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