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