Speaker 1: The bottom.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome to another open forum. We're going to
be discussing any debate topic relating to the topics listed above.
If you are a dispensationalist, if you are an Evangelical, Protestant, Roman, Catholic, Hebrew, roots, Islam,
any form of Aryan, Modalist, Unitarian, oneness, any of those
are open subject as well. I didn't put atheists, but
atheists can come and debate as well if you like.
So pretty open tonight. Finish my third Hollywood book tonight.
So I'm in a good mood. I'm ready to relax.
Got the espresso Roland. I'm a little too tired to
do this on YouTube, so I don't feel like putting
all my panties and getting all spiced up for you
boys and girls. So I'm just relaxing in my pajamas
right now.
Speaker 3: We're gonna have open debate.
Speaker 2: The way this works is if you have not been
in here, if you hit request to speak, you will
pop up. I'll give you the microphone and then you
can talk for as long as you want. If you're
making arguments, if you know what it means to make
an argument, that of course helps. It has been arguing
it means that you present some thesis with supporting evidences
or some sort of logical argument. Otherwise we'll stick to
theology and church history as well.
Speaker 3: FPV.
Speaker 2: Keep in mind too, I'm a little tired because I
stayed a really late finishing the book, so I'm not
totally one hundred percent awake.
Speaker 3: I woke.
Speaker 2: I woke up kind of early to finish a little
finishing touches on it, so I'm.
Speaker 3: Kind of out of it today.
Speaker 2: But that will give all the opponents a little bit
of a handicap. I'll have a handicap for the opponents.
P f PV flight Airborne get I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Barely.
Speaker 2: Are you calling me from the airplane? Yeah? Can you
hear me? That's better.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry they connected my truck.
Speaker 2: My name is Stephen.
Speaker 5: I'm I'm typically an evangelist until I met your channel
in sam Humun, and I recently become a catechy because
of you. I brought it just some groups of people
that live out in the woods that are part of
a cult group, and I've been worried about them, so
I've been trying to show them evidence, historical and archaeological data,
and I saw a recent post from Capturing Christianity that
showed that there's some evidence that points Peter to the
I don't know if you've seen that that just came
out from Captain Christianity, but he was talking about the
news article that was posted about the home of Peter
and two of his followers and makes Peter elevated to
the position of pope.
Speaker 4: Now, I don't believe in I'm not.
Speaker 5: A follower of Roman Catholicism, but you know, I follow
up underneath my priests, the priests that I have now.
But I'm just wondering, what do you think about that
or do you know about it?
Speaker 2: I know, I have no idea what you're talking about.
How does that relate to the cult in the Woods.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I'm trying to give them evidence and then
this evidence popped up and they're like, well, if you're
supposed to be going to the Orthodox Church, which I am,
then why are you not going to the Roman Catholic Church.
And then they showed that to me, and that just
you know, and then they showed news articles and I
was like, wow, I'll get back to you about that.
So I thought that I would hop on here and
ask you if you knew what I should say in response, Well.
Speaker 2: I mean my first thought would be this sounds really
outlandish and dubious. The point is not can you find
evidence in the early Church for the Bishop of Rome
having a first among equal status or a raised status
canonically speaking?
Speaker 3: The question is where does that? How does that prove?
Vatican One.
Speaker 2: The burden of proof of the Roman Catholic when they
argue that infallibility and the Patrine Sea and all that
was there from the earliest days, as Vatican One says,
is that they have to prove that. They have to
prove that the teachings of Vatican One were there. Otherwise
they have to prove that a doctrine of all and
that's self refuting, right, I thank you for your time.
I only had that one question.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, yeah, I mean I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't have any personal issues with Cameron anymore. But
Cameron is a committed evidentialists, which means that he thinks
that you just prove an argument by piling up suppose
that evidential claims.
Speaker 3: But of course Christianity is an.
Speaker 2: Entire paradigm and it's not going to be proven or
just proven by any single piece of data because everybody
interprets data according to their worldview, so I highly doubt
that there's any such thing as Peter's palm which proves
the papacy. It just sounds so outlandish on the on
the surface. Greg I.
Speaker 6: Hello, Jay, Yeah, how you doing.
Speaker 3: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 7: So?
Speaker 6: I saw recently you were talking about the law of
identity and that God is required for the law of
identity to exist something like this. Maybe you could explain
your position a bit if I haven't summarized to the.
Speaker 2: Being of God, who he is, the divine mind. The
attributes of God function as the grounding for logical categories
like the law of identity. The divine sir, you could
be of the divine being descried mind omni categories like omniscience.
That type of a being is the only type of
being that could function to ground something like a universal
law of identity.
Speaker 6: Okay, well, okay, I'm not going to say if I
was right now. I just wanted to ask you ask
you that and I'll think about it, maybe comment on
it in a future space.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Jay. Mm hmmm, Joseph, it's open form if you want
to pose a question.
Speaker 3: Jay, tired, you're cutting an outlets. I can barely hear you, dude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yo, we can't hear love.
Speaker 3: We can't hear.
Speaker 2: You, Noah? Is that better?
Speaker 3: Coming out and coming back in?
Speaker 2: All right? Yo? Can you hear me? Now?
Speaker 3: Come out and come back in?
Speaker 2: Man or I don't know. Walk to where you have
a good signal. It's up and for him. If you'd
like to come on and chat about any of the
topics listed, Zionism, Christians, Zionims, I mean, dispensationalism, Evangelicalismosis, and
Hebrew roots, Islam. They're all on the table tonight. I
guess atheism as well. Not really focusing on atheism tonight,
but if no one else calls in or has a
comment or question, we can do that. I thought we'd
get some more of these goobers coming in here, but
I guess they don't. I mean this, it's hard to
say like this. I've interacted with a lot of different
circles and some of these audiences are these groups are
just kind of saying store.
Speaker 3: Ahead, go ahead, mil Hello, yell, what's up?
Speaker 4: Hey Jay? Thanks for thanks for picking me.
Speaker 8: But I just got a quick question, real quick that
I'm trying to understand a little bit I'm going.
Speaker 4: Back and forth with one of my friends, and I
hope it's okay if I just asked the question.
Speaker 8: Don't have a debate topic, but trying to understand the
essence energy distinction a little bit better. And I've talked
to some of my friends who say that the energy
is God and that's how they'll talk about it. But
it's I know, the energy is a thing, and the
essence is obviously the essence of God.
Speaker 4: So uh.
Speaker 3: Any energies are operations or actions.
Speaker 2: Just like if you were to work or do an
act to build a house, you are fully present in
every one of your actions. They proceed from you as
a as a human being. Their actions proper to human nature,
but you are not identical to the action of building
a house. So in the same way, God's actions are
fully him, He's fully present in them, but he's not
reducible to or identical to.
Speaker 8: His actions, right so you, So then we would say
that his energies are not him, right.
Speaker 2: They are. They proceed from him in the same way
that you're working. Is what proceeds from you. It's an
it's an energy proper to your nature. So in one sense,
it is you, but another sense, it's not isomorphically reducible
to or identical to you.
Speaker 4: M So what does that mean, like isomorphically and all.
Speaker 3: That reduced to reductionist identity?
Speaker 4: Okay, gotcha?
Speaker 2: Gotcha?
Speaker 4: And would it thank you?
Speaker 8: I appreciate that, and then would it would it be
right to say that?
Speaker 4: And again I'm just learning, right, So this is gonna
sound hot, probably, But is God hidden in his energies?
Is that a stupid thing to say?
Speaker 2: Now? The phrase theology of hidden ess is sometimes applied
to the essence. So God is unknowable by essence. That's
called apathetic theology. But he's knowable by his attributes or energies,
which Basil says in letter two thirty four come down
to us. So the energies are cataphatic, that is, positive
attributes or attributions that are knowable. The essence of God
is apathetic, unknowable.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, all right, Jay? Well, hey, I appreciate your partner.
Speaker 2: Thank you? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Good questions? Do you want to try again? Joseph?
Speaker 2: Is that better?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: What's up? Jay?
Speaker 9: So I got a couple questions. So I saw when
you were doing a debate. I watch Sam Shamon a
lot could you just expand if you don't mind, I
have a couple more questions so you can be short.
How does Catholic lead the modalism? I was born LDS.
I go to Trinity Church now since twenty twenty three.
I've spoken to you before, So can you, because I'm
obviously you know, can you explain how Catholic leads the modalism?
Speaker 2: The Fourth Latteran Council defines God as identical to his
essence and his existence. So God just is the divine essence,
and the persons are also said to be by Quinas
and other theologians identical to the divine essence. So while
Catholics are not explicitly quote modalists, if they were consistent
with their doctrine of divine simplicity as outlined at the
Fourth Lattering Council, they would lead that.
Speaker 3: Would lead to modalism. So that's the argument that we make.
Speaker 2: Also, the Catholic teaching on participating in creative grace is
an outworking of the same idea. If they didn't believe
in an almost modalistic idea of divine simplicity, then they
wouldn't teach creator grace because the whole reason they believe
that what we partake of in salvation is created is
because God is absolutely simple and you can't partake of him.
Speaker 9: Yeah, the church cap Trinity Church today and it's obviously
artist and ex Catholic.
Speaker 4: I hope would you be.
Speaker 9: I've only been on my journey, you know, I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't understand you, dude, can You're you're cutting out?
Speaker 3: I can't. Your questions are coming through Sean Malicon in
your mind.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so I'm not Roman Catholic.
Speaker 11: I see you as more of like the Orthodox, more
of as brothers as enemies. So I'm just wondering exactly, Like,
I know your criticisms are like surrounding the like papal
infallibility and uh a postive apostilistic succession, But you seem
like a pretty reasonable guy, and considering like the Catholic
Church's history of being more based in reason and the
Orthodox Church being more based off of like the mysteries
like how.
Speaker 10: You came to your decision at become.
Speaker 3: Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, yeah, it's simply but if Catholic, if
Catholic dogma contradicts the Catholicism is not true, I would
disagree that Orthodoxy is somehow based in quote, mysticism over reason.
I think that both East and West have always tried
to balance it out, and the West eventually failed at that.
So the Orthodox Church is not based on mysteries per se,
unless by that you mean the mystery of the Trinity.
But if the papacy contradicts augmatically, that invalidates the whole system.
So it's not very I mean, you may not agree
with that, but I'm saying the argument is not that complex.
It's a pretty straightforward argument.
Speaker 10: Are you there.
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 11: I guess yeah, thanks, I'll take that into considerate reason.
Just I find the Coffelice Church had more like.
Speaker 2: A history.
Speaker 11: Uh Like we just talked about a Queenes.
Speaker 2: And uh, you're cutting out, man, I can't. I can't
hear any I find like come back out and people
come out, come out and come back in tadlaw, are you?
Speaker 12: Uh so?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 7: So, I have a degree in philosophy and I've written
a book on Christian metaphysics. I'm from the Oriental Orthodox tradition,
and I wanted to ask you what your understanding of
the Oriental Orthodox Christology.
Speaker 2: We're currently doing a multi hour, multi part series which
we've completed two parts of on that very question. So
I agree with the positions that are outlined in the
Fifth Acumenical Council and in books like Saint Cyril of
Alexander in the Christological Controversy by mcguckan. So if you
want to take a look at those books for the
recent to part one in part two that we've done
on Oriental Christology, those would be my positions.
Speaker 7: Okay, just quickly though, do you think that do you
think that Oriental orthodox aremnophystes?
Speaker 2: I agree with the councils that we hold to, which
do say that your theology would end up in that
even if you disagree that your president confession holds up.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 7: So the reason I'm asking that is because you just said,
for example, that Orthodoxy focuses more on mysticism as opposed
to reason when it comes to the.
Speaker 2: Divine and say that that's what he said.
Speaker 7: Oh okay, all right, find them.
Speaker 3: Brenda, you get what I mean?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 2: Hey, what's going on? Ja dude? Hey?
Speaker 4: Man? Two questions?
Speaker 13: First question, when are you going to have that Tom
Coom single come out on iTunes? So I can I
can listen to a while I'm working?
Speaker 2: Well, I guess you're downloaded. Now nobody seems to like
that song. That's my least popular cringe course song.
Speaker 3: But I'm glad you're all right.
Speaker 4: Second question, I kind of went down a rabbit hole.
Speaker 13: So I've always been raised as a Christian Southern Baptist,
kind of got out of the church, dabbled in things
here and there with like listening to stuff you do.
But I went down a rabbit hole about Israel not
being like, well, the Jews in Israel not being God's
chosen any longer because they gave that up when they
crucified Him and forsake him and denied the Kingdom of Heaven.
And the Christians are the new Israel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just said multiple times in New Testament Clarer's day.
Speaker 13: Is that like the case is like, is that how
it's being twisted that we should like go along with
Israel because their.
Speaker 2: God's chose what was called covenant theology. So people have
this idea that somehow the promise of the having it
to Abraham or to Moses was only in reference to
a historical nation of Israel, which that's one element of it.
But if you read Galatians three, it's very clear that
the seed capital s that fulfills the promise to Abraham
and Genesis twelve, fifteen, twenty two, and seventeen and twenty
two is the capital seed.
Speaker 3: Messiah, he is the ma seed.
Speaker 2: Excuse he is the seed, and then everyone that's in
him is by extension the seed. Romans four and Galatians
three argue this clear as day, which there should be
no debate about it. And the other point is that
the nation state of Israel is divorced in the New
Testament clear as day, citing texts like Hoseiah and the
Book of Revelation and Jesus's prophecies about the seventy eighty
destruction of the temple in the Book of Hebrews.
Speaker 13: Okay, wow, I'm gonna go back and listen to that explanation.
But it just seems really strange, like I've been told
one thing and just follow along.
Speaker 2: What well. Jeremiah thirty one, He says that this new
covenant will be unlike the Mosaic Covenant. So where is
this new covenant? What is this new covenant? Wherein the
law will be placed on everyone's heart, wherein the gentiles
will turn to the Messiah, There will be gentile priests,
there will be incense offered all throughout the world to God,
as according to Malachi one. All these prophecies, and when
Paul and Romans fifteen cites multiple places in the Psalms
where it predicts a gentile church, Paul says, that's the church.
The church is the fulfillment of those Messianic promises in
the Book of Psalms that talk about the gentiles worshiping
the God of Israel. So these are not in times
into the world predictions of a premillennial kingdom. They're the
church that was set up historically. And this is the
giant blind spot that all the Evangelicals and Protestants have.
They don't understand that the church is the kingdom, and
it's the Orthodox Church, the one in history that was
set up in the first century. It's not an end
times thing that is yet to come. He left, Donnie.
Speaker 14: I'm mute, Donnie, I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Donnie discerned. We're waiting on you, man, what's up? Go ahead?
Speaker 10: Hello?
Speaker 15: Hello, Hey, Sorry, I was having you a littleish.
Speaker 10: I couldn't hear anything.
Speaker 15: How's it going, Uh, Jay, very good to finally be
able to talk to you.
Speaker 10: I know you had me blocked for a little while.
Speaker 15: I wasn't really sure I had seen some of your stuff.
I like a lot of the stuff you say, but
I did have a couple of questions for you regarding
this topic. So I just for some background, I would
not consider myself a dispensationalist, a supporter of the government
or the nation of Israel in its apostates state, but
I definitely want to see get a feel for what
your view is about I guess the eschatological nature of
this topic. And the first question is, would you say
that Israel's blindness is temporary, that you know it's part
of God's plan for the gentiles? Like, would you say
that Israel's blindness is temporary?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's what Paul's teaching in Romans eleven.
And at some point whenever the schatological you know, in
times are Paul predicts a conversion of the Jews in
mass in some way.
Speaker 10: Okay, okay, we would agree with that.
Speaker 15: My next question would be, do you believe that it
was God's sovereignty that led to Israel scattering and that
you know and that this the regathering of the tribes
of Israel and Judah in nineteen forty eight, was part
of God's plan was under God's sovereignty.
Speaker 2: Well, everything is under God's sovereignty. But whether that is
necessarily some fulfillment of biblical prophecies, I don't know about that.
I mean that remains to be seen, depending upon what happens.
But I don't think that there's any promise to a
secular nation state that is in some way a dual
covenant theology.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I would definitely disagree and disavow with dual covenant theology.
I don't really know many people that actually hold to
dual Covenant that say that there's a separate covenant for Israel.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean a lot of dispensationalists do.
Speaker 15: I would say, I would, Yeah, you're probably right. I
haven't really heard that set a lot the dual covenant theology.
Every every dispensationalist that I talked to, they say that
they reject that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean most, I mean the last two days
of debates that we've had with people, almost almost all
of them who come in here defending that position believe
that the Abrahamic Covenant is specifically still in force for
the Jews.
Speaker 16: Okay, would you say that in the in the end times,
would you agree that the nations unite against the City
of Jerusalem before Christ returns to reigns.
Speaker 2: Now, the New Testament city of Jerusalem is the church,
Paul makes that clear. Galatians four.
Speaker 15: Are you talking about New Jerusalem? Are you talking about.
Speaker 2: If that is the church in Galatians four, which is
a present reality, which is the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 15: So you wouldn't make a distinction between the millennial kingdom
and Revelation twenty and the eternal state in New Jerusalem
and twenty one.
Speaker 3: Now the Church is the kingdom, as Jesus says at
Matthew sixteen.
Speaker 15: So you have a more of a millennialist view on this.
Speaker 2: Where my favor post millennialism, but many Orthodox are also omil.
Speaker 15: Okay, So you would say that Christ is currently reigning
right now in the ultimate sense.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think anybody believes. Anybody believes in the
ultimate sense because the resurrection and the Great White Throne
judgment haven't happened. But if you look at every reference
in the New Testament to Psalm one ten instead of
my right hand until it make your.
Speaker 3: Enemies your footstool, what do you think that's a reference to.
Speaker 15: The Millennial king The millennial kingdom would be no.
Speaker 2: No time in the New Testament is referenced in regard
to some specific redemptive historical event in the New Testament,
which one?
Speaker 10: What was the question?
Speaker 2: Every time Psalm one ten is cited in the New Testament,
for the most part, sit in my right hand until
I make your enemies your foot stool, it's a reference.
Speaker 15: Sorry, sorry, yes, yes, yes, yes, right hand?
Speaker 10: So so so when so?
Speaker 2: When? So?
Speaker 10: When God? So?
Speaker 15: When God makes the the world Jesus footstool.
Speaker 10: You don't believe that that's I'm asking.
Speaker 3: You a question. You're not listening. I'm not trying to
me mean.
Speaker 2: But again, every time that Psalm one ten in the
New Testament is cited, when it's when the New Testament
writers cite that psalm about sit in my right hand
till I make your enemies your footstool, they reference it
in regard to a specific New Testament event. It's the ascension, right,
The ascension happened in the Book of Acts. Okay, so
the ascension is when he begins to reign. That's why
Daniel seven is a prophecy of his ascension. Sit at
my right hand, the Father's right hand in heaven. And
Daniel seven, he's given authority over all tribes, songs, and nations.
In the Book of Revelation when John sees into Revelation
in the first four or five, when he sees the
Lamb in heaven, that's when the Lamb is given authority
over all tribes, tongues.
Speaker 3: And nations. That's the ascension. It's not the other world.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 15: I agree that Christ is reigning in an already sense,
but there's also a not yet sense where she will reign.
Speaker 2: That's we agree with that.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But the already that is the Kingdom, is the Church.
And that's why Matthew sixteen he says to Peter, you
are the rock upon which I will build my church,
and he says, I will give you the keys to
the kingdom. Yeah, equating the Church to the kingdom.
Speaker 10: So it's not y, Yeah, I would I would agree
that because.
Speaker 15: Well, I would say that the body of believers, as
Christ price is the head and the body of believers
and make up obviously his body.
Speaker 3: Christ have a visible body or does he have an
invisible body?
Speaker 15: Does Christ have a visible body or an invisible body? Yeah, sir,
it's a spiritual it's a it's spiritual in the already
sense where the body of believing believing Christians make our.
Speaker 3: Own body, his actual body when he's walking.
Speaker 15: Around his body, when he was walking around. Yeah, I
mean he he was, he was, he.
Speaker 10: Was yes, right, right, Okay, is it one?
Speaker 2: Is it one?
Speaker 10: Is it one?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 15: Yeah, we are one with the body like That's why
when you know, when when Jesus asked Aul, you're.
Speaker 2: Missing my point though I'm saying. What I'm pointing out
is that the singular visible structure of the Body of
Christ is identical to the historical singular visible.
Speaker 3: Structure of the body of the Body of Christ.
Speaker 2: That's why Paul equates the church to the continuation of
the incarnation and the body. He says in First Corinthians.
Is Christ divided? He says in Ephesians. There's one Lord,
one body, one faith, one baptism. So the Body of Christ,
the Church cannot be divided. Therefore it is not existing
amongst thirty thousand different sects.
Speaker 15: I think the thirty thousand numbers a bit exaggerated. I
think Mike Winger did a did a video about that
where that's based off of a lot of Okay, Well.
Speaker 3: Whether it's five thousand or thirty thousand doesn't matter.
Speaker 15: Well, I would say I would say that, you know,
so would you say that only the Orthodox people who
are members of the Orthodox Church would inherit the Kingdom
of God? Yes, I would really disagree with you there,
But that's okay, that's not really the direction.
Speaker 3: Well, how many bodies does Christ have?
Speaker 10: Though body?
Speaker 15: But that doesn't mean that that that body is divided
among you know, denominations.
Speaker 10: Right, I mean.
Speaker 2: You have to believe it is.
Speaker 15: Well, it's it's about faith in Christ, right, you know,
it's about it's.
Speaker 3: About they have faith in Christ. But they're not trinitarian count.
Speaker 10: Well, of course not. But that's not measure.
Speaker 2: What's the measure for heresy?
Speaker 15: The measure for heresy would be something that contradicts the
clear teachings of scripture, like I would consider you know,
I would consider full I would consider full preterism of heresy.
Because they say that Christ already returned. I would say
that there's no normal say that denial of the Trinity
is a heresy because again it's not.
Speaker 2: Where the doctor formulated the Doctor of the Trinity.
Speaker 15: Who formulated it I think it's less about who formulated it.
We can read it into the text. We can even
read it in the Old Testament. We could see the
Trinity foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: We don't need you're missing point. I'm talking about the
Second Ecumenical Council where they dogmatize the Doctor in the Trinity.
Speaker 15: And I believe the Holy Spirit was working through that,
But that doesn't mean that they're now the You know, so.
Speaker 2: The Holy Spirit was working through them, but they were wrong.
Speaker 15: The Holy Spirit works through a lot of people in error,
don't you know. We're we're still flawed, right, We're not.
We're not We're not.
Speaker 2: Was it wrong when the church was determined?
Speaker 3: The canon.
Speaker 15: Was determining the canon? No I I I agree with
the canon.
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying was the Holy Spirit wrong? Was
it was to error?
Speaker 15: Why would the Holy Spirit be liable to error?
Speaker 3: It's so the church is infallible.
Speaker 10: No, I think you're missing my point.
Speaker 3: When determined?
Speaker 15: The point is it's less about.
Speaker 3: When was the canon determined?
Speaker 10: Here's my point.
Speaker 2: So you're not going to answer this question because it
would refew you. When is the Canada Scripture determined?
Speaker 15: I feel like you're trying to put me in these boxes,
and I just want to I just want because.
Speaker 2: It's going to refute your presupposition.
Speaker 10: No, I think besition. Listen, I'm not a good not.
Speaker 2: A debate tactic. It's the end of Protestantism.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 3: Where was the canondi scripture.
Speaker 15: Determined in three in three hundred, right.
Speaker 2: Three hundred?
Speaker 10: The canon?
Speaker 2: What church?
Speaker 3: What church?
Speaker 2: Father?
Speaker 3: Council in the year three hundred determined the candas scripture.
Speaker 10: The canon of scripture a council of I see it
wasn't that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't even know when nice it was. It's
three twenty five, yeah, around three hundred. And it didn't
it didn't determine the cannon. So you don't have anything
any knowledge at the top.
Speaker 10: Listen. My point is this, don't we don't know.
Speaker 3: You don't have any knowledge of the topic.
Speaker 10: I I know about the council that I see it.
I knew that.
Speaker 2: Well, you didn't even know the date of the canon.
You didn't even know when it was.
Speaker 15: I said around three hundred. I didn't say three hundred exactly.
Speaker 2: I feel like, next up, Honey Badger, I'm mute, honeyback
on mute.
Speaker 17: I'm sorry.
Speaker 18: I didn't realize you called on me, you know. So
this is a great conversation. But at the same time,
I really don't like these debates so much because I
believe that we should try to love people into the
fullness of faith.
Speaker 17: So just lay it there.
Speaker 18: And also, like when I kind of like when I
walked in, you know, and I saw the title evangelical,
why do you.
Speaker 3: Think the debate is contrary to love?
Speaker 18: When Paul apa, No, no, no, no, no, that's a that's a
very good point that you're right.
Speaker 2: So as a woman, you're just simply saying that you
don't get good feelings from it.
Speaker 18: So no, no, no, no, no, sir, that that's that's
not what I mean at all. No, what I mean
is is that we like, we're here to love people
into the fullness of truth, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: And so in other words, like, it's nothing contrary to
that in debating.
Speaker 3: So are you just here at home police, or do
you have an argument?
Speaker 17: No, I'm not trying to tone police at all.
Speaker 3: You're literally tone police. What do you think that is?
Speaker 19: No?
Speaker 17: I actually like, please please hear what I'm saying.
Speaker 18: Okay, So, first of all, you know, like where I
walked in, you know, you were kind of unpacking the
difference between Jews and Christians in general, right like that
that was what I heard. And so first and foremost
I would say, if we can get onto a foundational
moral principle or like a foundational Christian principle, is that
you know, the Jews were God's chosen people, but they
still had a choice moving forward.
Speaker 4: After Jesus died.
Speaker 17: Can we start there like you died and resurrected?
Speaker 18: In other words, so in other words, there is no
akin to Christianity, you know, like in terms of any
you know, like any Ebromic religion.
Speaker 2: That's all infest to be a Catholic. But the Catholic
Church has changed that position. So which one?
Speaker 20: You know?
Speaker 17: Actually they have not, they have not at.
Speaker 2: All they have. Have you read? You're going to keep interrupting.
This is why you don't want to debate. Have you read?
Speaker 3: No, sir?
Speaker 17: Yes I have. But but please let me.
Speaker 2: About the Jews.
Speaker 17: I'm trying to relate to you.
Speaker 3: I say, a debate stream and you're saying things that
are wrong.
Speaker 2: What does say about the Jews?
Speaker 4: Okay, say about.
Speaker 17: You, sir? If I can say what and I'll leave this.
Speaker 2: I will claim to have read it.
Speaker 3: I will leave this, but you haven't read it.
Speaker 17: I will leave this. I will okay, I will leave
this with you.
Speaker 18: I try to understand people on their terms and then
give my best argument.
Speaker 21: I was trying to you didn't have an argument, you
claim no, I was trying to make a clown of yourself, Like.
Speaker 18: I'm sorry, Like if you're not going to listen to
anything I say, I'm just saying.
Speaker 2: You're a drunk wine mom. I'm trying to argue that you.
Speaker 10: Are.
Speaker 17: You guys hearing this right now?
Speaker 2: Did you read at.
Speaker 17: Hearing this right now? I'm not like serious.
Speaker 2: Everybody's laughing at you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you can insult me.
Speaker 18: All you want to stand, you on your terms, and
all you have chosen to do is insult me.
Speaker 3: You can't debate. Why are you debating?
Speaker 17: Well, you know what, you know what? God bless you, sir.
I thought we would have a good content and I
asked you a question.
Speaker 18: But no you can't because you won't let me ask
you a question or even allow me to get to
know you. You're not even on the time and where
you're coming from and appreciate you where you're coming.
Speaker 17: From and then and then kind of understand by your
knowledge and wisdom.
Speaker 10: That's it. That's it.
Speaker 21: I'm sorry that sort of back to the phronsie Boss Jay,
you know what, get out of here, Samson, I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Hello, Yes, all right.
Speaker 22: So if your position is that the Orthodox Church is
the only church, is it possible that there are people
in the church who are unsaved.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's a mixed multitude, as the parables say.
Speaker 22: Okay, so there are it is possible to be in
the body of Christ and be unsaved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can be in the visible uh member, you
can be a visible participant in grace and lose that grace.
So the aschatological reality will will remove all of the
people who don't have the vestiments. It's like the parable
of the the marriage Peace, where Jesus removes all those
who do not have the garment.
Speaker 22: Okay, So so you're not in the church if you're
not saved.
Speaker 2: Okay, I answered your question. This is too stupid.
Speaker 22: Well no, I just I justin.
Speaker 3: He's the dude that wanted to come to debate.
Speaker 2: Where do you go.
Speaker 3: Tectonic la Hello.
Speaker 23: Yeah, yeah, I have a neighbor who is a secular.
Speaker 2: Guy, But.
Speaker 10: How do I say this?
Speaker 23: When that thing in October happened in twenty twenty three,
he was quite inflamed, and he's like a bench Shapiro
Jordan Peterson.
Speaker 3: Guy, where does that come from?
Speaker 2: He's not even Christian.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: October of twenty twenty three, yeah, October seventh.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, yeah.
Speaker 23: So you know, like, if you're a Christian, you know
it could be understandable that you could fall into the
trap of Christian Zionism.
Speaker 4: But he's secular.
Speaker 2: What is this?
Speaker 10: He was, like I said, he was very inflamed when
it happened.
Speaker 2: Okay, what is it?
Speaker 3: What's the.
Speaker 2: Well? I don't know what your what their point is? Man?
Speaker 3: Dan, what's up?
Speaker 19: I'm mean, yeah, I.
Speaker 11: Think at all the Orthodox churches are the same, like
Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Is it all?
Speaker 3: No, they're not. No, No, they're not.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's just wondering, so what, like, what's your position
on that? Is there one that's theologically wrong or Rememberical
Orthodox Catholic Church there's only one of those? Okay that
that was my question.
Speaker 24: Shown I can't hear anything I'm gonna leave and rejoin
if anybody.
Speaker 3: You can't hear me.
Speaker 25: Oh, no, I can hear it now, weird, Go ahead. Yeah,
Like I said last time, I'm a big fan. I
am a big fan of yours. But I'm not as
well studied as you and most of the people talking here,
so you can correct me here.
Speaker 2: But I have questions about.
Speaker 25: The links between Vatican to John Paul the Second and
then the Cold War. You have to in my understanding.
I know, I know what you do, but that's why
I'm asking you. But I would in my understanding of things,
not being informed otherwise by you, which you will inform
me now of. But otherwise I would understand it to
be a part of the Cold War. I would understand
that John Paul the Second was a part of the
deep state in so many ways. Or the year of Letter,
the years of Letter or whatever, and the Italians speak,
and there is a reason for why we let that
non Italian guy in.
Speaker 2: Otherwise. Yeah, I've done talk to this. What about it? Oh,
I've never heard those parts of it, So I'm sorry,
that's funny. I don't to apologize. I'm just telling you that. Yeah,
we're I'm familiar with it. The audience probably isn't familiar
with that. But anything else could you speak about?
Speaker 19: What?
Speaker 2: Why? Why?
Speaker 25: We obviously was the geopolitical strategic position to it.
Speaker 2: And went off has an entire eight hundred page book
on it called Timeline Magazine, John Courtney Murray and the
American Proposition. It's about the doctrinal warfare.
Speaker 3: Program is a book called the Doctrinal war.
Speaker 26: The book is called what. I just listed it as
what's up? Justin Hello, Yeah, what's okay?
Speaker 2: Sorry?
Speaker 3: I didn't know how to immute.
Speaker 27: This is my first basis, Like questions, does the Bible
talk mentioned h denominations?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: And where did that come from?
Speaker 3: Do you know?
Speaker 2: I don't know too much about it? Like why is one?
Why is Catholic?
Speaker 27: Protestant? Why are these?
Speaker 2: Why is Christianity divided?
Speaker 3: So why isn't it just it's not divided?
Speaker 2: The only authentic Christianity is the Orthodox Church because it's
the same theology and teaching of the first thousand years
of Christianity. So where are the other ones come from?
Are they all like Satanic? I mean well, I mean
the Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church in
ten fifty four and all those crazy groups split from
the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant split, so it just kind
of goes.
Speaker 27: From there because we got Lutheran all these So I
was raised in the Worldwide Church. You God, I don't
know if you're familiar with that one, but it's basically like.
Speaker 3: They used to be anti Trinitarian. They believed in.
Speaker 2: Garner Ted Armstrong's anti Trinitarian British Israelite theory.
Speaker 3: Yeah it's a cult. Yeah, I think so too.
Speaker 27: So yeah, we weren't allowed to celebrate holidays, and we
couldn't eat pork and all this Old Testament and it's
just like, as I got older, I just felt like
this doesn't make any sense, right. Plus my dad's a
preacher in that and beat the shit out of us
and my mom and everything else, and so I kind
of shied away from it.
Speaker 10: But it was like.
Speaker 27: I was just always wondering how it got so fractured,
and how do you think we could just bring it
back together to we just fucking get along, because if
we don't learn to get along all right?
Speaker 2: So again again, well, like I said, the Orthodox Church
is the true church, So there is no like creating
a new superchurch that blends all the churches to get along.
Like people have to come to the ORTHORX church. That's
the only way out. Barrabas, Oh my gosh, sure we
go another judios in heretic? What's up?
Speaker 3: Its literally names of Barabbas? Are you there?
Speaker 2: We can't hear you.
Speaker 3: Can here? You did, Samuel, I'm you.
Speaker 2: I love Jada. Are you doing.
Speaker 28: How's everything?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 28: Everything as well? I'm gonna sure if you were calling me.
We had a fascinating discussion about your your epistemic foundation,
I think, with you and father and a nice about
two three months ago.
Speaker 3: I begarly remember that.
Speaker 28: Yeah, yeah, indeed, I had one to ask, what is
your position on natural theology? Do you reject in totality?
Do you believe they are epistemically deducible truths they are
embedded with in reality?
Speaker 2: I mean, you could go watch the Trent Horn debate
for my views on that. I don't have the energy
right now to stay at all those points in that argument.
Speaker 3: Okay, sure, but no I don't believe in natural theology.
Speaker 2: Okay, sure.
Speaker 28: I want to ask what would be your definition, or
at least, how would you differentiate between properly basic or
non basic belief.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think there's a lot of debate about
those positions. They, I mean, people who are foundationalists kind
of accept the common idea as to what properly basic,
proper basicality is. They think that there's some form of
self evidence. But since I don't believe in that, what
does it matter? What how I would define them?
Speaker 28: Okay, I had just been mildly curious. I reviewed that debate,
and thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not trying to be rude.
Speaker 2: It's just I don't like, I don't have the energy
to go into like no, it's reversing all the that
type of stuff when it's not really the topic tonight.
Speaker 3: Mean, you got on you.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 29: So I just had a Unitarian tell me that Christ
says that the Father is greater than him. How do
you respond to that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean we responded to that probably five hundred
times in all the Muslim debates and interactions that you
can find online. Something can be greater in different types,
in different senses. So Christ's father, God, the Father is
greater in role because the Father is the found cause
and source within the Godhead.
Speaker 3: He is greater in that sense.
Speaker 2: But he's not greater in a metaphysical sense, just like
a father is a cause of his son, but that
doesn't mean that his son has any more or less
human nature than his father. So just as a son
can be subordinate to and obey his father, it doesn't
follow that the son therefore is ontologically or metaphysically less
than his father. So all anti Trinitarian arguments hinge on
greater necessarily being some metaphysical claim.
Speaker 29: That makes perfect sense.
Speaker 2: Thanks Nina, you have to do you?
Speaker 30: Did you call on me?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am, what's up?
Speaker 10: Thank you?
Speaker 30: Hi Jay, I have two questions for you. My first
question is do you believe that Catholics are heretics? And
I'll listen to your response. And my second question is
do you believe that there will ever be a possibility
of union between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
Orthodox Churches?
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 2: I believe that Catholicism is a heterodox religion and profession.
It's a parachurch, Paris Synagogue. It does not have the
race that it pretends to have. But I don't make
judgments on every individual Catholic because we're not told people's
individual salvation or destiny. But we can judge in the
public sphere a confession of some entity like the Catholic
Church same way I would say a Protestant profession as heterodox.
Speaker 30: Okay. And secondly, what is your opinion on the hopeful
reunion and reconciliation between the two as John Paul the
second said, the Eastern and Western lungs of the church.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean it doesn't make any sense because the
Eastern Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics of the Uniates, do not
profess many ecumenical councils that the Roman Church says to
be dogmatic. And yet the Roman Church has accepted all
these people as saints and as the alert as even
people who were died in schism like Gregory and Nerek
who was an Armenian schismatic, like suddenly they're now saints
when they died in schism And so these all prove
to me that the Roman Caloity Church's confession and theology
is contradictory and evolves. And know, the Orthodox Church could
never accept some sort of mediating halfway position because we
don't believe that the Orthodox Church ever lost the faith.
Speaker 30: Thank you very much for answering my questions. I would
love to ask more questions in the future.
Speaker 3: Well, you can ask them now if you want.
Speaker 2: Oh well, everyone else has been pretty unruly, so I
appreciate what are the questions.
Speaker 30: We have the same sacraments, correct, the Catholics and the Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean loosely speaking, we have the same loose
number of them, right, but not necessarily the same views exactly.
Speaker 30: So I was going to ask you what your view
is of the necessity of the sacrament of reconciliation and
confession before receiving the Euchrist.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I mean this is not a position that
differs between Orthodox and Catholics.
Speaker 30: Yes, okay, thank you. I thought that was true. Also,
in terms of your marital sacrament, how would you view
the overall theology that differentiates Orthodox from Catholics.
Speaker 2: Again, there are commonalities there because we do, loosely speaking,
share the first thousand years of Christianity. But I think
that eventually the Roman system, for example, began to detegrade
marriage when they started forbidding married priests, which they always
accepted until after Trollo. So after the Seventh Council, the
West begins to forbid there to be married priests. We
think it's a huge mistake that the West stopped giving
infants communion anyway. But that's not about marriage. We would
say that the Canons of Saint Basil, which the papacy
for many centuries accepted, allow for the Orthodox position for remarriage.
It's not a license to do it in any case.
There's certain strictures and canonical limits to that. But we
think the Roman position developed on that as well.
Speaker 30: I really appreciate your time, Thank you. I don't want
to take up all the time. I'll free someone else up.
Go ahead, George, nice to meet you.
Speaker 4: Jay uh huh.
Speaker 3: Likewise, cut talk.
Speaker 2: Now. See that was a Roman caln woman who was
civil and a pleasure to talk to the half drunk,
phronsial woman in here earlier was insane. Go ahead, katok, Hey,
how you doing?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Do you think questions? So let me make it quick.
Speaker 31: Do you think Christianity will ever come to owning the
leadership of a state like it's used to, or would
it just remain confined to an institution called church.
Speaker 2: I don't know that the church ever owned a state,
but I think that you can't have Orthodox Christian states.
Speaker 3: Again, sure.
Speaker 2: In what context?
Speaker 31: Not an ownership, but owning a state to lead a
group of people.
Speaker 3: Again, I don't know what you mean owning a state.
Speaker 2: I mean again, have been confessional church state relationships for
the majority of Christian history, so yes, there could be
Christian kingdoms again, but that doesn't mean that the Church
owns the state. There are two if you are you
familiar with the double headed business the symbol, no, it's
a classic symbol of Byzantium, and the two headed eagles
symbolizes church and state working together in what we call
symphonia or harmony. So that's the ideal setting, but it
doesn't mean the Church owns the state. Okay, thank you, yes, Chris.
Speaker 32: I mean, man, hey, guys, So I had a question
dovetailing off that Roman Catholic lady who was really nice.
I grew up Roman Catholic. I'm no longer a Catholic,
but I'm searching. I'm searching for an Orthodox order church.
But either way, I want to know how to defeat
the Catholics on the concept of Mary and how they
went off the rails with Christophany by not recognizing it
being logos. So I just there's any points I could
have to you know, have to fight Catholics back on.
Speaker 10: Why their Mary worship is just so bogus.
Speaker 2: It would just be helpful in some of my discourses.
I mean, I did a video that's about forty minutes
where I went through just the entire biblical argumentation for
the Orthodox position on Mary. I think the Roman Catholic
position in the last several centuries has just gotten into
a lot of speculations and introduced new terms like co redemptrics,
which can have a lot of things read into it.
So I don't know. I mean, I do think that
they go crazy with it, but I think ultimately it's
because they end up departing from the Orthodox tradition on Mary.
For example, they exempt her from the effects of original
sin when the feast in the Orthodox Church, which even
the Eastern Catholic celebrat, is called the feast of dormition
of the version, which means that she died or she
went to sleep. Well, if she died, then she was
not free from the effects of Adam's fall. So I
think that those are some examples of where the Roman
position kind of goes crazy with it. And also you'll
notice the Roman Catholic Church in the last several centuries,
especially in the West, has deviated over into this extreme
form of obsessing and relying on supposed Marian apparitions, many
of which are totally pedadox.
Speaker 33: Yeah, and so yeah, I'm the feast of the door mission.
I I've heard, I have heard some of your stuff
on that.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 33: So you're saying the Catholics extreme emphasis on her lack
of sin or you know, her inability to sin, whereas
I think the orcandox position is clearer that it makes
role Mary's roles the theotokos, the bearer of the divine logos,
more compelling.
Speaker 3: Sure, go ahead, fodin.
Speaker 34: So I was like our father Russell here always says
in Orthodox she she's not the great exception, she's the
great example. And that just kind of summarizes it all,
doesn't it.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 33: The Greek word, right, theo toko is a home of
God or like I don't know if I'm on that
house in God, like the home the dwelling place of
the womb. That's what the logos was incarnate, not her,
not like it was just she was her womb was chosen.
Speaker 2: Now, but we do think that she was raised to
be Queen of Heaven all of the forty five and
Revelation twelve. So if you look at song forty five,
you'll see the queen stands next to the king and
the gold of Ofiir. We think that's Mary the Queen Mother.
And that's a Messianic psalm. So that's an important thing
to understand that we do not have a low view
of Mary, but we don't have the extreme view that
Roman Catholics.
Speaker 34: And we do believe she's sinless in terms of her
will and actions that even prior to the conception that
she said yes. And that's why I said, she's the
great example not.
Speaker 2: Uh what was the word I used?
Speaker 34: I can't remember the rule.
Speaker 33: Almost she's not it's not she's the example.
Speaker 34: Of Yeah, she's the great uh not exception, right, as
if she was given almost a different type of nature
that she couldn't sin. But she's one of us, and
she's the great example in which she said yes to
God and everything, all her actions and and will, and
so that that's a big difference.
Speaker 33: Well, what doesn't sit right with me is so at
my I was married in a Catholic church or nine
years ago, and the priest asked my wife and I
if we wanted to have a statuette and a blessing
to the Fatima, to our lady of Fatima. And I
had no idea what that was at the time. Obviously
I learned a lot, but like so basically I had
a prayer and something going on at my marriage ceremony
for maryan apparition that I had no idea about. So
that's what like heightened my level to it. Looking back
at some of the stuff I participated in not being aware,
and I was just like, what the hell is this?
Speaker 3: So thank you guys. Yeah, good questions.
Speaker 34: Jay, When you all the kind of fanaticism and fascination
with all the apparitions began.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean it's the eighteenth No, it's a no, no, No,
it's wharer than that. I mean, it's really began after
the Schism, because you have a lot of Renaissance and
Medieval era monastics, especially the Franciscans, who start having in
this extreme emphasis on the visions. You've got a whole
bunch in France, You've got a whole bunch in Ireland
over the last several centuries. So no, I don't think
it's a I think it's a of several I mean
even Michael Jones says that the prevalence of the apparitions
in the West the last five hundred years is a
sign of the feminization of the church in the West.
Point Yeah, uh, who are we not going to here, Jacob?
Speaker 3: I'm mute, Jacob, you gotta I mute?
Speaker 2: Yoh Jay? What's up?
Speaker 35: Yes, sir, Hey, wanting to say that I listened to
your Sopranos analysis and I really enjoyed it, especially the impressions.
Speaker 2: Thank you that that one seems to be a favorite
of the movie TV buff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a lot of fun.
Speaker 35: Okay, So I would like, I'm a Protestant, would like
to offer a syllogism and then have you critique it.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well we have a philosopher here too, so he
can help. Yeah, okay, yeah, that's you. Oh okay.
Speaker 35: So it's having to do with predestination. So God knows
all things. Some people are damned inevitably, therefore God predestined.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The mistake is assuming that the knowledge of the thing,
knowing the thing makes God the cause of it. So
the analogy is missing the belief in secondary causes, which
is central to Christian theology. Okay, Also I.
Speaker 34: Would say two, there's uh, there's a category category air
in terms of time and the applying chronological time in
human categories to God. So when we say pre right
or post, these are chronological categories that really don't exist
for God. Sam Augustine says, He's an eternal now. So
this is ties to Jay's point. The reason why you
can say predestines and he knows is because he seen
you do it in his now. There's no pre or
post for God the way it is for us. So
therefore he allows us to determine his knowledge because he's there,
present with us. And so notice it doesn't say predetermined,
it says predestined. That just means there's a destiny goal
which God knows, but it doesn't imply, as Jake pointed out,
the knowledge of that therefore is the cause of that.
So within that there's a lot of kind of category
errors and confusions in terms of the of the terms
and concepts.
Speaker 2: You're reason If I know that my neighbors are, you know,
planning to go rob a bank, and then they go
and do it, my knowing of that does not make
me the cause of it. And that's just an analogy
obviously that would make me, I guess, a collaborator. But
for the sake of the analogy, like, it doesn't mean
that I'm the direct cause because I have knowledge of it,
or you know, or by the accident, by that measure anything, right,
So it's the analogy confusedes like many Calvinist positions do,
the knowing of a thing with me and the direct
cause of the thing. So the decree of God is
not the is not the source of every single event exactly.
I was just going to say.
Speaker 34: Also, notice that what's implicit in the premises and the
kind of the framing of that syllogism is occasionally yeah,
so there's a lot of errors that are that are
implicit within.
Speaker 2: Why did you call it? He's saying that it could
lead to the Calvinist and Islamic position of occasionalism. Occasionalism
is a position that there's no secondary causes and that
God is the direct cause of every single event. In fact,
it's so extreme that not even one thing causes another thing.
So in other words, one billiard ball hitting another billiard
ball literally has no direct connection or correlation. Occasionalists believe
that at every second God is destroying and recreating the world,
and that removes all forms of secondary causation. So, for example,
Jonathan Edwards, the famous Calvinist, was an occasionalist, and most
Sunia Muslims are occasionalists. Also, Calvinism destroys Christology, and so
if you become a hardcore Calvinist, you will not be
able to maintain the two wills, too energies and two
natures in Christ and so you have to end up
in some kind of monothelitism or monoargism.
Speaker 34: Also knowledge, knowledge and truth, because if you think about
their arguments and their positions exactly the same as a
determinist materialist, in which case, if everything simply caused by
God in order to preserve his sovereignty, then there's nothing
true or false.
Speaker 3: They're just events.
Speaker 34: And second of all, anybody that knows anything knows that
even if you could get to truth, if you could
establish something like that in a worldview, certainly being caused
to have a true belief is not knowledge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would say too, like in the in
the Muslim position, because Allah is the best of deceivers.
One of the reasons that they would come to that
conclusion is precisely that he's the direct cause of every
evil and deception in the world, So that would make
him the best of deceivers, as the Kuran says.
Speaker 34: And furthermore, and this applies to the Calvinist model as well,
because even the elect can be given over to a
reprobate mind. And if God's the cause of all things,
then he could cause you to believe that calvin Is
sounds true and it's in fact false, which is a
defeat for Calvinists.
Speaker 2: That's pretty simple. But the theater for Islam too, and
people have actually argued in academic papers that that's a
way to refute Islam. G H was up, Hello, mister
direc can hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 10: Okay, all right, so.
Speaker 36: The gentleman, a couple of callers ago talking about, you know,
the Christian state had something to do with that. I
know that's not exactly the calling card, all right, So
you know, I've I've been a listener of yours.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 36: You know, I understand that you're a monarchist, but do
you believe that there would have to be sort of a.
Speaker 2: Ground swell.
Speaker 37: Of conversions to Orthodoxy in a given area order for
that to be viable.
Speaker 2: Yes, Is that a fair assessment of your view?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 37: Okay, Well, I guess I'm mean exploring that. I mean,
if hypothetically, in a country, even just a region of
a country, there was instability and there was a vanguard party,
you know, of people who were committed Orthodox monarchists, who
had the blessing of the local clergy, even if the
majority of the population was an Orthodox, would that be
wrong to you know, seize power.
Speaker 2: I guess I don't think any Orthodox clergy would do
that unless they were moved or prompted by some sort
of infiltrated you know, infiltration of some you know, CIA
or FED group or something like that.
Speaker 3: That's the only way that would happen. Uh.
Speaker 2: I've never heard of clergy talking about taking up arms
to overthrow a government.
Speaker 37: Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily frame it as that,
But there's a vacuum, and you know, we could have
a Fukuyamas liberal state, we could have a Marxist state,
or we could have an Orthodox state if we mobilize
fast enough.
Speaker 10: You know, if that sort.
Speaker 3: Of question, I'm going to move on ming again.
Speaker 29: Hello, I think I'm in I was just wondering if
you've read The Rise and Fall of the Papacy and
if you think it's a good book.
Speaker 3: Uh, who wrote that one?
Speaker 2: Craig Krublia.
Speaker 3: No, not read it? No, so fire? What's up?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 3: Jay?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 38: Yeah, I'll try to make this quick because I know
I'm on a lot, but I have a few friends
who are atheist and they have this like line they
almost kind of repeat, and I'd be happy for in
and Eyes to weigh in on this. But universalism is
kind of like a hell they want to die on
where they say Christianity can only be true if universalism
is true. No, I know you've engaged with this in
the past, but like, how should I really like persuade
someone right against universalism.
Speaker 2: I've never heard this argument that atheists think that Christianity
necessitates universalism.
Speaker 3: I've never heard this.
Speaker 10: Are you familiar?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not saying it's not true.
Speaker 2: I'm to say or that they're not an argument just
like it's a weird line of argumentation for an atheist
to say, like your position has to be this.
Speaker 34: I can kind of speculate generally how they argue from
kind of almost like a theodicy or something.
Speaker 10: I'll say this much.
Speaker 38: I don't mean to interrupt at all, but like what
I usually hear is that they don't think.
Speaker 10: It's like fitting with a just God.
Speaker 38: Right, Like they see, how is this like the most
horrific idea ever conceivable, as like Chris Vernchins puts it,
and they think like, well.
Speaker 10: If Christianity were true.
Speaker 38: Then like I'm just going to drop this whole hell concept. Right,
they don't think it's compatible with omnib benevolence. Now what
should I say to really talk them out of it?
Speaker 2: Because well, I don't understand why we're supposed to be
bound by the claims and assertions of an atheist as
to what Christianity must mean. They need to demonstrate why
that's the case, Why does Christian theology necessitate universalism? And
usually they'll probably appeal to something like well, it's just
not fair. Well, the position is not that God arbitrarily
picks and damns people. That's Calvinism. So maybe they're responding
to Calvinism. I don't know, but I mean, we also
don't have I don't think the Latin medieval idea of
like a literal lake of fire. Lake of fire is
the river of life. It's the energies of God that
torment the wicked. So maybe they need to get a
better conception of what we think as Orthodox and not
like a Protestants.
Speaker 34: So I was just gonna say, too, they're going to
take all these words good, armory, benevolence, justice, and they're
going to have their own meanings of it that they're
going to try to impose on. So, like Jay was saying,
you just question them on that, like outside of an
Orthodox paradigm, how are you going to be able to
justify those and define those properly?
Speaker 2: Dan?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 39: Jay, I'm here to debate about some stuff that I
don't really know anything about.
Speaker 2: So I'm here company because pretty much everybody last three
days we've done that.
Speaker 39: So yeah, No, I just had a question. I heard
you were going to get together with Sam Shamoun and
William Albreck. Is that still happening?
Speaker 2: No, because nobody in my circles wants to interact with
William Albreck, And so what I suggested to Sam was
one on one, separate presentations because I also do not
have any interest in direct interactions with William Albret because
he's such a slimy, ridiculous character.
Speaker 3: Okay, but did you like to bring any of his
arguments here? I'm happy to address them.
Speaker 39: I don't even know what his arguments are. I like
to watch. I like to watch when he probably face Protestants.
But it's I just thought that it would be cool
to see you and him in a room. But I
didn't know about the slime. I don't know if there's
any is there anywhere he can direct me to that
would show me that you know, he's.
Speaker 2: Not He gave he gave Lofton my phone number, and
then Lofton sent.
Speaker 3: Me his phone number.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, okay, Chase, what's up.
Speaker 3: A mute?
Speaker 2: Chase?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it took a second this time. That's funny.
Speaker 40: And I heard unmute and I was waiting for it
to like connect. I just wanted to say, I remember.
I think it was like a year, maybe a year
and a half, maybe even two years ago. William Albreck
was in a chat on one of Jay's streams, literally
challenging him to a fight, saying J ways like one
hundred and fifty pounds, soaking wet, all this stuff and
just talking about beating up Jay and it's just funny.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I shot at it and then he said
he never said it's he's a completely liar.
Speaker 4: Yep, yep, And it's just it's just funny. It's That's
all I wanted.
Speaker 40: To say, is these people are goofy, non serious people.
He never threatens people. He'll threaten their worldview, and I
refute it. But William Albrick, did you see Brice in
the day?
Speaker 10: Will I will spile with you anytime. Let's Fox, Let's Fox.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Wait wait, wait what da is?
Speaker 2: Wait?
Speaker 10: What dad is?
Speaker 3: So when Bryson loses it debate, he wants to fight basically.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just wanted to bring that up.
Speaker 3: That's all I got. I'll pop out.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to all. Brick's just a goofy person.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm surprised that really anybody think. But I think
a lot of people don't know, like any of the background.
And you know, it's just like Lofton. I think over time,
Lofton eventually became his own worst enemy. He ran everybody
off and because he was so nasty, like what does
he get? Like, I don't know eighty fifty people on
his live streames. I haven't kept up with him, but
I mean, nobody talks about Lofton anymore because he's his
own worst enemy. And so you just give these guys
enough time and all Brick will do the same thing.
Speaker 3: Leonel.
Speaker 41: Hello, Jay, how's it going?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 41: So, I've been a Christian for about five months, and
I understand the criticism of a penal substitutionary atonement because
of the divine will. So I was wondering, if the
atonement's not substitutionary, how does atonement work in Orthodox theology.
Speaker 2: Well, it depends on what a person means by the phrases,
because you could argue that Orthodox Christian theology has a
form of substitution and a there is a legal penal
component tument to it, but it is not the Protestant doctrine,
because the Protestant doctrine, if you're consistent with it, is
anti trinitarian because it says that the sun was damned
in order to take the penalty for us, and it's
a purely legal transaction, which is not at all didn't
exist in the ancient world. That's why you had to
have nominalism come first before you could have a purely
legal status of righteousness. You can read Haiko Oberman's book
on that where he talks about how nobody had this
conception of a purely legal status until Gabriel Bile Liam
of Oakham, and that's what influenced Luthor to be able
to say that God could declare you righteous when you're
in fact wicked. So that's all read into the text
of Paul. And that's why nobody in the church up
until Luther taught a purely nominal legal status of righteousness.
So the anti trinitarian element and the nominalism element pretty
much just destroys that. Yeah, I understand that. I understand that.
Speaker 41: All right, Do you have any recommendations for books on
like iconoclasm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would read St.
Speaker 2: Theodore the studites little book on the Holy Images, and
I would read John Damascus's book Defense the Holy Icons.
Both of those books are very small, they're not very long.
Speaker 3: It's up and for him.
Speaker 2: If anybody wants to request to speak, come on to debate.
I ask you a question, present an argument. Feel free
to do so. You can have the mic, just keep
it to the topics, keep it to argumentation. Larry, I'm.
Speaker 42: Yes, sir, uh, this isn't really on topic day, but Uh,
if I'm a Christian, I've been one for a little while,
and there's a question that's been bothering me.
Speaker 3: Well, if it's not on topic, what's up?
Speaker 2: Why do some people claim.
Speaker 3: Alex what's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Hello?
Speaker 3: Hey man, Hey, what's up? Quick question for you. So
I was talking to a Roman.
Speaker 43: Catholic and he was trying to tell me that ascribing
potentiala to God is giving God a future, which violates God.
Speaker 2: Being outside of space and time.
Speaker 43: I'm just curious your rebut to that.
Speaker 2: No, it's giving God free will, meaning that God doesn't
have to actualize every possible world or every possible thing
that he knows of. So if God really has free will,
then he's free to create. And in that sense, there's
a quote. Potential in God does not mean that God
undergoes change, although Roman Catholics and Thomas sometimes will struggle
to explain, how did he go from creating from not
creating to creating if there is no change quote unquote,
So you can just simply ask the Roman Catholic, well,
as as doctor Bradshaw asked Tomashevsky in their discussion, well
did he go from not creating to creating?
Speaker 3: And did the introduce a change.
Speaker 43: Okay, cool. And they also they also like to say
that because God goes from you know, not actualzing something
to actualizing something, that to them seems like an imperfection
in some way.
Speaker 3: I don't I don't understand that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, yeah, if God is perfect and his
existence and operations and actions are identical to his essence,
then there can't be creating when before that there was
no creating. So that's why it's called the modal collapse argument,
because the modal collapse argument leads to the idea that
there's an eternal emanation of creating, right, gotcha? Okay?
Speaker 43: And then one last thing, real quick, I didn't know this.
I just figured this out talking to a Roman Catholic.
They say that there's no real distinction between the persons
in the essence.
Speaker 2: Is that that is correct?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: Thomas Aquana says that, how is that not? Just like,
well again, it should lead to modalism, correct, Okay? Well yeah,
because they're heterodox. So we've had this debate probably a
thousand times for.
Speaker 3: The last ten years.
Speaker 2: Anybody else is upenfmous you want to come on to
ask a question. Topics are evangelical dispensationalism, Zionism, Catholicism, Hebrew Roots, Muslims, Calvinists,
non denominational Mormonism, Mormonism. Anybody want to come on a hit,
request to speak, and you'll be given the microphone and
you can make an argument, you can ask a question,
you can do whatever you want. If you disagree, if
you agree, just keep it to the topics. Please.
Speaker 3: It's not catechumen f a night.
Speaker 2: So if you have disagreements, if you have comments, osmotic,
I'm your.
Speaker 3: Hey, what's up? Jay?
Speaker 2: Hey? Father?
Speaker 44: Than I is yesterday you had you had a conversation
with that fellow and he was speaking about, you know,
kind of stationalism. And then you would also mention something
called the Milner Circle, which I wasn't familiar with, and.
Speaker 2: I was kind of wondering through a tragedy and hope
and through the Yowan Roti books at least that ran
the British Empire, Lord Milner, Cecil Rhoads, Lord Rachel.
Speaker 44: Yeah, and so like is you know, what's the what's
the Is there like a Jewish involvement in the you know,
because it's like the dual Covenant theology kind of playing
a pretty significant Uh, you know, it's carrying a lot
of weight.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean we've covered that every time it's come up
in the last three days.
Speaker 44: Yeah, okay, yeah, but yes.
Speaker 2: So Lord Rachel was a Jew and he was behind
the Balfour Declaration. Correct, Anthony, anybody else, that's open for
him if you'd like to come to the head of
the line. I wish that wine mom will come back
in here, that drunk wine Mom.
Speaker 3: She was fun.
Speaker 2: All right, Anthony, you're having a hard time connecting, so
come out, come back in. So it's open for any dispensationalists.
Anybody else. We'll go to sidekick Johnny and then too.
Speaker 3: In defiance.
Speaker 2: Hey, what up, Jake?
Speaker 4: Can you here?
Speaker 1: Sir?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 45: I just what's what you guys have been talking about.
I think there's a lot of listeners not aware the
book got called The Armageddon Deception by Michael Sullivan.
Speaker 3: I'm not familiar with the book. Well, it talks.
Speaker 45: About why why they can't be peace in the Middle
East until we figure out what's wrong, and with the
deception of the Holy Land and all that good stuff,
but goes into the whole seventy a d stuff, And
I just think your listeners would I'll.
Speaker 2: Take a look at that. Appreciate that. Raven Naws. I
forgot Tyranny will go to you next. I'm mute, Raven Naws,
do you want to talk?
Speaker 3: I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Got there yet with up? Hello? Yell with up man
ud all right, moving on cool.
Speaker 46: I just didn't know if you've ever heard of Jacob Hanson.
Speaker 3: Don't think so.
Speaker 2: Who's up He's been getting.
Speaker 46: A little bit of popularity with he's a Mormon apologist.
He would did the little full circle with that atheist
kid cosmic skeptic fella.
Speaker 7: But he's one that's kind.
Speaker 46: Of probably I would say top tier for Mormon apologists,
which isn't just saying too much. But I'd be interested
if you would challenge him on the debate.
Speaker 2: Well, he can come in here if you'd like to,
and you just send him the the link to come debate.
Speaker 3: Raven Naws, what's up?
Speaker 2: Un mute? Nobody knows how they do a Twitter space?
Speaker 3: Are real? Camine?
Speaker 2: I mean, hey, Jay, I got two questions.
Speaker 47: So the first question is pretending to like uh Zionism?
Speaker 7: Is so?
Speaker 47: I the church that I'm in, I'm in acquired for
orthodoxy right now and the church.
Speaker 10: That I'm leaving.
Speaker 47: Is I got onest modalism and stuff like that. Besides that,
they're like hardcore Zionists. And I asked them like, well,
do the Jews have salvation? And I don't know the
exact verse, but they say where our salvation comes from
the Jews? Like our salvation is of the Jews, and
they pretty much that's their foundation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that just means that because Jesus is the
product of the entire Old Testament period, that he is
the source of that salvation.
Speaker 3: Gotcha?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 2: Cool?
Speaker 47: And then the second question I have because I was
not debating, because I'm not I can't really be an
apologist for Orthodoxy yet, but this is against my Catholic friend.
He was saying, well, Orthodoxy doesn't have that much of
an outreach when it comes to evangelia, you know.
Speaker 2: Like I can go check out Ubi Petris's videos. He's
made two videos on that topic on what Orthodox evangelism is.
So a lot of Protestants equate quote evangelism with whatever
goofy nonsense that they do. That's not what the Orthodox
Church conceives of evangelism, as it's much more in depth
and more you know, it's a three year catechumen, a
period anywhere from one to three years. So tracks and
yapping on the street corner is not evangelism, all right, sop,
And for him if he wants to hop on, if
you would like to request to speak, you can. I'll
bring you up. If you're a Muslim, if you're Hebrew Roots,
if you're a Rumman Catholic, if you're an Evangelical, if
you're a dispensationalist, if you are a Christian Zionist, if
you are a Hebrew Roots Black, Heber Israelite, if you
are a Mormon, if you are a all the hecks
just human that all the secks, We'll just say, any
sect you can go to the head of line. If
you're a Roman Catholic papist, if you're a Calvinist, if
you're a Lutheran, hit request to speak and I'll bring
you up. We've still got four hundred people in here,
which is pretty crazy, and nobody out of this foreigner
people wants to come up here and chat, wants the debate,
wants to ask questions, wants to present a position, prove
your protestantism, give us an argument. I'm glad we got
a couple of big fish in here to totally melt
down like Donnie dark In.
Speaker 3: That guy's ridiculous. Uh, Ryan, what's up?
Speaker 2: I'm your.
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 12: I just wanted to discuss with you. The Council of
are the Synod of Black Grene twelve eighty five, the
procession of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 3: Okay, why do you want to discuss that?
Speaker 12: Do you think that it's somehow adverse to the teaching
of the Philioquay?
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the purpose of the councils to refute
the philioquez So yes, in a what way?
Speaker 3: Are you being serious?
Speaker 2: Are you joking? What do you mean? In what way?
Speaker 44: Like?
Speaker 2: The entire council exists to respond to the Council Lions.
Speaker 3: So what do you mean?
Speaker 12: Well, it says very paricle shines from and is manifest.
Speaker 2: Called that's called eternal manifestation. That's a rejection of the
dual dual eternal procession.
Speaker 12: How is that?
Speaker 2: That's literally the meaning of the council and its purpose.
It's called the Orthodox doctrine of eternal manifestation. And the
purpose of explicating that by Gregory of Cyprus was to
refute the Council of Lions in the West teaching of
double eternal Hypostidic procession. You could read Crisis and Byzantium
by Papa Doocus's whole book on it. Are you familiar
with the Palamas's book on this topic.
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 2: Not, so he wrote Apidictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit.
The whole book is about the theology of this council
and it calls the Latin doctrine from Satan.
Speaker 12: Interesting. So do you think that the fact that you
have four popes that are saints is a problem for you?
Speaker 3: Or why would that be problem?
Speaker 12: Do you think that those popes did not see themselves
as popes?
Speaker 2: Again, are you the guy that called in here before
with absolutely no knowledge of these topics trying to argue
with me on this?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 2: Why would the Orthodox Church believing in multiple There's far
more than four popes who are saints in the Orthodox Church.
There's probably dozens in the first thousand years.
Speaker 3: Why would that be a problem with the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 12: Why don't you have a pope today?
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, Yeah, you are that guy. We have
fourteen of them.
Speaker 12: Yeah, do you know what a pope is?
Speaker 2: Are you trolling? You can't be serious.
Speaker 12: I think you're trolling.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm trying.
Speaker 2: I know. I bet you money. I know the Roman
Kelly position better than you two. Yeah, I mean, do
you want Vatican One's definition of the papacy. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 12: Let's go what does Peter mean?
Speaker 2: Okay, what does Peter mean?
Speaker 3: Good job, dude. This is that guy who was in
here last time doing the same stuff.
Speaker 34: You know, you know each bishop is Peter.
Speaker 2: He's this is the guy doesn't know anything. He thinks
that if we think that there's a pope that where
Roman Catholics like, it's that he did the same thing
like a few months ago.
Speaker 3: So it's not it's not even worth You can't get
anywhere with that guy. He's almost like misfit patriot level stuff.
Speaker 2: So because he literally did exact same thing like six
months ago, all right, it's hoping for him. If you're
a Christian, Zionist and evangelical, dispensationalist, a Roman Catholic, a papist,
Hebrew roots professor, if you are a Muslim, if you
are a charismatic Pentecostal, you can come to the head
of the line. A geomancer, a geomancer, a divant, a divener.
If you're a necromancer, a sorcerer. If you play Dungeons
and Dragons, you go to the head of the line.
You can be our our dungeon master. Tonight, just hit
request to speak and I'll bring you up. Man, I
gotta there's some It seems like sometimes you can find
like the perfect trigger code to bring in like the
wildest people. So I think when you put.
Speaker 34: All war Hammer.
Speaker 2: No, when you put I'm saying like when you put
in the title like Muslim, Islam, Tate, Evangelical, Zionism, dispensation,
like you get some wild ones. Same thing happened when
we were talking about icons Remember that we were talking
about iconography for a while and we're getting like the crazies.
That was awesome. Man, I forgot about that now I know.
Speaker 3: Out of this.
Speaker 2: Group, here we go, here's our civil Roman Catholic aion.
Speaker 3: Nina.
Speaker 30: Yeah. When I wanted to speak to you at the
very beginning, one of my questions was, is there any
way you can narrow the title of the space, actually,
because I wasn't sure what the parameters were. So, you know,
it might be that people are just they're almost overwhelmed
sometimes when you have too many choices, you know, how
that is, you don't know how to focus in on
what you really want to ask or say, So I
don't know, random thought that maybe that's what's going on.
But if I were to ask you another question, and
for all of you, there's been discussion of Zionism tonight,
and that's also in the title. But for me personally,
and again, I'm a woman, but I was very distraught
by the events on October seventh, and I at the
time happened to be a nanny working for taking care
of a Jewish baby who I had become very close to,
and the mom would be crying all the time with
the news on in the background. She was literally terrified.
You know, I would be kissing this baby constantly. It
was just it was a very visceral reaction. And since then,
I've a lot of sympathy with the Palestinians and with Gaza,
which almost seems like a sympathy for Hamas, and of
course we've seen that with all the marching in the
streets and all of that. So for me, it's more
about what side are people on who do they think
are really pro violence and pro torture and the unjust
treatment of women and children. And who do they think
are maybe fighting back or in self defense.
Speaker 2: Now, now we've covered this, I've lectured on the entire
history of.
Speaker 4: This whole conflict.
Speaker 30: I'm sorry, I think I.
Speaker 2: Have a YouTube lecture on this topic. We've covered this
topic for the last three nights extensively, and tonight's topic
is not about modern nation state of Israel. It's called
Christian Zionism in the sense of dispensationalism, because many Evangelicals
are dispensationalists who believe that there's some sort of covenant
that's dual or separate or continuing to exist for the
modern a.
Speaker 3: Fust nation state of Israel.
Speaker 2: None of that has anything to do with the Christian
covenants in the sense of Jesus being the fulfillment of
those covenants. The history of Hamas and Israel and all
that is a big, long rabbit hole, which again we've
we've done separate topics just on that. But no, I
would say this is a false dialectic an Orthodox Christian,
if anything, is concerned with the two percent or so
of the Orthodox Christians in Palestine.
Speaker 3: That's about it.
Speaker 2: So, and I think there are also Uni eight Palestinians
as well, and they are persecuted by the Likud side
of the state of Israel.
Speaker 15: I See, okay, well with has no.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just I'm in agreeing with you that I
would we would not be pro Hamas at all, Savio.
Speaker 48: Yeah, hey ja, this is a quest question regarding dispensationalism,
regarding the verse that most of these Gubers bring up
when they bring up first Tessalonians four sixteen, where it says,
this is a time in which believers will meet the
Lord in the ear.
Speaker 4: What is the orthodox interpretation of this?
Speaker 2: That's just the second Advent. There's no reason to think
that there's that in any way, is some delineated quote
pre tribulation, rapture moment. The quote rapture just is the
general resurrection.
Speaker 3: At the end of time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's actually a great question because like you
literally have these Protestant evangelicals who like read all of
this stupid John Hagey Schofield Darby's system into like a
few verses, I kid you not. Like one of their
other verses is that I was in the spirit on
the Lord's Day and I saw into heaven. I was
caught up in the spirit. Right, So they actually think
that when John says that he sees into heaven, that's
a type of the rapture, and that since John seas
into heaven before the events of the Book of Revelation,
that's quote proof of the pre tribulation.
Speaker 49: I want to add too, if you go to.
Speaker 19: Uh you see.
Speaker 3: Him pull it up real quick.
Speaker 34: One will be working in the field and caught up.
Right where what that's actually talking about. That's not even
about the end time. It's talking about your death, your
individual death, that which is what we should all be
focusing on. Right That one will be working in the
field and then caught up means they'll die. You'll be dead,
and the other one will be left behind. It doesn't
mean that there's a rapture.
Speaker 3: The wait a minute, you said left behind.
Speaker 2: So you're teaching the left Behind series from.
Speaker 34: One is working in the field?
Speaker 2: I think it's in Luke, but it is in the
He does mention like the days of Noah. And that's
why people assume that the Days of Noah refers necessarily
then to the end of the world. And there could
be some aschological context because yeah, first That'thonius does say
that we will be caught up in the in the
clouds to meet the Lord. But it's it's a reference
to the bodily advent of the second Coming.
Speaker 49: Wow, Jay here here you are wrong again.
Speaker 2: It's Matthew see there.
Speaker 3: Well no, it's in lou too, So.
Speaker 7: Well, okay, is it?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 49: Then two men will be in the field, one will
be taken in the other left, two women will be
grinding the mill. I mean, the most obvious. Watch therefore,
for you do not know what our the Lord is coming.
So I think you're right. I think it's talking about
immediate death, and there's an eschological element to that. But
obviously two men working in the field and one's going
to you never know you remember, you fool, your your
life will be taken a record this day. So yeah, anyways,
I just thought i'd just asked.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the the Luke passages.
Speaker 3: Where's the Lake passage. That's not what I'm looking for.
Let's see, I just had it pulled up here.
Speaker 34: I think it's probably Luke twenty three.
Speaker 2: Let me find it.
Speaker 3: Let's see Luke Luke twenty seven.
Speaker 2: What does that one say.
Speaker 10: Luke twenty one seven.
Speaker 2: Cause that text just says that many men's hearts will
be failing for fear, looking at the signs, the powers
that heaven will be shaken. They will see the Son
of Man coming, glory and the clouds. So maybe maybe
maybe it's Luke's Oh it's Luke seventeen. Excuse me, where
it says the same passage in Matthew about being taken.
Speaker 3: Let me pull up Lo seventeen seventeen thirty four.
Speaker 2: Says two men will be in one bed, one shall
be taken, the other be left. Two men will be
women grinding, And they say where will that be? Lord,
wherever the body is that the eagles will be gathered.
So he says, remember Lot's wife, Yeah, oh, I see, Yeah,
this is the because he talks about the days of
Noah and Lot's wife. All the evangelicals assume, oh, well,
that's the end of the world, right, because they think
the days this actually proves your point. Right. So in
verse twenty six, when it says, as it was in
the days of Noah, so shall it be in the
days of the Son of Man, all the evangelicals think, well,
the days of the Sun of Man is the end
of the world and pre tribulation rapture, right, No, no, no,
The days of the Son of Man is the church age.
That's why Jesus brought the last days when he came
in his first advt Yeah, so that actually heard your point, Ronaldo.
Remember that we talked about what we talked about with
the guy last night, Sovereign Broad when he called in.
Speaker 3: Remember it says in.
Speaker 2: Joel what one and two says, I will pour out
my spirit upon all fleshs in.
Speaker 3: The last days.
Speaker 2: And if you look in the Book of Accent Acts two,
that's interpreted to be Pentecost. So Pentecost is the last days,
because the entire church era is the last days.
Speaker 50: Ronaldo, I'm you, Ronaldo, I'm mute. Do you want to talk?
I guess not.
Speaker 2: All right, it's open for him for any of the
related topics of dispensationalism, Evangelical Zionism, Roman Catholicism, Hebrew Roots, Mormons, Muslims, Calvinists, Protestants, Papists.
I can't even remember all the groups. If you'd like
to make an argument, if you'd like to hop on,
ask a question, you can just keep it to the topics. Please.
We have multiple, multiple people not keeping it to the topics,
so it's kind of a pet peeve. When you do that,
So that would mean so, like she said, if this
is confusing, if you do not agree with the Orthodox
Church position, that's any of you, even atheists. It doesn't
unlist atheists, but we'll expand into atheists if you want.
Speaker 10: If you're.
Speaker 3: A Mormon, if you're a.
Speaker 2: Hebrew Roots, black heberus Alites, where you all at, Nathan Hines.
Speaker 3: I'm mute, Nathan.
Speaker 2: It's mystifying to me when people don't know how to
work the spaces, like it's no one does this.
Speaker 3: I don't understand.
Speaker 2: Like I see spaces going on NonStop all day on
Twitter and people don't know how this works. You just
hit request to speak and then you unmute.
Speaker 3: Nathan. Do you want to talk? You have to unmute.
Speaker 51: Oh I'm sorry, my apology, sir. Hey, look man, I've
been listening to you for years on Alex Jones, and
I just want to let you know that I really
appreciate your education, prowess and your whole just everything you say.
I'm just like I just nose dive into and I
appreciate you, man. And my thought process is this whole
Muslim like nightmare that's been going on over in Europe
for the past like fifteen years that it seems to
be leaking out over here. At what point in time
do the American people really wake up to realize that
this is against Christian values. And thank you for listening.
I appreciate your brother. You take care of yourself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I underestimated the usefulness of Islam to
the global elite, and they would flood the West, even
America with the Muslim So, you know, only in the
last say, six years of debating Muslims extensively, have I
really understood a lot more about Islam and how just
preposterous it is.
Speaker 3: It's just it's just such.
Speaker 2: A low I mean, I'm being nice when I say
it's like a low IQ cult. I mean you have
to be really really do just like last night's evangelical
zionis that you have to be equally as dumb like
that guy to believe in this stuff because there's just
so much historical, biblical evidence against any of it. I mean,
we had Muslims for six hours a few months ago,
none of whom could restate what a hypothetical is. And
I'm not trying to be mean, And you can call
it racist or whatever you want. But I mean, it's
kind of like Joe's Witnesses, Like these groups dupe really
simplistic people and so they fall for.
Speaker 3: You know, Trinid did not make sense more God than one,
you know, this kind of stuff. So I don't know
what to say.
Speaker 2: I mean, and I say that because, like it should
be obvious that if the Quran says that you can
confirm the Qoran on the basis of prior revelation, and
the revelation contradicts the Koran, then the Quran is false, right,
because the prior revelation takes precedence over the new revelation.
But the new revelation contradicts the prior and then Muslims
can't figure out why that's a circle or why that's
a contradiction. And they can't even I'd say ninety nine
percent of them. They can't even restate what the argument is.
You have to get to like doctor Khalil, who has
a PhD. But at least he understands it. It's a
very simple argument, but for some reason there is some
sort of mental spiritual block going on.
Speaker 3: I think ultimately it is spiritual.
Speaker 2: It's hope and for them, if you have a question,
if you have a comment, if you'd like to make
an argument. If you disagree, you can come to the headline.
Anyone that disagrees comes to the headline. Hit request is
being to bring you up, and you can make an argument.
Speaker 3: You can ask a question.
Speaker 2: Do it all. We're looking for anybody who believes in Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Dispensationalism,
Roman Catholicism, Papists, Muslims.
Speaker 3: Black keeper, Israelites, Hebrew roots. Uh.
Speaker 2: If you believe in om Shinriko cult out of Japan.
If you believe in Jim Jones's People's Temple, you can
go to that line. If you believe in Heaven's Gate,
we got any heaven Marshall Apple White followers.
Speaker 49: Were they actually somebody told me they were actually vegan?
Speaker 4: Is that true?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: That's a good question, Okay, I bet Rock would know.
Do you want me to ask Groc here? Groc does
all of my theology for me? Like, yeah, that's right.
I don't even have to think anymore. I think, thank you, Grok,
thank you Groc.
Speaker 3: I just literally asked him.
Speaker 2: I'm ready for the audible version, so I don't even
have to type anything. I can just ask him Heaven's
Gate I believe in?
Speaker 3: Did you say vegan or vegetarian?
Speaker 34: I said vegan, but okay, I don't.
Speaker 2: Might have been vegetarian, did have Evian's Gate? Believe in vegetarianism.
Speaker 3: Let's see what Grox says.
Speaker 2: According to Electronic Elon Musk, they do not explicitly center
their beliefs around vegetarianism as a court doctrine, but it
did emphasize detachment from the body. Some of their beliefs
and practices hint at vegetarianism. For example, the final meal
together before their mass suicide was a non meat Wait, no,
it was meat, consisted of supposedly turkey pop pie.
Speaker 3: Of course it could have.
Speaker 2: Been like like beyond meat or something.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 34: You should ask Groc if Grock's planning to do an
abomination of desolation?
Speaker 3: Whatever say?
Speaker 2: Can you lay out for me a John Hagen prophecy
chart which which predicts the end of the world and
exactly on what day?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I forget, I forget about Bahai. I remember
the Bahai faith that's behind we did have. We did
have one Bahai guy calling one time.
Speaker 2: And the Moonies. Aren't there any Moonies?
Speaker 10: Left.
Speaker 3: Do they still exist?
Speaker 2: I don't know. Oh, mooneyes, did you know did you
hear the whole fracush yesterday for the deacon with that
guy we were debating. Yeah? Did you see that? He
was reading the notes and it said to th h
that someone gave him and he thought that was too
theologians when it was second this Lennans, Oh yeah, I
joked with my wife. I'm like, did he just say
too theologians? Yes, I'm like, that's hilarious. There was something
else that people in the chat caught was rewatching some
of the clips today which I didn't catch.
Speaker 3: In the midst of the debate. I didn't catch him.
Speaker 2: I forget what it was, but he said something else
that didn't catch, but that was pretty wild. Anybody want
to come on here, request to speak, and you'll come
up to the head of line. If you want to
ask a question, you can. I guess we just open
up to any topics since nobody else seems to be
coming on. We still have about four hundred people, which
is bigger than my X space is usually good. Any questions, comments, disagreements.
Speaker 20: Damon, Hello, yes, sir, Hey, hey Joy, how are you?
I found you? Do like you and Sam's debate on
fresh and fits. Sorry, but I'm basically I'm in a
country called Bermuda, and we don't have any like Orthodox church,
and I grew up non denominational. But I'm basically trying
to explore, you know, which denomination I want to choose,
but there's no Orthodox Church here and I know you're Orthodox,
And what do you suggest I do?
Speaker 3: Like, yeah, that's a good question. In fact, Tristan had
to deal with this.
Speaker 2: Tristan has had to travel I think eight hours to
get baptized by a Serbian priest in Ecuador or north
of Ecuador. So you might have to reach out to
the nearest Orthodox church and be catechized through the priests
remotely and arrange a baptism, which they will do. And
Tristan is a shining example of that.
Speaker 3: Skeeter.
Speaker 52: Oh, and then my phone messed up.
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 52: So I wanted to first just say, you know, I
enjoy all the videos, but with my parents who are Evangelical,
you know, Christian, and I am orthodoged Uh. One of
the biggest things that was talked about last night with
like what a Jew is? They usually say it's the
whatever the Rabbinical Jews say. So they say it's usually
matrilinal descent, right, you know. And I said, then what
do we do about Messianic Jews? And they're like, well,
they're just Jews that believe in Jesus. And I'm like,
but do they have any of the traditions and everything.
He's like, well, yeah, kind of, and they choose and
I'm like, and I guess my favorite thing to call
them is really Protestants and drag There's only one way
to explain it.
Speaker 17: How would you.
Speaker 52: Without going too deep in the theology, I guess, but
like on a surface level, explain that the because my
dad always makes it an argument instead of like just
a discussion. How would you, like, surface level explain that, yes,
there are Jews, the true Israel is the Church without
like I guess something that might be a conflict.
Speaker 2: Well, there is a conflict there, because the that's the
only one that counts for anything. So I mean, that's
Paul's point is that even though they might be still
able to be called Jews in the sense of Abraham's
biological descendants, their enemies of the Gospel unless they repent.
So there is a conflict there, and there's no way
to remove that conflict without removing the cross which christ where,
which Paul says, is an offense to those who disagree Christopher.
What's up, hey, Jay? Can you hear me? Yes, sir, Hey,
what's going on?
Speaker 19: Man?
Speaker 53: Congratulations on that freaking SmackDown yesterday?
Speaker 10: That was hilarious.
Speaker 53: Second theologians, That's like, was absolutely ridiculous. I didn't even
catch that the first time.
Speaker 2: That was I also think that when I said Apostolic college,
I thought he was joking, But upon review, I think
he really thought I was saying, like the Apostles went
to college. No, yeah, he thought you were dumb.
Speaker 34: He was thinking this guy's an idiot.
Speaker 2: And yeah, he didn't even know what the term epistolic
college meant. That is so funny.
Speaker 53: That was That was a good little Everybody was just
riffing on that joke right there.
Speaker 12: That was hilarious.
Speaker 23: That's gonna that's gonna go down in the history books.
Speaker 2: Did you see how mad he was today with all
the crazy stuff he was saying.
Speaker 53: He was so mad and he's just coping, right, And
that's I wanted to ask you about Christian Zionism because
I am a catech human in the antiochan Orthodox parish,
and I came from an Evangelical church that was heavily Zionist,
and something that I never even knew when I was
going to that church was that the things in the
tal Mood that are so anti Christian. And what I
wanted to know from you is is that even is
that a good point when talking to Christian Zionists to
bring up the Talmud and all the anti Christian statements
that are in it, or.
Speaker 2: Is that a relevant point? I would actually say that
if you get the book by who's actually Jewish scholars.
Name's Peter Schaeffer, and he's actually one of the many
modern Jewish theologians who has admitted, for example, that the
Old Testament is not Unitarian, that it teaches a multiplicity
of persons in God. Schaeffer has a book called Jesus
in the Talmud, and it's an academic text from Princeton.
So that's useful in this debate because it's obviously not
since it's written by a Jewish guy and it's from
an academic publisher. It's not a conspiracy text. So it's
a lot harder for people to say because Chapter eight
is about jesus punishment in hell in the Talmud.
Speaker 3: So that's all true. But the thing is that