Speaker 1: The FTX collapse, the Voyager collapse, the Celsius collapse, and
this allowed the normies to say bitcoin, crypto dead. That
is no longer the case. We're back at post halving
precisely on time, almost on time, right, one hundred k bitcoin,
So we're only I don't know what it is. I
haven't looked at it in a while, but we were
in the nineties of this morning, so we're only about
ten percent eight percent away from one hundred k bitcoin,
which will put it where we expected it to be
via the Plan B stock to flow chart, and Plan
B has in his model what year is this around
twenty twenty six, And again this could be a little late, right,
it could be over here twenty twenty seven. One million
dollar big one. I absolutely believe we're gonna have one
million dollar bigcoin. I believe we're gonna have one million
dollar bitcoin. When we had three thousand dollars bitcoin. That's
when I first figured out what this was. And the
point I'm making here with all this is it's not
about when's the right time. It's if you think long term,
if there's million dollar bitcoin in twenty twenty seven, you
will wish you were buying ninety thousand dollars bitcoin. Do
you see what I'm saying? And when there's one hundred thousand,
when there's million dollar bitcoin, there will no longer be
one one hundred thousand dollars bitcoin. I mean, when bitcoin
gets to a million, the crash will be to like
three or four hundred thousand whatever I'm most likely and
this isn't perfect, but whatever the cycle top is this cycle,
which could be two fifty three hundred. If we have
crazy balls banana zone, we could have three hundred thousand
dollars bitcoin buy May June July. That will probably be
the cycle top, right. And then if we have a
crash down to worst case scenario sixty seventy eighty thousand
by the time we get to one million dollar bitcoin
in twenty twenty six seven, that means the crash will
be the previous cycle top to fifty three hundred. So
there you go. So what should that What that should
tell you is DCA if you're not a big level
investor with a lot of money and you want to
do big things or whatever, like if you're a working
class person, what I would do. I'm not telling I
can't tell you what to do. But what I would
do is I would DCA and I would make BTC
my savings account. That's what I would do. I would
not put my savings account in dollars, but I can't
tell you. If you want to do that, that's up
to you. Some people think gold's a safer If you
want to do that, that's up to you. However, if
you chose gold throughout this time frame, you made a
dumb decision. I mean, you missed out on I mean
the last ten years of your savings in gold versus
the last ten years of your saving in bitcoin. I mean,
come on, we've shown this chart many times. Do you
want like a two x or do you want like
one hundred x? Okay, it's not rocket scienceer. And that
goes into why bitcoin as far as superior to gold?
And I played many videos. I think the best video
proving that bitcoin is superior to gold is the Mark
Moss video. What did he title that as?
Speaker 2: Really?
Speaker 1: He actually shows you with a lot of mathematics. I
think it's the video already says how do we get
to a million dollar bitcoin or something like that? Let's see,
it's not this, it's from like I think it's this one.
How math shocking math to how bitcoin could reach forty
three million. Now he's saying forty three million by like,
you know, twenty forty, right, he's talking about way down
the line if we have global adoption. For those that
don't know, Bitcoin just flips silver. Silver's market cap was
just surpassed by Bitcoin's market cap. And as Max Kaiser
said on Alex yesterday, the next logical step bitcoin will
flip the market cap of gold. Now people laughed and
said it would never flip silver. It just did. How
do we get to flipping gold? Flipping gold is leads
us to a nine hundred k bitcoin, So gold like
seventeen trillion. If bitcoin flips gold, that means each bitcoin
is literally nine hundred k. So we're almost at a
million dollars, so basically a million dollar bitcoin when we
flipped gold. And I'm pretty sure this is the video
where Mark Moss explains how you get to that level
of flipping gold. Yes, I think this is it your
gold here he's somewhat gold standard, yes, And this is
where he explains exactly and precisely why bitcoin is superior
even to gold. And I hate I'm not trying to
hurt gold bugs feelings in the chat, and a lot
of people love gold. Let me tell you, I'll I'll
give you an example though. In twenty nineteen and twenty nine,
I didn't have like a huge amount of goal. I
think I had about thirteen thousand dollars in gold, like
actual physical gold, right, So I had a nice little
pile of gold and I sold all of that in
twenty nineteen and put it on into bitcoin because I
was convinced at that time as well, this is this
and I don't remember what what bitcoin is that I
I might have gotten one bitcoin out of that, don't remember,
but like I was convinced even then. Oh wait a minute,
this is this is a period waste of periit to
gold gold gold is like, we're not going back to conquistador. Okay,
We're not gonna be a Viles and Magellan floating around
on ships with you know, giant treasure boxes full of
gold toaballoons and Spanish medallions or whatever. Okay, that's just
not we don't We live in the digital world, people,
and so doesn't it make sense of have a digital money? Well,
of course it was anyway, Uh, if you get me
talking on this I'll ramble forever. So I'm not gonna
keep going on this topic. I got I gotta get
to get some coffee, and we got we gotta get
our Mormon bro in Here, Nick sends another amazing wow,
one hundred dollars super chat. I have enough BTC. I
don't rely on super chats to a living stick to
the topic, bro, I'm gonna talk about whatever I want
to in any video. So again, uh, your passive aggressive
of sending me money but then dissing me kind of
a weird flex here. So I'm glad that you have BTC,
But if you're really into BTC, you would know that
all BTC people want to evangelize BTC because we believe
it's ethical money. We believe it's the future of you know,
fair and balance financing such that the government can't steal
from you. And so I will always talk about bitcoin
on my streams, and I appreciate you donating, But like,
if you want to preach at me, you can just
keep your money, man, Nick, fifty dollars, You're bitcoin analysis
is so low tier? Why are you giving me money
to tell me that my should is low tier? Why
don't you play a bit Boy video for well, Bitboy
was a scammer who pushed all kinds of scam coins,
so why would my coin analysis be at the level
of bit Boy. By the way, I'm all refund your
superchats so you don't need to keep sending me super chats,
and I don't care how much money you want to
flash at me. Let's just go to streamline. I'm want
to block you and refund your money because I don't
like your attitude. Let's see, let's go to tipping tip
history and I am gonna refund his money. So let's see,
let's hit refund refunded that one, yes, refund the second
one yes, and hit block Yes. Take your shitty attitude elsewhere.
All right, Uh, we have a message from our sponsor.
Our sponsors, of course, chalk dot com the best and supplementation.
You can't beat chalk dot com. I'm gonna tell you.
Let let chalk tell you about themselves, and don't go
anywhere in the chat over here on X I'll be
right back.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most
of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies
and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it.
Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen
any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male.
This is important and there could be consequences.
Speaker 1: There's a new.
Speaker 3: Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It
is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers,
fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored
with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab.
Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract,
which will get your mind going and pump you up
to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with
all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the
kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering
a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire
your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode
will make you more dominant in your daily life, so
proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or
two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice,
providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst
of sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you
the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure
your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a
limited time massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days.
Not for your average jimbrozoomer who consumes synthetic blue dyes
on the daily. Buy on the TikTok shop now with
a massive discount provided by TikTok for a very limited time.
Buy now while This is still available, or go to
Chuck dot com and use code in caption. Chad Mode
has been flying off the shelves because it's the first
of its kind, certified for Alpha males only. Do not buy.
If you are a beta. We will refund your money.
I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most
of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes
and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it.
Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen
any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male.
This is important and there could be consequences.
Speaker 1: There's a new.
Speaker 3: Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It
is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers,
fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode. Colored
with organic blue Spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab.
Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract
which will get your mind going and pump you up
to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with
all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the
kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering
a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts.
Speaker 1: Chadmark Welcome back. Remember head on over to chalk dot com.
That is c choq dot com, the best in supplementation
that you can find out there on the world wide Web.
They are our sponsor. They provide the best in terms
of really strict purity guidelines for their products, so you
know you're getting really truly rainforest sourced. Actually not joking.
If you go look up the ton catile ee and
those products, you will find that it is one in
percent purely sourced from rainforest sources, and their products do
not contain any genetically modified gibberish, crap toxicity, nothing like that.
If you go over there and use the promo code
J forty jy four zero, you'll get forty percent off
all those products if you want to test it out,
if you're new to chalk or you can use the
promo code J forty four life. That's JAY four four
L I f E to get forty four percent off
those products. But remember that is a subscription model, and
you can unsubscribe at anytime if you need to, so
you get a little better of a discount if you
utilize that time. Utilize that, assume that promo code. All
people talking about info wars. No, bitcoin is not unregulated.
Fiat bitcoin is the opposite of fiat. I mean there
is a technically speaking, there is a quote fiat element
in the issuance of bitcoin in terms of the halving,
but it is not fiat because it is capped at
twenty one million. Open up stream yard. I don't have
stream yard, dummy, Just why are you spamming the chat?
I've never used stream lard Yard if you want to
call in to debate, you call in here right here
at the status or excuse me, the X link so
you can call in there on X and I recommend
you check out the ton Kettlee It's my favorite, again
proven to boost test austerone. I think Chalk said that
there's going to be some Friday sales, so we're actually
going to have some Friday sales elements to push. If
you want to keep paying attention, there might be some
good discounts coming up Friday, but as for right now,
utilize those promo codes to get access to four percent
off that performance stack. You can also utilize the Male
Vitality Stack there. It's a little bit less the maximum
Performance Stack, which is you know, two chunks of that
Chad mood stuff is crazy. It's really strong, so be careful.
And then for the ladies too, we have ten percent
of this audience is ladies dudes, which is fine. I'm
okay with all of the dude bros. But for that
ten percent of ladies, there is also the female Vitality
Stack as well. If you are into health fitness and
utilizing products that will accompany your GEM attendance, your workout attendance,
your healthy diet. So to the Bajete dude that was
going crazy in the chat, you're welcome to come and debate.
I don't know what you're telling me to open up
stream yards. I don't use string yards. Okay, Ben, let's
go to Ben. What's up man? I did a whole
video called election Predictions. What do you mean you can't
find it? It's literally right there on the channel, Ben,
what's up making I'm mute?
Speaker 2: Oh? Hey, hey nothing?
Speaker 1: How are you good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 5: I just saw you included Mormon in the title.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to.
Speaker 6: Talk to you about that.
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah, we had a Mormon guy come in about
the first hour, but that didn't go so well. So
you're welcome to make any arguments or haven't. If you
have any questions or anything you want to present, you're
welcome to it.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 2: So first off, you're.
Speaker 1: Are you like any particular We're Orthodox or Orthodox Christianity,
so like.
Speaker 5: Okay, So I I served an LDS.
Speaker 1: Mission in Russia.
Speaker 5: That's Russian Orthodox, so I'm kind of familiar with that.
But there's there's not really too many significant differences between
the different.
Speaker 1: Orthodox churches, right, no between strictly speaking Orthodox churches. No,
they have the same dogmatic decrees, confession and catechism, et cetera.
All right, cool, did you have to learn about like
Russian Orthodoxy before you went there?
Speaker 5: I mean I did just out of curiosity. The missionary
training is pretty like standardized, and it's just about our
core doctrine because it's like you get, it's eighteen year
old kids, so it's.
Speaker 1: Like you just.
Speaker 5: You just have to like teach the basics.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so.
Speaker 5: I'm down to debate about any issue.
Speaker 1: I feel like, I feel like the main.
Speaker 5: Issue that the LDS have differently from the Orthodox, well,
obviously we have the Great Apostle see that no other
Christians really believe in. But then there's also trinitarianism.
Speaker 1: Well, how about this topic? You know, in the in
the all the translations that precede the translations that Joseph
Smith did in Luke sixteen sixteen, Jesus says the law
and the prophets were until John, and since that time
the Kingdom of Heaven has been preached and everyone is
pressing into it. Now. This to us, along with Galatians
one eight and Jude three, teaches us that there's essentially
an end to the prophetic line. We don't need nor
do we have any prophets or new prophets or new
divine revelations after the death of the apostles. And so
if that's the case, that automatically cuts out any cult, religion,
or sect, be it Muhammadism or Mormonism, that purports to
have a new prophet with new divine revelations.
Speaker 5: Okay, So it's Luke sixteen, I read through that, And
what was the other one.
Speaker 1: Jude Jude three? The faith is once we're all delivered
to the saints, speaking of in Jude's day Jude three,
and then Galatians one, particularly round verse eight, where Paul
says that there can never be any new gospel or
new revelations, even by an Angel, that differs from the
revelation of the Gospel that Paul has in the New Testament.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, so uh okay, So I guess
I'll address those scriptures just.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I gotta stop.
Speaker 5: Looking at chat Uh.
Speaker 1: One by one.
Speaker 5: Okay, So, Luke sixteen, I guess. So, first of all,
would you agree that there's no one thing of scripture
like everyone that reads scripture, there's like a few different
meanings that you can glean from the same.
Speaker 2: Set of words.
Speaker 1: Well, in the Orthodox tradition and the history of the Church,
both East and West, we have the idea that there's
layers and levels to scripture. So this is sometimes called
the quadraga or the four levels of scripture. The literal level,
which is kind of the immediate historical, grammatical historical context.
There's the anagogical, there's a tropological, and the allegorical. So
those layers and levels, though, can never differ or contradict
the immediate grammatical historical, So there's a kind of limitation
on any kind of over allegorizing or over speculative hermeneutic
that we might use. So in one sense, I could say, yeah,
I think that the scriptures are deep, and they have,
if you want to simplify it, a literal meaning and
then a quote spiritual meaning. But that has nothing to
do with whether or not there could be contradictory interpretations
of texts that are quote valid. There are no contradictory interpretations.
Speaker 5: That are valid, Okay, I mean I can so contradictory
with the overall Gospel message.
Speaker 1: Right, contradictory in any sense, whether it's the Gospel message,
or whether it's contradicting other Bible texts, whether it's contradicting
basic principles of logic, reasoning, et cetera. There's no possibility
of the revelation having multifaceted and quote interpretations that contradict
because that would be a form of postmodernism or relativism. Yeah, no,
I agree with that. Okay, okay, cool.
Speaker 5: So the main versus sixteen then in Luke sixteen sixteen,
the law of profits were until John. Since that time,
the Kingdom of God has preached in every man presses
into it. So I mean, I I mean, I agree
with that.
Speaker 1: I agree with the Well, how would you agree with
that if Jeb's a smith is a prophet giving new
revelation eighteen hundred years later.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't think it says in that specific verse
that there won't be subsequent profits.
Speaker 1: Well, if the lineage of profits in the Old Testament
sense ends that John the Baptist, it does say that.
Speaker 2: Well, it says they.
Speaker 1: Were in til John.
Speaker 5: And this is Jesus speaking like while like during I
don't know if John was alive.
Speaker 1: At this point.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is like in the timeframe of John.
He's saying, along the profits were intel John, just.
Speaker 1: Because he's not.
Speaker 5: Saying he's saying that this thing happened, the law and
the prophets were to tell John, and the law in
the Kingdom of God was preached. So he's to me,
he's giving like historical contexts for the lesson he's teaching.
He's not making a statement about prophetic line ending.
Speaker 1: Are you aware that in the Joseph Smith translation he
changed this verse to not say what it says in
every previous translation. Yeah, oh you are.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well it's funny because what he changed it to says
and they said, unto him, we have the law and
the prophets. As for this man, we will not receive
him to be our ruler. So that's Luke sixteen sixteen
in the Joseph Smith translation. So all the previous all
the previous manuscripts say what I'm saying. Joseph Smith translates
this to say what it doesn't say, which.
Speaker 5: Will there's Have you read verse seventeen in the Joseph
Smith's translation.
Speaker 1: They said, unto him, the law and the prophets testify
of me, and the prophets that have written even until
John foretold of these days. That does not say that
the law and the prophets were until John, because were
until John. Suggests that there's no more prophets in that
Old Testament sense now that John came. Why is that?
Because John is the announcement, the announcer of the coming
of the Messiah. Now that Jesus has come, the role
of an Old Testament prophet is done. There are no
more over old tipmate prophets, because the finality of revelation,
as Hebrews One says, Are you familiar with the way
Hebrews The one says that in former times God spoke
to us in various ways and in various means, via
the prophets, via science, symbols, etc. In these last days,
he has spoken to us through his son. There's a
finality to this such that anyone after this time. And
you may not know this, but a few centuries after
the death of the Apostles, there was a group called
the Montanists. Have you heard of them? No? So, the
montanus existed around second century into the third century, and
they were a quasi quote charismatic group that resurrected this
idea that hey, there's new revelations, and Montanus is the
voice and mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. And because of
these new revelations, what was prior revealed in the Bible
and the Old Testament, in these in these New Testament
passages and texts that were circulating, that's now superseded by
the new direct revelations of Montanus. The Church at that time,
explicitly in ecumenical councils and in local synods, rejects the
entire premise of Montanus as a new prophet and voice
of the Holy Spirit because of what I'm saying, which
is that there are no new prophets and no new
revelations after the death of the apostles. There's a finality
to divine revelation, and that means that all cults and
sex be they Islam be they Mormonism are false religions.
Speaker 2: Okay, So first.
Speaker 5: First all address the scriptures, and then I'll address the Montanism.
Speaker 1: Have you heard of Tertullian?
Speaker 2: Oh? I can I address those things? You can?
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to kind of jog your memory, maybe
help with associations. You know what Tertullian is? No, no,
So he's the most famous second century patristic writer theologian.
His name Tertullian. So if you were familiar with church history,
you would know that the most famous writer of the
second century became a Montanist. He went into the cult
of Montanus and fell for this delusion, and that's why
he's not believed to be a saint in the Orthodox
or Catholic churches. So I'm just giving you an example
of a historical time frame and a person that you
could look to to say, ah, here's a guy. Second
century Tertullian becomes a Montanist. The Church universally rejects Montanism,
and so in order for your position to be maintained,
it would require this quote great apostasy position, which contradicts
Jesus teaching that the gates of Hell would never prevail
against the Church and that His spirit would always be
there to lead into guide the successors to the apostles
and to the end of the age.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, you're you're you're bringing up these different arguments.
I just want to like get into the weeds with uh, with.
Speaker 2: All of them.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've spent Yeah, fine, Luke sixteen sixteen is
mistranslated by your cult leader to say what it doesn't say.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, so here's here's what I'm saying, is Luke
sixteen sixteen, And the same thing is in Hebrews. They're
they're creating a historical context of God sent prophets, and
now He has sent his son.
Speaker 2: So just because they say.
Speaker 5: This, it doesn't exclude profits from ever coming again. They
don't explicitly exclude.
Speaker 1: Well, then, so then the faith was not once. So
then the faith was not once for all delivered to
the saints past tense in Jude three.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 5: Six times the faith was delivered to the saints.
Speaker 1: Now, if there's ongoing new revelations, which Paul warns about
in Galatians one, about even if an angel shows up
and preaches you a new gospel, which is the very
thing that your cult is based on, an angel showing
up and preaching a new gospel.
Speaker 5: We don't believe there are new revelations. Well, we don't
believe they are new beliefs. We don't believe they are
a new gospel. We believe they're a restoration of the
lost Gospel.
Speaker 1: Well that's all bullshit, that's all comic book stuff. So
where is any evidence of a restoration?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean the restor of the priesthood of the
church organization.
Speaker 1: And where was any of this that existed prior that
you restored? Where is where did it die? Baptisms?
Speaker 2: Baptisms?
Speaker 7: For I didn't ask you about your specific I didn't
ask you about your specific I asked you where specifically
was the last time this existed such that it had
to be restored?
Speaker 1: Where's that point? Where? What? Give me an example of this?
Speaker 5: Where the Twelve Apostles baptism for the dead.
Speaker 1: That's a basic noess, hold on, hold on, that's a
separate So you believe that the Twelve Apostles taught what
you believe?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Do they teach the Trinity?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: So the New Testament? Have you read the Gospel of John?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Does it teach the Trinity?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Do you want to walk through the Gospel of John?
Where did you know? Every chapter, every chapter, every chapter
teaches the deed of Christ and the triad explicitly. If
you if you.
Speaker 5: Had read the Book of Mormon, you would know that
it also uses that type of language that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're cult lies and uses the language and
then gives a different meaning because you're you're a polytheistic cult.
You believe that God the Father was once a man
who became deified and had offspring and physical sex. That's
why it's a stupid cult. No, no, it's not. Don't lie.
Speaker 2: You're not.
Speaker 1: You're not talking to people who we know what your
church teaches. You're saying that you don't believe that God
the Father was once a man. You don't know what
it says. Hold on, So you're saying your church doesn't
teach that God the Father was once a man. It
says he was like so you're lying. He was like Christ,
he was one. That's so he was a man with
a body. That's a man. Right, yeah, we believe. So
now you're lying, so you do teach that.
Speaker 5: We know you're saying that God the Father was once
a sinful man.
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. When I didn't say that, I
know what you're making up bullshit and put it in
my mouth. I didn't say that. By the way, why
does Joseph Smith add all these verses to Genesis fifty.
Speaker 5: Well, you're you're not arguing in a in a coherent
or honest way.
Speaker 1: You just literally lied and attributed to me something I
didn't say, and then admitted that you do believe that God,
God the Father was once a man? And I'm just
simply I'm asking. I pointed out that you're dishonest about that,
and then I'm asking a separate question because you're not
honest there. Why does Joseph Smith add versus about himself
in Genesis fifty? Why are you are you're going to
giggle at me? You're giggling at meument because you lied,
and because you lied and weren't honest about God the
Father having a body and being a man. You lied.
Do you want me to address that? I want to
know about Genesis fifty. Why does Joseph Smith make up
bullshit versus about himself? He's a con man? Genesis fifty,
Genesis fifty, Stop deflecting Genesis fifty. Answer the question about
Genesis fifty or I'm booting you.
Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're done. This is this is That's what you
get with this dumb, cold tim what's up for those
that don't know? Again, Joseph Smith, this is how stupid
this is. Because Genesis is talking about the patriarch, Joseph,
this dumb ass con man inserted himself as if Genesis
is talking about Joseph Smith. I kid you, you can't
make this up. It's right here on the screen for you.
From their website, the additional verses that Joseph Smith added
to Genesis to predict himself. If you can't see that
that's a con man, there's no hope for you. I
can't help you. Imagine the people that believe this nonsense.
This is so stupid. And then you heard that whole
like he knows. I wasn't. I was saying that he
teaches that God the Father was once a man, and
then he lied and said, you said a sinful man.
I didn't say any of that. I just said he
was a man who impregnated women, had spirit babies and
all that and became God the Father. O. No, we
don't teach that. That's a misreading. But actually he was
a man like Christ. It's literally one of the dumbest
cults out. I mean, I don't know who's dumber, Mormons
or Muslims. It's hard to say loved, and you know,
I hate the condescending giggle. As soon as somebody does
the condescending giggle, I'm out, what's up?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 1: Loved? Well, God the Father wasn't a man, he was
a guy like Christ. Exactly what I said, Elias, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey? Sorry, I was not a paying attention.
Speaker 9: I have a couple of questions regarding ontology ontological arguments.
Speaker 1: Okay, appropriate for you're cutting out, so go ahead. It's
hard to hear you.
Speaker 2: Oh shoot, is that better?
Speaker 1: No, it's better, go ahead.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just I asked some questions regarding cosmological arguments.
I'm in a philosophy of religion class and we're kind
of we're going over them. I have a project I
want to incorporate some kind of Eastern Orthodox theology into it.
Would be okay if I asked some philosophical questions or
are you just wanting to base today?
Speaker 1: Uh? Preferably be preferably debates. I mean, I don't like,
there's no offense to you, but it sounds like a
really long boring question. No, no, I'm not calling you boring.
I'm just saying, like, what's the question.
Speaker 2: I was?
Speaker 9: I was just going to ask about the veracity of
cosmological arguments in general.
Speaker 2: I know that a lot of kind of like tag proponents.
Speaker 1: Will Yeah, they just rely on a lot of things
that are in question, and they kind of assume that
it's the Christian God who's the first cause. And that's
all begging the question. So I don't think they do
very good. I mean you could make you could make
a transcendental version of a cosmological argument, which would be good.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And I've heard that some of Maximus the Confessor.
I'm reading part of his on the Cosmic Mystery of
Jesus Christ right now. I'm kind of getting my way
through it. I've heard that he does rely on some
cosmological arguments, not necessarily as proofs, but just as understanding
Christ and God the Father.
Speaker 2: I might be wrong here, This is kind of hearsaying.
I haven't read the entire thing yet, but I.
Speaker 9: Also wanted to know if you have you heard of
those guys that Telos bound, that that group who does
a lot of like I think they call it communal ontology.
Have you heard of those guys at all? On h
What are your thoughts on that? Because I find it
pretty interesting from what I listened to. I'm not super
like versed in philosophy. I'm trying to learn it as
we like you knows, as.
Speaker 1: I think that there is a lot to be uh
derived from the notion of reality being fundamentally triaddic and
a triad in communion. So I think there's a lot
to be gained from that. And uh, you know, I
think if you read somebody like Steinyloy three Orthodox Dogmatics,
Volume one, Uh, there's some really good information that regard there. W.
What's up? W? You know what I mean? I'm going
full red stick snap into us slim jem W can't
connect Parker, not Lewis Parker Scott, Parker, Scott, what's up? Man?
I have a week kind of week right now. I
need some substance. What's up, man?
Speaker 2: Yo? Can you hear me? Uh?
Speaker 1: Huh? What's up?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 10: I've listened to most of your debates and I'm just
a little interested in because it seems like with most
of your debates, like Alex Malpass, you guys are kind
of debating if God exists.
Speaker 8: And my main.
Speaker 10: Question for that was for the Transton dental argument.
Speaker 2: How do you take it.
Speaker 11: From say they were like Alex Malpass is like, okay,
sure I believe in like a deistic guy, how would
you then use the transcendental argument to point back to
specifically Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard a debate when you get that far yet.
Speaker 10: So I was just wondering what your logic is on that.
Speaker 1: I did a whole talk on it. I've done multiple
on it. So go back and watch the critique of
Ed Faser. I'll talk about it there Ali, Ali Noggle.
Speaker 2: Hey, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Huh Hey, thanks for having me on. So I am
coming from Protestantism and I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy thanks
to your channel.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 12: And I just have like some like slow boy questions,
and I know that this might not be the in
Gopher today, so maybe I can just ask you you
can let me know if these are in Scobe or not.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm trying to be rude to you, but
you know, if it's like Kate Quisa's questions, you can
take those to your priest or you know, if you
could read the Pomazansky book today. I'm just really looking
for people who are disagreeing or would like to debate.
But what other questions, Well.
Speaker 12: It's I guess you could say it's a little bit
of a debate because you you hold the reception theory
of ecumenicism.
Speaker 13: Is that right?
Speaker 12: Or like depraming whether ecumenical councils or.
Speaker 1: Can ecumenicism is the acumenist movement that has nothing to
do with ecumenical councils.
Speaker 12: Right, right, right, Sorry, I misspoke.
Speaker 1: I think a reception theory is part of our position.
It's not the totality of what makes an ecumenical council
and ecumenical council. It's just that part of what will
be the public indicator or identifier is if the entire
church eventually does receive it. The Orthodox world. So for example,
the Palamide Synods, they're not ecumenical councils because they were
local to Byzantium. However, the entire Orthodox world has received
those pan Orthodox that you could call them pan Orthodox synods.
Speaker 12: Now yeah, okay, And so that's kind of where I
think the debate comes in, because I was just reading
and searing some arguments against that position, such as like,
so if you have like the Fourth Ecumenical Council where
a significant portion of the church like disagreed, how do
you determine, like if you're living in that time period,
whether it's a schism or whether it's a robber council.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in the immedia other than whether the council
is teaching something true or false, that's going to tell
you that there is no there is no perfect visible indicator,
and the papacy does not provide that and cannot provide that.
There's multiple cases in the history of the Church where
we can't even identify the Roman Catholic listing of that
cemitical councils. They differ, they're inconsistent on what the councils are.
So there what is being required in that case doesn't exist.
There is no such thing. There is no public, juridical
thing that can with assured certainty certitude tell you what
is a true versus a false council in some like
you know, juridical way, because ultimately it's going to depend
on whether the council is teaching truth or falsehood. So
on a personal individual level, this still requires and relies
on the Holy Spirit, Okay, okay.
Speaker 12: And so you would just simply say that there is
no system that would offer like that normative certitude, but
it would come down to like an individual.
Speaker 1: At that point, No, that's normative. Normativity is not certitude.
Certitude has to do with your individual existential like convincing
of something normativity has to do with moral questions of oughts,
and you know, does any group within history have the
authority to bind you, to bind anyone to their interpretation
those there are two different questions.
Speaker 12: Yeah, okay, okay, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Sure, no, those are those are great questions that I'm
not trying to be impatient with you. It's just a
I've been in I've been in debate mode all day long.
So lef Ski, patron of Satan. Uh oh to the
guy in the chat, Yeah, why don't you call in?
If you don't call in, then you just couldn't do it.
What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 14: So I'll just say my position from the get go.
Speaker 2: So I'm an atheist.
Speaker 14: I was raised with an Islamic background, but I very
quickly I came to realize that all religion is basically
fairy tales and I don't I'm not convinced any supernatural
deities exist. So my position would be sort of antithetical
to yours. And I think you're you're a deist looking
at your profile, sorry, A theist, A Christian theist, yes,
sure so, so do you engage in conversations with unbelievers
and vice versa.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've debated all the top atheists for the most part.
Speaker 14: Sure, So are you like a YouTube you just do
this thing on like radio spaces and are you debased
on YouTube?
Speaker 1: No? Only on AM radio.
Speaker 2: Right, right?
Speaker 14: But I mean, one good thing is I would say,
is it's good to I like to hear the opposition's
argument because that makes you better able to everyone, able
to better understand their positions, because what happens a lot
of the time is people who don't follow a belief
system will straw man or misrepresent the positions. I like
to hear firsthand from someone who holds that belief system right,
and then they can present their argument in a way
that is appropriate to why they believe because a lot
of the time, I mean, I'll give you a quick example.
When I was growing up, I was getting taught about Hinduism,
and then I was getting told, oh, they worship statues.
But then when I actually spoke to Hindus, they were
saying no. For most Hindus, it's allegorical and metaphorical, so
they're not literally were worshiping slashes. So that's why I
do like to speak with people on the other side
of my beliefs. We're the political religious.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, what I would say is you believe in
magical fantasies and fairy tales as an atheist?
Speaker 2: Sure, sure, but I haven't.
Speaker 14: I mean, are you saying that from the generic atheist position?
Speaker 1: Yes, any any atheist position believes in fantastical, magical fairy tales,
like words having meaning?
Speaker 14: Okay, I mean what do you mean by that? Could
expounder in that piece.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you read the wvo Quine paper called Two
Dogmas of Empiricism, he notes that within the empiricist tradition,
the end result is that there's still this nonsensical idea
that words in some way convey meaning about the external
world and about events and phenomenon objects, because it relies
on all kinds of things that are not justified and
cannot be justified in an atheist empiricist worldview. So I
would just simply say that you believe in all kinds
of If you think that words convey and have meaning,
you believe in flying spaghetti monsters.
Speaker 14: Okay, Well, we use words for descriptions of certain things,
so certain concepts can be of words which I use
for description are used.
Speaker 2: For scientific concepts. E.
Speaker 14: G if you look at if you look at the sun,
it's called the sun in English, but in other languages.
Speaker 2: It will be called other things. So in do it's called.
Speaker 14: Sewage, but it would still be the same concept.
Speaker 2: So whatever, And.
Speaker 1: What is the concept in an atheists paradigm?
Speaker 2: A concept of world?
Speaker 1: What is a concept at all?
Speaker 2: A concept? Is?
Speaker 14: It's a commonly understood theme of any anything.
Speaker 1: It's a thing. Okay, does it matter? Is it molecules?
Speaker 14: No, it's it's it's a it's a product of what
we are.
Speaker 1: But so it's a product of what we are. Dude,
you killed it right there. I'm an atheist. Now we're done.
That was too high here, Jim. What's up man? It's
a concept, is a product of what we are. Got it?
What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey? What's up? Jay?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 13: I want to talk to you about Panaea tocos for
a second, real quick, just an idea I've never really
heard about. Maybe you hit it real quick and then
and then let it go. So in orthodoxology, we believe
that the Pataya achieved theosis in a perfect and unrepeatable way,
hence making her the vessel for the incarnation. She was
the incarnation was able to happen because she said yes.
Free will was a gift from God that could not
be taken away. The incarnation required the pa to say.
Speaker 1: Yes in order for it to happen.
Speaker 13: Calvinists and other people that don't believe in free will,
who are determinists, for example, they'd have to believe that
some babies that die at birth are of the unelected.
Then there's elect babies and not elect babies. Sure, as
a Calvinist, as a determinist in theology, would you have
to believe to some extent that the Panayea was impregnated by.
Speaker 2: The Father.
Speaker 13: Without her consent or without her knowledge if you don't
accept free will and orthodoxology in that sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, in other words, from the Calvinist perspective,
everything is under the direct causation of the divine decree,
and that would include the moving of Mary's will to
accept exactly I agree with that.
Speaker 13: And then the last thing, which is.
Speaker 1: Kind of well, I was I was formerly a Calvinist,
So yeah, that's that's what they would say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just daunted me.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get your thoughts on.
Speaker 13: I think it's kind of interesting. And then what are
your thoughts on William Lane Craig in the last month
coming out and saying he is a neo, a pollinarian monophysite,
and he believes that the ecumenical console's aired.
Speaker 1: I mean he he's been in a pollinarian for a
long time, so he's been open about that position for years.
The monophysite part is crazy, though, I didn't know he
stay to that. But he also, by the way, you'll notice,
the confusion of nature in person is precisely what would
lead him to say he agrees with him an off
side position. He also, i think, rejects the eternal generation
of the sun. So he's like total heritit.
Speaker 13: But yeah, and when you tell him that a Unitarian
would use the same argument that he does from sol
subscript soloscriptur to do what he's doing, He's like no,
or like Kevin Ortlund talks about icons being not good,
a Unitarian can make the exact same argument they can,
and it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2: But that's it. I'll let you go.
Speaker 1: I know he wanted it more debate, So now, yeah,
those are great questions and a great point. I think,
you know, you run into all kinds of theological issues
with the basically, to speak, in terms of philosophy metaphysics,
Calvinism denies secondary causes, and so if they were consistent,
they would really be Muslims. I mean they're really they
would be occasionalist like many Sunni Muslims are. And actually
some Calvinists have been occasionalists. For those who don't know,
Jonathan Edwards was famously an occasionalist, so pretty pretty much
identical to Islam. Tim. Now, guys, remember we're supposed to
have a Roman Catholic debate tonight. I forget the guy's name,
but he's just one second. He's Tim Gordon's buddy and
nice guy. I think his name's Chris or something like that.
But he took issue with my video on the temporal
supremacy of the pope. When I'm signed them, go ahead,
Hey Jay, what's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: I had a couple questions.
Speaker 15: One of them was not not sort of a debate,
more of a clarification. The other one I wanted to
kind of challenge something. But the first one I just
wanted to preface it with a a and like a
kind of apologize for anything I will say because it's
it can be viewed as maybe blasphemous or maybe out
of my ignorance, but I just wanted to like have
a clarification. Why is the Eucharist not viewed as a
like a ritualistic cannibalism.
Speaker 1: Like, well, the liturgy it calls us, it calls it
the bloodless noetic sacrifice. So it's a bloodless rational offering
because Christ deified the flesh that he assumed. It is
not a human sacrifice that is, you know, appeasing divine
wrath like some sort of you know, like Zeus or something.
Speaker 15: Okay, so the difference would be kind of cannibalism is
where it's not consensual.
Speaker 1: It's also not an offering of the dead, right, it's
an offering of the deified living flesh of the god
man who as the high priest, is offering his humanity
to the triad. And that's explained in the medieval Byzantine
Synods that it's not a human sacrifice, cannibal offering of
the dead to pay off the angry God the Father.
That's all pagan theology. Orthodox theology is that the second
person of the God had assumed human nature to deify it,
to raise it up to divine trinitarian life, so very
different attitude from the sort of pagan view.
Speaker 2: Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 15: And then my second question was as someone coming from
Protestant background inquiring into Orthodoxy, and I do think that historically, theologically,
the Orthodox, I would say, is much more correct on Protestantism.
But I just maybe you can clarify on a critique
of sola scriptura, the critique of the interpretations and the
normative authority to tell you which interpretations are correct. So why,
for example, when between like Orthodox and Coptic and Catholic
interpretations of tradition, you would argue, like, the coherence of
the tradition correct.
Speaker 1: No, I don't know that I would if I was
arguing like with a Coptic or a Roman Catholic person, No,
I wouldn't argue that coherence necessarily proves it, unless it
was some sort of like a roundabout or argument like
I mean by extension. When I debated with Obara, I
was kind of arguing that there's no quote coherence because
Roman Catholicism at a fundamental level can contradict and pre
Vatican two and post into teaching. So in that sense,
it was kind of a coherence argument, but not really
like most of the time, if it's a Roman Catholic
or a Coptic, you kind of have to go into
the history to prove that case. Like there's no way
to really argue like papism without looking at the history
of the rise of the papacy, you know what I mean.
So I don't know that I would. I don't think
I would argue necessarily holism, except in the case of
like trying to argue at a system level, like I
did to a Barro, because my argument to a Borrow
was if Roman Catholicism at a dogmatic level contradicts at all,
that invalidates the whole system. And I was doing that
to try to not let Eric make the case that
he could like stack up one hundred different evidences to
prove ninety eight percent of the papacy. Right, if I,
at a system level can invalidate the system with just
one dogmatic Roman Catholic contradiction and then all of that
wasting everyone's time with yapping for five hours to get
out three sentences to prove the papacy, he goes out
the door.
Speaker 2: Okay, that.
Speaker 15: I kind of see what you mean, Mike, Basically my
point is, why can't I argue like the same thing
within scripture, like if power to its kind of going
off of what I said about the coherence, like, why
can't I argue like the most coherent view of scripture
and disregard all others.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not that you couldn't, it's just that that's
going to take a really long roundabout. It's going to
be very difficult in a debate setting to show that,
because a holistic argument means you're reconciling all of the parts.
I mean, the Bible is thousands of pages. It's just
a huge endeavor. It's kind of impractical on a debate
setting level to do that. Now, if you're like teaching
a college course and you want to demonstrate the coherence
of Christianity, you know, throughout a whole semester lecturing through
the totality of the Bible, maybe you could do that.
But just for like a debate setting, it's just very
difficult to try to argue holistic coherence accept in the
case of like atheism, because atheism is so fundamentally incoherent
at a base level that all you really need to
do is demonstrate not that your worldview is exhaustively coherent,
but that you have the possibility of coherence at all,
versus an atheist worldview where there's no coherence. The problem
is that when you're arguing with other theistic positions, they're
not going to immediately be fundamentally incoherent, like like an
atheist would be. Does that make sense?
Speaker 15: Yeah, I see, okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think it's just a longer, more difficult route.
Like I mean, even in that Ibarra debate, like I
don't think for a lot of the Roman Catholic audience
or for Ebarra himself, like I don't think they got
the point I was making. I mean, I tried over
and over to say that I'm just going to add
a systemic level, try to prove that the Roman system contradicts,
and that just blows their mind because they don't think
in terms of systems. They only think in terms of
like piecemeal building it from the bottom up. So so
I guess I just don't, like give me an example
like you're saying, like what if I tried to debate
a Protestant that my worldview from the Bible, I can
give a completely coherent totality interpretation of the Bible and
your Protestant world. You can't do that. It's going to
be really hard to demonstrate that. I'm not saying you can't,
but I'm just kind of I'm sure.
Speaker 15: Is the critique of the different interpretations of the Bible
a very good critique for solicituture, because I mean one
could a Protestant could just argue that themselves, even though
for them it would take a really long time. They
could just argue that the Bible is my only authority,
and I will provide a completely totally coherent world you
strictly based on the Bible.
Speaker 2: So I'm just wondering if well.
Speaker 1: At that level, no, I wouldn't even grant that. I
would just go to, well, you can't really have the
Bible without the Church determining the canon. I wouldn't even
go into all that would just cut all that off.
And otherwise, like part of debate is also I think
the skill set of knowing like quickest cut to the chase,
rather than allowing the opponent to like yap for hours,
and that just ends up kind of distracting and going
down you know, red herring trail, rabbit trails, and in
a debate. It's a lot more effective to keep it
on one topic and just cut to the chase. Now,
you might say, well, when you argue with that Mormon dude,
you moved to a different topic. I moved to a
different topic when the Mormon dude lied about God the
Father and wouldn't he wasn't gonna be honest with that.
So that's why I moved over to theseph smith adding
verses to Genesis, because like, let's move on to a
different topic, right, So I think part of that what
you're talking about is like experience, lived experience with debate
and figuring out, like what for the sake of the
audience might be a better course to take rather than
letting some goober yap for five hours to try to
like it's just like, yeah, let some Protestant come on
and give a ten hour course lecture to prove that
he has a coherent interpretation of the Bible. Is just
I think that's a complete waste of time.
Speaker 15: Yeah, And then so yeah, the interpretation critique isn't self
isn't sufficient on its own and about the canon?
Speaker 1: Would let me let me restate that I think that
the interpretation critique is a good way to demonstrate the
need for normative authority. That's where that works, because no
Protestants believe that there's any body of men within history
that have the normative authority to bind your conscience to
an interpretation. So it is a great apologetic and practical
point to say to the Protestants, you don't think Jesus
provided the Church any means to, you know, settle issues
authoritatively and bind people's conscience. When the framers of America
were smart enough to know that we needed a Supreme
Court to interpret the Constitution, they didn't just mail out
constitutions to everybody in America to interpret on their own.
You see. I mean even the founding fathers had enough
foresight to know that we would need some governing body
to interpret the document authoritatively versus you know, Jesus just
gives everybody this, you know, these letters and then you know,
good luck, hope you hope, you hope you keep it
together out there like he did that provide a group
of people to know rule the church.
Speaker 15: Yeah, My question is they would instead of appealing to
normative authority, like you'd have a normative authority to tell
you that this is the correct interpretation and then the
Protestant would say, well, I can tell you why this
is the correct interpretation because your interpretations incoherent.
Speaker 1: Why is that not like a valid thing they can
do well? Because it's missing the point that all classical
Protestantism is built on history. Who can bind your conscience?
Protestanism is built on the idea that the foundational doctrines
of the Reformation are things like freedom of worship and
freedom of conscience.
Speaker 2: Okay, so okay.
Speaker 1: So if they if they started so, they would be
surrendered to, not hold to that would mean surrendering basic
Protestant principles.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 15: Yeah, So even if they provide a fully coherent and
show me that my interpretations incoherent, they can't actually tell
me that I have to believe their their interpretation.
Speaker 1: Basically, Yeah, I mean one of the Protestant basics is
the right of private interpretation. As Orthodox or even a
Roman Catholic like that doesn't exist. Where did you get
the idea that you have a right of private interpretation?
Speaker 15: And then about the canon, I just want like a
clarification about so like a common thing they will try
to say, isn't that these scriptures and self themselves are
like inherently authoritative by nature, and then whichever ones of
those are, they come out in history. And I understand
that it's kind of begging the question, but I just
want to.
Speaker 1: Well again, think of that, think of the analogy to
the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I mean, it's fine
to say that the documents are authoritative, but documents don't
do any thing on their own. They require interpretation. And
it's obviously ridiculous to think that, oh, well, this is
just up to everybody to figure out on their own.
And think of the implications of this. This would mean
that nobody within history can actually resolve any issues because
they could conceivably be wrong. And then every successive generation
must reinvent the wheel and rediscover and go through every
historical chaos and squabble all over again. So we're we
have to read to the airing crisis, we have to
read to the montanous crisis. We have to read So
it just is silly and unworkable to think that the
texts do anything on their own without people interpreting the text.
That's why Paul says the pillaring foundation of truth is
the church, the living community. It's not the books or
the parchments that are the pillar and ground of truth.
The church is who produced the parchments, the writings, the text.
They have authority, but they only have authority within the
context from which they emerge and the very community who
decided what books go into that book.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 15: And about the church, what exactly does it mean that
the Church is the body of Christ.
Speaker 1: It literally means that the continuation of the incarnation is
that the Church is a theanthropic god man institution, that
we are the actual limbs and body of Christ on earth.
Speaker 15: Yeah, but it's you wouldn't say, like one part of
the church institution on earth is like the eye of
Jesus or the liver of Jesus.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean when Paul explains that, he means that spiritual
gifts is what he's referring to. Right, So eyes are
like foresight, the gift of prophecy and so forth. I
don't mean prophecy in the sense of Old Testament prophets.
That just mean it in the sense of like elders
and some of the spiritual gifts. Obviously, he's not literally
saying like you are the eyes of Jesus.
Speaker 15: So what distinct like if Jesus took upon a universal
human nature, would in Jesus's body be all of all
of humans. What distinguishes Jesus, the body of Jesus Christ
being the Church, from all other humans.
Speaker 1: What that means is that in his single divine hypostasis,
he's able to recapitulate all human nature as the second atom.
It doesn't mean he assumed every single human hypostasis. He
assumed in his single body and single human nature, the
universality of human nature by recapitulating it. Just like Adam.
What Adam did, it affected all of his descendants. So likewise,
Christ as the new atom, will affect all of his descendants.
So every human being will be resurrected because of that universality.
But it doesn't mean that every individual human person or
human hypostasis will participate in theosis, because that's dependent upon
you in your own mode of willing, attaining the virtues,
attaining the Holy Spirit, attaining thiosis, et cetera. But it
does not mean that Christ is incarnated in every single
human being. It means that in the single human body
that he took from the Virgin Mary, he was able
to recapitulate and encapsulate all human nature. How because he's
a divine person, that's all. That's the explanation that's given
at this sab of Ecumentical Council in St. Theodore's writing
about how he's the universal man.
Speaker 2: You could say, okay, thank you. Yeah, they clarified quite
a bit.
Speaker 15: I mean, I wouldn't say understand everything full least of
quite a bit of reading to do, but thank you.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, those are great questions. So I think we had
a mkg five dollars, Jay, could you check the second
part of the super chat I sent I have to go.
I was hoping I'd get an answer to that and
later rewatch, let's see, let's go back. I just know
that aside from Hebrews, is there any other texts that
I should read in order to discuss this point with you?
I mean, you know later, I mean, really, this comes
down to a presupposition about the doctrine of the church.
So you know you're gonna need to read like the
Gospel of John or we have the promises that Jesus
gave to the church and the apostles that the Holy
Spirit would come upon them, lead them and guide them.
That's what we see an acts two. That's Pentecost. And
so the idea that you know, Paul could get everything
wrong and the other Apostles were right, but Paul rebuked them.
I mean, this would really just be to undo the
entire promise that Jesus says in John fourteen fifteen, sixteen
seventeen that this Holy Spirit will guide the Church, lead
it into all truth. I will never leave you, forsake you.
I will not leave his orphans. I will be with
you until the end of the age, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. I mean, those are all promises that relate
to Pentecost and the company of the Holy Spirit. So
the idea that the Church could be in some great apostasy,
I mean this is really remember MKG, this is what
the Mormon guy was saying, right, Mormon is grounded on
this idea. After the Apostles died, there was a great apostasy,
and so this lunatic Masonic con man eighteen hundred years
later is restoring the original Apostolic Church and teaching right
similar idea to if you believe that Paul subverted Christianity
like Mormons or Acumu like a Muslims, some of the
Muslims say, first of all, that didn't make sense in Islam,
by the way, because in the Quran it actually says
that the followers of Jesus will be made victorious by
a law, as Samshuan points out, so that means Paul,
Paul was a follower of Jesus, and so Paul's victorious.
So again the Koran contradicts. But you know, to get
back to whether it's Mormonism or whether it's some I mean,
there's some sects like Marcian. Marcian said something like I think,
didn't Marcian say that Paul was a subverter of Christianity.
So really this would be to deny the promise of
the coming of the Spirit, is what that amounts to.
And it would be to admit that that the gates
of Hell prevailed against the Church, because essentially, after the
death of Apostles, none of these weird cult sectarian positions succeeded.
Remember the debate with Bryson, what that he is? Fallacy,
what that he is? Remember remember Bryson Gray Bryson says, oh,
you know, the true Judaism, Christianity of arian Rian Judaizing,
whatever gibberish, he's made up. That's the real Christianity that's
secretly existing in all these centuries. Oh, what's the evidence
of that? Because Juizers, that's them, that's the amp Oh,
it's a million different groups with a bunch of different
conflicting the theologies. Some of them Arians, some of the Trinitarian.
That's the true Christianity because they're Judaizers. That's so stupid.
The Bryson argument was right. In other words, what the
the premise that you have, MKG is essentially the Bryson,
Gray and Mormon whatever premise that Jesus didn't provide the
guidance of the Church to the Holy Spirit at Pentecosts.
Normy Slayer twenty five dollars, jay, I, thank you. I
think that once we get rid of fluoride in the water,
a lot of these normies will perhaps begin to understand
the words that come out of your mouth. You know,
that could be a factor obviously, you know, dumbing down
toxic environment. But keep in mind too, as we point out,
as fda off and points out, you know a lot
of the issues that we're discussing, that we're talking about,
there is an intellectual element and component but the ultimate
root of all the problems is not intellectual. Man's problem
is not intellect. Man's problem is not a lack of
facts and knowledge. It's pride. Pride is man's problem at root,
not intellect. And if that intellect can be a great
stumbling block and a source of pride. Now there's a factor,
an element to which, yes, people need to be presented
with the correct positions against their false positions, which does
relate to intellect. But coming out of a false position
and into the true position is not ultimately KeyPoint an
intellectual problem. It's a pride heart problem. And so no
one will accept the truth without repenting first, and repentance
requires humility, which is the antidote to the vice of pride.
Nicodemus one dollar. I bought zero point one BTC in August.
It has doubled since then. Almost I couldn't have done
this without you. Well, hey, look, as everybody at the
Bitcoin says, every SAT counts, so even if you're buying
small amounts of SATs, it all will count in long run.
Buggy three dollars. A month ago, you made a comment
about Pope Francis. At the end you said Vatican one
says that the pope is infallible in faith and morals. Yes,
even if he isn't speaking ex cathedral, where is that? Yes,
it is the Vatican one statements talking about ordinary magisterium.
So let me show you that. By the way, I've
made multiple videos on this topic, so you can go
back to my Vatican one documents or videos that I've
done have dent at least two or three of those
of Vatican one, And you can look at the video
I made called was Vatican two Infallible? Which refutes the
tragcats who think that they can really nearly hand wave
Vatican two and they're not bound by it, because the
stupidity of this position is that, I mean, even I
don't think that it's not dogmatic, Vatican two is absolutely
obviously a dogmatic Roman Catholic council. They point to these
ridiculous statements like when Paul the six says it was pastoral,
So something pastoral. Calling something pastoral doesn't mean that it's
not dogmatic. Guphases. You could literally say every ecumenical council
is quote pastoral, that doesn't mean it's not dogmatic. And
then they go to this other stupid quote which says
that Vatican two, uh defined no new dogmas. Yeah, so
what that doesn't mean that it's not also still stating
older dogmas. This is the level of casuistri and sophistry
that you deal with it with these idiot Roman Catholics.
I mean, I've dealt with it for a year when
I was an idiot Romancalic. So let's look at Vatican one.
And I don't know why this is, but for whatever reason,
you have to go to papalencyclicals dot net for the
This might be why some of these Romancalics don't even
know what Vatican one says, because their own freaking Vatican
website doesn't far as far as I can tell, doesn'tny
have all the decrees of Vatican won on it. I
mean maybe there is somewhere and I just haven't found it.
But you have to go to Papal encyclicals, not dot net,
which has all of the decrees the Vatican won. And
every Roman Catholics should print this out and read it.
I don't know why they're too lazy to do this.
Remember that guy that called in was like, I'm going
to read a ten page paper. I'm like, well, then
don't even why are you even calling into debate If
you don't have time to invest in the religion that
you think is true. You can't read ten or fifteen pages,
Why are you wasting our time? Get out of here.
So uh, this is called ordinary magisterium, and many Roman
Catholics don't know what this is, even though countless Catholic
theology manuals openly write and talk about this. It's not
a mystery. When Vatican One defines what is dogmatic and
must be believed by everyone, does it say that you
only have to believe the ex cathedra statements. It does
not say that, In fact, that's false. It's actually condemned position.
It explicitly says that you must believe, by divine and
Catholic faith, all the things contained in the Word of God,
scripture and tradition that are proposed by the Church as
divinely revealed by the Solemn judgment or in her What
does that say? Solemn judgment refers to what we call
ex cathedral that's the extra normative things that define dogma.
That is an ex cathedral statement or an ecumenical council.
Those are the two extra normative Solemn judgment types of things.
The other things that must also believed be believed that
are under the patrin keroism of protection of infallibility and
cannot error are what are called the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Do all of you hard headed goofballs see it right there,
clear as day. So what this means is that if
you're a Roman Catholic, you cannot say I only have
to believe what the Pope teaches ex Cathedral. Now ninety
five percent of these goofballs believe that they literally believe
the opposite of what Vatican one says. And it doesn't
matter how many times you tell them this, and you can,
you can machine gun this at them until you pass out.
They don't get they cannot get this. Now, amazingly, some
of them do get this. For example, believe it or not,
Michael Loft Doog actually understands this. Yes, you heard me correctly.
Michael Loftdog is actually correct. And when he argues against
the tradcats, he actually argues correctly on the basis of
Vatican One, that you do not have the right to
reject the ordinary teaching of the Church. Now what is
the ordinary universal magistrum? Now, remember Romancantholicism thrives on open
ended ambiguit definitions, so there's never any defined statement about
what all the dogmatic statements are. It's so stupid this
thing is. Keep in mind, if romic Thousism is true,
couldn't we at least expect a dogmatic list of the
dogmatic teachings? You would think, Oh no, no, you don't get that.
You get generic principles that you're supposed to figure out
of out of these thousands of pages of documents. What
goes into what been This is the religion that's supposed
to be sold to you by these bad car salesmen
as the religion that gives you certitude based on the
office of the papacy. What it actually gives you is
mountains of documents that you in a worse situation than
a Protestant, because a Protestant only has to try to
make these thousand pages make sense. No, no, you got these
and the endless papal documents and concil your documents which
include extraordinary and ordinary universal teaching. Now get this, It
gets even sillier. So what are the ordinary universal teachings? Ah?
You see, those are the get this, I kid you
not those are the things that the Church has always,
at all times and everywhere taught. I'm not joking. So
another totally ambiguous, open ended good luck with that, thousands
of thousands of pages. It would be nice if there
was a list of what those things are. Now, the
closest I could think of to a list would be Denzinger, right,
I mean, Denzinger is like the closest thing to what
the list of the dogmas are. But Denzinger isn't even
all the dogmas. And to further expand on this point,
you have to know that just because something is not
let's say universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, right, the two
things that are governed by the patrin charism and by infallibility,
and that the Church cannot err in right, there's other
teachings that you still have to submit to with quote docility.
So for example, canon law, the pope's juridical decisions according
to Vatican one. And we've covered this a million times,
it's in some four places in Denzinger to tell you
have to believe this. Let's say the Pope decides that
Archbishop so and so is excommunicated, do you, as a
Roman Catholic believe or think that you have the right
to reject the Pope's excommunication.
Speaker 16: You do not.
Speaker 1: Vatican one is clear as day, and even going all
the way back to Octorum feedde, you do not have
the right in Roman Catholicism to judge the First See
or to reject his canonical juridical decisions. And so the
entire basis of the SSPX is fraudulent and schismatic. Via
Vatican one, you must submit with docility, even if you
think that the Pope is wrong in matters of ordinary teaching,
in matters of universal ordinary teaching or extra extra ex
cathedral teaching, there's no question of whether you have to submit.
You absolutely have to submit. You don't. You don't even
have you submit, because it's dogmatic and it is inerrant.
It is the Church is indefectible, The Pope is indefectible.
Now ordinary teaching, not universal ordinary ordinary teaching. That's where
there can be error. But in the Roman Catholic system,
do you have the right to object to and oppose
the Pope Hope in ordinary teaching, which he admittedly could
err in, No, you do not. Even in the ordinary teaching.
The traditional Roman Catholic moral theology says very clearly, and
I think canon law is that you must submit with docility,
even to the matters which are not directly under the magisterium.
That's the Roman Catholic system. And so every trad Cat
and somebody sent me a Bishop Strickland today, one of
the trad Cat popes or excuse me, bishops. He's not.
I mean, if you're in the no disorder, you don't
even trad Cat. But I don't know if he's Strickland
a Latin mass person, I don't even know. But he's
praying and protesting Frank Francis and is saying that Francis
is not a Catholic and is not teaching Catholic dogma. Okay,
that's a direct violation of Vatican One. It's a direct
violation of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Canon law.
No one judges the first Sea. And even if you
think Francis is an error, you must submit with docility.
And so all of the Roman Catholics and trad Cats
who are pretending that they can do all of their
rebelling and all this, they're actually operating like Orthodox and
or Protestants. That's the funny part, and they don't care,
and they don't read Vatican one. And when they go
and rea Vatican one, they then say, kid you not. Well,
that's the papal reading of the papal reading a Vatican one.
Oh you see, that's the ultramontanous reading a Vatican. Vatican
one is an ultramontanous council. Of course there's going to
be an ultramontanous reading of it. That's what it's about.
Speaker 8: Well, that's the liberal reading that it could do. Vatican
two is actually trad if you mix up all the
words and make them have the opposite meaning that they
normally have a little look at my magic work. Yay,
it's trad.
Speaker 1: No, it's not trad. You'll ever get tad out of Muslims,
Jews and Christians and Hindus worship the same god. That's
never going to be tried, dummies. Anyway, I went down
a rabbit hole, esoteric. Noan, we got hyper nome hyperborea
in the house. Look, I got energy, and I'm in
debate mode. And so in one and a half hour
we're supposed to have Roman Catholic dude come to bate.
So let's now He's a nice guy, seems very charitable,
very easy to talk to. So I'm not gonna be mean.
We're gonna have a great, hopefully civil conversation. In my experience,
everyone in the Tim Gordon's sphere is very civil. Remember
the football player AJ Hurley. You know, we had a
two hour discussion on atomism. Great conversation, nice guy. We
got we got heated, but everything was cool, right, nobody.
Speaker 9: Remember, Okay, remember when I came to your town, saying
Augustine and I debated your whole city.
Speaker 1: Yes, and you won. And this they gave you the keys.
They gave you the papal keys to the city. All right,
let's see esoteric. Are you there, I'm man, Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 2: I just have.
Speaker 17: I saw one of your streams earlier, and correct me
if I'm wrong. You said something along the lines of
the Roman Catholic Church, uh says that you, through natural
theology and natural theology alone, can basically come to the
whole of the Christian paradigm and theology.
Speaker 1: No, of course not. That's okay, the opposite of what
I argue.
Speaker 17: No, I'm saying that like from the that's what you said.
Speaker 1: The Catholic Church they don't believe that you can never
get you can never get supernatural revelation from natural from
natural theology. They're two different they're two different series. Yeah
I never said that.
Speaker 17: Yeah, yeah, sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Then that's right, right, So the definition of natural theology,
whether it's John Paul's and cyclical Fetus at ratio or
whether it's the UH. I bought the Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology and William Lane Craig wrote the entry I think
in there where he defines natural theology in exactly the
same way that John Paul the Second does, which is
that it is reasoning about God from the natural world,
apart from any divine revelation. That's the definition of natural theology.
So there's nothing in that that could lead you to
accepting trinity or incarnation, because they're two different domains in
natural theology.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 17: No, I will hardly agree with that. Yeah, it was
just something I misinterpreted.
Speaker 1: Well, my critique was that all of that's dumb, it
doesn't make any sense. So if you watch the Trent
Horn debate that we debate at every point, Okay, thank you, Yeah, No,
it's fair question, and I'm always happy to clarify voiceless
in Toronto. You got I mute?
Speaker 2: Oh was that director to me? Sorry, I couldn't hear anything.
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 14: Hey, g oh, I just heard you speaking about Hinduism.
Speaker 2: So I was born Hindu.
Speaker 18: But it's it's it's not even a religion. It's a
teaching that was co opted by Brahmins uh to to
just install the cast system. So a lot of people
don't even know that Hinduism is not really intended to
be a religion. It's just a teaching and then it became,
you know, the major religion.
Speaker 1: And so are you saying that what we know of
as Hinduism is more of a state controlled system. We're saying, I'm.
Speaker 18: Not sure however you want to take it. I mean,
it's for example, the cow is considered like a holy animal,
and most kind of orthodox Hindus.
Speaker 2: Don't eat beef. But it was just installed.
Speaker 18: As in animal into the into the scriptures to prevent
it from going extinct because the population was growing at
such a rate that it was better to keep it
alive because of the advantages it gives what it's alive,
rather than just kill it and eat it. So you know,
there's many things about hindusm is taken from a book
that then became something called above it Geita, which is
just you know, kind of like teachings. And then there's
a group called the Brahmins who installed themselves.
Speaker 2: At the top of the cast system.
Speaker 1: Kind of well, I guess what I'm saying is that
are you saying that it's essentially it evolved to be
calm an elitist mechanism of control by the Brahmins, is
what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Correct, Yes, sir, Yeah, so that's all I want to add.
Speaker 18: I'm more of a faist now, so I just believe
in God, but not really a follow of religion. You know,
I went to a Catholic boys on the boarding school
when I was growing up in Zimbobwe, which was then,
which was you know, a British calling.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, yeah, I appreciate that. That's a good insight there.
There is almost always some sort of you know, kind
of an elite control mechanism going on in all religions,
and I mean even in Orthodoxy. You go back to
the you know, the emperors had in many cases, the
evil Emperors, they had machinations and designs through heresies to
control the Church. For example, you had Aryan iconoclastic emperors
who if they were able to install the iconoclass doctrine
one of the components of this would mean that it
would also allow them to basically control the church, same
with the the Aryan emperor's similar state mechanisms for controlling
the church. There, Frankish Malchite five dollars I had a
trinitarian question concerning the issue of Christ as God specifically
got the word if the Father is ontologically greater. Well,
that's the first mistake there. We don't say that the
Father is ontologically prior. He is the cause, he is
the fount, he is the arka. He is not ontologically greater.
And that's why the son has the exact same nature
as the Father, communicated to him by the Father, just
like a son. If you have a king and the
king has a son, the son doesn't have any greater
or lesser human nature than his father, the king. They
have identically the same nature. But yet the king has
a greater role than the prince the son. And so
that's the sense in which we say that the Father
is quote greater, is in the sense of role, not
in the sense of ontology. That's the Aryan subordinationist argument.
You go on to say in your question, is the
son the Father's wisdom being the word? Would this mean
that the command let there be light would be the
son enacting the father's will. Well, you could still believe
that the son is enacting what the Father wants without
there being any kind of Aryan subordinationism going on, because
in the Gospels, Jesus tells us that he only does
the will of the Father. So that's and he's a
divine person speaking that. He's saying me that a second person,
the God had divine person always only does the will
of the Father. But that does not equate to any
aryan Joe's witness subordinationism, because all arianism and subordinationism is
built on the assumption that the Father is onto logically
superior and not superior by role. But there's no reason
to believe that, And in fact, the Gospels contradict that
because men many times over Jesus says, everything the Father
has he has, all the works the Father does, he does.
Everyone should honor the son as they honor the Father. Okay,
if there's a subordination, then that's all blasphemous stuff that
Jesus is saying. And that's precisely what the Jews say.
The Jews think he's blaspheming because there he's literally saying
he's equal to the Father, big Boss. Ten dollars. Did
you happen to see where Mel Gibson calls many of
the current Roman Catholic bishops of Francis hirelings and then
he says, who is hiring the hirings? No, but I
mean Mel Gibson's actually made comments like that for twenty years.
I mean going back to I don't know the exact
date when Mel became a trad cat because it goes
back to Hutton and I remember back when I was
a trad cat, I remember actually going I actually read
Hutton Gibson's stuff. He used to have a website on it.
Maybe he still does, I don't know, but I remember
reading Hutton Gibson's set of a Conscious Arguments back in
the day. So that's that was at least two thousand
and five, six seven, So we're coming up on almost
twenty years of you know, Hutton Gibson having a website.
I don't know if it's still up, but no, I
mean Mel Gibson has said this kind of stuff for
a long time. And if I recall, he built his
own trad cat chapel I think out in California somewhere.
I forget the name of it, Like, I think it's
for a holy family, not the other cults online, nothing
to do with the other STA cults in the world.
A set of a contism. It's all very like independent like,
it's all very fractured. There's no like over there's no
overarching like unified communion of the set of a contests.
They're all kind of doing their own thing, even if
they have similar names. Let's see, I Hutton Gibson still
has a set of a contass website up. Uh So,
I guess he passed away. I didn't know if I
didn't know he had passed away. And I'm assuming that
this is the means by which Mel became a track cat.
I'm just well, I mean, you can't trust googling. It
basically doesn't work. You can't find anything you're looking for.
But you can find actually you can find his books
interesting because apparently they come up here on good Reads.
So uh interested, So he looks like Hutton produced a book.
It looks like a state a book. He might not
have been full of nineteen eighty eight, but maybe he was.
That's pretty early nineteen eighty eight, Hutton Gibson wrote a
set of a conscious book. Interesting is the pope Catholic.
Let's see if it's full of Saya one hundred and
eighty eight pages. We need to hope that mel Gibson
becomes Orthodox, because I mean, at a certain point, you know,
the Saya world is just so kind of crazy. It's
like it just I think it eventually becomes a very
obvious dead end. You probably have to use some other
search engine to find his website. If maybe if he
passed away, it's no longer there. I don't know anyway,
all right, we got one last person, Manuel, and then
remember to come back in an hour. Hopefully we'll have
a debate with our Catholic friend. We'll see what he
wants to discuss. It'll be interesting because his response video
was actually addressing the dogmatic teaching argument that I have
about temporal supremacy of the pope, and I've not seen
any Roman Catholics so far address that argument, So it'll
be interesting to see. Presumably he'll be the first that
I've seen addressing it. Manuel, you got an unmute Hello,
what's up?
Speaker 16: Oh, hijane, I was you know, I was about to
call earlier today but my mic he just did not work.
Speaker 1: So well you're here, man, what's up? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 16: So I was asking about I had a question because
I saw a video by a guy named Planet Peterson
or something like that.
Speaker 2: Right, do you know him?
Speaker 1: Oh, is this that atheist guy that Jim Bob's always debating.
Speaker 16: I'm not sure about Jim Bob, but yes, it.
Speaker 1: Is Jembob's I've never watched this guy, but I've seen
Jim Bob kind of critique him.
Speaker 16: Okay, yeah, So I was asking about. You know, one
thing that he said in one of his videos. He
said he talked about, you know, presuppositions and all that,
and he said something along the lines of like, well,
you know, the thing with presuppositions is that you can
just make it up, and anybody can make up a
good I don't know, God with presuppositions or something like that.
Speaker 1: No, it's not true. It actually has to do the
work of grounding the transcendal categories universals, logic, history, ethics,
and so just making something up doesn't do any grounding work.
Speaker 16: Okay, So are you telling are you saying that you know,
God has to, like I don't know, appear in history
or interact with the world, is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I think that would be one of the implications of
a coherent worldview in theology. I wouldn't hinge everything just
on saying something like God has to enact and you know,
interact in history, I mean the incarnation and you know,
the revelation of Christian. The Christian worldview does, though, give
an account for a meaning for history. So in that
broader sense of you know, making history and all the
events within history meaningful, with the doctrine of divine providence
and the doctrine of you know, t lost teleology all
of that, that would be the route of argument I
would make there.
Speaker 16: Okay, Okay, And I guess another final question. I have
a father, you know, my dad, you.
Speaker 1: Know, he's I think we all do. I think we
all do.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 16: He's an old Mexican dude, Catholic, and I kind of,
you know, try to call him to Orthodox scene. He
was like, I don't know, maybe if you do me
like present me arguments is there like any videos or
any quick argument that you can give me to my
refuge Roman Catholicism or show clear contradiction something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if you go to my community tab.
I recently re shared the video where I just kind
of collected together what I toital. It's called top five
simple arguments against papal Infallibility. I have another, you know,
top ten reasons I'm not Roman Catholic video from a
few years ago. Oh, this this one dogmatic contradiction Androme
Catholicism video. So those are all kind of intended to
be accessible, you know, pop level videos.
Speaker 16: Okay, Oh, I guess another question that has been troubling me,
and I'm gonna be done after this.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 16: It's it's a question about, uh, you know, about Jesus
when he goes up to heaven.
Speaker 2: Right, So can we agree that you.
Speaker 16: Know, you know, God the Son is eternal and that
he enters creation right as a human being. Okay, Uh,
you know, and I don't know how if I'm whatever right,
But the thing that troubles me is that how can
God the Son be you know, eternally in heaven or whatever,
but then comes down, you know, to earth. And then
comes back as you know, default.
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's not primarily it's not primarily like because
he's omniscient, excuse me, omnipresent, right, so he possesses all
the omnies. If you read John one, John says that,
you know, we beheld the Son of God in the flesh,
who was always in the bosom of the Father. So
he never left the bosom of the Father even while
he was on earth, because even though as humans we
think about it as spatial location, via his divine omnipresence,
he was always eternally with the Father. He's everywhere.
Speaker 16: Oh okay, all right, okay, that makes sense because I
was having, you know, a little bit, a tiny bit
of an existential crisis because I was like, how does
it make sense that you know he's he's eternally.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a both, it's a both. And so in
other words, we understand that because he's a divine person,
he possesses the omnies and therefore he's omnipresent. But we
also recognize that via Philip Beans two, which is the
Kenosis text, he was able to enter into a motive
being which the Father and the Spirit did not In
other words, becoming incarnate, right, which is essentially the mystery
of the incarnation. This is what John presents it as,
and the Orthodox Church is always upheld it as as
Saint Cyril says, the mystery that God could be born
of a virgin. It's a mystery. So exactly how he
does that, we don't know the mechanics of that. It's
above us. But it is revealed to us that the
second person that God had entered into the motive being
of being incarnate as a human being and ascended into
the third heavens to be at the right hand of
the Father. So it's a both then and on either or.
That's why we say he underwent no change when he
became incarnate. He never lost his divinity or ceased to
be divine, or transformed into a man or transformed into
a third thing like of an office site say, he
always instill remains the second person of the God had
the difference being that he is now existing in a
new mode of being as man, as the God Man.
Speaker 16: Okay, okay, yeah, that makes more sense. Anyways, I'll have
to go.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Jy.
Speaker 2: I love your videos.
Speaker 1: You do appreciate that. And by the way, Also, another
good video that might be accessible is the video I
made a month ago called the Pope says All Religions
lead to God. That one's a good yeah, because you know,
it's just kind of presenting kind of basic level, you know, contradictions.
Wellington will go to the last one because I'm starting
to get a little bit of a headache and I
do want to have energy for our Catholic friend tonight
if he can make it. Now, he's not guaranteed that
I'll be here at nine, he thinks he can. Maybe
I should check my inbox to see if he's given
me any updates, so I'll see what he says. Just
one second, Bro, I can't hear you? Man? Is closed
because no, I can't hear you. I mean I can
barely hear you talking. Can you tuk the volume up?
It's all the way up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 1: Is there any way you can hear because I can barely?
I mean, what what? What's you have a question? Or
what's up?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 10: My question is is not even debate for?
Speaker 7: But like, so you don't know Buddhism, right, I.
Speaker 1: Know a little bit about Buddhism. I'm not extensively right
in Buddhism.
Speaker 3: I was I was kind of thinking about this.
Speaker 1: I can't hear you, man, I'm sorry. I'm not trying
to be rude to you, but I can't hear you.
Maybe uh like type your question or something Frankish Melchite
will go to you last.
Speaker 2: Hello, yo, Hey.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was wondering if I could briefly elaborate on
the question I super chatowy.
Speaker 1: The subordination question.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, because I'm.
Speaker 4: Trying to in my catechises. I'm trying to better understand
monarchy and trinitarianism, and there's kind of a question I
ran into when I was seeing the Father's ontologically greater.
The reason why I termed it that way is because
I get concerned with ascribing time, to say, the unbegotteness
of the Father and the begotteness of the son, And
this kind of goes into the second part of my question.
Speaker 1: Well, that's that was the Aryan argument against Athanasius, right,
So when Athanasians talked about the father being the cause
of the son, the Arians would argue that, well, cause
and effect is a temporal thing, so that necessarily means
that the son is generated in some temporal sense and
Athanasians says, it's just an analogy. It doesn't mean it's
an eternal causing. It's not a temporal causing.
Speaker 4: I see, I say, okay, And that kind of leads
into the second part of my question, which I remember
when I was Roman Catholic, I had an Augustinian view
on the Trinity, right, and I tried at all times
to enforce that coequalities.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's called it. It's called it, a qualitarian view
of the Trinity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, focus on the divine assets as a personhood
and such a head, things like that.
Speaker 1: I remember vividly.
Speaker 4: I used to tell people to compensate this, specifically witnesses.
I said, the Son came into being when the Father said,
let there be light, because that was the first words.
But I see now that that's been very delicious.
Speaker 1: No, that would be that would be an Arian argument.
Speaker 4: Oh really, So there wasn't even like the area state
even believe there was a stasis, you know, with that
the Son was being created before he even said the
words let there be like by the father's.
Speaker 1: Well, they would just argue that the first work of
the Father was the creation of the son, and the
is kind of like this demi God, I see.
Speaker 4: I see, so would be accurate to say that it
was in fact at the Sun that said let there
be lies.
Speaker 1: I think the Orthodox view of the fathers is that
the Trinity each has a unique each person in the
triad has a unique role in the creation of the world,
and so Basil's dictum of from the Father, through the
Son and in the Spirit would apply essentially to all
of the actions of God. So, in other words, the
creation of the world also happens from the Father, through
the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. So usually they
exegete passages like that, as the Father speaking the eternal
word of the Logos, and as Hebrews one and Colossian
says the world came to be from the Father through
the Logos.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 4: A final final question, who would you say? It's just
a chearis of otherwise would be would be the best introduction,
you would say to grasp the monarchy Internitians.
Speaker 1: The Cappadocians by far, I would say, go watch doctor
bo Branson's lectures at If you go to his website
doctor bo Branson or bo branson dot com, you'll see
there's a section called media appearances, and if you click
media appearances. There's a five part lecture series on the
monarchia of the Trinity, and most of that is literally
directly from the Cappa Docians. If you're looking for specific
Cappadocian passages, you could read Basil in the Holy Spirit.
You could read the five theological Orations of Gregory nazian Zeus,
and you could read Basils against Unomius, and you'll you'll
notice a pretty consistent uh, you know, theology of the monarchia.
In fact, I think it's Oration twenty nine where Gregory
Nazianzews says, you know, we don't believe in uh Sabellius
or the most he says. He says, we worship the monarchy,
namely the beginning point of God, the Father. You know,
it's pretty sure it's Oration twenty nine. That's basically all
about monarchical trinitarianism.
Speaker 4: Okay, Uh, please pray for my christ nation.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm glad to hear you.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Were you a Roman Catholic recently or has this been
a longer process for you or what's happened?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: So I was raised a Southern Baptist, I grew up,
I grew up in East Tennessee.
Speaker 1: Near I'm a Southern I'm a Southern Baptist Tennessee boy too.
Speaker 2: Man, Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 4: I grew up Do you know Crossville.
Speaker 1: It's a town in East Tennessee.
Speaker 2: Right, Yep, yep.
Speaker 4: I grew up there, and I was I was raised
Southern Baptists. Became an atheist all throughout my teenage hoods
teenage hood, I found Roman Catholicism, my ottinion a mass
at Saint Thomas Aquinas, so I became a Thomas, I
was baptized, and I started my inquiry to wholly orthodoxy
officially last December, a little after Christmas. Oh, it's it's
the fullness of the Catholic it is the fullness of.
Speaker 2: The Catholic Church.
Speaker 5: So I'm tired of.
Speaker 4: Pretending, you know, in fictitious institute, in a fictitious institution
that made it sells something that they work, you know,
and their Unitarians.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I would tell you, do you have the uh,
the Palmazansky book. It's it's pretty good. I overlooked this
book for many years, and when I finally got it
back around to reading it and looking at it. Orthodox
Dogmatics by Pomazansky is really good.
Speaker 4: Okay, absolutely, yeah, have a have the most last day, Jay,
enjoy your today.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, absolutely, thank you great questions. Appreciate
that from the Frankish Melkite. I don't see any more
people in line that haven't already come on, and I
got to save some energy for our Catholic. But let's
see what his name is. His name is Chris, Chris Plants,
and so I just hit him up and I said, hey,
do you still want to go for tonight? And he
hasn't replied yet, but you know, if we're going to
do it, we'll be back here in one hour and
we'll have a friendly conversation with our Catholic buddy over here,
Chris Plants Plants and otherwise, everybody have a good night.
How do you call in? You call in through the
oh I already removed the link. I removed it because
we're about to end it. So you call in the
next time. We do this all the time. Anyway, everybody,
have a good night. I'll see here in an hour
maybe