Speaker 1: Yeah, he says that Christianity is I don't have my
copy here, but you look up where he talks about alters,
and he says that Christianity is intolerant and it tears
down pagan altars. And he's basically arguing the I don't
know why the Vatican websites. Maybe the Vaticans blocked me
because I can pull up any of their stuff, like
their website is not working for me. Yeah, it's right, No,
it's it's not all right because I want people to
see this in cyclical So let me find it over here.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So brennand dere Serge is the Catholic position against the
philosophy of the Reich, and it includes the critiques of
the Marcianite elements, but specifically for just take it, just
get a PDF and control f search for where he
talks about alters and Christianity tears down pagan alters and
that that's a problem for the Reich because their philosophy
is Rosenberg's positive Christianity. You know, do you know what that?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: I do not?
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Positive Christianity is the Reich's philosophy of a new Christian
theology where you would have everything judaic purged out of
the text and out of the philosophy, and that comes
out of the higher critical approach of people like Julius Belhausen.
That's the father of higher critical studies.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Great great question there.
Speaker 2: Yeah we got a question.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Uh, so you once stated that Roman Catholicism is typically
displayed as an unfalsifiable position, right, Uh, the goal shifting
on defining what the papacy means in the various and
cyclicals and even documents of Etican Two. If I wanted
to use that argument against the Roman Catholic demonstrating that
their position is unfalsifiable, or at least they think it is,
how would I go about defending the objection if they.
Speaker 2: Raise it that?
Speaker 5: Well, you think the same thing about Orthodoxy, that it's unfalsifiable.
So the question is basically, is the orthodox position unfalsifiable?
And if not, what is the criteria or fal falsifiability
or whatever you would say for the Orthodoxic position?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's two different senses of what we mean by unfalsifiable. Right.
So this comes out of certain twentieth century philosophers who
came up with an idea of falsification theory, and that
if you had a scientific position, you basically consider it
as plausible until it's falsified. This is more of a
rhetorical critique that positions like Marxism, for example, can always
tweak the position to where you can never defeat it.
So it's not saying that the position is actually unfalsifiable.
It's saying that there's a weakness in the position that
makes it able to constantly move the goalposts so that
you could never argue against it. Let me give an
example in Marxism. If you can, you mute, please just
allow dude. In Marxism, if you can, you mute, please,
thank you. Chase Prett said that in Marxism, if you
critique Marxism, you're already negated as a critic because you're
coming from the bourgeoisie. Because the only people that critique
Marxism would be people from the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie.
So you could never critique Marxism because all critiques are falsified.
It'd be like if a Roman Catholic said all critics
are falsified of the papacy because everyone critiquing the papacy
is a schismatic so that all of the views are invalidated.
So it's not actually saying the position is unfalsifiable. It's
a rhetorical jab that the position is weak. So does
that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: So we're saying we're saying our position is wholly consistent
and authentically unfalsifiable, meaning that it can't be disproven. We're
saying that the papacy pretends to have unfalsifiability, but it's
actually just moving the goalposts to make the system fit
together and work.
Speaker 6: Yeah, in the sense of what would falsify Orthodoxy is
you know, finding the problems in our metaphysics or aristmology,
our history, inconsistencies in our history. Right, But I'll say, hey,
you can't prove it wrong because it's isn't saying there's
no criteria through which you could prove this incorrect.
Speaker 2: Those are two different things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good point, Chase, good question, though, Jay I.
Speaker 2: Got a question.
Speaker 7: So the Orthodox Church in Greece, I think they released
like an AI software logos to ask like questions, and
I just want to ask, should should this be stopped
right now? Or is this something that like we should
look into.
Speaker 1: More an AI what.
Speaker 7: Like, they released like an like an AI basically an
AI LM with.
Speaker 2: Like just orthodox teachings and it's.
Speaker 7: Basically used as like a question questionnaire, like so should
this be stopped right now?
Speaker 1: Or is this something that like there was some there
was some Ortho bros Create trying to write an l
l M that would have orthodox answers. I don't necessarily
think it's immediately a problem, but I could definitely see
it being a problem because so many people default to
thinking that AI is like this authoritative source. I mean
we already see like gen alphagen Z. People basically just
will quote at you AI as a source. For example,
there was this Roman Calvic Doo that was like Vatican
two isn't dogmatic because here's an AI saying it's not dogmatic.
So like, in that sense it could be dangerous. But
in the sense of like you know, quick search engine
type stuff, that's really that's the only function that AI
has is to be like a much quicker search engine.
So outside of that, it seems like it could be
it could it could conceivably become. It might not be wise.
That's a good way to put it, you know, in
life and in Christianity and Orthodoxy, et cetera. Like, not
everything that occurs is necessarily immediately good or bad or
sin or righteous. Like, there's a lot of things in
life that are neutral and can be used either way.
So that's why not. Paul even says all things are lawful,
but not all things are profitable. So there's a question
at a time I think of wisdom, whether things are
like that or wisdom. So I think it could be problematic,
but good question.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And I mean the way I'm using my AI
priests to confess instead of having to go in like
and like do it in person, that's definitely a positive
thing because I don't have to feel shame or anything.
Speaker 1: Right, and you don't have to confess the transitioning that
you went through either, because the AI has already decided
that it's okay.
Speaker 8: Right, Bro, that's not public yet.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I thought you had your pronouns in your bio.
But that's cool.
Speaker 2: Just you know it was a joke today.
Speaker 1: Come on, dude, Hello, Hey, what's up? Yes, please be quick,
please be quick?
Speaker 2: All right, Right, So my first question was.
Speaker 9: Like, oh, what books would you recommend when it comes
to someone who has begun studying epistemology.
Speaker 1: Uh, usually the same ones that FDA recommends. The Bonjour text,
which is more of a graduate school tax in the WJ.
Woodbook on Epistemology is a good introduction.
Speaker 9: All right, Yeah, I'll make sure to check them out.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 9: And my second question, will it has to do most
of you know about the Latinizer's movement, or and not
just Latinisers in general, when people begin using scholastic methodology
when it comes to approaching the faith.
Speaker 2: Because I'm seeing a.
Speaker 9: Lot of people online using their terminology and their methodology
when it comes to logic and reasoning, and I just
want to hear what do you think about like them
using those sorts of terminology reasoning when it comes to
approaching to faith, When to faith to the Christian faith obviously.
Speaker 1: I mean there's that exists in the Eastern Fathers too,
so I really you really just have to get specific.
I mean it's a question I think of the appropriate
use of these tools and not exalt the tools to
become the ends in themselves. So scholasticism ends up giving
right in the West, ends up giving rise to atheism
because it puts the Dianoia rational faculty above the heart
the news, and so you get an imbalance. And so
I think that's the danger. But if you look at
Saint Maximus, if you look at Saint Photius, they were
the most learned and scholastical men of their time. If
you look at Saint Gregor Palomas, he's using epidictic logic
in the Epidictic Treatise on the Howly Spread against the
Philly Oaquay. So he's using a Ristilian logic. So none
of that thing is the is the problem is the
question of exalting the tool to become an end in itself.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, yeah, that's that's great question.
Speaker 8: An answer question relating to tag sure, sure, Okay.
Speaker 10: So for context, I had a conversation with a friend
of mine who is a Protestant, and he basically said
that scripture was the final authority. And basically the route
I took was I asked him and got him to
agree that that proposition was a knowledge claim, and I
pointed out how knowledge required a standard such as logic,
that was unchanging and invariant, and so I told him
that in order to use logic he would need to
partake in God's nature basically, So I asked him since
he denied the essence energy distinction and he had no
epistemic sort of mechanism by which he could participate, And
he basically responded by starting to Peter chapter one, verse four,
and he basically said that he reflected logic and that
he didn't actually like fully partaken.
Speaker 8: And so my question is how would you respond to that?
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't go into all of that detail debating
something like that. I would just kind of go with
more basic arguments about solo scriptura because people that are
convinced of solar scripture, and in the Protestant domain ninety
nine point nine percent of them, they don't know anything
about metaphysics. So when you try to go into these
metaphysical arguments, I think it's just kind of digging a
deeper hole. It's not necessary, so focus on I'm about
to upload the debate that we did with Dale the Protestant,
which is a classic debate I think with me and
doctor bo Branson where we confront you know, a mid
tier Protestant arguer when it comes to solar scripturer. So
but if you want to be more specific, like well,
he's when he says well, it just reflects, you know,
God's mind. Well, that's the thing in question. So if
you don't have access to the divine mind, if there
is no essencety distinction, there's no midpoint between God and
his simplicity in the created order, if there's no energies
by which he interacts with the created order, then you
don't actually have a direct access to the divine mind.
So when you say that my mind and my logic
reflects into my mind, you're begging the question, well, how
is that possible in a situation, in a scenario where
God is cashed out as the opposite of the created
order and nothing like created things? I thanks, Yeah, I'm
trying to find Dale the Protestant the bait. What's up?
Speaker 2: How many questions can I ask?
Speaker 1: Seventeen seventeen? It's a joke. How many do you have?
Speaker 2: What if science ever? How many days that is written? Hello?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, go ahead?
Speaker 11: What if science ever contradicts something that is written in
the Bible or the teachings of the church.
Speaker 2: I mean, let's say an alien.
Speaker 11: Species ever appears like welcome be the position.
Speaker 2: Of the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: We would go with your position, we would go with
the aliens we would we would be sola alien.
Speaker 2: I'm not joking. That would be the position. Yes, you
wouldn't say it's demons or no.
Speaker 1: We would immediately capitulate and we would believe in the
infallibility of a new alien papacy.
Speaker 11: Okay, what about Camara's if humans were able to create a.
Speaker 2: Camara that can speak, that can.
Speaker 1: Talk, I mean you're talking about like Kit because only
a lot of Boomers had Camaros. But really, Kit is
the only Camaro wish car I've ever seen that actually
talks from Night Rider.
Speaker 2: Like, what would the what would be the position? Would
you say it's a human? Would you say it's.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would say it's totally boomer. I mean
if you want to drive a Camaro around the talks,
I mean you can, but like you're full on Boomer. Yeah,
I know, Camaro right, like K like David Householf.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you?
Speaker 1: Who's next? Is Kid a Camara? That's the next question?
Is Kid actually a Camaro? O?
Speaker 12: I have a lot of mental issues, and that's a same.
Speaker 2: I watched a lot of media stuff to keep out
away from sinning.
Speaker 13: I'm just wondering if that's a good or batting like,
if like video games and movies are keeping me away
from sinning or demons are I.
Speaker 1: Guess it depends on what movies and video games you're playing,
so I don't know. Man. I would say, try to
find a spiritual father for you know, that kind of stuff.
But who's next? Y?
Speaker 4: Hi?
Speaker 2: I have a question, okay, okay. I was wondering if
you felt that, compared to other Christian denominations, that Orthodoxy
and Eastern Orthodoxy in particular, was less likely to experience cultism.
Speaker 1: You mean, to be cult like like people acting like
urus and cult leaders. Yeah, I mean that can happen anywhere,
but yeah, I think it's less likely because generally speaking,
the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church. So but
there have been schismatics in groups that become very cult like.
There have been monasteries monastics who have been cult like
and have abused people. So it's still possible because humans
are humans everywhere you go. I would say that I've
met less guru cult like attitudes in the Orthodox world
than I've seen anywhere else. Thank you, sure, A good question.
I'm about to upload. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was gonna ask. I think one of the
things that I feel.
Speaker 7: Like like I was, I'm cradle horseblocks and one of
the things that like I've realized, like coming to America,
it's like a lot of lot of things, Like when
people convert to earth blocks.
Speaker 14: It's like they.
Speaker 2: It kind of come becomes like a club, right.
Speaker 7: Like I'm not sure what your opinion is this, but
like when people think their sayings the name, right, they
use that like only within.
Speaker 2: When they go to the doors Stock Church. When you
go to doors.
Speaker 7: Stocks Church, Okay, I'm now Seraphim, but like outside of
stock Church, I'm John. You know, it's like kind of
feel to me. That feels to me like a double personality.
Do you have any opinion on that, like should you
always stay like Unsuraphim or No.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a double personality because you're still
who you are from your parents. You still have a
life in this world, and we don't live in an
Orthodox culture. So no, I think that's part of the
reason why you have that name in our world is
that it is kind of a club. It's the club
as it is the church. So but no, I don't
see a problem with that. I mean, they're there. You
can have churches that are wealthy and develop club like
clique attitudes. And if you read the rebukes to the
seven churches in Asia minor, right, one of the churches
was that way when they get rebuked for being wealthy
and snobbish and you know.
Speaker 7: Cold, one of the guess the reason why I'm saying
this right, because like your previous life was a dead life,
you know, like you're now a new person, so like
your old name is a dead name.
Speaker 2: So that's why.
Speaker 1: It's not we're not we're not we're not trans people.
It's not a dead name. I don't. Yeah, that's that's
that's a valid Oh. I just disagreed, So if you want, yeah,
I just disagree. But you got to live in this
sort still.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, thank you?
Speaker 1: Sure, good questions. Well, who's next? Oh hello, okay, No,
So we've seen.
Speaker 2: Each other before.
Speaker 15: I attended one of your lectures live here, Florida.
Speaker 2: My wife and I were both there.
Speaker 15: Okay, uh, I just wanted to make breaference for that.
But I have a funny story for you. I haven't
really thought out of how I'm gonna say it because
it's quite long, and I'm gonna try to make as
short as I can. So we've been intending to perish
in kiss Me, which later moved to Orlando, And I've
always had an next uh a relationship with my priest
and the perishing general I.
Speaker 2: Had no issues with.
Speaker 15: The parish was very neutral and everything just like you're
just like you're thinking what an average parish.
Speaker 2: Would look like.
Speaker 15: But every time I would up any topic that had
to do with theology, reading a book or Jay Dyer
for example, it seems like the priest was obsessed with
getting people off of the Internet, and he would either
bring that up in the most direct way, but never
actually talking about you or any particular figure, And he
would always bring up a bush Kers.
Speaker 2: For some really awkward reason. Like the point he was trying.
Speaker 15: To make is that every time that you mentioned some
theological topic that you wanted to talk about, or maybe
bring up something that you saw on YouTube by some
wortodox figure, he would try to shut that down in
a sort of passive aggressive way. So it's kind of
hard to pinpoint what exactly is being done that sounded
so shady, but the atmosphere was always just so against well,
I guess what you call warto bros Internet or todoxy,
and that always felt wrong to me. So it's an
OCA perish and I just started to search because even
though the and sounded very beast aggressive all the time,
I just could sense that there was sort of narrative.
Speaker 1: That, yeah, they're they're told, they're told from their bishops
from the top down, to not not have anything to
do with me.
Speaker 14: Right.
Speaker 15: So it's hard to communicate this stuff because it's never
they never communicate what you're trying to pose in a
direct way. You can just feel that there's something wrong.
Every time you bring some term up or some word
you shouldn't use, the atmosphere just shifts, and there's like
this this attempt to change change the mood. Uh, they're
very I mean, I'm I have to be bald to
say it is like if there's.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of people leave OCA churches in
Florida and come to our church precisely because of this
kind of stuff.
Speaker 15: So right, I mean, the only way that I can
communicate it more properly is by being more bald. If
there's one thing liberals love to say is that they
are not trying to speak about politics when they are.
Of course, it's very interesting there there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the OCA Church in Jacksonville, like openly communes,
open skittles, couples, so like they don't care. So so
that's that's what's going on. That's the real it's the
root of it's that kind of stuff.
Speaker 16: Right.
Speaker 1: But then they act like, oh, the greatest thing, the
most serious concern is young men becoming Orthodox. No, it's
not gay bishops, it's not that kind of stuff. It's
not trans stuff. It's ortho boros. Look, it's really simple. Okay.
There's powerful people and powerful entities and foundations that put
a lot of money into changing the attitudes of all
the churches, including Orthodox Church and its jurisdictions. So what
is the what is their problem person, Well, it's people
that convert young straight men. They want to take the
Orthodox Church into eventually being another type of Protestant liberal
Episcopal church that accepts all the gay stuff. It's that simple.
It's like, we're not it's not rocket. I'm not saying
you're saying this, but like, what's happening. What do you
think it is? It's the same stuff that happened to
the Protestant church in the Roman Caelloic church, right.
Speaker 15: I mean, for the sake of metaphor. I'm not trying
to cut anyone a devil, but the devil never shows
up to you with his horns out right, So there's
always this sort of weasly way in trying to get
you to think in a different way that's usually just
censoring what you do.
Speaker 2: Want to say, right, But to make a very long.
Speaker 15: Story short, I decided to search about the OSA because
they got.
Speaker 2: To the point where everything.
Speaker 15: That was the way that things were handled in private
conversation the priest was always so easily and the way
that the chat was moderated story too.
Speaker 2: So I decided to search about.
Speaker 15: OSA and what you actually said about that she thought it,
And turns out that you actually engage in that priest
directly twice.
Speaker 2: His name is Fatter David Galloway.
Speaker 1: And just to me, yeah, he's the priest that he's
the priest that was charging people for prayer on his Patreon.
So that tells you what that tells you what kind
of people you're dealing with, right, It.
Speaker 15: Was really hard, Like it was really it was painful
for me because I've been engaging with the men and
accepting his spiritual guidance for a year and a half.
I understand now, wolls have I been told that he
had engagements. We viewed that like he publicly went out
defending a humanism and I went to his tweeter page,
and you know, I had a direct conversation with him
before all.
Speaker 2: Of this, and I told him, look, fudder. If there's
one thing.
Speaker 15: That I just don't accept is people using the term
portal bro as an euphemism, because it's like they're not
aware that there ones dividing the churches them.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, I mean he's the one that gave public lectures,
what actually me private lectures to all the priests five
years ago saying avoid me at all costs. And then
when that came, when that came out, it was a
huge deal, and then everybody said that I was bad
because I called him out for privately telling all the
priests to avoid me. But the reason he does that
is because he's told to do that by people like
Bishop Golitz and other people in the OCA. So it's
it's not even it's not all the OCA. It's just
like certain bishops that are super acumenist. I mean, Bishop
Glitzen believes the Origin is a saint. So like if
people can't figure that out like Origin is not a saint.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: If you think he's a saint, like you're not Orthodox.
It's that simple. But next question, thank you so much.
I'm sorry having that trouble, but try to find a
better church. If you can, You're welcome to come to
our church.
Speaker 2: Uh So, where is that?
Speaker 15: Like, what's your Orlando recommendation or something nearby?
Speaker 1: I don't know about Orlando. I'm just talking about Palm Coast,
which is probably too far, but.
Speaker 15: I'll fire the Palm.
Speaker 1: Coast was about an hour from Saint Nicholas. All right, next,
thank you though, next question, let's move on. Next question,
thanks man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got a question when it comes to abortion.
So my question is what is the position of the.
Speaker 17: Church when it comes to a city considering the mom's
life like in danger, like during a pregnancy, like for example,
an embryo can get stuck at a slopean too.
Speaker 1: And I don't know there are canon law people that
make there's there's actually people degrees and like bioethics, but
I would assume it's still not acceptable. But I don't
actually know. I'm not a canon lawyer, don't. I mean,
I'm saying like obviously we're pro life, but like, is
there some actenuating circumstance? I'm not sure. Father Deacon A.
Yas would know that better than me. Actually, there is
a book, by the way, excuse me, there is a
there's an Orthodox doctor that passed away. I've gone to
his conference several times. It's named after him. What is
that guy's name? And it would probably be in his book?
He was a In fact, he was such a renowned
Christian bioethicists that he would consult the Vatican. What is
that guy's name? It's the It's the name of the
guy behind the Sophia conference. It's on the tip of
my tongue. Do you mind the chat? Know the renowned
Orthodox bioethicist. And he's actually kind of a pre sub
He wrote a book. It's kind of a presupositionalist critiquing
like natural theology and stuff. What is that guy's name?
By the way, If you guys would like and share,
we are doing a discord Q and A. Yeah, I'm
not saying that all the OCA parishes are bad. It's
not at the Paris level. Usually that it's a problem.
Usually it's a select couple of bishops in the OCA
that are full on totally liberal. We've known that for years.
In fact, other OCA priests have written essays and articles
against those people. So what I'll think about who that
that bioethicist says, Father Decanoniyas knows it because he knows
he used to go to there. He knows them personally,
the whole family and all of them. But all right,
who's next, Jake Amy?
Speaker 18: Yeah, so I got a question that I wouldn't know
readings the Areopagui and of course we all know that
he's really influential on like Maximus Paula Moss, you know,
the Mascus and even like like Thomas Aquinas. Right, but
then I receive with like you know, later traditions and
you know Italian human is, and then then later like
with with Luther, he's not the question of a lady
of Dionysius. But he was never really questioned by really
the Orthodoxia Christian world. So what are your thoughts on
whether or not he's actually the Dionysius or whether it's
quote unquote Pseudoh.
Speaker 1: There's a great article at Ortho Christian defending the veracity
of Dionysius. And by the way, that's another thing that
Bishop gilitz and his whole thesis is about Dynasian metaphysics.
And I tried when the one time I met him,
I asked him questions about this, and he just laughed
when I said, is it possible that he actually is
saying Dionysius? So what does that tell you?
Speaker 19: Let's see, No, it's not Sophia Institute.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The Dinasius article is written by about, by the way,
I think, an Anglican. So there's an Anglican that defends dynasty.
Orthrochristian crazually had one with them. He had a video
with us and kind of evangelos. He has like a
book and the Bachelor has a really really good book
a defantas the historicity of Dinosius. It's called Indefensive Dynasty
and authorship by Reverend John Parker and Father Dmitri Stannyloy.
It's I think it's it's I read this years ago.
I read this actually before I went, and that Bishop
gilitzen to ask him questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Who is the professor Tristan Inglehart? Thank you so much.
Murriah So the guy who wrote the book on Orthodox
bioethics and whatnot is doctor Tristan Inglehart, not Tristan Shandy
by the way, and he has since passed away, but
professor of history and Medicine at Rice University. That's that's
where all of our psyops and Ortho Rose are from.
Speaker 20: But this is him here, well, poor, we'll see that why,
I don't think.
Speaker 1: And he was a solid Orthodox, uh professor. Who's next?
Speaker 2: Hey jay yo?
Speaker 20: Hello?
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 1: By the way, let me add that, Uh, there's been
more opposition to me coming out of the O c
A over the years than there ever was out of
go Arch. So even though I'm critical of go Art ecumenism,
like on the whole, like, they're not even half as
oppositional to what I talk about when I say, then
the o c A has been which is which is
quite curious. And I think this goes back to the
O c A with it with its relationship as a
CIA conduit for the State Department during the Cold War.
What's up, Hi?
Speaker 2: This is kind of plugging you recently.
Speaker 21: I don't know if you're familiar with this concept, but
I watched an old Pageo video from like three years
ago where he essentially says Santa Claus is real because
he has a list of attributes that can be universally
attributed to him. It led me a little bit because
it makes it seem like angels and demons are just
universal concepts and not persons that are real.
Speaker 2: Like you and I are real.
Speaker 21: Just wondering your thought on this, or if I'm misinterpreting Pagoe.
Speaker 1: I don't know what Pago meant by that, but I mean,
I usually argue that he's real because he's St. Nicholas,
So but yeah, I mean, but I mean, maybe maybe
Pago is being nuanced and saying that there's different senses
of reality into which things are real, Right, So just
because something is even an archetype doesn't mean that it's
not real. It might have a type of existence that's
unique or abstract or conceptual that's not identical to physical existence.
But I certainly don't think Pago would deny that Sat
Nicholas was a person. In fact, I'm pretty sure he
believes up right.
Speaker 21: But the way he he he Santo was just kind
of an example he used.
Speaker 12: He also used the same example for like the Two Fairy.
Speaker 21: And other like mythological beings, and that because they had
actually attributes.
Speaker 16: In the universe attribute.
Speaker 21: To them, that they all get real, but I don't
if they're real in the same way that let's stay
Staying is reel. It kind of breaks down the person
put angels and demons kind of make some flective deal
platonic concepts.
Speaker 2: That's kind of what it feels like. We said something
like that. So maybe it's interpecting, but I'm not sure.
I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think Paja believes that angels.
Speaker 6: Okay, you just look at the lens and pass approaching
things from Peto is an artists and talking about the
realness of beauty and these other you know, universal concepts
like you're talking about. So he's not using real in
the same sense here as we move out, you know,
staying and things like that, and Pas is coming out
this term of particular lens when he's talking about this
stuff of artistry, creativity, things like that.
Speaker 2: That's where he's really good at. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 21: Also, I watched a stream with Cleve last night, Cleave
Humantiquity with Father's Human the Young and Fathers of the Young.
I have I've never read the relation of Apostles, but
she says in his book that there's this beauty he
can kind of said a few. He says that Satan
and the devil are two distinct beings, and that when
he talks about saying falling from heaven that it's a specific,
distinct fault when the devil fell in the garden?
Speaker 2: Beaton, Is that too sick.
Speaker 21: Or I don't know.
Speaker 2: I just thought that was interesting.
Speaker 1: And I mean I don't yeah, I mean, I think
we have flexibility in Orthodox theology. I don't have a
problem with because a lot of what's going on with
the Divine Council and the angels, the Sons of God,
the Nethlan, like, we're just not told a lot about
all that, So it's going to involve a lot of speculation.
And you notice that's why, you know, when you read
the Nicing Creed, Nephelim aren't in the Nicing Creed, right,
So it's like, it's not it's not essential right to
know and have some like dogmatic opinion on that or
the exact you know, chronological events behind the fall and
all this stuff. So no, I don't think those are
big deals. I think those are you know, we it's
okay to speculate within the balances of Orthodoxy as long
as your speculation doesn't go too far.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you, Yeah, good question. One more question.
Speaker 7: I have a question on the oquosition of the Holy
Spirit by sersorrow.
Speaker 1: The what acquisition?
Speaker 2: Okay, the quisition of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: Just talk a little bit slower, man, I can't. It's
hard to hear what you're saying. Acquisition.
Speaker 2: We're like on time.
Speaker 1: So, like.
Speaker 2: My question is he talks about how to.
Speaker 7: Acquired a voice spirit, which is like through alms giving
and through good works, right, But one thing that he said,
like kind of like towards.
Speaker 2: The book, the end of the book is.
Speaker 7: Well, now that you have the Holy Spirit and you're praying,
holy Spirit comes full in me.
Speaker 2: It's like you're it's.
Speaker 7: Like it's like a guest in your house, but like
you're still inviting them over. So like basically I was
confused about, like, Okay, so how do I know that
the Holy Spirit is thereas again?
Speaker 1: Uh, I mean, I think the way that we know
is going to be by the fruits that are demonstrated.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So Paul's talks about the fruits of the spirit our love, joy, piece, patients,
kind of goodness, and self control. So if we start
to see those in our life, that's how we know
that the Holy spirits in our life.
Speaker 2: So what's that have to do with like the stamp
that we have on our soul? Like, how does that?
How does that work? Like how does the grace of
God like?
Speaker 7: Because like sometimes the grace of God like leaves us right,
so we can struggle in in the world, so we
can you know.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean it's not too it's not like a
physical like leaving. It's just like what we do as
we turn away. Well, I mean now, but I don't
nobody knows exactly how that works. So I'm not trying
to be rude, just.
Speaker 2: No. And that's and that's what I'm trying to get that.
Speaker 7: It's like, like, at what point do we say, I
don't know how this works.
Speaker 2: I just accepted as it.
Speaker 1: Because that was at every point, I mean, the Orthodox theology,
you're always going to be saying that, like I don't
I I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I don't have a better question.
I just beyond what we're told in Divine Revelation about
you know, the fruits of the spirit. I don't really
know how to answer that question other than that if
you know, good tree bears good fruit, bad tree bears
bad fruit, because.
Speaker 7: That's like the kind of like the one of the
Calvinists of Calvinist friends and they're like, okay, like, how
do you know how you have the first ribble?
Speaker 2: And they say, because I do good works and a
good tree.
Speaker 1: Can Okay, well, but this is within the context of
the Orthodox Faith. So the reason this doesn't work for
a Calvinist is because, well, we don't believe that you
have the duell of the Holy Spirit. You know, you
might have influences of the Holy Spirit and certain graces
that are moving you in the direction of what's right,
but you can have not you can have certain sort
of natural virtues, but not necessarily theosis. You're only going
to find theosis in the sacrament. The Orthodox Church.
Speaker 7: No, that's understandable because like again like one of my
my friends they lost their child, like the kid during childbirth,
and you know, the struggle they went through like was
like was was humongous, right and well, but they had
so much grace and so they're like, well, how do
I how do you explain this to me? Like I'm
not in the church. I don't like like you know,
like I we exhibited these good fruits like of like
not forsaking.
Speaker 2: God like, so so for me, it was like very
hard to.
Speaker 7: Answer answer that to him, like, Okay, you don't have
the Holy Spirit, and I could not have said that
if you want to have this conversation here.
Speaker 2: But that's what basically, Yeah, that's I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't I wish I had better answers, but that's
as far as I can say. All right, who's next.
I appreciate it, Thank you, go ahead.
Speaker 16: I have a really good question.
Speaker 7: Does doesn't have ontological existence or it doesn't have ontology
at all?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 22: Okay, thank you, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 23: Okay, So the first question will be about philosophy. I'm
interested if we can view certain carcivours works through Orthodox lens.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Quite a few Orthodox theologians thinkers think that he's
one of the most of the secular philosophers or whatever
non Orthodox like, he's very close to sure, I've done
several talks. I've done several talks on character.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I was thinking.
Speaker 23: Also, I can give you his idea of the night
to face through the Orthodox lens.
Speaker 1: Also, yeah, I would just be leary of the dark
Knight of the soul. Tennanc Is to get to Roman
Catholic with it. But yeah, next question, I.
Speaker 2: Mean I have another one if well, it's about few politics.
Speaker 23: We all know that Zelenski got was in the Andora papers.
Do you think that he the series that was circulated
that that was circulating in the Ukrainian media before he
even got elected?
Speaker 2: You know the hole stick.
Speaker 23: Uh, some random school teachert from Ukraine got het up
with the oligarchs and he randomly gets elected. Do you
think that that series with some kind.
Speaker 1: Of sigh up is that the TV show he was
on or something?
Speaker 21: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Usually they'll pick people for politics to
play a certain role if they had some degree of acting.
I mean Ronald Reagan, Arnold's or Senegger. Acting is a
good preparatory phase for politics because politics is just Hollywood
for ugly people.
Speaker 2: So yeah, okay, that's quoted. Thanks you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great question. Who's next? Remember, guys, after my hour
here we will move over to X space and I'll
answer some of the super chats that have come in
as well. But no, we're not done. It's just this
is discord Q and A. And then in the discord, uh,
the other former moderators Kai from Orthodox Shahada, David Rhan
is supposed to come in as well. All the Old
School Classic twenty seventeen eighteen Discord bros Lewis perhaps as well,
are going to be back in the discord answering your questions.
I will continue answering questions over on X in the
X space in a moment. What's up, man, Who's next?
Speaker 24: Hey, j Hey, I've got an a Mason question for you.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 24: So I was recently at a Protestant church with a
pastor who was at one point as member of the
Church of Satan, and then he was a Jew and
a Freemason, and now he's a pastor. I'm sure you
can see why I'm no longer at that church. He
was kind of crazy, and it's you.
Speaker 1: The secret is that it was actually you. You're the pastor. Yeah, exactly,
I'm just joking. Go ahead.
Speaker 25: So he was he was.
Speaker 24: A thirty second degree Freemason, and if you asked him
about Freemasonry, he would just say like, oh, it was
just a club of old dudes that wanted to get
away from their families.
Speaker 1: I mean, at the local level, yeah, that's kind of
what it ends up being. But at the at the national,
international level, at these higher degrees you're talking about, you know,
British intelligence, you're talking about royal society, et cetera.
Speaker 24: Yeah, so that's kind of what my question was. With
all being all the way up at the thirty second degree,
do you think that he's really left.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of thirty second degree people who don't
know anything and who are idiots, because it's the invitation
to d C at the thirty third degree, which is
invite only, that is where you really start to learn stuff.
So I mean, I know, a thirty second degree freemason
doesn't know anything. So it's possible also that it's possible
that he's ignorant and just blind, or it's possible that
he's also a subversive to both both things can be true.
Speaker 24: Yeah, because another thing I'll say is he has a
bunch of interesting connections. He's a pilot, and he used
to fly for the Walton family, and he.
Speaker 1: Well, they were in the depression. How did they have
money for an airplane in the depression? What nobody gets
to see how old are you? You're young, right, yeah?
Speaker 5: Twenty one?
Speaker 1: Yeah, twenty If you just muted, twenty one year olds
are not going to get my jokes about the Waltons.
The Waltons was a TV show when I was a kid,
and they're they're a depression there. They're exactly, They're a
depression era family. And I'm like, how would they have
an airplane? It's a dumb joke. I know you're you're
talking about Walmart. I got it.
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, And and he, I mean I know that
he flew them to like World Economic Forum.
Speaker 2: And Boheman Grove and stuff like this.
Speaker 24: He he kind of had some interesting connections with that too.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's all. That's all.
Speaker 1: My question was, Yeah, no good questions. Yeah, I would
avoid these kind of like creeper, weird Protestant evangelical pastors.
A Right, guys, we will be doing consistent discord Q
and a's very soon, very regularly, so look forward to that.
And I think Kai and Lewis and David are going
to be in here today doing the rest of it.
But for the rest of you on YouTube and over
here on X we will start my X space in
a second and we will continue the chat. If you
are on X, do do do Do Do Do Do
Do Do do do do do do I do need
to refresh my coffee so give me one second to
get the the Wigger space going here. I'm gonna start
calling it the Wigger space because we figured out the
Wizantine Empire. And uh, I'll show you what I'm talking about.
What you're talking about, man, what you're talking about. I'm
talling about this right here. T A m b O
T tom about I'm talking about. Well, we talked about
wigger byzantheum wyzantheum. Okay, I want to see little little
john goblets clutched. I want to see lakers hats. I'm
talking about the Wizantine Empire. Son, That's what I'm talking about. There,
it is right there. I told you we was gonna
do it. Okay, I gotta go refresh my coffee. And
we have sponsors that I must tell you about. Let's
see sponsors. Where's the spon here we go. Sponsors is
over here, and then we're going to start the space.
Speaker 14: I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most
of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes
and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it.
Goofy af. There's nothing great about that do not listen
any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male.
This is important and there could be consequences. There's a
new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for Sigmas only.
It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers,
fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored
with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab.
Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract,
which will get your mind going and pump you up
to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with
all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose Each dose of chad Mode contains the
kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering
a surge of energy, alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire
your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode
will make you more dominant in your daily life, so
proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or
two scoops of our fine powder into water, or providing
you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of
sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you the
extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your
supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop.
Speaker 26: I want to show off something that we're all proud of.
I got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted,
much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just
got this page up. We are just testing it out.
You guys are some of the first people in the
world to see it. I want to say, for my part,
it's not philosophy.
Speaker 4: One oh one. I think this is as mistitling.
Speaker 26: I really think is as like philosophy unleashed because a
philosophy want on one course, they give you kind of
some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay
actually lays out over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens of
hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone
the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it
takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the
origins of philosophy, the use is of philosophy, the different
ways to look at it over time, and how that
has been brought about to what we have today, which
is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic
and reason side, in an overabundance of woke philosophy that
is irrational and is made up day by day as
people are like, I think we should bring racism back,
and then here's the justification, and then it gets wokeified
and spread out, and then all of a sudden you
have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become
the property in action. You need to be able to
stand on your own ground. It helps to have a
foundation in philosophy because it's a method define truth. When
you get down to it, Philosophy is there because you
love truth enough to go and learn how to find it,
because it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that,
there is the landing page. We'll link it up into notes.
It is a longer once, so we'll get a shorter
URL for this. I'm sure Jay has a link on
his page. I just wanted to show it off. Now
you know it exists, you can go look for it
and see why this it's not your father's philosophy, right,
So well done. I'm proud of everyone who helped to
produce and edit the course, and of course you had
did a flawless job in presenting the course over those
twelve weeks.
Speaker 4: And he's a juggernaut.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome back. We're gonna talk about and hopefully
this workaround for the obs issue seems to decently work
a little bit kind of. I'll be taking your X
questions about on a welcome back back. All right, let's
see who's next in the line. We got a couple
of super chotts. I'll read those first hush tones makes
a joke, he says, how do we get from fasting
to tag? Gabe K When you first got into philosophy,
did world views frighten you. Did you get philosophical vertigo,
nihilism and existential elk theory terrify me? I like the
way you think. No, it never really terrified me. Yes,
you can call in on X what's up my wizzas
all my wizan teine wiggas Haley's in the chat. Five
dollars are a coda. Two dollars you need some lotion,
you crack in shoe desire five dollars. The Vatican website
is down for everybody right now. Well, that's interesting because
I don't know if you guys saw what Leo said.
What's Leo's most recent.
Speaker 20: Gaff kail primre intlemento.
Speaker 1: He said that all the no stratat stuff about Judaism
holds Jews, repeating all the stuff that John Paul the
second said, Jews have a covenant, don't try to convert Jews, etcetera.
All the same stuff is repeated. But then there's another one,
that is, where's the other one at the world needs
more than ever the powerful witness of all the religions
living together in unity. So every time I talk about
this orthodoxy in the religion in the future right here,
as Tallahassee. Patriots said, one more religion being promoted by
the papacy. There you go, h oh kis of that?
We'll go to you in just one second. Brian says,
start dollars. How can I prove the chair, uh, the chair,
that Thom isn't he? Hold on a second, how can
I prove from the chair that Thoma hasn't teachers created grace? Catholics?
Just ask chat gpt.
Speaker 16: Are we there?
Speaker 5: Are we here?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, go ahead, zay to hole. What's up? I'm
mute zahle yeah, can hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 27: I have a question.
Speaker 2: A Muslim asked me.
Speaker 21: If the father knows he's the father, but the son
does not know he's the father, does that mean that
the son does not have the same knowledge as the
father because the son.
Speaker 14: Is not the father.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: They all are aware of each other and themselves and
their identity.
Speaker 2: So is the son aware he's the father?
Speaker 1: Well, the son is aware of false propositions, but that
doesn't mean that he is the father. So, for example,
you could say, answer, just let me answer the question.
Speaker 16: Man.
Speaker 1: There's a helpful distinction in medieval philosophy about this. For example,
if we say, is uh is God omniscient?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay? Does God know what it is to not exist?
Does God know what it is to be a bat? No,
in the same way that God knows of lying, God
doesn't know what it's like to be a liar. Right,
So this is a false notion of what omniscience is.
So it's the paradigm itself and God himself that determines
what the meaning of omniscience is. So you can't bring
in extra system definitions of what omniscience is and then
try to say, oh, can God pick up a rock
that is bigger than himself? If not, then he's not omnipotent. See,
it's a trick question because in the paradigm, in the
whole worldview, for example, God can't lie. Paul says, it
is impossible for God to lie. Oh, I guess he's
not all powerful. Well, what it means to be all
powerful will be conditioned by God's nature. So no, he
can't do all kinds of things that would be against
his nature. Likewise, he can't know a bunch of things
that would go against omniscience, if that makes sense. So
the paradigm conditions and determines the omnies. It's a very
I'm not faulting you, but when Muslim's ass that is
a very reddit to your thing. I mean, you could
just ask the Muslim like, what can all all be
in time and space? No he can't. Oh so then
he's not on the men of the West. What's up man?
Speaker 28: Ja yep, hey, I had a weird question about let's see,
Joe politics, the Havara Agreement or the transfer agreement.
Speaker 2: When you bring it up, see I you're you're right.
A lot of people don't know about that.
Speaker 28: I learned about it a few years ago. What it
meant to me hearing about that for the first time
was Okay, everything I know about, you know, h Man
is not true.
Speaker 25: He wasn't.
Speaker 28: He wasn't just just this bloodthirsty guy that was trying to.
Speaker 2: You know, kill kill.
Speaker 28: Jays at every at the drop of the hat, every.
Speaker 2: Chance that he could.
Speaker 28: What I guess explain from my dumb brain, like, what
is the point that you like last time I heard
you bring it up?
Speaker 2: We like, what is the what is the big point
that you were trying to say about? You know, nobody
knows about the transfer agreement?
Speaker 28: All right, We're we trying to say that you know
like Hitler was the the just just.
Speaker 2: The Hitler was the reason that Israel exists today.
Speaker 1: And yes he is. Yes, he has a big part
of that dialectic because without what he did, there would
not have been the recognition of the Nation State of
Israel in nineteen forty eight by the United Nations. So yes,
he played a dialectical role, not just to destroy Europe
and to wreck the remnants of Christian civilization in other
countries like Russia, but also he played the dialectical role
of aiding and being the excuse for the established from
the nation state of Israel. And that's not from me,
that's from I mean, that's the I agree with this
thesis basically, but that's from people like Michael Hoffman as well,
the famous Roman Catholic.
Speaker 28: Okay, So your opinion was that he he did that knowing, like,
not just that he.
Speaker 1: Was used and then he Uh no, I didn't. I'd
never said that, Okay. I said that he was double
crossed by the British, he was goaded into attacking and
told that he had secret support by the British. Just
read the chapters and Tragy and Hope on this. Read
Anthony Sutton's trilogy, read Guido Preparada, all these different books
that have that thesis. Okay, thanks, and if you disagree,
you're welcome to tell me. Look what.
Speaker 19: I just didn't know.
Speaker 28: Exactly what the point that you were that you were
getting at.
Speaker 2: But okay, I think I I go what you're saying.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they wanted as quickly says, two world
wars to wreck and to you know, basically exhaust the
two rivals to the Anglo American Zionist establishment. Catherine, what's up?
By the way, guys, remember that we will be uh
doing a book signing tomorrow. Oh let me ask it.
So the question about Roman Catholic teaching on where how
do we know it's created?
Speaker 2: Great?
Speaker 1: I wrote a whole essay on this. It's in my
red book. It's been up here for a decade. It's
right here. You can see. I'm the famous traditional Catholic
systematic theologian.
Speaker 4: Lude.
Speaker 1: We got sanctivine grace as they created supernatural gift really
distinct from God. Supernatural grace a participation of the divine nature.
One in five are contradiction. What's up, Cavin?
Speaker 2: Hey, d can I ask a question about original sin? So?
Speaker 29: I get these Orthodox guys who come into my comments
under my posts and they get super super like actually
original sin versus ancestral sin. And I was bringing up
the Orthodox view of ancestral sin that we inherit the
effects of Adam sin, but not the guilty of Adam Sin.
And I don't know if this is a super Augustinian,
like hyper Augustinian view that they have encountered these people
who are like, well, they.
Speaker 1: Pull up, yeah, I have a Moscow Yes, I have
a three hour talk on this right here, go ahead.
Speaker 29: Okay, yeah, because they will quote the Catechism of Saint
Philert of Moscow and like all these things who say
that we do transgress through Adam making it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but sometimes the word transgression is used as a
descript or of our state of being. It's not talking
about actual violation of Adams or actual violation of the
divine law. Because what sin is an infant actually guilty of.
And so they don't even realize that there's nobody that
even teaches this anymore except for Calvinists and Lutherans. Nobody
in the world Ruman Catholics don't hold to original guilt.
And that there's my three hour talk on it right there,
put it in the chat. Okay, who's next, let's see.
Thank you for that question, Catherine. But yeah, we been
combating this for years. This was a talk I did
almost four years ago. What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey, what sub jeck?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 30: I received the question a while ago from a friend.
He's Lutheran, and so I wanted to make sure that
I had the understanding right.
Speaker 2: It was about and if you have a video on this,
feel free to disappoint me to it. But asked it's a.
Speaker 30: Classic question about the break of communion in the different
Orthodox patriarchs currently, where like his point was, well, you
need to make sure you know which is the true
church still, is that the Greek Church or the ro
Court Church where maybe it's a different church and they're
all wrong right now, because the church is what supplies
you with the grace necessary for salvation. So if the
Greeks are in the wrong right now, then you taking
the sacraments at a Greek church would actually be ineffective
and you're not really saved and your.
Speaker 1: Outside that's not art. We have a canonical process. Breaking
communion doesn't mean that there's automatically no grace it's only
at the point when there's excommunication. That's the orthodox canonical view.
That does not happen yet, so nobody believes that he's
just importing his own strong man position.
Speaker 30: Yeah, so I was gonna say that's more of like
a donutest position, right, or like they would immediately lose
pre community or something.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 2: Cool, that's all I happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good question, Thank you. Also, I mean, if breaks
in communion disqualify the church, then the first thousand years,
the mini breaks in communion amongst various patriarchs, means that
the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church. In
other words, if you believe that the church of the
first thousand years is the Roman Catholic Church, and if
breaking communion then means that that's a sign of a
false church, then you've just disqualified the first thousand years
of Christianity. So it's a really stupid argument. They don't
think this out. Every time we have these debates with
the Roman Catholics and they make that line of arugmentation
and we bring this up, they never get it. Kyle,
what's up, Hi Jay.
Speaker 31: How's it going.
Speaker 32: I recently converted to Roman Catholicism, I've been listening to
your Talks podcast for about two weeks.
Speaker 2: Just had a quick question.
Speaker 32: Since you were Roman Catholic as well, I am looking
at attending in an Orthodox church.
Speaker 2: What is your version?
Speaker 32: What is your experience about like knowing like you're in
a state of race kind of like because examination of
conscience versus like Roman Catholicism versus Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a lot less legalistic. There's not a giant
list of mortal sins and menial sins. That's all a
later Latin development. So I think you're going to find
it to be a much more of a saying healing
process then the sort of mechanical approach.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to.
Speaker 33: Say, I'm completely on your side in this matter, but
I don't know if you knew.
Speaker 2: You might already know this. You know Alex Smalpass has
been talking shit about you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't care, but thank you very No.
Speaker 33: No, I want to say, yeah, he responded to that
your thang on h on the Piers Morgan Show and
was like calling your sudo intellectical and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: But basically.
Speaker 33: He I think he's one of the strongest atheist debaters
because he has PhD in philosophy, but at the same
time his he believes that somehow got loved Frega's platonism
can justify some kind of moral position, which I think
is just completely ridiculous. Do you plan on debating him again?
Because the first debate I think was kind of a
it wasn't the best.
Speaker 1: Yeah and ended quick. I don't really, I mean, I
don't really have any interest in debating a woke professor.
If people want to follow a woke atheist, go for it. JB.
Pilt five dollars. When people quote at me like and
it's an authority, I'm just confused. It's also I'm not
just confused as an insult. They think that that's good enough. Yeah,
we're nentering into this hyper anti intellectual period, and it's
hyper anti intellectual because that's part of the cy warp.
I covered this on my Twitter the other day. I
talked about NATO psyops and how a lot of this
is being allowed. A bunch of groypers came at me
and tell me how awful I was, and then Nick
said that basically the same thing. So even if I
say the correct things, if I say it, it's bad.
But if Nick says it. It's good because Nick says it,
But this is showing you that it has nothing to
do with what's true. It's really just about culti personality,
and really that's just bad for those guys. I mean,
you know, you can pretend all day long the papacy
is based in trad but everybody in the world knows
that it's not. They deep down know that Leo's out
here saying open borders every day. That jomp All the
second says Jews have a separate covenant with God, and
you don't use in the Catholic Bishop Conference in two
thousand and three says don't try to convert Jews. Everybody
knows this, and you guys can keep pretending all you want.
It only hurts you in the long run. It doesn't
affect me. You're not winning by pretending and lying to yourselves.
You don't get any I mean, what are you going
to get out of that? Vato? What's up? JB. Piltier?
The mic was tweaking. Hopefully it's fixed now if I
do the work around some of those words. David Murdoch
twenty dollars. I saw weapons. I liked it. I'm trying
to figure out Orthodox literature about demons and sorcery or
the divine consuming essences. What about City of God? I mean,
See of God talks about some of that. I mean,
there's just not really like an Orthodox book that I'm
aware of on demonic activity and exorcism types of except
you could look at like Father Sara from Roses Orthodox
in the religion in the future, some of the monastic
literature goes into that. Bato, I'm you.
Speaker 2: All right, You're so. I have a textual question.
Speaker 34: In Second Thessalonians, Chapter two, verse one through eight, would
you say that that particular passage has been fulfilled in
the past.
Speaker 1: I believe in a dual fulfillment, so I think that
the immediate fulfillment is seventy eight d with the High Priest,
the Jewish High Priest in the alliance with Rome the Beast.
So if you read the Book of Revelation, the whore
is Israel, as the prophets always called Israel the whore.
It even says that the whore is that is where
our the place where our Lord was crucified in the apocalypse.
So that tells you that it's Israel. So the High
Priest is dressed in the garments and the ritual outfit
that befits actually the horror of Babylon in Book of Revelation.
And John is thus in concert with all the Old
Testament prophets who speak of Israel in that way, especially
like Hoseiah. And by the way, God says in Hoseiah
that He's going to divorce Israel. So when was that
prophecy fulfilled if not seventy a d That's what I
was saying to all these dispensations. So I think that
there will be a future in times man of lawlessness,
and this is usually how the Patristic exegesis goes, that
that will be some sort of future temple with some
sort of Antichrist that dupes the Jews.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 34: I guess my follow up question would be because they're
in that passage, it says that the lawless man would
be destroyed by the coming of the Lord. And Paul
is picking up Insect and Thessalonians where he previously discussed
in his First Letter, and in his first Letter in
chapter four he talks about that at the coming of
the Lord they would be raised from the dead. So
how would you say that people the saints had come
out of sleep in a duel in.
Speaker 1: A I mean, have you read the end of the
Book of Matthew where it says the saints at christ
Resurrection were walking around Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, correct, but Paul wrote that after that occurred.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But what I'm saying is what's mentioned in First
Thessalonians isn't a rapture. It's talking about the resurrection at
the end of the world. So there's a coming in
Judgment in seventy eight D, which Jesus talks about in
Luke twenty one when he says Israel will be surrounded
by enemies, the Temple will be destroyed. Luke twenty one
is explicit. He's talking about people in that generation. They
would see that forty years later it happened. So that's
all a type of what happens at the end of
the world. Because the temple is a type of the
universe and the earth right, so when it's destroyed, that
is a symbol of the eschatological destruction of the Union
Verse at the conflagration and at the Great White Throne,
judgment of the resurrection.
Speaker 16: And all that.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let me see if I'm understanding.
Speaker 1: Look, before we get to this, are you aware that
many times in the prophets, like Isaiah nineteen or Ezekiel
early on, it talks about God coming and judgment in
the clouds against Egypt against Babylon. Yeah, okay, so that's
the coming of judgment in seventy e D.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 34: And I guess my follow up question is, and I
just don't I want to make.
Speaker 2: Sure that I understand you correctly.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 34: So you're saying that there was a so the resurrection
of First Thessalonians chapter four was fulfilled.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that it's primarily and First Essalonians talking
about the end of the world. But there are signifiers
and types and signs of that even beforehand. In seventy
a d. The first resurrection, according to the Book of Revelation,
is baptism, So everybody's participating in the first resurrection through
being baptisted. The second resurrection is at the end of
the world, when all the bodies are joined back to
the souls.
Speaker 34: And I guess the difficulty that I'm having an understanding
that is in second because you say that in Second
Thessalonians chapter two, verse one through eight, that that was
fulfilled in a partial way.
Speaker 1: But that is the same company you're missing under. You know,
you misunderstand what I'm saying. Man, I'm not saying that
it's a mirrored event. It's not partially fulfilled, like half
of it's fulfilled and then the other half is later
fulfilled the end of the world. All of these events
that are happening in the Book of Acts up to
the time of seventy a d. They're a spiritual and
a physical, small typological fulfillment of what happens in a
mirrored sense at the end of the world. So it's
not like half of Mouthew twenty four or half of
Luke twenty one happened in seventy eight and then the
other half of the passage happens at the end of
the world. All of the events have minor typological realities
that are fulfilled in in the First Advent up to
seventy eighty, and then they're mirrored at the end of
the world in a global sense. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 34: Okay, So you're saying that the mirror typological fulfillment of
First Thessalonians Chapter four is the resurrection of baptism.
Speaker 1: There's not just it's multiple things are signs and symbols
of this and fulfillments of this. Okay, and so Christ listen,
all right, like we'll walk through first Thessalonians in a
second here, but let's go to Luke so in Luke two,
or looksc me Luke twenty one. Jesus says, then as
he spoke about the temple, how it was adorned with
beautiful stones, he said, the things that you see the day,
the days will come in which not one stone will
be left upon another. And they say, when is this
going to be? What is the sign that this is
about to take place? Take heed that you be not deceived.
Now evangelicals think this is talking to everybody right now
at the end of the their version of the end
of the world. But who's in when you do basic crimineuticts?
Who's the immediate context those listening? Right, So he's saying
that you will see these things. You will hear about
wars and commotions. Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom.
There's earthquakes, famines, pestilences. Many of these things, by the way,
are mentioned in the Book of Acts. The apostles are
persecuted and put into synagogues by the person by the
synagonue put into prison. Right, that happens in the Book
of Acts. Right, And then he talks about, uh, don't
worry about your h you will not lose your souls,
et cetera. Then he says, you will see Jerusalem surrounded
by armies. Know then that it's desolation is near. Those
of you that are in Judea flee to the mountains.
How am I supposed to flee to Judea? Is this
relevant to me right now?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: These are the days of vengeance in which all things
written in the prophets will be fulfilled. So all this stuff,
and he says, there will be great distress upon this people.
They will fall by the edge of the sword to
be captive and let into all of the let into
the nations, jerusally tramp trample by the gentiles until the
tom of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Do you believe that
all that happened in seventy eight, the.
Speaker 34: Pestilins, the famine, the abomination of desolation?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, so look what so where's the issue with
what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: So my issue is is.
Speaker 34: I'm struggling to wrap my mind around how there can
be a duel fulfillment of First Thessalonians. Excuse me, Second
Thessalonians chapter two, verses one through eight, which is Paul
picking up in First Thessalonians chapter four, which is the resurrection.
Speaker 2: And so I'm trying to wrap my mind around what.
Speaker 34: Was the typological fulfillment to first Thessalonia's chapter four.
Speaker 1: Okay, so first, Second Thessalonians two is about the apostasy.
An apostasy here is referring to as I argued, if
you read David Chiltern's book Days of Vengeance, he goes
into great detail arguing how this is referring to the
high priest and the Temple, right, yeah, and the church fathers.
Then also in many cases will argue and they speculate
that this could either be an apostasy in the Church
at the end of the world whereby the Temple of God.
If it's the Church, then it's within the Church that
there is a massive apostasy and people turn away from
the faith at the end of the world, or the
Temple of God could be an act of the actual
literal Temple in Israel. Either way, it doesn't really matter.
You can interpret it both ways depending upon what you
think Paul's saying, but there is a final Antichrist, but
in the Book of Revelation, for example, the coming of
the Lawless One. If you look at the variant manuscripts
between some of the Greek manuscripts have six one six,
and then some of them have sixty sixty six, and
both of those in Gamatra equal to Nero Caesar. So
both reference refer to Caesar, which tells us that we
know that John's even the variant text, John is telling
us that Nero is. This is who he's calling the
beast in the Book of Revelation. So Paul's writing before
the events of the Book of Revelation. I believe revelations
written prior to seventy eight D because it's the same
lawless One that's being discussed here. But there's another final
lawless one at the end of the world that will
be the fulfillment of these pastes. So you're saying, then,
what was happening in first s onions four?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 34: Yeah, because it seems to me that the lawless One
that appears in the Temple of God, which was the
Herodian Temple, is not disconnected from the coming and his
destruction at the company of the Lord, according to verse eight,
is not disconnected from the Company of the Lord and
First Thessalonians four, which is the resurrection.
Speaker 2: And so again, but how.
Speaker 1: Does the mirrored position make sense of both of those?
So where's the problem in the mirrored position?
Speaker 34: Yeah, I don't I don't guess. I guess I don't
see any problem with like a dual fulfillment. It's just
I'm wanting to know what the what the first fulfillment
of that resurrection of First Thessalonians four was.
Speaker 2: I hope that question makes sense.
Speaker 1: Well, the I think that Christ is already not yet.
So you can about both of these events as if
they're the same event, because our temporal resurrection that happens
in baptism is immediately connected to the resurrection. So even
though they happen chronologically out of time, it's the same event.
Spiritually speaking, your baptism is your resurrection. So that's why
Revelation calls them basically the same event, even though they're
called the first and second resurrections. You know what I'm
talking about.
Speaker 35: Yeah, So.
Speaker 1: Let's look at to prove this point. Let's look at
Revelation twenty. I saw thrones and those that were set
on them in judgment was committed to them. I saw
the souls of those who have been beheaded for the
witness of Christ, that are not worship the beats or
his image. They did not receive His mark on the forehead.
They lived and ragn with Christ for a thousand years,
but the rest of the dead did not live again
until the thousand years are finished. This is the first resurrection.
So everybody who's baptized into the Kingdom is part of
that millennial kingdom. It's not a literal thousand years. It
is the church. The Church is the Kingdom. Throughout scriptures,
a thousand is used as a just a big number.
Speaker 36: Right.
Speaker 1: God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that God doesn't own the cattle on
hill one thousand and one.
Speaker 30: Right.
Speaker 1: So the first resurrection is baptism, but it's it's basically
the same resurrection. They're just temporarily distinguished. That's why we
call it already not yet. So the king is the
Kingdom here or is it in the future. It's already,
not yet, It's both.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 34: I guess my last follow up question, and I guess
it would be done with after this is and thanks.
Speaker 2: For taking the time.
Speaker 34: By the way, So when you read in Luke twenty one,
and it's also like parallel to Matthew twenty four, verse
fifteen regarding the coming of the Lord and as you
as you rightly pointed out the immediate context for those listening,
and so that would mean we can deduce from that
that those that listen seeing the abomination of desolation in
the Holy Place, which was a Herodian temple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Roman the Romans, according to Josephus who was eyewitness.
I read Josephus on this, he talks about it fifteen
years ago. Like Josephus saw the Romans come and put
their pagan insignias inside the temple. That's the defiling of
the temple. Just like have you read Maccabees?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, so you know then what happened in the
Maccabee period is an abomination of desolation that happens in
seventy eight. That proves the mirroring right there.
Speaker 34: Correct, correct, And I'm not in dispute of the mirroring.
And I believe that Antiochus Epiphanies was like an anti shadow, right, Yeah,
I guess my it's not necessarily the bomination of desolation.
I had a question about it was just leading up
to the follow up question, is that because concerning that event,
you know, Jesus says that, you know, this Gospel will
be preaching all the world, and then the end of
the age will come. And you know, Paul says that
the Gospel was preached in Colossians and Romans and.
Speaker 37: First throughout the Roman Empire right correct, Yeah, throughout the
whole world, and then the end of the age will come,
and you know, and also First Corinthians, chapter ten, verse eleven,
Paul says, at the end of the age has come
upon his generation.
Speaker 1: So that's all partial pred So I guess the.
Speaker 34: Question then is if there's a mirroring effect, which I'm
not in dispute of. I'm just trying to see how
how it can be reconciled that there's a mirroring effect
of the end of the age, which Daniel says, the
according to Daniel chapter twelve.
Speaker 2: Is the resurrection, the bodily resurrection.
Speaker 34: And so I'm trying to see how that there's that
compatibility there. If the end of the age has taken place,
wouldn't that necessitate the bodily resurrection.
Speaker 1: No, the spiritual resurrection is what happens at the First Advent,
and that's the first resurrection of Revelation twenty at the
end of the world is the bodily resurrection, which is
the ultimate fulfillment of what has already taken place as
the down payment. It's a both and not another. Or
it's the same principle with the kingdom. Right, is the
Kingdom here or is it a future reality?
Speaker 21: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I follow the rationale.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just
still not understanding where the problem is, because there's nothing
wrong with saying that all the events that are happening
at the First Advent, the institution of baptism seventy a d.
That is the coming of the Kingdom, and in a
general sense, the first spiritual resurrection.
Speaker 34: At least would be my last comment. I'll let you
go and thank you for being patient with my questions.
Is I just so you can better understand my rationale.
It's not that I dispute a mirroring effect or a
due fulfillment. It just seems like the reality of that
second fulfillment is constrained to eighty seventy.
Speaker 1: Well, now you're a partial or now you're a full preterist,
so that would be harrisy. Is that what you're starting
trying to argue?
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily. What I'm trying to argue is just
I want to know if that, if.
Speaker 1: There's has the bodily resurrection happened?
Speaker 2: I would say that.
Speaker 34: On the surfaces that that that is what's logically deducible?
Speaker 31: What are they?
Speaker 1: No, it's not because what are the other things that
attend the final resurrection?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Putting an end to death? Has death been destroyed?
Speaker 2: I guess it really depends on how you define death.
Speaker 1: Do you see people dying.
Speaker 2: If we define death as a physical in the physical way? Yeah?
Speaker 1: In Romans eight, death is described as both spiritual and
physical as a result of the fall. Correct?
Speaker 2: Do you mind showing me that I'm not exactly knowing
what you're referring to.
Speaker 1: You don't know Romans. I'm not trying I do.
Speaker 2: I just don't know what verse, what verse, and particularly
you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Okay, when Adam fell, did he bring physical and spiritual death?
Speaker 34: I would say spiritual death is definitely something I believe
he brought.
Speaker 1: You don't think he brought to you, don't He didn't
bring mortality, physical death.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 34: I mean, you don't know because the only reason why
I say that is because it's said that the day
he eats, he will die.
Speaker 2: But he didn't die physically that day.
Speaker 1: Well, he did die spiritually and then he died physically. Correct,
So you don't think, you don't think. You don't believe
mortality as a result of the fall. I believe separation
from God is as a results. Okay, so you're a gnostic,
so you don't believe in the body resurrection is what
this comes down to.
Speaker 2: None, not necessarily.
Speaker 1: Okay, when is the when is the boal of resurrection?
Then where is it?
Speaker 34: Well, let me just say this in all and I'll
answer your questions. I believe that the resurrection is body
is potentially bodily. I'm not entirely sure on the nature
of the resurrection.
Speaker 1: But what what is it like Jesus is Jesus's body
the pattern?
Speaker 34: Well, that's what the that's what the text says. But
that John also says, we don't know what he's like.
Speaker 1: He says that our body will be informed to the
image of his glorious body. He doesn't say that. Well, no, yeah,
it says, okay, when Jesus was resurrected, was it the
same body with the same piercing in the side that
he walked around and eat fish?
Speaker 2: I mean he walked through walls. So I don't know.
I don't really.
Speaker 1: That's because it's deified. That doesn't mean it's not the
same body. You don't know. I mean, what's the point
of him having the piercing in his side that he
tells Thomas, put your fingers in the side.
Speaker 34: Yeah, No, definitely there it's something that they there's some semblance.
Speaker 2: I just I can't say that I can.
Speaker 1: Okay, So why are you opposed so all of historic
Christianity is teaching of the body resurrection. It's not even
it's not even in question.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not opposed to it.
Speaker 1: You literally are opposed to what. You just set all
the positions in opposition to it, and you're not aware
that Adam brought mortality.
Speaker 34: No, what I'm saying is, I do I do recognize
that Jesus was pierced and so that there is definitely
a body that came out of the ground. I'm not
disputing that I'm just saying that to me, it seems
like a very a mystery to me, how he can
walk through walls.
Speaker 1: That's because he's deified. It doesn't mean that it's not
the same body. It's stressed in the New Testament. It's
the same body, but now glorified.
Speaker 2: So and sure, I'm not disputing that.
Speaker 29: I'm not.
Speaker 34: I don't have a solid position on the nature of that.
I'm open to hear one way or the other.
Speaker 2: I really am.
Speaker 34: I'm more so focused on the timing of the resurrection
that really I see.
Speaker 1: So if you want to be a full predress, go
for it. Man, Psycho pompish, what's up? Through one man?
Death came to all bodily death and spiritual death. It's
not even this shouldn't even be it. So it took
freaking an hour to get to that. What's up? Man?
Speaker 36: I'm you, hi, How are you doing? I just have
a question going around in some Orthodoxy circles. Just be
curious to hear your thoughts about it. The question is
in relation to the nomic will. We know that Christ
did not possess a nomic will, but my question is
do you think the theotokos possessed nomic will.
Speaker 16: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, every created hypostasis has a gnomic will that means
you will in time, So of course.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, thank you j R.
Speaker 1: Hello, Hey, So.
Speaker 2: If Adam didn't bring mortality, what's the point of.
Speaker 1: Christ dying on the cross and resurrected a spiritual resurrection?
So he's basically a gnostic of some kind.
Speaker 2: Heh boy, he needs ask himself that question there.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean it's a basic you know, anthropology that
we were body and soul. Obviously the heart is part
of the soul. So I mean, if you're gonna deny
that man has body and soul, I mean, I just
I don't even know where to go from that.
Speaker 30: So and.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's it's just such a fundamental Jordan, what's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 21: Did you hear me?
Speaker 2: Hi? Hold well as well?
Speaker 38: On a quick question, how would you respond to a
papist when they say because of the energy as it
is the distinction that we and because of the distinction
that we make they I've heard people, some businessinge Gothics
say that it makes God have parts and so I'm
just curious how you've.
Speaker 2: Responded to that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if real distinctions Intel parts, then the
Trinity is parts.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. That's something else I've heard of my friends.
So thank you so much, so much appreciated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of other arguments that
could be said, but that one should be just pretty obvious.
But I mean, you're not talking to the smartest people,
but when you when you, I'm not talking about you yourself,
but like when this comes up, man, it's just like
you explained this for ten years. Man's Marcian.
Speaker 39: I mean, yes, sir, okay, So my question was, really,
under your worldview, is there any hypothetical in which Christianity
could not be true?
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you showed an argument that showed, you know,
substantial sort of worldview level contradiction, and yeah, okay, I
guess to expand.
Speaker 2: On that a little bit more, would you acknowledge.
Speaker 12: That you could then hypothetically be wrong about Eastern Orthodoxy?
Speaker 1: Sure? For the Sega argument, I'll buy Oh, okay.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 12: I was just genuinely curious because I hear a lot
of presuppositionalists say, oh, no, I can't be wrong because
I'm grounding reality.
Speaker 1: In Well, I'm saying hypothetically, okay, I'm wrong. What's the argument,
and how do you what's the paradigm that accounts for
those things?
Speaker 12: What things account what things need to be accounted for.
Speaker 1: The basics of any paradigm metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
Speaker 2: Do those things need to be grounded in anything in
order to.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to argue, yes.
Speaker 12: I fail to see why that would necessarily need to
be Okay.
Speaker 1: So if positions don't have to be grounded, then every
position is potential.
Speaker 2: Could we not argue.
Speaker 12: Based off sensory perception or common common ground?
Speaker 1: Do you know what justification means?
Speaker 12: Well, sure, it's like you know, in a legal setting,
it would be the general legal understanding or acknowledgment of
something is true.
Speaker 1: Now what is what does epistomic justification mean? Not legal grounding? Right?
Speaker 12: I would say if metaphysic epistological justification would be what
is your epistemology? You're using what justifies your epistemology? Sorry,
that's a bit redundant. But so what's grounding it? So
you would say God grounds your epistemology.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean ultimately, But yeah, there's more to the
argument than that. Okay, So you don't think that worldviews
have to have episodic justification, or if you if you
think that they do, it's just would you say sense data?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I just I fail to see.
Speaker 12: Why, and like, I see the practicality of believing in
a god, But if our sensory perception is not telling
us that a god exists, I'm not saying I'm just
a hardcore atheist.
Speaker 1: By the way, I will again. So the problem with
naive empiricism is that there's way more devastating fundamental problems
to that position than theism. So why are we supposed
to believe that all knowledge comes through sense data when
that proposition and it's truth itself cannot be found in
sense data? Right?
Speaker 12: I guess an argument would just be, well why not exactly? Like,
that's not an argument, right, Well, it's not necessarily a
strong metaphysical just.
Speaker 1: No, it's not an argument at all. It's just a statement.
It's a question, Well, why not.
Speaker 2: Practicality?
Speaker 12: It's my personal preferences better the George.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if personal preferences can be your justification, then everyone
can justify any position with their personal preferences. Oh my god,
God help me, autistocrat, what's up? Autistic? I mean?
Speaker 2: Yes, all right, I've just got a few questions on
behalf of a Catholic friend of mine.
Speaker 35: I've tried to explain some of these things to him,
but I could only do so much, and he would
He would seem to be really hung up on the
problem of legalism, or the question of legalism in regards
to how the papacy in the Catholic Church operates today.
Speaker 40: Just reading something he said to me, says, I guess
the big question would be why would legalism not be
continued in the New Testament conversion from you know, Old
Testament Judaism to the religion of the New Testament.
Speaker 1: Specifically, Well, I guess he's got he's got.
Speaker 40: This hang up when it comes to things like how
is the church?
Speaker 2: Verbatim, he goes, how is the church going to.
Speaker 40: Address questions like IVF and problems of modernity if they
don't have a head of the church to issue dogmatic
statements on those things?
Speaker 1: Okay, why wasn't there simply dogmatic statements issued to every
one of the problems in the first thousand years of
the church.
Speaker 2: That's a good question, It's a good rhetorical question. That
seems to be a big one for him.
Speaker 40: I was saying necessarily that there is the framework in
which the patriarchs in the church structure as a whole can.
Speaker 35: Make assessments on things that maybe don't need to be
explicitly stated dogmatically.
Speaker 2: You know, that's kind of what I was saying, and
I was tying that into what I understand about like
kind of mea. But I'm just a cate of Cuman,
so I try not to do a lot of teaching.
But I said, I would, you know, come on and
at least ask some of these questions. That way I
can get a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think you're asking the right questions.
I mean, I would just simply say, you know, there's
all kinds of examples that show that that supposed solution
doesn't even work. You know, we have a giant section
of the Roman Catholics in the last seven years that
completely reject everything that the papacy has dogmatically taught both
an extraordinary and universal ordinary magisterium for seventy years. So
where is these simple solutions. Let's talk about the death penalty.
The death penalty was part of Roman Catholic natural justice
for centuries. It's in the Catechism of Trent. Now according
to Francis and John Paul the Second and the Roman
Caltholic Catechism, it is an offense against the Gospel, and
it is no longer necessary. So these supposed one size
fits all answers don't actually, I mean, that's just it's
a car salesman pitch. It's like when it's like you
went to a car lot and there's a lemon sitting
there and the guy says, why would you not want
a car with all these parts? Look at this car here,
it's got twenty times more parts than your old Chevy truck.
And then you get in the car that you just
bought and it doesn't drive. Yeah, but it's got a
lot more parts. Look at all this Look how intricate
it is. I mean, if it doesn't do what it's
supposed to do, then what's the point of it. And
by the way, it's the wrong question anyway, that's human thinking.
I think we need to have the church structured this
way so it'll make it easier.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Is that how Christ sat at the church. Maybe he
didn't set it up to have one single head as
a human entity. Maybe he set it up to have
himself as the human head. Because he is the the
anthropost and the Holy Spirit guides the church. Like they
just assume that the Holy Spirit can't work that way. Well,
why in the Book of Acts and Acts a team,
why didn't they all just say Peter solved the issue
for us. If the Vatican one model was the case,
they would not have even had the Jerusalem Council. It
would be unnecessary. All you have to do is write
a letter to the pope. Problem, solve rama, spoken cases closed?
Why even have councils? And when you ask a borrow this,
well do papacy would have had a thousand papers sit
in the round and he couldn't even walk into Vatican
because all the papers. That was literally his response, Alex,
what's up man?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey? How you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm well, how are you?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 27: I'm glad you brought up the papacy because I wanted
to actually ask about like, uh, for those of us
that are researching it, where do we go at this point?
Like do we just go to the manuals by Ludwig
Ought and Denzinger? Because I see Lee Also, the rhetoric
of Pope Leo is so relativistic and that there's a
move away from this manualist tradition. So I just wanted
to ask what's your take on that, Like, where do
we go to find out what Roman Catholics believe. Obviously
there's manuals and source documents, but it seems like it's.
Speaker 1: Ah, they don't even care about Jose manuals. Yeah, the
manuals and the source documents don't even matter really anymore
because number one, we got all the anti intellectualism and
the mean culture everywhere. That's really what it is. So
it's an online cult. It's not actually connected to the
thing in Rome. They're all pretending that Rome is based
in trad when every day Leo says, all the religions
are basically one big, happy family and don't be anti
Semitic and anti Jewish and have open borders like he
says this like every day. But we're going to pretend
that it's all bays and trad because oh, there was
Crusades a thousand years ago. Well, the people that call
the Crusades one thousand years ago, the papacy urban, the
second et cetera, innocent, the third et cetera. Now the
papacy praised in the Mosque towards Mecca and says that Muslims, Jews,
and Christians all have the same deity, which is patently false.
One John says that if you do not have the Son,
you do not have the Father. So if you don't
have the Father, in what sense, how in any sense
do we have quote the same God, the same deity.
It's all just nonsense. So really the only use of
going to the manuals is to refute the more spurg
specifically sophisticated, theologically interested Roman Catholics. Otherwise it's not even necessary.
So you know, I would say the Sixteen People Documents
is a classic the Tan books publication is necessary to have.
I would say, it's good to have Denzinger. It's good
to have, you know, Little Got if you want to
engage in these apologetics. It's good to have the documents
Aboutican two Dogmatic Cans and Decrees of Trent that's also
published by Tan Publishers. I would get a Catechism of Trent.
I'm just looking over there at my book list over there.
I mean those are I would say, those are the
apologetic fundamentals that every everybody should have if you want
to do these kinds of apologetics.
Speaker 2: But the old Baltimore Catechism too.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Alex Nice.
Speaker 27: Do you think with this move away from the trade
Latin Mass and this like isolating of the uh like
the trad Cats, I guess it's like point zero one
percent of the Roman Catholics.
Speaker 8: Do you think there's like a geopolitical component to that
as well?
Speaker 1: There is in that, you know. I think at the
time of Rat Singer when he did his motu proprio
to try to bring back the Latin Mass, that was
throwing a bone to the trads, to try to get
them to come back, try to get the SSPX and
you know, Bishop Williamson and all those guys to come
back into communion with Rome, because even though the SSPX
is still in the big picture small, I think they
wanted to be weary of and prepare against any possible
future schism. And so that from a geopolitical because I
think the papacy just is a geopolitical entity. It's really
not even a religious entity anymore to me. I mean,
it's religiously a delusion. But the modus off around of
the papacy, I believe is one hund percent completely geopolitics.
So yeah, the reason that Francis you know, all the
way back to Batti in two and then it's Leo
the reason they're pushing this. All the religions are basically
one giant family. Well, guess who gets to be the
petrine supreme head of all the world religions If that
convinces most people, the pope.
Speaker 2: Awfully convenient, Yeah, so he gets to be.
Speaker 1: That's why when you read what was Leo's in cyclical
I forget or excum me. Francis is in cyclical from
like I don't know, seven or eight years ago, where
it's has concentric circles, so like everybody's in communion, but
it's in degrees. So you've got the papacy in the middle,
you've got the Orthodox, You've got Lutherans and Anglicans, you've
got non denominationals, and then out the outer circle you've
got like Hindus and Muslims. And that's the ecclesiology of
nos Retate and Luminingentium is like we're all kind of
in degrees of communion with the papacy, and hey, look
we're already in commune. And that's why For example, the
other day there was a document that somebody sent to
me where they were Leo was talking about that were
already in communion with the Nestorians, right, And so what
they do is they do a bait and switch where
they say, we've already done communion in terms of like
actually participating in eating the Eucharist together. Then see, we're
already in communion. And I talked to a very prominent
Orthodox Oca priest and he said the exact same thing
happened with the EP. They've already done a EP and
Roman Catholic cardinal communion, and they're going to announce we'll see,
we're already in communion. So if you don't go along,
you're a schismatic. So basically this totally new conception post
Vatican two. It's not new a Vatican two. It's more
of a perennialist sort of Renaissance idea of what communion is.
It goes back to the humanism of the Renaissance. And
if you doubt me on that that, there is a
necessary read from Michael Hoffman. It's called a cult Renaissance
Church of Rome. Now, Michael Hoffin is a traditional Catholic
and although he doesn't really understand anything about the first
thousand years of Christianity. He does accurately do a deep
dive on the second thousand years of Latin Christianity. I
highly recommend this book. I read it when it came
out calt Ren is not in Church of Rome. I
get a hold of it and read it, because he
will show you that essentially all the Orthodox positions and
critiques of the second millennium Franco papal monarchy are correct,
and that's why it's a geopolitical entity. Anyway, Sorry, I'm
rambling ahead.
Speaker 2: Oh you're good.
Speaker 27: I wanted to ask what that kind of puts the
Orthodox Church in a strange position, Like we're protected because
we're decentralized, right, But at the end of the day,
I feel like if.
Speaker 8: His all holiness to ecumenical patriarch b with all of.
Speaker 27: You, if he keeps on going around doing these things,
eventually I think the Orthodox Church is going to have
to take some action, right. I mean it depends on
the level of severity, of course, but I feel like
there's a pressure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that will probably be a schism, correct.
Speaker 27: Yeah, which we already see the beginnings of that happening. Right, cool,
All right, thanks for taking my questions, Jay, I'll see what.
Speaker 1: Everybody check out awesome, Yeah, everybody check out Alex's channel.
It's a Alex Soren channel on YouTube. He is doing
some great apologetic work. He is a orthodox lawyer. Be
sure to follow him on Twitter. And let's see right wing.
What's up.
Speaker 2: I think the encyclicals lumin peed it.
Speaker 1: Is that about the Nestorians. Are you talking about Francis.
Speaker 30: Francis Is it's either lull it's.
Speaker 1: For tally twoty, that's what it is. I knew it
was a funny name. That's what that's the one. That's
what we did. We did a podcast on it. At
the time, I'm trying to think of the name of it.
Let me I'll read you what the Nestorian statement said today.
Let's see shout out to mellow. I think Melo sent
me this. Yeah, it says the address of his Holiness
Leo to mar Alwa. Let's see this. By the way,
this disproves lunatic Sam Shamun because you'll notice that Sam
Shamun is an ecumenist just like Leo, and that's why
he's following this acumenist model of Apostolic Christianity, which is
all of the so called Apostolic churches, as if they're
all Apostolic from some mechanical succession. But the theology doesn't matter.
So you can believe in Astorianism, you can believe in monopsetism,
you can believe in any of these heresies.
Speaker 4: What did.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Akin say? What did plump booty guy say? The
culture of beverages? We know no middle error? Now, notice
what happened with this guy. He's so arrogant to go
against the Council of emphicis claim that it made errors,
and then he gets exposed as like a goober. But
the root of the problem was this right here. So
the church isn't protected. Fact, the church is only protected
infallible Voice of Reason says, the Council of Ephesis made
an error. That's all to back up the idea that
we are all in a loose communion.
Speaker 4: And here's what.
Speaker 1: Here's what Leo says, right here, where is it a
m What was the exact looking for the exact phrasing,
it says the trip that provided the framework for the
successive phases of our theological dialogue after reaching agreement and
resolving fifteen hundred year old controversies enabled a certain community
cashio in Soacris between our churches. So there's degrees and
levels of communions. You know that you're not in or out.
You're like, you can be eighty percent papist, you can
be forty percent papist. And this new model allows them
for all the world religions to be in degrees of
communion with the pope. Isn't that convenient? Right wing? What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey, thanks for having me up. I just have a
quick one. Your segment on Alex Jones, I think it
was my week. You're going over the history of Fabian socialism.
Speaker 34: When doing that research, did you ever come across taksun
alone explicitly described.
Speaker 2: Or maybe compared to Fabian gradualism?
Speaker 1: Come across what takkoon alone? Oh? Tikkun olam? Yeah? Uh yeah,
I think it certainly probably relates to it, hasn't It
has some at least connection with it, because if you
look at uh, you know, the way Moses hes sees
Judaism being the salvation of the world through the establishment
of socialism. I think that makes perfect sense. Okay, but
you never there.
Speaker 2: You can't off the top of your head.
Speaker 34: There's nothing explicitly you've ever seen, uh like confirming it
from other sources.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking I'm sure that somebody has a critique of
rabbinic philosophy that probably could point that out. If you
go back to like the cabalistic influences on Hegel or Spinoza,
it's probably it's probably there. Okay, there's a book called
Hegel and Hermeticism and it goes into like cabalistic influences
on Hegel, but I don't know if they use the
specific term, but yeah, I think it's the same idea.
B what's up? Good question, Seattle, Rob five dollars Jay.
I've been help, You've been a huge help. I'm a
former jose witness. I just got baptized in Orthodoxy. What
do you think about told houses? I would say, read
Father Star from Rose's book Orthodoxy and the Life of
the Soul after Death. What's up? Bank?
Speaker 40: Jay?
Speaker 2: Just quick question.
Speaker 31: Basically, I keep getting stuck in kind of a circular
argument with one of my Catholic friends when I'm.
Speaker 2: Trying to disprove the papacy. I kind of started them
out trying.
Speaker 31: To inform him about the greg Worian Reform kind of
leading up to that, and then he'll always revert back to, well,
wouldn't you say that the Holy Spirit guides to the church?
Speaker 2: And then I'll ask, how do you know that the
Holy Spirit.
Speaker 31: Guys the church or guys and chooses these popes or whatever,
And then he just basically keeps going back to be like, well,
you're trying to say.
Speaker 2: Is that the Holy Spirit whatever? Whatever?
Speaker 31: And then I'll be like, well, just because you have
so called continuity doesn't equal divinity, and it just keeps
kind of going in a circle.
Speaker 2: So I don't really know how to explain it any better.
Speaker 1: I mean, Council of Chalcedon says that clergy cannot hold
civil service and cannot be in offices of state. So
how are we going to have warrior monks when Chalcodon
clearly teaches that you can't have standing armies as the pope?
So how does what? How does just saying the Holy
Spirit guides the church makes sense of that?
Speaker 2: That's a good point. I didn't I didn't even think
about bringing up the warrior monks too well.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're talking about the Gregorian reforms, that's
part of it, right, that the reforming popes of the
eleventh century, all of which are, by the way, are
appointed by the kings. So when they talk about pop
cero papism, it's actually papal o cesserism, because German kings
appointed all the popes of the eleventh century.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: Kyl Sadan explicitly says that you can't have warrior monks,
and you can't be a cleric and have a civil state,
much less civil state off as much less standing armies
like you know, the Renaissance popes have. Just everybody who's
a tradcat should watch the Jeremy Irons, you know, Borgia
Pope series and get an idea for like what you're
actually arguing for.
Speaker 31: Right, Well, so his follow up his fem of mind,
because I've tried to have him, have him read like
Audium Mesz, Vatican one, Vatican two, and his argument back
to he's basically saying, well, don't you believe that the
Church can change.
Speaker 2: With the times or needs to make changes?
Speaker 1: Does he not? Does he not know that? Does he
not know that his own papal documents condemned the idea
that the Church changes with the times. That's condemned, and
multiple in cyclicals, including Patchindi dominici, gracious, that's the whole
purpose of pious attensive cyclical is that very heresy, right?
Speaker 31: And I've tried to explain to him, like to poral
supremacy and how his own, like their own doctor documents
and dogmas are like are completely contradictory, like Vatican two
is completely contradictory in a lot of ways the Vatican One.
And then he just keeps going with the circular arguments
of well is trying to change to to fix those issues,
and it just like almost goes nowhere.
Speaker 1: But I mean sod so God him Mesbez is teaching
Marxism and socialism to fix those issues. It's totally retarded.
Speaker 2: I completely completely him a copy of the.
Speaker 1: Modern Okay, awesome, Yeah, Popes against the modern error appreciate it.
Pupes against the modern errors has, Popes against the modern
errors has something that.
Speaker 4: We're all proud of. I got a browser here.
Speaker 30: Why would he even be called modern errors if it
wasn't an error?
Speaker 1: Because they're going to fix it. Father of Ohio, what's up?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: See, the papacy is adopting Judaism and Islam and syncretism
to fix Judaism. Syncretism is see it's a it's a
it's a QAnon for the tradcats. What's up, man? I mean.
Speaker 21: It was good man.
Speaker 32: I got a very basic question as someone who is
just getting into all this and is going to be
going to a porthodox the.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 25: What would your advice being Maybe this is something you
got to ask a spiritual father, But what would your
advice be for someone that's in like I don't even
know if you like kind of questions, but someone that's
in a has been in a long term relationship with
a non believer but wants to become Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean you can still become Orthodox. You're not
gonna have to like leave your your wife or whatever.
Assume you mean a wife, But you say relationship. I know,
but you're gonna have to take that up with your priests.
That would be something you work out at a personal level.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Let's see, we've got a lot of people online. Nick
na cheta na chetah na cheetah. What's up, dude? Notice
right here I've got pulled up for you. This is
Kennon seven of Chalcadon. We decree that those that have
become clerics or monastics cannot join military service or secular office.
That means being a king and notable, a warrior, et cetera.
Those that those that dare do this and do not
repent are anathema. And what does the papacy do? Has
an entire standing army and says he is the geopolitical
world ruler. And if you don't believe that he is
the geopolitical world ruler in a civil state sense, you
are losing your salvation. That's the last paragraph of Unham
Sanctam in thirteen oh two. So who departed from the
patristic teaching of the first thousand years And a lot
of Orthodox commentaries make a good point, including the Papa
Docus Mindorf book that covers the Byzantine period of the
eleventh century to fourteen hundreds. That book points out that
actually what happens is the papacy when it becomes geopolitical,
it actually makes it makes the state atheistic because the
state no longer has its specific Christian role and duty,
which is the purpose of the older symbol of the
Byzantine double headed eagle. Right, you understand this is the
ancient Christian symbol for church and state. It is the
symbol of the imperium of the church. Why does it
have two heads? Well, in the papal when I'm signing
to the model, it's one head, and the pope now
has church and state as his role. That is antichrist.
That's why we talk about this. So when the pope
takes on the role of the state has clearly happened
in the Gregorian reforms up into when I'm signing them
in thirteen oh two. Now the state is subordinated as
not even having really a Christian role. That's the argument
Papadacus and Mindorf make. I think it's a good argument
because what happens in the West, you get the Reformation
reaction against this role of the papacy. The papacy starts
stepping in. The German princes, the European princes turned to
Luther and Calvin and others to support the Reformation because
they're tired of the pope interfering in all of the
state business. And that doesn't mean that I'm saying, oh,
so you think that there should be kings as head
of the church. No, that's why it's symphonia. That's the
model of the first thousand years of Christianity. Did you know,
there's already a Orthodox Patristic first thousand years teaching on
the relationship of church and state. It's symbolized in this symbol,
and in the eleventh century the papacy turns it into
a single headed bird with the pope wearing the triple crown.
What's up, Nichita, Hello?
Speaker 16: Jay?
Speaker 15: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 41: I'm a I'm an Orthodox Christian from Romania and I
recently got really into Eric.
Speaker 2: I don't know him, Eric vonn.
Speaker 1: Ledin, Eric von Dannagan. No, I'm not going I don't
know who that is.
Speaker 41: Okay, Okay, he's an Austrian nobleman and the Catholic thinker.
But I wanted to ask you, do you think what
do you think about the option of a monarchist monarchy
with with Christian with Byzantine influences.
Speaker 2: That you like it?
Speaker 1: Yes, that sounds like the direction that I lean.
Speaker 41: Okay, But in this paradigm, don't you think that it
is in the nature of the states to continuously expand?
Speaker 1: I mean that is a problem, yes, and then there's
no easy solutions to that. So how you you know,
carve out an exact balance is is difficult. There's no
easy answers to that.
Speaker 41: You think you think constitution constitutionalism is is an is
an option?
Speaker 2: Or do you think it's flood intrinsingly flood. I don't know, Okay, yeah.
Speaker 9: That was my question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know if a constitutional constitutional monarchies usually
have a short lifespan, so there is no easy answer
to that. Christian Cheney, what's up shamba for ten dollars?
Speaker 2: Jay?
Speaker 1: What do you think about the fallen Angels, the Watchers
and the nephelin. I believe that Genesis six is talking
about that, and that's because there's many passages in the
dudocononical texts that talk about the Titans. We don't make
it an issue of dogma. I don't care if people disagree.
You're free to have, you know, speculation on that issue.
But I do think those texts are talking about some
sort of angelic situation. What do you think about the
sons of God idea? I get it. I've read old
church fathers that talk about that. I've read you know,
Father sur from Rose disagrees with that position. But anyway,
go ahead, John.
Speaker 2: The way to solve that is powdered wigs and quill
pens obviously.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the founding fathers had magic powdered wig powder, and
if if you shake that powder out on the constitutional document,
it will actually do it with divine energies. What's up exactly?
And you have to use a quill pin. If you
use a rolling ballpen, it won't work. What's up, man?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 4: J how you doing?
Speaker 31: Man?
Speaker 4: Good?
Speaker 11: Uh?
Speaker 15: First time calling them?
Speaker 2: Come listener, man, excited to get on here. I just
had a question coming from prostatism. Does the idea of.
Speaker 4: Uh, bring the saints doesn't have anything to.
Speaker 22: Do with like the divine counsel and divine assembling things
of that nature.
Speaker 1: I mean it loosely relates to that, because the communion
of saints is the basis of you know, asking the
saints for intercessions. So because there's a communion of the
saints in heaven, you see that for example, when David
speaks to the heavenly host who talks to the angels
and his liturgical psalms, you see that. And here was
eleven when it talks about the heavenly city. So yes,
there is a connection there for sure. Ethan, what's up man?
Good question? The real issue, though, we're going to have
to debate is in with wigs Antium or Wyzanteum. Will
we be using a lakers hat, crowns or caps or
will we be using do rags for the Wyzantine eagle.
This is the wig or Byzantine Empire. We've already begun
to construct some of the symbology here, some of the iconography.
What's up, man, I'm you Ethan, heyj.
Speaker 2: I just have a question regarding a doctrine of Orthodox.
Speaker 22: Orthodox metaphysics. So I'm pretty new to Orthodoxy. I'm coming
from a Platonists background. Just attend my first Divine Liturgy
and Catechorum in class. So I'm trying to really understand
the kind of logic and reason behind Creatio x nelio.
So I understand that God creating from nothing doesn't mean
that God's creating from you know, a substance of nothing
is something outside of him, but he's creating from himself.
Speaker 2: I'm just struggling to see why that doesn't entail the
eternality of creation itself.
Speaker 1: Because it's of the essence centrigy distinction. It's a specific
action that's distinct from other actions. And this is another
way to refute Roman Catholicism and absolutely divine simplicity because
they collapse the action of God into divine essence, and
that would mean that every action is essential and necessary.
But God does different actions. Right walking on water, that
was a specific action at a specific time that God
the Son did. Mathelene Blue is not a drug dummy, Go.
Speaker 22: Ahead, Okay, sorry, So I'm still struggling to understand I
have a syllogism here. So if you could point out
where I go wrong in that to help just kind
of lose to day the reasoning, that'd be great. So
Premise one, God loves eternal primist two, Love necessarily expresses itself.
Speaker 2: Premis three creations The expression.
Speaker 1: To find on this is why it's the love that's
expressed eternally is in the intertrinitarian relationship between the persons.
Creation is an specific action in time and space because
God is creating time and space, so it's a different
action from This is why I think Grevery Palmas makes
a distinction between the actions that are natural to God
or internal to God in terms of the intertrinitarian life
versus the ad extra actions of God creating the world.
God does different types of things, and the reason that
people usually make this mistake, especially in terms of strict
divine absolutely wind simplicity proponents, is because they think that
all the actions that God does are identical or the same.
God does different things. That's why in the debate between
palomas And and the Parley Mighty, he says, why does
this saint Genesis that he wrested from his works? Well,
that means he's and continue the action of creating. But
generating a son is distinct from creating a world. That's
why when Athanasius debates the Arians, the Arians say all
of God's actions are the same, and so creating the
world is no different than creating his son or generating
his son. But the whole argument Nations makes is that
generating the son is not the same action as creating
a world.
Speaker 16: Okay, so the trinitarian is an act of God's love,
and so intrinitarian life is the generating of the son
and the proceeding of the of the spirit through the son.
Speaker 1: So that is the same move that the energies have
within the triad. Thus, the Father eternally loves the son
in the spirit. So there's a triadic movement of the energies,
and that's why love is not dependent upon the created order.
But if you're a Muslim or some form of Unitarian,
then God exercising these attributes does require a created order.
Speaker 16: So the Trinitarian together creates is that expresses like.
Speaker 2: An overflowing of that love? Or where am I going
wrong there?
Speaker 3: I mean?
Speaker 1: Maximus says that, yeah, God created out of his own goodness,
so that's basically right, But is that necessary? Now created
my will?
Speaker 22: Okay, But the nature of God is to create now
and love Okay, the same power that God has.
Speaker 1: But God doesn't have to create. God has all kinds
of Basil says the energies and powers of God are infinite,
but that doesn't mean he has to do all those
things because he's a being with free will.
Speaker 2: Okay. So maybe I'm just confused on what we mean
by love. So what is the Eastern Orthodox definition of love?
Speaker 1: Love is the divine energy that the Trinitarian persons all
share for one another. It is a self giving life
within God.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 22: So if it's self giving, that necessarily entails that it's
giving too something.
Speaker 1: Right, So the father gives to the son, the Father
gives to the Spirit, and all three persons experience and
have love for one another.
Speaker 2: Okay, So is creation an act of love of self giving?
Speaker 1: Creation is an act of love, but creating is not love.
They are distinct acts in God.
Speaker 22: Interesting, Okay, so you're saying creating is not love, but
it is an act of love and love is self giving.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: So Palamas says, all of the energies are unique, distinct realities.
They're also all one, but they're also multiple. So the
energies are one and they are many. They're one, and
they're infinite. That's the Orthodox teaching. Okay.
Speaker 22: So according to Platonism, right, they often assert that emanation
is you know, define necessity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why we're not platanus. And if you read
Sank Gregory Palamus and if you read Saint Maximus, they
specifically address the Platonic arguments that God creating the world
is not emanationism.
Speaker 14: Right.
Speaker 22: And so I'm trying to understand orthodoxy here in it
and from what I've learned, and you can correct me
on this, it says that creation is a gift.
Speaker 2: And it is done out of an act of love.
Speaker 4: Is that true?
Speaker 1: Is it's a it's a gift?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 22: Okay, So I just don't understand why it would be
problematic for it to be necessary if God is the
source of.
Speaker 1: It, because we are not Platonus, and we believe that
God creates by his own free will, not out of necessity,
So we specifically reject Platonism on this point.
Speaker 2: But necessity is a product of his will, is it?
Speaker 1: No, God creates, God creates. God creates beings who possessed
for your will. So no, there's not necessity in his
created order. There's no necessity to him creating. God Why
would he have to create a world.
Speaker 2: Because he's he's that's an expression of him.
Speaker 1: And maybe maybe there's why does he have to express himself?
He has no lack, he has no need.
Speaker 22: Right, So necessity is from the Platonic standpoint, that which
is and cannot be any other way.
Speaker 2: And so that is the kind of framework that God
would lay out.
Speaker 1: No, see, you're just making all these leaps that a
divine person where made the image of God? Right do
you have to do you have to build a house
or is that an expression of something proper to human
nature that you will to do the matter?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So, in the same way, Maximus says that the divine ideas,
the divine principles and archetypes of the created order. They're
called thought wills big because God doesn't have to do them.
For example, there's all kinds of worlds that God could
have created, but he didn't. He created this one. And
that's because even though God has in his divine mind
all of the infinite possibilities of all of the you know,
other worlds that he could have created, he chose to
create this world. And that's an action of his will
and choice, not out of any necessity or emanationism. So
you just need to rid yourself of all the platonic presuppositions.
Speaker 22: Okay, it just seems like a kind of voluntary power,
voluntary will, kind of like can God create a rock.
Speaker 2: So heavy that he can't lift? Right? Again, question to
ask about God?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's because nature, God's nature is what it is
by necessity. That doesn't mean that God's will is necessary
in terms of some action or some execution, because God
possesses free will. So what you're not understanding is that
in orthodoxology there's a distinction between nature, person, will, and operation.
All those things are distinct. In our theology, Platonism collapses
all those things. Hence why it believes in this sort
of necessitarianism.
Speaker 2: Okay, so is there So this is a matter of ontology,
is what you're saying.
Speaker 22: So God, transcendent aspect of God is has ontological primacy, and.
Speaker 1: That what its will, divine essence is unknowable. God's nature
is unknowable what it is, it is by necessity. It
can't be otherwise. But we don't know the divine nature.
All we know is what God reveals about himself to
us in an energetic, operational way.
Speaker 22: Okay, but I'm still one one last thing. I don't
want to take up too much time. I'm still struggling
to see how necessity is an issue here if what
is necessary is what God expresses, because you just.
Speaker 1: Keep saying that and it's not. I'm denying that.
Speaker 2: So is necessity not the product of God?
Speaker 1: No, in order for there to be how could how
could it even be a product? It's not a product.
Speaker 2: Okay, It's an eternal It's an eternal.
Speaker 1: Form of God. Necessity is not an eternal form. All
we're saying is that God's essence is necessarily what it is.
The persons are necessarily what they are. That doesn't mean
that God is constrained by necessitarianism. So that's two different things.
Speaker 22: Okay, But in order for there to be a creation,
there has to be defining limitations.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, God set those limits. God set those limitations
according to his will. What do you want?
Speaker 2: So that's that's all I'm calling necessity.
Speaker 1: That's not necessity. That has nothing to do with necessity.
Speaker 2: Okay, how does it not?
Speaker 1: What does it have to do with necessity? I already
stated that God's essence is necessarily what it is. That's
all we say about necessity, and I'm saying, you're the
divine essence, can't be otherwise in that sense, it is necessary,
it is what it is.
Speaker 22: That's the same definition that I'm working off here, that
which is and cannot be any other.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, that's not all there is to God. God
is also a personal being. Person and nature are distinct
in the divine, in the divine triad, and so God
wills to create as he so wills. He didn't have
to create a world with Thomas Aquinas, but he will to. Okay,
then it's not necessitarian.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 22: Are we able to say why God is personal without
invoking necessity?
Speaker 1: No, it's just that's just how He's revealed why God
is that way.
Speaker 2: Nobody knows, So we can't prove that God is personal
other than just I.
Speaker 1: Think there's two Okay, here's what's going on. There's two
different senses of necessity. There's a volitional necessity or a
kind of deterministic emanationist necessitarianism that's different than the category
of something being necessarily what it is. So, for example,
could God not be uh? Could God be personal and
then not be personal? No, he must necessarily be personal.
That is different from volitional necessitarianism or some sort of determinism.
That's what I'm combating. You're in You're you're flipping between
two different definitions or senses of the word necessary.
Speaker 8: No, I agree with your with your prior definition there
of necessity.
Speaker 2: So this is where my problem comes into play with
the eternality of creation.
Speaker 1: If God's love, there is no eternality of creation. Love
is not created. Love is an energy that the three
persons of these of the triad eternally have. You keep
confusing love with creation. They're two different things.
Speaker 22: Okay, hold on, can I just can you follow my
line of reasoning here for just a second. Okay, So,
if if love is self giving, right, that is that
is the definition of love here, and then creation is
an act.
Speaker 5: Of that love.
Speaker 1: So again you're collapsing different actions into the same act.
Because God loves, he loves the Son eternally, that does
not mean that he also eternally creates. They're two different actions.
This is the debate that Athanasius has with the Arians.
Two different types of acts. You're collapsing the two acts together.
Just because I said God loves his creation. It doesn't
follow from that that the act of creating is eternally
synonymous with love. They're different. There's distinctions. Okay, all right,
I won't I mean explain. I want you to hone
in on what's what? What about that is unclear?
Speaker 2: Okay, So you're saying there's different acts, correct.
Speaker 22: That doesn't really solve this idea of creation being non eternal,
it being a one.
Speaker 2: Temporary because just because they're different acts.
Speaker 1: One is a temporal act or the other's eternal act.
God doesn't have to do everything eternally.
Speaker 22: Okay, but they come from the same root impulse of love.
Speaker 2: Right did God?
Speaker 22: Let me ask you this, Did God create Jesus or
does he maintain.
Speaker 1: The Son through his love?
Speaker 2: Is that a different kind of love that he then
uses to create the world.
Speaker 1: God doesn't create the Son through love. There's no will
when it comes to the Son. The Son is an
eternal generation of the Father's nature. It is not by will.
So you keep confusing. You're making aryan arguments and neoplatonic
arguments when that's not our position, and you're the only
way your argument works is to collapse the energy of
divine love into the action of creating. And I keep
saying that in our theology there are different things that
God does, so that seems to be the problem. And
you're saying, yeah, but God's eternal. That doesn't require that
every action of God be eternal.
Speaker 22: Okay, But the Trinity is eternal, right, and it's dependent
upon God's nature.
Speaker 1: You said, well, the Trinity is three persons and they
all share the same nature. And yes, they in that
sense have that nature necessarily, but that doesn't have anything
to do with God's will. There's a distinction between nature, person, will,
and effect. You just keep collapsing them. Why should I
think they're all collapsed?
Speaker 22: Why should you think they're all collapsed? Well, I guess
this kind of turns it to more of a trinitarian argument.
Here so was okay, So the Trinity it exists prior
to creation, correct, Yeah, okay, but God does not exist
prior to the Trinity, because they're one and the same.
Speaker 1: The word God is just a generic term that can
refer to all kinds of different things. For us, it
picks out primarily the person of the Father.
Speaker 22: Okay, So the transcendent aspect of God, which I assume
would be the Father.
Speaker 1: No, it's the divine nature. It's I already said that. Okay, Okay, sorry.
Speaker 22: The divine nature that is the transcendent aspect of God
is that ontologically prior to the Trinity.
Speaker 1: That there's no ontological priority in God because it's an eternal,
simultaneous reality. There's not ontological priorities.
Speaker 2: That's same because it's all beyond being.
Speaker 1: It's not all beyond being. Everything that you're arguing is
Greek dialectics, and we reject Greek dialectics from the outset.
So maybe it would help to say from the outset,
we don't do either or dialectics like Greeks and Hellenic metaphysics.
Does these are? God is not more one than he
is three, He's not more essence than he is person.
They are eternal simultaneous realities.
Speaker 22: Okay, all right, I'm okay with that, But let me
just ask you one question unless you want to be done,
though it can be done. But I do want to
know with a trinity, there is there any way of
understanding the trinity without a special revelation?
Speaker 2: No, okay, so it's dependent upon special revelation.
Speaker 1: Correct, And I'll give you. There's a paper that's really
good that's that is basically about your question, and it's
called it's at Academia dot Eedu. It's really easy to access,
it's free. It's called Plotinus and Eunomius, a Parallel Theology
of three Hypostases, and it's basically pointing out that uh
Cappadocian and Athanasia Christology is premised on rejecting the Neoplatonic
presubpositions that you're arguing, right, and.
Speaker 2: So it's trading it out for Orthodox presuppositions.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 22: I do have a book Understanding or the Mystical Theology
of Eastern Orthodoxy, and it kind of gets into the
difference between Platini's there in the that's a great book, okay.
So I'm guessing it's getting out a similar theme, which
I do have my own concerns about, but maybe you
can say that for another time.
Speaker 2: Again, I don't want to take up all the space here,
so thank you for your time. Greeky East Latin West
has a section on that too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Schard's Greek Eyst Latin West is also good on
this and it's available for free at Mirio Biblos from
It's called from Philosophy from Theology Philosophy in the Latin West.
It's a chapter from the book Father Digan. Did you
want to say something?
Speaker 2: No, just to fear having questions about about that? It
was that's why all this stuff.
Speaker 42: So important to kind of nail that exactly what do
we mean the distinction between will essence even the word necessary,
the energies as well. Otherwise you get these kinds of
problems exactly.
Speaker 1: Nothing. So I'm you Charol Lambos. By the way, I'll
remind you guys before charl Lombros comes on that we
have a book signing tomorrow in Tampa. If you're in
the Tampa area, you are welcome to come. It's a
free book signing at the Harley Davidson OCC Chopper Place.
What's it called here, occ Roadhouse and Museum in Clearwater, Florida.
That's basically Tampa uh. And I will be selling and
signing books tomorrow starting at noon, and then we'll be
hanging out there. You can come chat, you can come
to bate, you can come get books, get your books signed, whatever,
and then we'll have the costume party that evening. Jamie
will be dressed up as a specific of a Lynchean
Universe person. Charl Ambrose was Aja.
Speaker 23: So regating here, commands mean the authodo church.
Speaker 2: Are you aware of the term about in Greek?
Speaker 4: What see?
Speaker 1: I can't tell. I can't tell what you're saying.
Speaker 2: So the term I don't know the term in English,
but it's when.
Speaker 43: An Orthodox suspects that he is priest or bishop falls
into heroes in your preachus, hears you openly they can't
stop commemorating or can't communion with the bishop.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think that's a there's it's a
case by case basis. You can't make a one size
fits all rule to say that anytime you disagree or
decide you think your priest is wrong about something, then
you can just leave the church. So it's a principle
of wisdom that you're going to have to apply. There's
no case, there's no easy, one size fits all Spurg
algorithm for what you're supposed to do and every case.
Speaker 43: Yeah, So going back to Harris in the church, do
you believe it's a fiftive form of protest that could.
Speaker 1: Put bro I can't understand what you're saying, man, I'm sorry,
just trying to type it out next time. Guys, you
gotta speak slow and precise English. And I'm not trying
to be rude to that guy, because I'm sure he's
a cool guy. I just I can't understand what he's saying.
What's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 30: Is Jamie gonna dress up like Laura Dern's mom from
Wild at Heart and just smear lipstick on her face?
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of what's an even worse David Lynch.
She's going to be the teapot that David Bowie turned
into in Twin Peaks. What's up? Nothing? I mean, all right,
he can't connect Alex. What's up? Alex Pkeaton? What's up? Alex?
I'm you.
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 37: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Okay? Yes, sir, well, I appreciate time, Thank you so much.
So I think it's obvious that.
Speaker 24: From a worldy perspective, we judge some sins a is
worse than others.
Speaker 33: For example, murder is worse than steing a candy bar,
and I think that alsin makes its unworthy of God's grace.
Speaker 8: But can I just get your opinion or can you edit?
Speaker 1: I mean, within scripture, there's many places where it's stated
that obviously some sins are far worse than other sins.
Speaker 2: Okay, So in God's eyes, as is not equal, correct, Okay.
Speaker 8: I appreciate your response to that.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you.
Speaker 1: Don't read Ezekiel. For example, God says I will show
you worse abominations than he says, and they will show
even worse abominations. I will show even worse abominations. Jesus
says that harming children is the worst and you should
immediately be put to death by the state, not personal vengeance.
I mean, there's many examples of you know, read the
Old Testament and he was worse in his abominations than
his father's before him.
Speaker 2: So yes, that makes sense. Well, I appreciate you, Thank
you so much.
Speaker 1: Right, good question. That is a question that comes up
with a bit uh. It's true that in one sense. Yeah,
every human being is a sinner, but that doesn't mean
all well, every sin is the same. That's not true, Julius.
What's up? Scribs? Can God tickle ALA's foot? I don't
know if that's a question for a Muslim or for me,
Seattle Rob, Now we did that ac Muslims do not
like arguing. Muslims are not arguing like Riddick atheists. This
challenge is impossible. Have you even had them? I don't
remember last time there was a Muslim. It's been forever, Julius,
what's up?
Speaker 33: Say?
Speaker 4: Brod good.
Speaker 44: I came on a few days ago and asked about
it is distinction, and you mentioned that it's to do with,
you know, kind of a tool that you use in debate,
but it's not actually what you know. The distinction itself
is irrelevant because in Orthodox pistemology you have this kind
of participate.
Speaker 1: It's an internal critique of the atheist, materialist, empiricist paragra.
Speaker 44: Right, and so your actual kind of orthodox view of
ontology is like a kind of a you know what
you said about the logoi, it's more of a kind
of a realist is like the right word, It would
be a realist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, modern realism. I mean, we believe in, you know,
most of those metaphysical principles of the Middle Ages.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, nice.
Speaker 3: So I guess it's sort of a basic, basic question,
But it seems to sit in a bit of tension
with your use of the transcendental argument, which comes from
a post Enlightenment kind of Van Till can't.
Speaker 1: That's a fallacy, genetic fallacy. What does the origin have
to do with whether it's an argument or not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was sort of wondering if that's yeah, so
are you.
Speaker 44: Is it another kind of case where you're similar to
the is all distinction. It's not necessarily something that you
build your worldview from, but you use it to show
the kind of internal inconsistency or I mean, I guess
it's just sort of an interest. I'm not a trained
flows or anything, but just an interest in how kind of.
Speaker 1: Well Aristotle use Aristotle uses arguments from retortion. John Damascus
in the first page of Fount of Knowledge uses a
transcendental argument. So there's plenty of examples in ancient philosophical
you know, discourse of that type of an argument, but
the fact that a Calvinist makes that argument I mean, yeah,
would we say then that, well, you can't do calculus
because Newton and Leibniz came up with calculus and their heretics,
so calculus is heretical. It's just silly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: By the way, all the same people who make all
the same people who say this argument all run to
Aristotle as if okay, well Aristotle was a pagan. So
if we're going to use genetic fallacies, then everything Aerosols
said is negated.
Speaker 44: Okay, great, So the genetic fallacy is basically saying, well,
because your argument starts from this place, is going to
be wrong, rather than addressing.
Speaker 2: The actual argument itself. Is that correct? Yep? Okay, that's
really interesting. I guess sort of just my just kind
of out of interest in terms of your world.
Speaker 44: He as an Orthodox Christian, do you kind of start
from ontology or do you start from epistemology?
Speaker 2: Do you know what I'm trying to say?
Speaker 1: I mean, because they're they're all synonymous, they're all at
the same time, there is no priority to any of
them because it's an argument for an entire paradigm, and
the paradigm begins with divine revelation. So it's a theonomous epistemology.
It's not any sort of system building project. I'm not
dissing you. Is a great question, Sons of Jared sounds
like Mormon. So what's up, sons of Jurid?
Speaker 2: How you doing good?
Speaker 1: Good?
Speaker 2: Thank you Jay. Just a couple of quick questions. One
is the evolution is not compatible with the Orthodox few
is that correct?
Speaker 1: I don't believe that it is. There are many people
in our society that are steeped in it, so there
might be people who unwittingly believe erroneous things. But if
you really get into the nitty gritty of it, how
is ancient Hindu metaphysics and processed philosophy going to work
with Orthodox metaphysics?
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you?
Speaker 45: And then is there any teaching of Orthodoxy based on
lucid dreams or astroprojection, because now there's a hype and
thought that that are funding devices that helps you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I think I think we would all reject
that as halfways to delusion.
Speaker 2: For sure.
Speaker 1: Our locks, what's up? I'm mute, our locks, I'm mute.
Speaker 46: I'm I've been Orthodox my whole life, like ROC, and
I'm kind of starting to kind of learn more about
the faith recently and I saw like the Western Right stuff,
and I'm kind of confused. This is probably a bit
low it tier, but like, how come we get to
kind of like take all of the sort of like
Western liturgical traditions and just like, you know, kind of
twist on that.
Speaker 2: One.
Speaker 1: Don't think we're taking it. It is the first thousand
years of the West were Orthodox, so I think the
idea was to have an outreach to disaffected Anglicans and
Roman Catholics. It has a lot of problems, but that
was the idea behind it.
Speaker 46: But so the Western Right, essentially it is like cour
like in the Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: It is canonical on everything correct.
Speaker 1: The right itself is fun. There's not a problem with
the right. The problem is that a lot of the
people end up wanting everybody to adopt all these post
schism devotions and Roman Catholic ideas like Sacred Heart and
all this nonsense.
Speaker 46: Okay, And I have a second question, So this is
more with the OCA. So my friend recently is kind
of inquiring about Orthodoxy and I'm just wondering because I
go personally, I go to a Rocker church and there's
an Ocia church that I think I don't know. Maybe
it would be better because I've never been there. But anyways,
the question is, how would you say, like, how would
I kind of recognize if an Ocia Church is you know,
one of those.
Speaker 1: Bad ones or good and they're gonna they're gonna tell
you bad stuff. So they're gonna talk about skittle stuff,
they're gonna talk about all kinds of problems. You'll know,
they're usually pretty open about it. Efrey Jepstein, what's up?
Welcome everybody. We've got a thousand people. Remember I don't
know what's going on, because I think people are saying, oh,
I don't I never get notified. You have to turn
on the notifications on YouTube. So if people are saying, uh,
oh I never get notified of your live streams, well
a lot of people's notifications go into the spam box
now on all these different folders on your emails, Gmail,
and also you have to actually click the bell to
get notified. So you're just because you subscribe to my
channel doesn't mean you're gonna get notified. What's up, Effrey?
Speaker 2: Hey ja? I had two questions. The first was, well,
I don't know if you remember.
Speaker 47: Or not, but about two weeks ago, I asked you
about this argument for God's existence. My friend came up
with his position was that because there are so many
different arguments that where.
Speaker 2: The existence of God is a sufficient answer, that in.
Speaker 47: And of itself is a testament to the existence of God.
Now I think that that's fallacious.
Speaker 2: I just don't know why.
Speaker 47: So I was wondering if you've given that any more
thought and could give.
Speaker 1: Me an answer. Well, I mean, there can be bad arguments,
so why would the prevalence of arguments mean that something
is true. It's just a non sequittor.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's what I was thinking, because I was like,
you know, you could make
Speaker 1: I mean, there was a lot of arguments from Mark