off, Yo,
what's up? Hey?
Speaker 31: Yeah, I just had a quick question, can you.
Speaker 32: So you know how Muslims they have the little dollar
script and I noticed a lot of Muslims like to
run to John twenty seventeen, Right, my God and your God.
Does the Orthodox believe that Jesus had a God before
he incarnated or that's only when he became human?
Speaker 1: The Trinity existed from all eternity. Jesus is the second
person of the Trinity, as John one says, and the
God that he's referring to is God the Father. And
that's why the Orthodox Church teaches monarchical trinitarianism, which identifies
the God or the one God, with the person of
the Father.
Speaker 31: Okay, so it's not actually like his God.
Speaker 32: It's referring to the person, just like God picks out
certain things, right, it's not just one thing.
Speaker 1: Well now, literally, God the Father is God, Jesus is God,
his divine Father.
Speaker 31: Okay, but before he incarnated that was not.
Speaker 1: No, it was always the case. He's the eternal son,
as John One says, eternally begotten of the Father.
Speaker 32: Okay, so like in the Old Testament. Well, I guess
it wouldn't have to say it in the Old Testament.
That's just the Church's teaching, right.
Speaker 1: No, it says it all throughout the Old Testament that
the Angel of the Lord that appears in dozens and
dozens of they often is the person of Christ.
Speaker 32: No, No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about.
I'm talking about God the Father being Jesus God.
Speaker 1: Right, saying that the Old Testament demonstrates that with the
person of the Angel of the Lord, that is Jesus.
So Jesus did not begin to be a son at
his incarnation. He was always the son of the Father
into all eternity. And that's why John one is saying
that he's the eternally begotten of the Father. The Father
is the source of Jesus.
Speaker 32: Well no, okay, so I think it's like so, I
think it's like a miscommunication. So I do affirm that
Jesus has always been the son of God. I'm not
William Lane Craig who believes he just became the No. Right,
what I'm saying is and maybe like I'm just not understanding.
But what I'm saying is God the Father was Jesus
God in the Old Testament as well before he incarnated.
Speaker 1: Like Jesus is the Angel of the Lord that's appearing
in all of the Theophanes throughout the Old Testament at
a five hour talk throughout all of these references.
Speaker 31: Okay, So okay, under understood, understood, So like go.
Speaker 1: Check out my talks on the Theophanes in the Torah
and the Old Testament.
Speaker 31: Okay, thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: That's a good question. Yeah, exactly. And I also did
ah my response video to Trent Horn which is on YouTube.
I will reshare that is a lecture also on this
topic on the Trinity and the Old Testament. Where is
that video? Okay, here it is. I'm going to reshare
this on the top of my timeline. David do you
want to come back? Yeah, what's up? I actually had
one more question, trying to stay muted so I could.
Speaker 30: Avoid you know, background noise and stuff, but yeah, I
wanted to actually ask, because.
Speaker 9: You know, I really appreciate your I.
Speaker 1: Think I can't remember.
Speaker 30: You advised like a while back to start from the
bottom with like reading Affavacious and the cap of Docians
and all them. And I actually took that advice because
when I first started reading, I tried to jump into
like John Damascus and like Palamas, and that's kind of.
Speaker 1: Way too difficult. You need to read like the Post.
You need to read the post Apasaulic Fathers and then
and then what you're talking about exactly.
Speaker 30: Yeah, So I started from the bottom, and man, that
was so helpful for me. But when I started reading
Basil all of his letters and his homilies and stuff,
and I guess I started to wonder and like question,
like great, because I know that Roman Catholics affirmed the
Council of Constantinople.
Speaker 1: Do they just not care about like what Basil teaches
or Gregory?
Speaker 30: No, So, like I know that they hold Santa Augustine
in like pretty high regards, So why do they just
choose Santa Augustine over like the Council of the Constantinople.
Speaker 1: Because of the popularity of Augustine in the West, and
then the rise and popularity of and Selmon Aquinas, and
so the three A's dominate the West. And I would
venture that most Roman Catholics just never bothered to read
the Cappadocians, don't care, and if they do, it's just
a quote mind to try to find their position the irony.
And by the way, they do the same thing with
the ecumenical councils, where they don't care what the chief
theologians and fathers of the councils taught. They had this
ridiculous legalistic view that they only cite what the Pope affirms,
and the councils do documents, and they literally don't care
what any of the theologians or any of the writings were,
so so you can cite them. Even Get this, here's
a funny thing. Constant the noble one actually says, there's
an imperial decree that says you have to follow Saint
Gregor of Nissa in his theology. Roman catholch said, we
don't care. All we care about is the actual definitions
of the Council, not what any of the Church fathers teach.
Now they'll say, well, we like the Church fathers, but
who cares about Father being sole cause we don't believe that.
Speaker 30: Where I was actually I remember you saying that once.
Where can you actually find that in the in the
the Council? Is it like in the I know it's
not in the canons right where they say that, Is
it like one of the letters?
Speaker 1: No, So doctor Branson talks about it where he translated
it from, probably from some of the Cappadocian writings that
probably refer to it, or there actually might it might
be in the Price for the Richard Price's recent translations
of the Acts of the councils Oh, interesting, okay.
Speaker 30: And then the other thing I didn't want to ask
because I remember you saying a while back. I think
you were saying that, like you know, Thomas are just
larking like they're still in the Middle Ages, that the
Vatican is basically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Rome doesn't care about Tomism at all. Yeah, what, okay?
Speaker 30: So what I'm not I'm not Roman Catholic or anything,
but I guess what kind of what from the Vatican
has led you to that conclusion.
Speaker 1: Well, for example, you have the encyclical by Leo the
thirteenth that, uh, Thomism is Hold on one second, Hold
on one second. I'm gonna i gotta write a check
for a bill, and I'll be right back. Okay, Okay,
I'm back. So Attorney Patras uh not posture attornis. People
get these confused. Attorney Patras is the encyclical Leo the
thirteenth very famous declaring that Tomism is the official philosophy
of the Roman Catholic Church. But at the time of
Vatican Two, you had what's called the New theology. You
had the rise of all these different trends in the
Roman Catholic Church. Had a reaction against that from people
like Hans Ros von Baltazar, who wanted to bring Eastern
Orthodox theology into the Council, Eastern Fathers theology of the Council.
By the way, I'm not saying he's a good guy.
I'm just saying that that's what happened. You had a
lot of Protestant influence on the Second Vatican Council. Many
of the many Kreiti theological advisors that were super liberal
and opposed Totomism, the Jesuits had a huge hand in
Vatican Two, and actually we're successful in getting several of
the controversial Vatican two documents through, and even some of
the modern Tomas like Jacques Martain and these other figures
who are also very very liberal. You have Hans Kum,
you have Skillebacks, you have like all of these radical
Roman Catholic theologians for the most part rejecting and reacting
to classical scholastic Tomism. And that pretty much won the day.
And that's why Vatican Two just really opens up the
floodgates for anything. And so if you go to most
of the Roman Catholic seminaries and places like that, like
you're gonna you will find some some sort of quote
classical Thomas, like Tim Gordon, you know, he's a big
pusher for classical Tomism. But they're in the minority now
in the Roman Kelly Church. So the point was not that,
The point was just that the trend has really just
they don't care about classical Tomism anymore. It's it's very
much in the minority. Interesting, Okay, but yeah, I appreciate that.
Speaker 30: I'll probably have to go re listen to this just
to kind of like, jot all that down because that's
a lot. That's a lot that you just mentioned there.
But yeah, I also the other book that I definitely
would recommend anybody out there to go read is that
that Pelican series. Honestly, that volume one after reading that
is completely convinced me of orthodoxy.
Speaker 11: Honestly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean look again, like it's not I mean,
it sounds like a lot of names and it's difficult,
but it's actually not. It's not and it's not even controversial,
like most most of the cellar stars of Vatican two
in the Roman Catholic Church, and the theologians about it
can too, like it's it's all people who are not
really interested in classical tones anymore. And then that's not
even controversial. That's why they're in the minority, people like
uh Tim Gordon or whoever. Yeah, dude, look most of
these seminaries they're just like gay bathhouses. Man, they don't
care about theology. I mean, I'm being serious, Like it's
not a it's not a place where you go to
study some theologists where you go to have gay butt secks.
Speaker 30: And honestly, like the majority of Roman Catholics that I
even come across in like my normal everyday life.
Speaker 5: They don't even know about Tomism.
Speaker 12: They're just like they just go to church.
Speaker 1: No, they don't care. So that that's why it's Larper's
online that pretend that they're living in the Middle Ages. Yeah, yeah,
but I.
Speaker 30: Would Actually I had this pulled up because I thought
it was really interesting that we're talking about Rome in
that Pelicon book. He's where he's talking about Apostolic continuity.
He's making he's talking about i as Here he says
that irene Is described it as a characteristic of heresy
that each heretic selected part of the whole Apostolic witness, and,
after adapting it to his system.
Speaker 21: Elevated its authority above the other apostles.
Speaker 30: I was like, wow, that's a that's pretty interesting there,
and he was he was actually just talking about Marcia
on there, but I was like, wow, that's that could
be applied to our modern age. But yeah, I don't
want to take too much of your time, and that
was that was good stuff there.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it.
Speaker 25: Joy.
Speaker 1: So looking through you can just even search like per
E T pr P E r I T I A
Vatican two cone gar is a Dominican, which means he's
a follower of Aquinas and Conegar was popular and famous.
Speaker 24: But like.
Speaker 1: Uh Dallas is a key Avery Dallas Jesuit. Uh Benedict
was a partis a Vatican too. He's not a huge
Thomas Carl Ronner Jesuit on reed the Lubach was a
Jesuit into Eastern Orthodox theology. Let's see. I mean it's
just dominated by a lot of Jesuits. It's not that
it's not like a I mean, it's just well known.
It's it's not they don't care about Tomism anymore. Yeah,
but good questions, Joseph, what's up?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 1: So I have two questions.
Speaker 33: Have you seen Jack Canhan versus Bill Nye on the Blood?
I'm not okay, Well he's a Protestant, I'm assuming so
I would want if you don't mind, rewatch it because
Bill Night kind of destroyed him.
Speaker 1: But he's a Protestant.
Speaker 11: Obviously.
Speaker 33: I feel like the Orthodox and the apostles of the
churches would have, you know, be able to debunk to
Bill nys. But second question is said end times. Yeah,
I personally think Islam messighes the anti Christ.
Speaker 11: Who do you think you think.
Speaker 31: That's far our bets.
Speaker 9: Islam.
Speaker 31: Yeah, I feel like they're Jesus is the anti Christ.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
Speaker 19: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean they believe in Jesus as a prophet,
but you mean like his return that that would be Antichrist.
It could be Luke Hello, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 19: So?
Speaker 34: I was wondering what are your thoughts on like the
IDF oppression as long as it's on topic. If it's
not on topic, I have another question about the idea
of what the IDF in Israel like oppression on Palestinian Christians.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I don't
agree with the wiping out of the Orthodox population in Palestine,
that's what you're referring to.
Speaker 34: Yeah, yeah, Because I have a friend whose dad was
raised in the Soviet Union and then moved to Israel,
served in the IDF, and he's like a Zionist, and
I was like thinking, oh, well, Orthodoxy and Zionism isn't
really compatible.
Speaker 1: No, okay, thank you? Mm hm? Who else anybody else has?
Sony last questions? All right? Do you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 31: Quick question?
Speaker 8: Chase still speak speak? Yeah, I mean article cool? So,
so I might have the dog of memory of a
little bit. But actually he just brought over so I
might need to. So I just saw this yesterday, and
this is the whole Protestant like owner of Twitter or whatever.
Another look that bothered me all that much. Like I
watch enough of you to understand, you know, like why
why is a even if I'm not worth a dogtop
and the fan? But like you argiment, I agree with him.
So there was this thing I saw yesterday.
Speaker 1: I don't we're having a hard time hearing you, Hasani.
It's really breaking up and noisy. Hard to roll with it.
Speaker 8: What's up, hey, Jake, you hear me?
Speaker 11: Uh huh hey.
Speaker 35: I just want to post something to you to think
about in a question, right, ask evangelicals, I'm annax charismatic.
When he comes to the paralytic man and he tells
him be a good cheer. Your sins are forgiving you,
I'd asked the evangelical what does that mean? How can
he forgive sins before he went to the cross and
the debt's paid because in their low here at salvation,
you know, Jesus paid the price, he took the wrath.
Speaker 5: He did it in my place, and now I just
have to believe and I'm saved.
Speaker 35: But if he forgave him before the cross, what would
their answer be to what happened on the cross? And
you know, for us, Saint Anthonatia says, if it's a
matter of repentance, that's fine, but repentance won't save you
from death. But they don't even have a concept of
being saved from death. It's just I'm good, I die
go to heaven.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so just maybe something to chew.
Speaker 35: On and maybe a more an easier way for them
to understand the critique of PSA.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, it's a fair question. I mean, maybe like
a Calvinist would say something more sophisticated about how the
whole Testament people were saved by the same action, it
just was retroactive, So they might say something like what
we say. I know that if you'd asked me that
when I was a Calvinist, I would have said, well,
the work of Christ on the Cross can apply retroactively
to people in the Old Testament. So but I mean,
it is a fair question. I guess if you're a
sort of a low tier sort of charismatic or Protestant mindset,
like I think it would be a good question to
get them thinking, I am dat gatto. What's up?
Speaker 11: You mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Awesome?
Speaker 9: So I grew up Catholic and you actually kind of
brought me to Orthodox.
Speaker 30: Because you talked about the news a lot, which kind
of intrigued me because I've never really heard anything else
about it.
Speaker 11: It kind of sounds like the piineal gland.
Speaker 9: Do you think you can like clear up a little
bit from your experience too?
Speaker 29: I heard the.
Speaker 9: View grist is like cleanses your new and just like
that experience.
Speaker 1: Any association with that kind of stuff would be tenuous.
I mean, I think that the reason we talk about
the News is that it's more of a Hebrew concept
from the Old Testament. When you read David talking about
the heart, and then we would say in the New
Testament and then the teaching of the fathers is a
distinction between that and the intellect or diological reasoning, diocrenesis
and these different Greek terms for logical reasoning, rational soul.
So the heart is just simply the inner spirit of man.
Paul talks about trichotomy body, soul, spirit, and that's what
we mean by the noose. And so for the Orthodox position,
if you read somebody like HEROTHEUS Blackos like, he talks
about the news pretty extensively, and the idea is just
simply that the reasoning of man is out of whack
too as a result of the fall. So a lot
of times you'll get Tomas and people like Roman Catholics
or west During Augustinian type people who think that the
soul is just really basically the intellect, so man is
a dichotomy, and they don't have this notion that the
intellect needs to be healed by submitting to the heart
or to the nowse. So these are some of the
ideas behind that theological tradition, and I don't exactly know
why it's not in the West except just for the
the rise and the dominance of the Augustinian duality concept
of man being a body soul composite and soul being
identical to intellect, and that's pretty much a Quintus's position too,
So it just kind of became dominant in the West
through those figures.
Speaker 36: Nihilist again, gone, sorry, there's a delay, and I takes
a couple of seconds done.
Speaker 31: Mute.
Speaker 10: Hey, So the second question that I wanted to ask,
and then if I don't wear out your patience, I
wanted to audition for some dire cores, got some, got
some good dire cores for you. I don't know what's
your tolerance level for Shenanigans is right now, but uh.
The the second question that I had was so I
was having a debate with Boomer, and he was arguing
that because in Revelation, where it defines the heavenly Jerusalem
as you know, a linear bounded space, as it has
dimensions and a physical description, they were arguing, oh, well,
there are descriptions of the Tabernacle, and there are descriptions
of the uh, you know, the Temple of Solomon. As
linear bounded space is physical objects. Therefore that means that
there has to be a physical.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, but look at what just what did we
just talk about in terms of Acts fifteen sixteen, when
Paul ecks on Peter excuse me, Peter explains the fallen
Tabernacle has been restored, and he identifies it as what
please continue, Acts fifteen sixteen. He identifies the fallen Tabernacle
as what that's been restored.
Speaker 10: I assume we would say that the Church by Christ,
just the.
Speaker 1: Body of Christ and the Church Jesus is the physical
body was a tabernacle. Remember he says, destroy this temple
and I will raise it in three days. Okay.
Speaker 10: So the argument, the counter to that argument would be
Christ is the heavenly Jerusalem and his.
Speaker 1: Body, the Church is the head of in jury is
according to Galatians. For Paul saysn't Galatians four, we are
all children of our Mother above the heavenly Jerusalem. It's
a present reality. It's not a literal city that's a
giant square that's going to fly down out of heaven
into Israel. That's what Boomer's thinking, like, they actually think
a giant city is going to like float down and
land in Palestine.
Speaker 10: Well, I agree with you just said. We're clear guy,
this is heresy. And I'm trying to refut this.
Speaker 1: I know I'm not making fun of you. I'm making
fun of the Boomer right.
Speaker 10: Well, and and your response was my response, which is
the Church is the true Israel, Christ is the heavenly Jerusalem,
et cetera.
Speaker 1: Specifically, Peter specifically says the tabernacle is the Church and
Act fifteen sixteen. You see, Oh, I see, so that's that.
Speaker 10: So it doesn't have to be because it's given a
description as a linear, bounded space. There's a spiritual reality,
but doesn't that entail some sort of physical reality at all?
Speaker 1: Yeah, But the physical reality is the lineaments that are perfect.
So the perfection of the lineaments and the measurements signifies
the perfection of the Church and the Holy Spirit in
dwelling within her and her virtues and qualities. It's not
about an actual building with you know, I mean the
New Testament says well, who does Peter say, are the
foundation stones of the temple the apostles? What does the
Book of Revelations say, are the foundation stone or the
new Jerusalem the apostles. It's the same thing. The names
of the apostles in the Book of Revelation are on
the foundation stones of the heavenly Jerusalem, because the heavenly
Jerusalem is the Church, the city that they built, which
is a living temple. Paul says, not an actual building
and not something that flies out of heaven in the
Boomer imagination.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 37: Exposing Ye, I'm mute, exposing dispensation.
Speaker 6: Me want.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry.
Speaker 28: I was having problems. So I was raised in these evangelical, Baptist,
dispensational churches. Me too, and I'm trying to unlearn all
of this crap that I was indoctrinated with as a child,
and I don't know should I'm trying to learn, like
the differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, So
do both of them confirm covenant theology?
Speaker 1: Well, uh, this gives a little complex because prior to
Vatican too, the Orthodox and the Catholic position on these
issues was the same. We believe in the typological fulfillment
of the nation state of Israel in the Church. Israel
is a type of the Church, the land is a
type of the Church, and a type of the world
in the Church conquering the world through the Gospel. So
that typological continuity and that covenant fulfillment position is no
different to classically speaking, between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. However,
post Vatican two, via documents like nostro atat lumin Gentm
sixteen ecumenical documents that the Vatican put out some years
back about the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to
the Jews Rat Singer's book, Many Religions, One Covenant, these
documents have all affirmed, in including the New Roman Catholic Catechism,
that there is an ongoing, continued relevance to the quote
Old Covenant for Jews today. So the Roman Catholic Church
is backtracked and become ambiguous on this question. And that's
precisely why Benedict, John, Paul the Second and even in
Francis have all said statements like we shouldn't proselytize Jews.
So I would argue that those are contradictions from the
Roman Catholic Church, because, for example, if you read the
Council of Florence, within Cantate Domino and the other documents
of Florence, there's explicit statements that's a Roman Catholic documentical council.
There are explicit statements that there is no sense in
which any of the Old Testament rights or Covenant is
to continue on or be considered valid in any way.
And so the statements that I mentioned from Tate Lamagentium
and especially the Vatican relation to the relation of the
Church of the Jews document from like I don't know,
a few years ago, I forget the exact name of
that document. Those documents are hugely controversial, and I would
argue that those are contradictory to Florence.
Speaker 31: Okay, I'll have to.
Speaker 28: Do research into what you've said. I'll probably have to listen.
Speaker 21: Over the recording.
Speaker 28: So, like, what about how does everybody feel about the
mark of the Beast, Like did they believe it already happened?
Speaker 1: Or so I believe in partial preterism that the references
in the Book of John achieve me in the Book
of Revelation to Nero or about achieving about the Antichrist
or about Nero. So you could read a good book
like Before Jerusalem Fell or Peter Holford's book Destruction of Jerusalem.
Those are easy readable texts. But that's the normative interpretation
of a lot of the Orthodox Church fathers about Matthew
twenty four and Luke twenty one. But we do think
that there is going to be some final Antichrist and
some final attempt at you know, some kind of mark
and controlling everyone and all that.
Speaker 21: Yes, okay, So I have a theory.
Speaker 28: For those who believe like another mark of the Beast's
system could happen. Do you believe I I don't know
if I'm the first one to have ever thought of this,
I'm probably not. But how would you feel about the
theory that Zionism is the mark of the Beast, because
you don't have to be a Christian to be a
Zionist and to push for Jews to have their own
religious ethno state.
Speaker 5: How would you feel about that?
Speaker 1: I don't know, necessarily the Zionism itself, which is a secular,
you know, political movement amongst you know, pacifist, progressivists, Jews
from a century plus ago, that that wouldn't necessarily be
the mark. I mean, the mark is identified as something
specific on the body in some spiritual sense or perhaps
some physical sense. So I mean, I don't know that
it is that, but it might be related in some
way to a future third Temple or nation state of Israel.
Those are all possibilities. But if you look at a
book that's in the Orthodox canon that's not in the
Catholic canon, Third Macabees, there's an older version of this,
which I think in the Book of Revelation. When John
talks about the Mark, he's not really he's not like
just kind of picking that out as something that hasn't
had any historical precedents. If you read Third Maccabees, which
is again it's in the Orthodox Bible. Third Macabees has
told of me doing this very thing. And I think
we can get some insight into what this is through
reading Third Maccabees, because when he as a dictator tries
to institute a mark for everybody to buy and sell,
it is called the mark of the Mysteries of Dionysius.
Now I'm not saying that necessarily that means that the
end of the world's mark will be quote the Mysteries
of Dionysius. But it seems to be some kind of
blended sort of you know, haagan mystery religion thing.
Speaker 28: Well, this is the last thing I'll say, and I'll
let the next person come up. But I started to
have this idea because if the Bible describes the Jews
as Synegod's at Satan, and you're pledging your allegiance Tosigonism
to these people, then I feel like that could be
kind of plausible.
Speaker 1: So well, I mean, I'm not positive that we are
in the last days. In the last last days, I mean,
in one sense, the end times. The last days begin
at the First Advent. Jesus says that you know, he
would bring the age to come in the church. The
Church is the age to come. Joel says that when
the Holy Spirit's poured out on all flesh. It is
the last days, and if you read Acts two, that's
fulfilled at Pentecost. So I don't think the quote last
days is necessarily the end of the world, like a
lot of Protestants and Evangelicals do. We would say the
last days began. The eschatological reality of the eternal state
was brought at the First Advent. And so when John
sees into heaven, for example, in the in the Book
of Revelation, when he sees, you know, chapters five through nine,
the worship of in heaven, the marriage suffer of the Lamb,
that's going on in heaven. That's for us, the same
thing as what you see in an Orthodox Church of
the Divine liturgy. So the Divine Liturgy is literally the
eschatological marriage feasts of the Lamb here and now. So
all that to say that there's a lot of things
that I think have to occur that still haven't occurred.
I lean more towards an optimistic eschatology that the majority
of the world will be converted to authentic Christianity before
the return of Christ. How and when that will come about,
I don't know. But also Rumins eleven and most of
the church fathers who talk about it do discuss and
believe in a future conversion of the Jews.
Speaker 21: Okay, well, thank you, that's all I had.
Speaker 4: Well, And one thing to bring up to is that
it's pretty we're not encouraged to try to speculate too
heavily about the.
Speaker 5: Aston and the end times. Good point, and we are
and I'm not saying I do this, I don't.
Speaker 4: But we're encouraged to view it which is the truth
as it's that Christ is going to come and return
as a thief in the night and repent now, because
you could come back at any point and not.
Speaker 5: Obsessed to figure all this stuff out.
Speaker 4: And we're I would never say, oh, don't be weary
of things that you think could be pre sprecursors to
the Mark or.
Speaker 5: Satanic movements and stuff. I'm not saying that, but like.
Speaker 4: You know, definitely we're supposed to take it in a
very sobering way of we don't know, so try we're
supposed to repent now.
Speaker 5: I think that's also part of that part.
Speaker 1: Of the beauty of it. That's a really good point. Yeah,
a lot of evangelicalism is involved, and it's like a
really sensationalist kind of news headline is to Jesus. I'm
not saying you're doing that, but like people read headlines
and then they go, oh, then and they read that
into the Book of Revelation. And I mean it's understandable
because when I first started reading the Bible did the
exact same thing. When I was like nineteen and I
bought a bunch of prophecy books from the Christian book store,
I started like trying to figure out like, oh, the
you know, the locust out of the pit. That's like
helicopter of the New World Order.
Speaker 4: You rip out pages, you put them up on a
pin boar a peg board, and you just got strings
attached between them.
Speaker 5: You're triangulating the prophecies.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I actually I have friends here.
Speaker 1: That I used to I used to sketch out when
I had the prophecy studied Bible on my sco footbable.
I used to sketch out like the dispensations for people.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And it's it's interesting because I've seen, like I
have a personal friend. He's a smart guy, super talented musician,
really good heart too, and he for the last year
and a half, almost two years, he wasn't like he
wouldn't recording when it puts things out.
Speaker 5: And again, he's world class, He's played with world class players,
and I kept.
Speaker 4: Asking him, like why he goes honestly, I just feel
like the end times are coming in. After drilling it
into him, I think, you know, he finally realized, wait
a minute, maybe this is a deception.
Speaker 21: To me.
Speaker 4: Being obsessed with the end times is a demonic thing
to see see from actually doing something.
Speaker 1: Exactly what did Jesus say? The Kingdom of God is
within you, meaning the life of the Holy Spirit within
your heart, within your news. And that does not mean
that it doesn't have an eventual, bodily external, cosmic manifestation
in the resurrection. But the Kingdom of God is not
a thing that comes down and lands like a giant
space pyramid of on Anaki out of Egypt right in Israel.
It's the presence of the Holy Spirit within you. That's
what Paul Ingalatian says is the Kingdom of God is
the present's Holy Spirit, and the virtue is of the
Holy Spirit within you. And that's had within the church,
within the liturgy. That's it. There is no geopolitical establishing
of some you know, earthly nation state, warrior kingdom or something.
Speaker 11: You know.
Speaker 4: What's interesting last thing on this is thinking about it
now as we're talking about it, the people that are
obsessed with trying to figure out you know, in times,
prophecies and stuff like that to an unhealthy degree. It's
super ustick, actually is it's inherently gnostic.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is a delusion that anyone
can fall into, even Orthodox Monastics, they oftentimes have a
temptation to fall into this obsessing over trying to predict
the end times and who the Antichrist was and since
the Tsar fell or in the last days, and we
I mean we already had people on here tonight talking
about that. Ian.
Speaker 38: What's up, Hey, Jay, I just had a question for
you about your partial criticism. So you're obviously very influenced
by James Jordan. I'd assume Peter Lightheart people like that.
Do you view the church today as being the Church victorious?
Using like James Jordan's symbolism of the forty years from
Christ's crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple being the
wilderness period of the Church, and then after the destruction
of the Temple the church now enters into the church
militant period.
Speaker 1: After the destruction of the church or the temple or
the temple my bed. I'm not heavily committed to any
of those models. I don't think we have a set
clear idea on all that specifics. I mean, I think
Jordan's one of the first to really try to lay
out some possibilities there. Lightheart too. Are you a full preterist.
Speaker 38: No, I'm more than I was Cate of Cumin. I
was just heavily influenced by Jordan and Lightheard.
Speaker 1: Oh I got I'm sorry. I thought you were with
the guy who was in here earlier. Yes, we had
a full preterist guy in here trying to trap me earlier.
Speaker 11: So no, I was just curious because I yeah, I
don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I just got Jordan's trilogy from my godfather,
so I haven't actually read it yet. I did read
Jordan's old stuff on it back in the day when
he put out some little books on it. I read
Lightheart back in the day, But I don't have any
set answers on exactly what is that stuff lining up to.
Speaker 9: Yep, cool, I was just curious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with like in the Jordanville book when
it's the Apostle. In any christ book, it makes the
point that whenever the actual end times draw nearer, the
church will have the mindset and the discernment to figure
out a lot of this stuff. So I think there's
some sense in which a lot of that will be
opened and revealed to the church as the church approaches
that time, because the church has the mind of Christ. So,
but I don't a lot of those answers. I don't have, Chris,
what's up, hey, guys.
Speaker 39: Yeah, No, I wanted to bring up on on this
topic of sort of you know, dispensationalism and premillennialism. The
late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay. Those are the
other writers that he's influenced. There's a guy out there,
Gary Wayne's Canadian author who's quite prolific, right, and he
actually I've listened to that a podcasts. He calls that
his coming to knowledge of like sort of his Nephelin
subject was through the lens of you know, the great
great planet Earth. And you know, I mean, just from
what I understand about it.
Speaker 1: They heavily rely on, you know.
Speaker 39: Prophecy, like Daniel and Ezekiel and revelation.
Speaker 1: You had some guy on this space and Daniel nine
as we were arguing a couple of nights ago, is
the first Advent? It's not the end of the world.
Speaker 39: No, oh yeah, of course, Well they're completely misplaced.
Speaker 1: I'm not proposing this at all. I'm just saying I
just reiterated when you read Daniel nine, it changes everything
if it's talking about the first Advent. There's a few
other guys out there too.
Speaker 39: But of course, I mean one of the things that
obviously it focuses on is like sort of like fake
Armageddon and the coming thereof like predicating I read.
Speaker 1: The Gray Planet Earth back in the nineties when I
was an evangelical.
Speaker 39: Yeah, and so yeah, and the I've read you know,
the the Gary Wayne stuff which pulls off of that
and some of the you know, mysticism and with the Nephelin,
which in and of itself is a hot topic with
the JQ because some connect you know, the Nephilim genetically
to you know, a modern day iteration of you know,
I guess the geopolitical state we've been talking about, you know, Israel.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a bunch of fed shit. Honestly, that
sounds like that's a lot of Christian identity lunatics come
up with this kind of stuff, yea, And I wanted
to put that out there that people are arguing that.
Speaker 39: So there's you know, obviously the orthodox position on this
is unassailable when it comes to eschatology, and just you know,
like take I think it's from I don't know as
much about it, but I could see it's a more
cautious approach than rather predicting, you know, based upon like
you know, piecing Bible pieces together, sort of like schizo.
Speaker 1: You know, conpira. So that was just my comment. Good
good is a good point. You know, a lot of
low IQ evangelicals are duped into a lot of this
sort of hybrid nephylim genetic experiment stuff. Now, I'm not
saying that Genesis six isn't necessarily talking about angels. I'm
not like I've always thought that that's what the text
is saying, and there's many places in the Deutero canon
to talk about the same type of stuff too, But
I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with
what's happening right now in Israel or anything else. I mean,
I don't think it has anything to do with nephel M.
I could be wrong, and there's just something I don't
know about. But the other thing is that, like I said,
a lot of the groups that push that stuff are
the same groups that push the heresy of Christian identity stuff.
I'm not saying that the Gary Wayne dude teaches that,
but I'm saying there's overlap with these groups. That's a
lot of FED stuff. I've had those people come around
and try to debate too, and they're always like, well,
you know who the seed of the serpenty is. It's
the Jews. No, that's not saying that there's a there's
a and they actually literally believe that like Satan slept
with Eve and has a race of people.
Speaker 5: Well then you know they actually as the creator of
all things and then God created.
Speaker 1: Right. This is called the serpent seed heresy. And if
you ever meet a Christian identity person, this is what
they believe. And if I recall, uh Timothy McVeigh when
he was involved in Elohem City, that fake FED group
that he was involved in, I think they taught Christian
identity stuff. So this is like a classic FED trap.
Speaker 4: Anyway, Well, about the serpent seed thing like hypothetically, if
someone if someone knew that their brother was literally the
Antichrist because of Vegan, made I.
Speaker 1: Think, I think you might know a little bit about that.
Speaker 4: What would their immediate brother also have to be serpent
seed or could there be like did they don't know?
Speaker 1: It would mean that trist If Tristan is the Antichrist,
that would mean that Tristan is the ultimate seed of
the serpent. Yeah, okay, and like okay, so basically like
you would be justified and you know, like doing whatever
you need to do to save the world. Right, doesn't
like Keanu Reeves and Constantine. Right, Keanu is basically trying
to save the world from the anti Christ.
Speaker 4: So well what a lot of people don't realize that
Keanu Reeves and Constantine that was actually a Masonic predicted
programming of what the end of the world is going
to be.
Speaker 1: So the wait, are you saving us or not?
Speaker 5: I can't I can't talk on Twitter. We'll yeah, we'll
talk on snapchat.
Speaker 1: For those that don't know, there is a Vegan who's
basically exposed Tristan as the Antichrist. So that's what we're
talking about. It's a lot, it's really deep. It's hard
to go into and a lot of people are not
gonna understand it. But yeah, Marshall, Marshall, you can you
hear me? Yes, sir, all right, Uh yeah.
Speaker 40: I was just uh earlier when you were talking about
the You're talking about the dating of the Book of
Revelation and stuff like that. I was just wondering, because
I don't think I've never heard this brought up. Do
you think it's the plausible that, like, say, the chapter
thirteen of the Book of Revelation and various other chapters
that they were written prior to seventy eight, and then
other chapters are written after, Like, is that plausible that
they're written at different times?
Speaker 1: I think that would go against the tradition of the
Church that John wrote it and wrote it to the
seven churches. So I've not heard this, I mean, so
it sounds like a higher critical idea.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 40: I was just I was just yeah, I was just
curious because like, I was never never heard that or
like thought about that. I just kind of thought about it.
I was like, Oh, I wonder, I wonder if that
could be the case.
Speaker 1: Maybe they read before Jerusalem fell, because it's a it's
a thhd thesis on the on this thesis, which is
really good. So I'm not a huge fan obviously I
ken Gentry, but his thesis is pretty good. Roll with it.
Speaker 41: Yeah, just a quick thought again about forgiving this point
across and stuff. You know, if the Calvinist says something
like I can retroactively be applied, it seems like they
still don't have a way to describe that it's other
than sovereignty, because I've never heard from a Protestant death
being defeated. So if the universal death is defeated on
the cross, then it seems like that would be awake.
Speaker 1: I don't think they would. Yeah, they wouldn't connect it
to the defeat of death. They would say that it's
just the sovereignty of God that will just they can
just sort of apply the grace. But that's a great
point too, which is like, well, now wait a minute, dude,
just really a loud man, I can't hear you. Sorry, Okay,
that's actually a good point though, because it's like, well,
wait a minute, if God can apply the grace without
the work of the Cross, or in spite of it,
or just on the base of his sovereignty, then the
work of the cross isn't really necessary for this event,
So that's actually a good roundabout way to disprove PSA.
But Calvinism, it's a good point anybody else, it's open
for him. We've still got over three hundred people in here.
If you want to request to speak, ask a question,
if you like the debate, offer a challenge, bring an
issue to the Just keep it to the topics, please,
So we're not talking about catechumen, diet questions. Please, I'm
not talking about canon law.
Speaker 5: Can we talk about fashion? Is that part of the topics?
I don't see that.
Speaker 1: Men's maybe if we bring the Tristan in here, we
can talk fashion, can we not?
Speaker 5: I'm having a good day, Okay.
Speaker 1: I don't think we need the Beast system speaking to
us directly, do we? And Lo? I heard the Beast
speaking great words and bless us, So Chase, If if
Tristan is the Antichrist, who would the false prophet be?
Speaker 5: Honestly, that would.
Speaker 1: That would have to be a email or some figure
promoting Tristan. Who would that be? Yeah?
Speaker 5: That that would probably be Vegan Gains.
Speaker 1: But if you're a vegan, why would Vegan Gains be
a false prophet?
Speaker 4: Well, this is to lull the sheeople who support Tristan into,
you know, being caught in a false style. Yeah, I'm
I'm pretty close to figuring out what's going on here.
I just need a couple more days and I need
a couple more whiteboards to be able to draw.
Speaker 1: You need some more profited some prophecy charts.
Speaker 5: I need some more. I need to finish my prophecy
charts and then I'll get back to you.
Speaker 1: I should do a skit making fun of propty charts.
That would be like really easy to do, and I
think a lot of people would think that's funny.
Speaker 4: I think that a skit that would be funny too,
is a one make in front of the camatria of people,
just because it's so skitz and just the connections they
make are it's so insane.
Speaker 1: Anybody else three hundred and ten people, Nobody wants to
come up and speak, ask a question, offer an argument,
present the counter thesis, anything to do with evangelicalism, dispensationalism
in times, Catholicism, Protestantism, Slow boy, slow boy, and then hey,
how are you good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: I didn't have anything to argue about I just wanted
to see if you saw that Apostate prophet has started
going to Orthodox leturgy.
Speaker 1: I saw him say that he had attended one. That's
good news. I hope that he I think.
Speaker 6: I think his wife was raised Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly.
Speaker 12: I just wanted to say that.
Speaker 10: I'm really happy.
Speaker 9: I think if if he can influence.
Speaker 31: David Wood, yeah, it would be awesome.
Speaker 1: Like I don't understand why David Wood has never considered
it or won't. Yeah right, I don't have anything personally
against David Wood or anything, but I mean he's out
of Fordham, so I don't I don't know. Maybe that
has a part to plan it. I'm not booting you,
it's it was really choppy audio. So but thank you
for that. Uh, promitheus.
Speaker 3: Up, Jay, it's PROBYTHEUS. Okay, thanks for having me. I
just saw the title and thought i'd come in.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's on your mind? Are you there? Did you
want did you want to talk?
Speaker 4: He just wanted to let you know his name, and uh,
I think that's pretty that's pretty Sorr Todd father or either.
Speaker 5: I am here?
Speaker 1: Is it working? Yes, sir? H Yeah, I just had
a quick question.
Speaker 42: I remember some months ago, Sam had said something about
you were going to have a debate on his channel
about Catholicism versus Orthodoxy, and I was just wondering if
that had happened yet, or if I had just missed her,
or is it not gonna happen.
Speaker 11: Uh?
Speaker 1: No, No one in my circles and my friends wants
anything to do with William Helmbrecht, and so what I
offered was to do a presentation, to not have a
direct None of us want anything to do with Albrecht.
He's a really slimy person. It's not an excuse. And
so what we offered to do was Albrick does a
presentation on his channel and then I do a counter
presentation or vice versa. And I've not heard back from
Sam on whether he wants to do that, do you
hear me? Yeah? All right, yep, that was it. That's
all surely anything I had. So yeah, originally it was
going to be a round table, and then UBI didn'
want anything to do with Albrecht other possible people, so
they don't want anything to do with Albrecht. And then
Sam asked me if I want to do one on
one with Albrecht. I said no, I'd rather just do
a separate presentation to not any even directly interact with him.
Did you want to say something else, Prometheus? Yeah, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Were you talking to me?
Speaker 1: You requested to speak? Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Jay?
Speaker 3: No, thanks for having me up first and foremost. No,
like I believe that we are at the time that
Jesus described. No, regardless of the labels, I don't really like,
you know, are you this faction or that faction? I
know that's the title, but I just consider myself a
follower of Christ.
Speaker 1: I believe that we are.
Speaker 3: You know, when he talks about in Luke twenty one,
when you see these signs earthquakes, nation fighting against nation,
plagues which we just had a big one.
Speaker 1: Rewind there, because at the beginning of that chapter he
talks about the people standing in front of him would
not see. They would not pass away until they saw
all those things has happened, And all those things happened
in seventy a d. So that's a prediction of Jerusalem
being surrounded. That's what he tells them to pray that
it doesn't happen on the Sabbath day that they have
to fleet outside the city. Those are all events that
are contemporary with the generation in front of him.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and it was a mixed star right now. Well,
I respectfully disagree because I believe he talked about both.
I believe talked about absolutely.
Speaker 1: How I would fleeing. I agree with you that it
is also talking about the end of the world, But
how would that apply to what's happening right now because
there was an earthquake or something like that.
Speaker 3: Well, has Jesus come back? That's the main question when
he'd ask ourselves because the dement.
Speaker 1: But he came in judgment in seventy eight as he
promised to destroy Jerusalem, just like he came in judgment
on the clouds in Isaiah nineteen as he said he
would do. And then Ezekiel he says, I will come
in judgment on the cloud. He didn't literally visibly come back,
but it was a prophetic term language for the coming judgment, which,
for example, in the Babylonian case, God judge the Israelites
by bringing the Babylonians in to destroy Israel. So the
same thing happened in seventy eighty. It's a mirrored fulfillment.
And I'm just saying that some of the things that
you've listed actually are referenced in the Book of Acts
as well. So why would we think that an earthquake
happening somewhere is somehow or the fulfillment of that.
Speaker 3: Well, has the millennial reign happened in your view, because.
Speaker 1: My reign is the church. So for example, every time
Psalm one ten, for the most part, when it's cited
in the New Testament, it decided about the ascension and
not the Second Coming.
Speaker 3: All right, if I could speak just for a couple
of minutes here, okay, well.
Speaker 1: What I said registered, Are you aware of what I'm
talking about?
Speaker 21: Yeah, yeah, I am.
Speaker 3: And again I would have liked you to what what
is respectfully disagree?
Speaker 1: Okay? So what is disagree? Question about that? What is
Psalm one ten about?
Speaker 3: Feel free to read it to me, because I'm one
of the most I can't.
Speaker 1: Know it, Almostsienic Psalms sit at my right hand until
I make your enemies your footstool. When did Jesus sit
at the Father's right.
Speaker 3: Hand when he ascended?
Speaker 1: Yes, so the beginning of the reign of Christ to
sit at the right hand of the Father to reign
in that kingdom, just like Daniel seven says when he
comes to the Ancient of days, and he's given authority
over all tribes, songs and nations. When John sees into heaven,
he sees that as a present reality, that the Lamb
in heaven is given authority, dominion, and power over all tribes,
songs and nations. So Daniel seven is fulfilled in what
John sees in the book Revelation. It's the present reign
of Christ in the Church. That's why Jesus consistently refers
to the Church as the kingdom, such as Matthew sixteen.
He tells Peter, you are the rock, and I will
give you the keys. You will be the keyholder of
the Kingdom of Heaven. So it's a present reality.
Speaker 3: I disagree with your interpretation in all.
Speaker 1: Those versus where is there anything that is your interpretation?
Speaker 3: It's it's not about my interpretation. It's about the physical
reality of the fact that the Church is still here.
Paul said in the Twinkling of an Eye the Church.
Hold on, you've been talking, bro, Do I get to
respond or are you.
Speaker 21: Just going to talk over me?
Speaker 1: Goodbye? Prime?
Speaker 14: Definitely I agree with that young man that was talking
to you about the rapture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no rapture in the Bible. The rapture is
the bodily second coming of Christ to take us up
to the clouds. Does the Bible teach two comings of
Christ or one two? No teaches one. There's a twin
coming of Christ at the end to resonate. Tell me
about one. Tell me what's the only one? First cristin
fifteen Paul says that all of humanity will be resurrected
in Christ. That's the second resurrection. The first resurrection is baptism,
which begins when you join the church. Man, you're taking
the context out of the Bible. Man, I take the
context out. Sound like a pharisee. The only paris here's
you because you actually you are judaizing heretics. You're the Pharisees.
I'll tell you.
Speaker 14: In Thessalonians we talk about the raptures and the second
coming is with Jews.
Speaker 1: You don't like Jews? All right, you're a heretic. Do
you like Jews? You're a heretic, Father Christopher, You'll notice
the evangelicals have no conception of the Church. You see,
this is the big missing blind spot that Christ's reign
is in his kingdom which he identifies as the church
that he set up. Paul says, Jimi Peter says that
the church is a nation, a priesthood built on the
foundation stones of the apostles. It's a present reality. That
means the Church, the Temple, the body, the kingdom, the branch,
the tree, They're all identical. The sheep fold. It's the
same analogies for one historical visible entity, the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 43: That's it, Father Christopher, Hello everyone, God bless you. I
remember that I read on Saint tel Philostoph Bulgaria. He
interpreted that passage from Matthew that it was referring both
to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ.
There were separate passages. And this is also spiritual, as
I remember, there are spiritual symbols over there. So your
run out to be on winter or on the Saturday.
It's referring to the cold of faith.
Speaker 9: And the Saturday is the lack of work.
Speaker 43: So the laziness when you do not do the commandments
of the commandments of God's right.
Speaker 1: I understand that, but with a lot of evangelicals going
into the spiritual meanings of the text is going to
be lost on them and so I was focusing on
the immediate historical, grammatical, historical context just to get the
evangelicals out of thinking of it as the end of
the world necessarily.
Speaker 10: Okay, okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate absolutely No, you brought a great point, and
we do want to stress that it is we agree
of both. Right. So Jesus is talking about the events
contemporary with him. If you read Saint John Chrystalstm's sermons
on Matthew twenty four, for example, he makes us very
clear that about the destruction of the Temple, and there
is an application to the end of the world as well.
How do we know that? How do we know that
it's a mirrored thing? Again, because the abomination of desolation
that Daniel talks about is referring to the Maccabees. This
is why the Maccabees is in the Orthodox Bible. It
helps us understand this stuff. When Antiochus Apefans defiles the
temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar, that's the
abomination of desolation the days of the Maccabees. When Jesus
talks about the abomination of desolation in his day, he's
talking about Rome just like the Greeks, that they will
engage in the same defilement as a chastisement. And that's
exactly what happened in seventy eight when Titus Vespasian sacked Jerusalem,
put up the Roman pagan banners inside the temple, and
then burned it down and destroyed it. That's what Jesus
is predicting in Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four.
So the evangelical idiots who remove that historic interpretation and
fulfillment literally are taken away one of the strongest proofs
of the inspiration of the Gospels. This is why this
is so devastating and stupid to do this. And there's
not two comings of Christ. There's one return of Christ
at the last day. Jesus consistently says in John five.
On the last Day the dead will be raised, some
to the resurrection of life, others to the resurrection of condemnation.
There's not two comings of Christ, like the idiot dispensationalists
and premillennials say, there's one final return of Christ. That's
why this heresy is so insidious. You'll notice all these
people no connection to the historical Church. They default to Israel,
a secular nation state, as their church. That's so stupid
these people are. It's an amazing.
Speaker 29: It just becomes obvious. Obviously almost all, even Agelicals, are
historically illiterate. Yes, and so they would know this if
they were historically literate, first and of all. In the
second of all, they would know that millennialism and Chileanism
was condemned. Now that's not the same thing as rapture theory,
but it has elements obviously of it.
Speaker 11: And so what we just go to the text and
what do you notice?
Speaker 29: So they'll get the wrong interpretation because they're historically illiterate,
not knowing these things are already been solved and the
proofs are in the history. But number two, going to
the text, what do you see? There's no amount of
evidence that you can present to them from the text. Well,
they'll accept it. They'll just reinterpret it like this guy,
Oh brother, you're interpreting you wrong. You're so wait a minute,
everybody got this wrong for eighteen hundred years.
Speaker 1: They don't even know what the church taught historically, and
they don't care.
Speaker 29: Dot and then so and then we're going to get
our we have to wait eighteen hundred years to get
the correct interpretation from a fever dream from a guy
that comes out of Plymouth Brethren that are a cult
even by and weirdos even by Protestant standards.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's literally no Protestants to tat that doctrine either.
It's a good point, yeah, Slopez, Okay.
Speaker 11: It's for some reason.
Speaker 1: Again, I can't hear you. I'm not talking.
Speaker 44: Oh sorry, Okay, I had a question. I was reading
one of the books that you recommended, Orthodox Dogmatic.
Speaker 1: Theology and PSI or Stunny Yes.
Speaker 44: By Pomazansky, And inside of it he speaks about the
Christ as a sacrifice, and so I have a Protestant background,
and so some of it's just confusing to me. And
in it he's talking about let me pull up the
quote exactly, so it's from Saint Gregory the Theologian, and
he's talking about to whom was the blood offered? And
to whom what is it shed? And why was it shed?
I mean the precious blood of our glorious God. And
then of course he goes further on to say that
it wasn't to God the Father, and then it also
wasn't to Satan. The robber is how he refers to him.
Can you just help me understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So when you continue reading the book, you'll come
eventually to a chapter later on, and it may be
around that section where he will cite a Byzantine synod
that actually resolved this question when it came up around
the eleventh century. And what happens is that the divine
person of the Word is offering the human nature as
a sacrifice or in an of love, not to pay
off wrath or a debt, but to the Father by
the Son in the Holy Spirit. So the reason it's
not quote to the Father is not because it's not
at all to the Father. It's because it's not just
to the Father. That's because Roman Catholics in the Anselmian
theory teachs that the son is offered to the Father
as a payment. But that's a heresy because there's nothing
that exists or happens in God that is between two
persons and isn't triadic. So you can't have an offering
of the son to the Father that excludes the spirit.
So the Businessing Synod states that in the liturgy we've
solved this theological dilemma by noting that thine own, of
thine own, we offer unto Thee meaning Christ, the divine
person of the word, offers the human nature to the
Father by himself in the spirit. So it's a triadic
trinitarian offering, is what the synods decided.
Speaker 44: Okay, and that makes the language and the liturgy make
more sense exactly, okay, okay, perfect, thank you jay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you'll notice how different that is from Protestanism
because for the Orthodox, the liturgy ended up solving this development.
So it's not that the Bible doesn't matter. The liturgy
is literally all Bible, like every bit of it. But
the Church said, our liturgical service itself is a kind
of divine tradition that can help resolve this question.
Speaker 44: So is then the Protestant understanding of it just come
from a further taking of Augustine's theology?
Speaker 1: Uh No, not really Augustine. In fact, Augustine would be
much more in line with us on this topic. Actually,
it's a combination of Anse's theory of atonement, which is
a payment debt model. He's really the first to suggest
a legal payment debt theory, and some thinks that there's
an infinite debt, a creed to accrued to us by sin,
and that only an infinite person could pay off, namely
God the Son. So God the Son pays off the
infinite debt to God the Father, and thus his wrath
is assuaged. So the beginning is of atonement PSA type
theory in that way, in a legal construct you go
to ansel. But then you get in the middle ages
of a very important development called nominalism from William of
Oakham and Gabriel Bile, and they influence Luther, who is
able to then say, well, this is how God can
say you are legally righteous and declared and viewed as righteous,
even though onto logically speaking, you have not become righteous.
You're still filthy rags. But God can declare you and
see you as righteous through the legal imputational covering of price.
And it's based on nominalism, namely that things can be
called things even if they're not that thing. Do you
know what I mean monominalism?
Speaker 44: Not exactly now, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: So it's a denial of things having essences. Right, So
how could God call a man righteous if in fact
he is in fact unrighteous? And for the Orthodox right,
being righteous means that you're participating in the uncreated onto
logical energies of God. You see, it's not just a
legal status, but Luther needed a way to make it
a purely legal status with no ontological metaphysical implications. The
philosophy of nominalism, which denies the existence of essences and universals,
allowed him to make that move. Okay, okay, So that
makes a lot of the other thing that that proves.
And you can read Haiko Oberman's book, who himself is
a Lutheran on this called Harvest Medieval Theology, and al
Tra McGrath's what you See You Today. They both are
Protestant theologians who admit all this. What that shows us
is that if the ancient and medieval world did not
teach nominalism, then sola fide is literally impossible in the
ancient world. That means Paul didn't teach soul. If you didn't.
Speaker 44: And so when we hear early Church fathers talking about
Christ as a sacrifice, this is what they mean Versus
and Protestants when they hear that, they kind of just
put their own ideology into that.
Speaker 1: Correct And also you'll note when you read through the
Palma Zanski, there will be a section where they cite
the Byzantine Synod that I was referring to, where it
talks about how well we could what creature could pay
off God even if we did have a debt model. Here,
I mean, you can't pay God with a human body
or with a bull or a goat.
Speaker 44: So even the Old Testament sacrifices weren't a payment directly,
and that all does that in Romans, I.
Speaker 1: Mean in Hebrews. Yeah, the blood of goats and bulls
cannot affect the forgiveness of sense. Okay, well, why can
the blood of the God Man do it? Because of
the actual metaphysical change that we experience through the Eucharist.
Speaker 44: And if this is too much, just let me know.
But what was then the point of those Old Testament sacrifices.
Speaker 1: No, they all do point to Christ's work, Okay, okay,
but the point is that neither the animals nor the
human body of Christ pays off God. You can't pay
off God. So what I'm saying is that the payment
debt model is not the exhaustive model of redemption. Okay,
there's no and that's why God's infinite. So look, the
reason they argue that is because God is infinite and perfect.
He doesn't need anything, so there's no need to pay
him off. That's why it wouldn't make sense exactly. That's
why it's an offering of love, and it's a demonstration
of divine love, not the father damning the son like
p s Asis.
Speaker 44: Yeah, and that was one thing that you know, had
strayed me away from the church for a long time,
was I didn't understand why God would require a sacrifice,
much less of his own son.
Speaker 1: And it says this in the book, it's atheism. It's
like it would it would make me an atheist too.
Speaker 44: Yeah, it's it's and it's like it's almost like paganism, you.
Speaker 1: Know, it is like requiring blood sacrifice. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 44: And when he wouldn't even accept it, says this in
the Palm's ansky book. But when he wouldn't even accept
Isaac from uh Abraham, I'm sorry, when he wouldn't accept
his son from him, why would he then accept you know,
that's a good point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't even think about that. Yeah, good point.
Speaker 44: But okay, but thank you, Jay, I appreciate great questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Actually, that Byzantine Sonat was a huge one for
me and it. Also it's like literally the only like
it's almost like the Orthodox Church in that synod refuted
p s A like centuries before PSA existed. Slava, Hello, yeah, oh, hey, j.
Speaker 45: I just didn't want to trupt you if you're still
talking anyway, I was just gonna ask you what I've
discussed with the Protestant. He's mentioned something and I wanted
to know how you would respond. He brought up the
urgy in the in the liturgy. Yeah, he brought up
theorgy like th e u r g y is the liturgy,
And I just wanted to know he was using it
in an accusatory sense, essentially saying like, oh, this is
borrowed from pagan practices.
Speaker 1: How you respond? That's the word concept fallacy, right, So
just because Neoplatonic magicians use the term, uh, theurgy or
like we talk about saying Gregory the Fama turgis the miracle,
wonder worker, he's just just engaging in a word concept
fallacy that therefore must mean ritual magic.
Speaker 45: Right Yeah, Like if someone does something doesn't make it
automatically bad. So, uh is it just a pretty much
the Orthodox except that, yeah, we are participating in theorgy
Is that how it would be stated or I don't
want to misstate the Orthodox position on that. Is it
just yeah, we accept theurgy as you can do it
in a Christian sense too.
Speaker 1: Is that how you ADVERG? I mean, the terminology might
have been used at some point by a church father,
but it's not that common and it might lead to
a lot of confusion. So I mean it might give
the people impression that we're trying to be neoplatonic magicians,
you know, working divine workings or something. So it's just
literally just it's just a word that is depend upon
the context.
Speaker 29: By the way, I think that you shared that example.
We were just doing fallacies in logic class and I
was trying to think of example of variouseing examples of
post hawk ergo propter hawk. That would be one that
simply because something was prior in time that therefore it's
the cause the other thing. So yeah, you can find
elements or words and a religion prior to the establishment
of the church in thirty three a G doesn't mean
that it's the cause of that, so thank you.
Speaker 10: Cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot of the like zeitgeist level stuff
is what Father Deacon's talking about they use the post
hoc ergo propter hawk fallacy.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I totally agree with that.
Speaker 45: I think that's what came to my mind too. I
just wanted to make sure and then I had one
more question, but it would is kind of escaping me
now someone someone who brought up the atonement.
Speaker 31: I guess one thing.
Speaker 45: I would just wanted to thank you for bringing up
this stuff about how you know, how if you have
Orthodox Christianity you maintain the rituals. And when I was
I didn't realize how important that was until I started
looking into it further. And uh, yeah, I totally agree
with you when you say, like Christian zion Is is
basically just like trying to fill a gap that if
you don't have any kind of connection to history, then
you're longing for that. But if you understand that the
Church is the true Israel and that those promises are
now transferred onto Christians at least in large part, you
know most of those promises and that's just biblical. I've
convinced quite a few people just pointing that out, and
it's kind of it's kind of hard for them to
disagree because it is so abundantly clear from scripture, So
I think that's a pretty easy thing to argue with people.
Speaker 31: Lastly, I was just on the atonement thing.
Speaker 45: I don't know if you've heard of need good dot net,
but he has a pretty like very basic tier understanding
of the atonement and the penal substitutionary atonement center.
Speaker 1: I'm aware of them. He debated Kyle. I know who
he is. Oh, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 45: Yeah, I thought, I mean, I know, yeah, however you
feel about doing debates now, but I thought it would
be interesting, so I thought i'd throw that out thet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know if I would, I might not
be able to hold my t.
Speaker 45: Or was that guy I kind of did the same Yeah,
I kind of did the same thing. And it's yeah,
it's it's kind of hard to because I feel like
it is a very like I don't know.
Speaker 31: I think he has one goal.
Speaker 45: Which is probably just to talk to people have no
idea about like Christianity, and you know they kind of well,
most people he reaches out like they don't have any
experience with Christianity.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like the debate with like Bryson
or that guy a couple of nights ago, Like if
somebody is like really low tier. It's very difficult to
not kind of get frustrated when they don't know basic things,
and they're usually those people are like super arrogant and
self assured.
Speaker 31: Yeah it is.
Speaker 45: It does come across as very prideful a lot of times.
It's kind of hard to like hold back from going
in on that. But yeah, I get what you're saying anyway,
that's all I got thinks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's the same kind of with All
brackt Like, I don't know that I'll be able to
like not just start busting on him and making fun
of him, and he would do and all the Catholics
to do is play victim. Oh look at her, he
can't he can't even handle it. Look at he lose it,
so you know, and they would try, of course everything
to try to get me bum fuzzled. So I think
if you give all Bricked enough time, he'll fizzle out
and destroy himself, just like Lofton has basically done. Because
there's such nasty, slimy people, like they eventually run everybody off.
So so you know, Lofton is Loston's worst enemy, and
I just think All Brick's worse than Loston, so taking
time bombs bone art, I mean, can you hear me? Yeah?
All right.
Speaker 46: I just wanted to say that the Evangelicals are like
the Jesuits. They're ungodly people. The Catholics don't know history correctly,
so that's relevant. And the Protestants actually had more slaves
than the Jews had slaves. That's really all I wanted
to say. Because you don't know what a druid is either.
A druid, Yeah, would you like to talk about that?
Speaker 1: I know what Druidism is. I'm not an expert on it,
but I'm familiar with the history of Druidism. It's not
an ism, but yeah, I mean it's commonly referred to
that as that in the literature.
Speaker 46: It depends who wrote that literature. Okay, that's all you
have to say. Well, I guess that's all folks. I
don't know what you say either. I can't hear a word.
Speaker 42: That Jay is speaking.
Speaker 1: I have zero sound. Hello.
Speaker 46: It says that there's connection issues with j Did you
wrap your device in tinfoil