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