Speaker 1: Up in that tree?
Speaker 2: What you doing up there?
Speaker 1: Why you scared?
Speaker 3: Why you run it from the red bad You ran
from Manto and from me man till the monkeys like
their female monkeysmith the bananas between the trees hanging down
upside down. That's a smile. Si, No tell a monkey
what you doing to me? Till until a monkey till
a mall hockey?
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm h what's it doing to me?
Speaker 3: De aera?
Speaker 1: You are in a cult. You are not in a church.
You invent your own church.
Speaker 4: Excuse me, you're you're just making an assumption at all
the saints agree, they do, I.
Speaker 2: Can go read them. You have no things. You're acholarly
all that demon a boomer part.
Speaker 4: Part A demon a boomer making an assumer that deement
a boomer part excuse me? A demon a boomer part
part you're acholar deement a boomer party a demon a
boomer part excuse me? Ament a boomer part part A
demon a boomer.
Speaker 1: Making an assumption?
Speaker 5: Are all the councils inspired in an errant?
Speaker 2: The ecumenical stent ideas?
Speaker 6: So there, ecumenical sentence are inspired in an errant?
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 2: How do you know?
Speaker 1: Because the oyster at least is another truth.
Speaker 2: How do you know the oyster leads you to know
the truth because they're in accord with all the other
ecamenical doctrine, all the other things, the scriptures.
Speaker 1: You're just making an assumption.
Speaker 4: You're a scholarly a demon a Boomer part art. That
demon he a Boomer dreaking the sum A demon in
a Boomer card?
Speaker 1: Excuse me?
Speaker 2: Who's a demon in a Boomer card?
Speaker 1: Part?
Speaker 4: You're a collar demon.
Speaker 2: In a Boomer card out day.
Speaker 4: A demon in a Boomer card excuse me? A demon
in a Boomer card part? A demon in a Boomer
making a sum A demon in a Boomer card part,
A demon in a.
Speaker 1: Boomer card excuse me?
Speaker 4: A demon in a.
Speaker 1: Boomer card part.
Speaker 2: A demon in a Boomer card out A demon.
Speaker 1: In a Boomer card Excuse me?
Speaker 2: Who's a demon in a Boomer card?
Speaker 1: Art?
Speaker 2: You're a god?
Speaker 4: A demon a Boomer dreaking an assumption assumption, A demon
in a Boomer card part?
Speaker 2: So where do we get the Bible from? Did you
even read the cannons?
Speaker 1: There is only one charge. You are in din occult.
Speaker 3: You're a governor team a boomer so mean I'm mute, dude.
Is this your for someoney?
Speaker 2: Interwebs?
Speaker 7: I need a gender jew. Can't take it.
Speaker 8: He's a little to your boys. On you, dude, you
want plus one plus one equal free? It comes out
the doll the tree.
Speaker 3: Why do you pray the dead people that the traditions
of the heretic?
Speaker 2: Un your dude, is this you for so webs?
Speaker 1: Shaggy?
Speaker 7: I need a gender jew?
Speaker 1: Can't take it.
Speaker 3: He's a little to your boys, unmute dude.
Speaker 9: Justification two?
Speaker 2: Hey Jamie, could you make me an espresso? Welcome everybody.
It's being a minute. It's been a minute since we
did open debate. As you know, I can't take the
low tier slow boys too much, so I gotta take breaks.
I gotta pause, I gotta go do some other things.
I got other things to do. But after about a month,
three weeks, I started thinking I wouldn't mind having a
stimulating intellectual discussion with someone who disagrees. Although that rarely happens,
doesn't it rarely happen? What do you think? Low tier
slow boys? But every now and then there are gems,
rare gems who pop up and impress me. Who knows
what we'll get today. But you guys know the way
this works. Hopefully you know the format. You can call
in through Twitter X. The extreme link is in the
chat right there. You want to call in if you disagree,
if you would like to present your best argument against
whatever my positions are. I listed a bunch of theological things.
If you want a debate something else. If it's in
the tos, we're overcround on YouTube, so we gotta be careful.
You can also bring up geopolitics. You can bring up moral,
ethical issues, feminism, any of that kind of stuff. You
want to bring that up. The topics listed are Islam, Catholicism, Protestism, Evangelicalism, Atheism,
hebrew Roots, judaism, Arians, etc. Et cetera. Gnostics, Pagans. We've
got some wotan pagan dudes. They want to come on
a debate. I'm seeing that pop up a lot more.
We did podcasts four or five years ago saying that
pagan neo pagan stuff was gonna get really popular and
be promoted everywhere by design. Here we are. I think
that's fomented and fostered. So if you want to call
in and make your pagan objections you can. That is
on the table again. You call in through Twitter, you
enter the X space, the Twitter space, and you hit
request to speak. When you come on, you will be muted.
You have to unmute yourself. Un mute dude. Is this
your first time on the internet, JAIMI, I need a
hair inet. You can also leave a super chat through
stream Labs. Shout out to stream labs for sending me
a hat and a hoodie because I was one of
the top stream labbers apparently. And next I get a coat.
So I'm decked out in swag, corporate swag, corporate Internet
streaming swag. I guess that means I just beat all
the Internet nerds on Twitch. I beat the gamer nerds.
Is that what that means? I don't really know, but
I won the super chat competition on stream Labs. I'm
in the top diamond tier. But that's thanks to you guys.
You guys actually bought me this amazing black corporate hat
this stream Labs and the corporate hoodie that stream Labs. Also,
I get a drinking glass that says stream Labs and
a coat, so I have to advertise stream Labs. I
guess now that I don't mind the hat.
Speaker 1: Those so cool.
Speaker 2: And I guess gamers wear hoodies, so that makes sense.
So I could be a I could be a gamer
for you, guys. I could be whatever you want me
to be for you. Y'all want some more video game streams.
We did some resident Evil streams, but they didn't get
a whole lot of views on YouTube. But I don't
know what you guys want. Like, everybody always wants me
to play games that are you played Bloomer games? Okay,
well I'm not playing freaking Fortnite. I ain't playing Minecraft.
I don't put pixels sixteen bit pixels together. Okay, I
had sixteen bit pixels when I was eleven years old
on my Nintendo. Okay, I'm not going back to sixteen
eight bit pixels of blocks and squares. Bro, I don't
know what none of that even is. I'm not a
Japanese man in nineteen eighty five building a video game.
But all of the children's the churns they want to
be Japanese coders in nineteen eighty five building blocked squared
cows and sheep and pigs. It's not my life, bro.
If I was gonna play a game, I might play
Silent Hill two or something remake because in that game,
you're fighting what the Illuminati, isn't it There's two games
where you fought the Illuminati, Resident Evil four and Silent
Hill too, right? Or is it Silent Hill one? What
am I talking about? It's called video games. The giant
half of the Internet is video games. You never heard
of that, And I'm waiting for people to call in
with their questions. Thank you. We have I'm talking about
a cult called Minecraft.
Speaker 3: I'm you, dude.
Speaker 2: We also have the upcoming event I want to remind
you guys of that. You can come see us at
the Horror and Alternative Film Movie Convention. They have about
four or five hundred people that come to this. I'll
be speaking Tampa Bay Screams Convention. It's a private dinner,
separate event though with me and I'll be giving a
talk on esoteric Hollywood and film. You can get tickets
to this right here, January nineteenth, Tampa, Yo. If you
like esoteric Hollywood, you're gonna love this talk and you're
gonna enjoy esoteric Hollywood. Three that's coming out, baby, I'm mute, dude.
Thirty three, yes, literally, the Masons literally control the number.
Thirty three anytime it pops up for you Skizo's out there.
That's because the Masons are literally causing the number thirty
three to pop up. They own it. They own numbers,
but only certain numbers. That makes a lot of sense.
We did video game analyses back in the day. We
did a few of those, but we didn't get many.
We didn't get many. A lot of that stuff doesn't
get many views. Basically, it's just like twenty twenty people
that are twenty years old want me to cover video games,
and that's it. Actually, I think the when we cover
games that did get some pretty good some good numbers.
Let's see what's up, y'all ready to get this going.
We got three or four people in line already. We're
gonna open it up. The way this work says, you
can make your argument, you can ask a question. You
don't have to debate. You can call in and ask
questions if you want to. By the way, I've not
been not doing anything in the past three or four days.
I did multiple other people's podcasts, so those should be
going up in the next few days. So where was
Jay for two days? He did in live stream. I
was on all these other people's podcasts. So we got
some good, but we got up. We did a pretty
sweet busy Byzantium Islam History podcast the other day. We
did a super sweet Philosophy of Bitcoin podcast today, and then, uh, tonight,
I'm supposed to do interview with a pretty big name person.
I'm not gonna say who it is. It's gonna be
a little bit of a surprise, but uh, she's a
big name person. We're gonna have a hopefully a good
conversation tonight and we're gonna open it up again. You're
gonna be I'm muted. Unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 2: First up, Byzantine, scumbag, That's what I'm talking about. That's
a name.
Speaker 1: I like his name.
Speaker 2: Front to Neill, friend to Neille, what's up, friend, Tanill?
Speaker 1: Hey you can hear me, Yes, sir. I just want
to preface this by saying that I'm Orthodox. I was
actually baptized this past Saturday.
Speaker 2: So good shout out for that. It's good. Many years
to you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks, thanks.
Speaker 5: I actually got into a Twitter spat with.
Speaker 1: Some guys. I don't know if you've.
Speaker 10: Ever heard of this KJV only cult Baptist sext.
Speaker 2: Like Steven Anderson stuff. Yeah, yeah, I mean I don't
know any of the people from that, but I'm familiar
with that. Yeah.
Speaker 10: Well, they hold that, you know, the King James version
is the only version that's you know, sure inspired, right,
and I.
Speaker 1: Think they only affirmed the sixty sixth book, right.
Speaker 5: I just wondered what you would say in response to that.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of different ways that you could
go about responding to that. The first is that ironically,
his the King James version included the apocrypha, So if
you have an old KJV, you'll notice that it includes
the what they call the apocay for the Deutero canonical book. Secondly,
why are we supposed to believe that a monarch If
you're an independent Baptist, you're pretty much hate monarchy. Why
are we supposed to believe that a monarch was somehow
the means by which God providentially produced the supposed, you know,
infallible Koran version of the Bible, the KJV. Beyond that,
there's no reason to accept the Protestant Canada Scripture, beyond
the fact that Protestants just arbitrarily say it's the right
Canada scripture because m Jews. Well, who decided that unbelieving
rabbinic Jews determine the canon for the Church, So pretty
much all their assumptions are fundamentally stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think one of them said that, like.
Speaker 10: That Ortho and Catholic canons, nobody really uses it some
weird objections, And then I think one of them said
that the Dutero canon wasn't really decided upon until like,
I forget what he said.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's yeah, it's just simply not true. You
can read the Church fathers throughout the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth centuries. They cite liberally from the duterocanonical texts, and
they do not typically distinguish between what status they have.
There's a couple fathers that do, like Saint Jerome, but
even Jerome cites the duter canonical text throughout his theological argumentation,
and so a lot of times processes will say stuff like, well,
they didn't they didn't use the Dutero canonical text to
prove theological arguments. Yeah, they do, in fact, and Jerome
is not going to be any help to a Protestant
because Jerome believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary believes
in the episcopacy. He submitted to you know, his bishops.
You know he's believes in relics. He wrote read a
whole treatise against the Vidious and Vigilanteus about relics and Mary. So,
I mean, there's nothing Protestant about the choices that they
make for the Canon. It's just literally just arbitrary. That
will God work through the king to through King James,
by the way, King James and and that whole crew,
like they're they're monarchs, Like why would a Baptist follow
a monarch? It makes no sense.
Speaker 10: Well, yeah, that's that's about all I had ja, thanks
for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just look up kind of some history of the
Canon and the formation of the Canon, because it's really
the Council of Trollo for the Orthodox Church, which is
loosely speaking our canon. Eric Clementino. But that's a great question.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't think we've ever had a KJV only person
calling what's up?
Speaker 11: Man?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Yes, so I am an Africa and.
Speaker 2: Well out in your what.
Speaker 13: No I heard before you have been a traditional Catholic. Yeah,
I don't know if you were SSPX or if you
held a Seeva Countist position. And I also I am
a critic of Vatican two.
Speaker 14: And what made you.
Speaker 13: Reject the Seevacantist position and the SPX position made you
commerce orthodoxy, That's my question.
Speaker 2: There were several events and several things. It wasn't like
one single thing. Yeah, I spent Even when I was
a of the opinion of set of a contism, I
still attended the SSPX mass because it was the only
mass that I had access to. So, yeah, I was
a trad cat for many years. I would say maybe
age twenty three until twenty nine ish, somewhere in there
at twenty thirty, so about seven years of my eight
or nine years of Roman Catholicism. I was a trad
cat and a pretty hard one. Eventually, what I came
to I think the first difficulty was the question of
the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you read Vatican One, it's
very clear that you have to follow the Universal Ordinary Magisterium,
that it's guided by the petrion terrorism. So that meant
I couldn't hold to the SSPX position, which is pretty
much premised on rejecting many decades of Universal Ordinary Magistriium,
including even things like the sainthood of John Paul the
Second and other people. So that led me into the
stay to position just kind of as a logical necessity
for like I said, several years. And then I realized
that the set of a constant position is probably about
the equivalent of Protestantism within the Roman Catholic world. It's
just the most factionalized, divided, split, splintered, and actually a
bunch of crazy people. So I spent many years in
a lot of those different groups and circles, and I
went to you know, masses held in people's homes and
people's in you know, Hampton in mass I mean, I've
done all of it in that domain. And I started
reading the Orthodox stuff Church Fathers in about two thousand
and seven, and that's when I really started to have doubts.
But I wasn't ready to convert yet, and I would
say it took me another three or four years before
I read what I think is probably the best critique
of the Roman Catholic or excuse me, the set of
a constosposition, which is just simply that you have these
statements in Etsy Multa and other encyclicals that pretty much
equate to the rejecting of the set of a condisposition. So,
in other words, for set of a contism to be true,
you would have to reject Etsy Malta. And what's rejected
in Etsy Malta amounts to a rejection of the set
of a consposition, even though it's against the old Catholics.
The arguments that are made in multi apply exactly perfectly
to set of contism. And so the other thing that
I read was John Pontrello's book Cet of Couse Delusion,
where he argues that there's really no way to have
a papacy. Ever, again this leads to the conclavist position.
So if you want to go be a Conclavist, I
mean I think, I think if.
Speaker 1: You're at that, I follow you.
Speaker 13: And and and then also I mean you have been
a Catholic for a long time, and and I assume
being a Catholic, you did.
Speaker 1: Believe in all the Mariana positions, for.
Speaker 13: Example the Fatima one. Do you think they're all fake
or what's your opinion like for example the Fatima apparitions.
Speaker 2: Well, when I was a Tradcat, I had no problem
saying that there are apparitions, but I always held to
the position that dogmatic revelations trump apparitions. So I mean,
I was fine admitting that there were apparitions, but they
didn't play any like crucial role in my approach to doctrine.
And I remember, I mean I spent time as a
tradcat going down the Sister Lucy Lucia rabbit hole and
know what she replaced and what she cloned and all
this nonsense, and it was all just ended up being idiotic,
because yeah, I don't believe or put any credence in
Rome's claims of miracles now, so whether they're all faked,
I don't know, but it wouldn't matter anyway, because we're
told not to follow signs and wonders, but to follow
what's been revealed. So if you base your faith on
signs and wonders, how are you going to tell a
Coptic person that they shouldn't be Coptic if Mary appears
in zy Tune Egypt to the Coptics.
Speaker 13: Well yeah, well clear, yeah.
Speaker 2: So apparitions can't be the deciding factor as to which
faith is correct. And by the way, I've talked to
trad cats about this and they'll actually argue, oh, well,
I guess the apparition of Mary means that Mary also
is revealing herself to the Coptics, so they're part of
the Rumman Catholicies. So in other words, they ended up
making it an argument for acumenism. So it's like, I mean,
are you a track cat or not? So you know, yeah.
But also, but also there have been multiple faked apparitions,
and the CIA is on record. Even E Michael Jones
admits that he thinks that some of these Magiagori and
other ones are fake.
Speaker 13: Sure, yeah, sure, I mean I just think, like, for example,
the Fatima one.
Speaker 2: So documented, Well, hold on, it's so documented. I mean
there were fake there were fake news stories in the
eighteen nineties. So how do you know it's documented because
a newspaper told you that a bunch of villagers in
Portugal saw this. How do you know that?
Speaker 13: I mean, I mean they were living under socialist true,
and all the media was socialists, and they came there
to prove that these guys were just crazy, and that's
when their miracle happened.
Speaker 2: And then that's why, Well that's the narrative about Fatima.
But I mean, again, there were fake news stories in
the eighteen nineties. Look up the bat people in the
Moon story. It's a famous case of the earliest fakings
of news stories I'm aware of. And you don't think that,
like if they wanted to look, here's an argument I
make that if you look at the purpose of Fatima,
Fatima seems to target Russia, and doesn't it just magically
happen to align with the Anglo American establishments designs during
the period of the Great Game against Russia of course,
so it's an anti Russian, pro World War One type
of message that if Russia doesn't convert to the papacy,
Russia will spread her errors. Well, did Mary not know
that Marxism communism is not from Russia. It's not a Russian.
Speaker 13: Russian it's more anti communist. I mean it's yeah, sure,
but I mean didn't.
Speaker 1: Well sure, all right?
Speaker 2: Or what are you saying, Well, the elite are communists,
so they wouldn't want an anti communist message. Well, I
don't think that the elite. I think the elite above
communism and capitalism. They are both. So the people who
wanted a World war at one point were pro like
the Rothchills were pro gold Standard and with Churchill as
they're underling. No, they were at one point, publicly against
communism but also secretly supporting it. So no, you can't
go by like the public pro or anti communist stance
necessarily to determine whether or not the elite or or
not supporting something, because the elite will play both sides
of these kinds of things.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess, I guess yeah, that was yeah, that
was yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean how would you?
Speaker 14: Uh?
Speaker 2: I mean, I've got the thing pulled up here as
a Catholic website talking about Marian apparitions at the Coptic
Church in Egypt. So does that prove Coptic theology? It
was seen by uh, it was seen by thousands of
people too, So.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I would just say, like like the denaratives of
the Fatima appression, for example, like it's it's it's very
obvious that that Portugal, Portugal was under socialist regime. The
people who were going there, the media was going there.
They were going there to prove that.
Speaker 1: The disguise are crazy.
Speaker 13: That's that was the recently went there, and that's there
were many many commercials. There were photos of the of
the Sun and the Mida because and everything, and the
New York New York Times truth about it, everyone.
Speaker 2: You don't think that, Okay, but you don't think there
were fake news stories at that time. Nobody fake news stories.
Speaker 5: Yes that like with that no in that fencelow in
that pen snow.
Speaker 11: No.
Speaker 2: I mean again, that's just simply false. There have been
fake news stories since the eighteen nineties. Look up bat
people on the Moon. It's a famous case that duped
all the intellectuals of the eighteen nineties. They literally thought
there were bad people on the moon because a prominent
public newspaper, Chicago Sun or Son Tribune or something like that,
printed a series of articles claiming that the scientists had
proven that there were bat people on the moon. It's
a famous case, and this is way before Fatima. And
I'm just simply making the point that it's just it's
not true that there were not fake news stories on
a large scale, and at the time of Fatima there were.
That doesn't prove fatimastake necessarily. But my point is that
what we'd have no record of what was seen in
this village beyond these supposed newspapers.
Speaker 1: All right, torn sure, and yeah, yeah, I think that, Yeah,
I think that was my.
Speaker 13: Again, what was your main argument against, Like, this is
a County's position and like, because yeah, well.
Speaker 2: If you read John Pontrello's little book, Seat of a
Causees Delusion, he'll make a series of arguments that, for example,
you cannot have the fundamental essential components of the definition
of the church a law of Vatican One in the
Roman system undergo a massive change such that the Roman
see loses its visibility. And what I mean is not
even in reference to a period of a brief vacancy
until another opponent or occupant occupies the sea. I'm talking
about the complete loss of visible unity of the entire
church structure for seventy eighty years, which is no longer
in Rome. If you read Vatican One, that's clearly not
seen as a possibility at all. It's a foregone conclusion
that that cannot happen because it specifically says that there
will be successors in the Seat of Peter until the
return of Christ. Does not say until some undefined end
times and then there's one hundred year of vacancy or
whatever bull crap that set of a contest put in
there to make it work. It says until the end
till the return of Christ. So if that position is
going to work, you've got to have successors until the
return of Christ. You can't have this seventy eighty hundred
year vacancy of no popes. Plus all the people who
would elect the next pope are all now also outside
the church and apostates. How are you going to get
another pope? This is where you get the idiot cult
people at Palmar Detroita who believe they've elected a new
pope through a Marian apparition, or you get the Conclavist
who believe it because and they have the argument is
that you have to have popes until the end of
the world. That's what Betican says about it. One says,
so it's a dead end position, it's a defeater. It
doesn't work.
Speaker 15: Yeah, yeah, you.
Speaker 13: Should debate some set of vant Have you invited.
Speaker 1: Someone like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, actually, I've asked Jerry Madditis multiple times over the
years to come and debate it, and you won't do it.
Speaker 13: So all right, all right, yeah, thank you for letting
me speak.
Speaker 2: Good great questions. Appreciate it. Yeah, I mean read Set
of a Conscious Solution by John Pontrello. I also did
a three hour talk on the book Set of a
Conscious delution liberals against leftists, and by the way, John
Patrello became War Talks. What's up, dude, What's up dude? Anybody, Hey,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 11: Idea?
Speaker 5: I wanted to get your interpretation on it.
Speaker 14: I'm still reading through the bib On, I'm trying to
figure out things. So I have an idea though, and
I would like your interpretation on it. So basically, I
believe that God limits himself. He limits himself because if
he was all powerful, it would be easy choice.
Speaker 1: God is good.
Speaker 5: We just we don't need any faith, and so he
limits himself.
Speaker 14: And in some of the scripture it was stated that
Arguentel Michael basically wouldn't accuse Satan of anything because that's
not really He's not powerful enough, He's not God.
Speaker 1: He needs God to sort of back him up.
Speaker 14: And in my mind that means that Satan is kind
of like an all powerful not obviously not as quite
as as God himself. But my question is if that
is true, if Satan is an all powerful kind of
like God, maybe maybe the world itself is being pulled
towards an equal librium good versus evil, always being pulled
to the center. And in this center is where we
human beings get to choose. We choose good side versus
bad side. He's not God's not going to come to
face to face and say this is me. It's easy
to believe, right, It's going to be more of a
more of a It has to be a choice. And
I was wondering for I was wondering if you had
like any input on this, because I do believe God
is all powerful.
Speaker 5: He is the one true King.
Speaker 1: He can do anything.
Speaker 5: We have to build a relationship with him.
Speaker 2: So this is kind of so the first thing I
would say, it sounds like this is like a Manichy
and Gnostic duelist type of position. So, no, Satan is
not like the co equivalent or the flip side of God.
Satan is a creature, and so everything that is created
is very much so inferior to the uncreated. God alone
is uncreated. So anything that has a created status is temporal,
subject to change, flux, limited, finite, et cetera. So angels
and we believe Satan Lucifer is an angel, He's basically
equivalent to a cherub or some high ranking angel according
to Ezekiel. So the reason that Michael says in that
discourse that he would not rebuke the devil is because
of the ranking of the authority, in the same way
that David doesn't rebuke Saul. Even though Saul is a
wicked king, Saul still had authority, and so he was
respecting the authority structure that was set up. So it
has nothing to do with like Satan being almost almighty
or close to God. No, he's not anywhere close to
almighty or God, because only God is almighty.
Speaker 5: And I do you think then that.
Speaker 14: God wants us to be sort of in a in
a continuous center, being continuously centered, so that we have
to choose good evil kind of thing? Do you think
he is trying to just you know, push just enough
so that it's just always somewhat in the middle, there's
always a choice, or do you think there is an
end goal Everything will be good eventually.
Speaker 2: Kind of yeah. Paul says that all things will be
God will be all in all, will be all in
in all, So eventually good will be completely the norm
and there will not be any possibility of deviation or rebellion,
so evil will be completely stamped out. But evil doesn't
have being or substance. It's a privation or a negation.
It's not a thing. It's an action against the good
is all that it is. So to restore things to
the adenic state would be to simply remove the possibility
of that negation. It's not a destroying of anything physical
or substantial.
Speaker 14: So so you I understand really basically there is an
end goal. The end goal is to create all good
heaven on earth and really to to get rid of evil.
I mean basically there there is that objective goal.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, So we believe it's a
restoration of all things to their proper natural stay, which
is what Eden was.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: Evil was not what God intended according to the Deutero canon.
It's something that went against his will. He tolerated it
and permitted it, but will through the actions and resurrection
of Christ, restore the entire universe to what was intended
to be the case in Eden.
Speaker 14: Then then why do you think God does everything that
he can to push towards good to get rid of evil?
Speaker 5: Or is he letting us kind of choose it or I.
Speaker 2: Think he Yeah, we synergize and participate with God, so
it's not an all, all one sided thing. He intends
for there to be a period of training up in virtue,
a period of you know, choosing the good as you're
putting it in to become like him before the restoration.
Speaker 1: I appreciate.
Speaker 14: Do you have, like, any kind of scripture I can
look up that comes to mind person clarity on this
about what about God's pushing of the synergy between human
beings and God and his end goal of being Yeah.
Speaker 2: So basically Colossians one, two and three in Romans eight
describes the cosmic scope of everything that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Awesome. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 14: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So to the Calvinist dude in the chat, if
he doesn't want to call in, he just boot him. So, oh,
I don't have a MIC, but I don't have a
I only have a dial up phone. But he's sitting here.
I don't have a I don't own a mic, but
I'm a pre supper. Oh no, Mike, all right, Well
then too bad. This isn't a vehicle for you to
just yap and spam the chat. So it's it's a
vehicle for people to call in and debate. So later, dude,
I'm talking to the dude in the chat, not the
guy that called in so you call in here through Twitter.
He has a rotary phone, but he is typing on
the internet. Uh huh, I can't tell this dude has
no name. Al Okwan al Okwan, Hakeem olaja Wan.
Speaker 1: Oh well that was fast.
Speaker 16: Hey, Jail's it going?
Speaker 2: What's up dude?
Speaker 11: Hey?
Speaker 1: I just wanted to bring a different kind of perspective
a little bit and maybe a little bit of follow
up too. I'm not here to cause any trouble. I'm
not here to mock. I'm just just bringing up a
different idea. You know.
Speaker 17: So back in the day, I remember, you know, I mean,
not that I was from a thousand years ago or not.
Just from my readings, I was aware that a lot
of these debates were kind of solved with sword and shield.
And my question is, why are we going back and
forth debating with these people when we should be killing them?
Speaker 2: Okay, good job, fed, Yeah, I mean, if you think
about it, Yeah, that's really funny. Okay, yea, I go
fed elsewhere fed X maybe Joe Ed Lopez? What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey? So?
Speaker 18: Okay, so inquiring orthodox? I know there's a thing about
salvation only found in the church. What's your thoughts on
when people say, well, the thief on the cross was
you know, accepted into the kingdom.
Speaker 2: Well, the thief on the cross was Orthodox.
Speaker 18: So what do you mean, Well, like salvation has to
come through the church. There's no church stablished right now.
Speaker 2: Well, the church is the mystical body of Christ, and
so the thief on the cross is joined to the
mystical body of Christ on the cross.
Speaker 18: So even though he didn't have understanding of the Trinity
or any other traditional doctoral.
Speaker 2: Well, we're not saved by our degree of understanding. We're
saved by our repentance and humility. So understanding comes along
with that. So no, it's not like you get a
thhd to be saved. You're you're saved through repentance and humility.
But that's great, that's a good question. I understand what
you're saying. No, I don't think that you have to
master all the theology to be saved. But to the
evangelical person in the chat, if you're not going to
call in, this is not for you to spam your
complaining about people saying cuss words. So either come in
de bay or you leave. It's not for your virtue
signaling here what's this person's name? They already get booted
where they go? Hold on, I need to put this
on lot where I see all the chat because I
forgot to do that. There we go, Mario, the tri
yun yahweh okay. So anybody using this goofy Hebrew names
for God. We already know what kind of nonsense this is.
So Mario, either you call in or you get booted.
This is not a place for messianic heresy. Chat Aw, what's.
Speaker 1: Up, Hiday?
Speaker 12: I have a question about baptism. Are what counts as
I mean, I know what baptism is. It baptism is.
But what I'm getting at is does it have to
strictly be within the Orthodox Church to be counted as baptized?
Speaker 2: I mean yes, because only the Orthodox Church can give
you the faith. You can't divorce the sacraments from the
faith and the community that gives it to you. So
it's the Roman Catholic position that thinks that atheists and
Muslims can baptize you. We don't believe that you have
to be baptized in the Orthodox Church. And that's why
nobody prior to the early medieval acceptance of the idea
that pagans and atheists can baptize you. Nobody ever taught
that until Rome worked that out via the presuppositions of
Exopera up rato that Augustine had. So, yes, you have
to be baptized in the Orthodox Church with Orthodox katechisis Now,
does that mean that I'm therefore damning everyone outside the church. No,
I don't know people's destiny outside the church. Paul says
that it's not our job to judge those outside the church.
But I know that for you to have correct Orthodox baptism,
it's in the Orthodox Church that I do know.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: So I mean if someone is baptized, say in some
Lutheran or even an Evangelical church, would that be null
and void and null I actually count as baptism.
Speaker 2: Well, the church can determine that maybe you were baptized
in the correct form, in the correct words, and in
the correct ritual. But the heresy in our view, and
ironically even Augustine believe this, even though he recognized the
quote validity of the baptisms outside the church. The impediment
to the reception of the grace is the heretical confession.
So sometimes the Orthodox Church receives people from those groups
via the rejection of the heresy. Sometimes the church determines
that you need to be baptized because it didn't even
count as a baptism. For example, some of the novsorto
Catholic churches baptized people in the name of the land,
the sea, and the air, so that by most, hopefully
most Orthodox priests and bishops would not even be considered
a baptism at all. So that can be abused because
there is a degree of economia there, and sometimes that's
abused for the purposes of a humanism. But the basic
principle still stands that yes, in order for the baptism
to be an Orthodox baptism, it needs to be the
Orthodox Church baptizing you. And if the church decides that
you don't have to be baptized because the ritual is uncorrectly,
then the impediment to the reception of the grace is
removed by the rejection of the heresy.
Speaker 1: Okay, oh thanks, yeah, great, great question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we get that question all the time.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 2: Cal let's see, we got a bunch of people here.
Let's see. Uh, whoa, we just got ten people on
line packed up. Now some people have been waiting for
a while. Let me find somebody's been waiting for a
good while here, Jaguar has been waiting.
Speaker 1: What's up, dude, Oh hi Jay, thanks for having me on. Hey, So,
I'm I wanted to talk about the Catholic perspective.
Speaker 19: I've been mostly convinced by Orthodoxy over the past couple
of years, but I've been looking into the Catholic side
more try to make sure I don't have any blind
spots or too much of a bias.
Speaker 2: Sure, but it.
Speaker 19: Seems when I when I see debates on the two,
there's a lot of quote mining on both sides.
Speaker 1: Where this guy this church father said this, and that
church father said that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, everybody engages in unquote money, which is yeah, which
is kind of unfortunate, but yeah.
Speaker 19: And it would seem to me the burden of truth
is much higher for Catholics just to the nature of
them claiming authority over the whole.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the Vatican One claims are pretty you know,
heavy duty claims.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So yeah.
Speaker 19: One thing that I noticed it seems if the Pope
is who they say he's supposed to be, that it
seems like one of their strongest arguments should be examples
of how modern popes are acting and behaving, and it
seems like that's the last thing.
Speaker 1: They want to talk about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's the crack in the armor that
they feel like has to be avoided. And it's not
just the quote behavior of the popes, because they're always
going to deflect and say, well, we never claim that
the pope is impeccable. He's just theologically infallible when he's
speaking execathedra blah blah blah blah blah. But that's missing
the point that some sins in Catholic theology are unique
in that they remove you from the body, those being heresy, schism,
and apostasy. Those are unique sins in Catholic moral theology
and canon law, which are still on the books. It's
still in the modern post. Nineteen eighty three John Paul
the second Canon law that if you commit heresy, apostasy,
and schism, you are excommunicated ipso facto laate sententia, that is,
without any declaration of an authoritative body, by virtue of
the action itself. The same penalty is given for the example,
for example, four Catholics that procure an abration. If you,
as a Roman Catholic, a faithful procure and abraution, you
are supposed to be immediately excommunicated for that action. It
doesn't require the bishop meeting in a sonata a council
and pronouncing you like you know Beckett and the movie back,
Oh Got Extremainer ktro. It doesn't require any of that.
That's what the word late centinia ipso facto means. So
ninety nine percent of Roman Catholics don't know that. They
don't they're not aware of that. They don't know their
own theology. They just assume because they repeat all the
pop stuff that their car salesman. Apologists all put out
online that the pope's not impeccable, he still has sins.
He's just infallible when he teaches theologically for the entire church.
And so I don't have to accept anything that Francis says,
except except when I deem that he's teaching theologically for
the whole church. And it doesn't work like that. That's
not true true right when E Vatican one says that
you're not just bound by extraordinary magistarium, you're also bound
by the universal ordinary teaching, which is infallible just as
much as extra extraordinary is and you're also bound by
his ordinary teaching, which is fallible, but even though it
might error, you must submit with docility. So there's no
room for this papal minimalism that they're trying to push
to save the position. Uh, it doesn't exist. It's nowhere
in the mind of Vatican one. It's a post Vatican
two invention of the Neotrads who want to save the
position and make it work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I saw one of them. It may
have been when you did.
Speaker 19: Where didn't a previous pope say that you're basically excommunicated
if you worship in another religion's temple, and then future popes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mortalium Animos says. It's famous and cyclical from nineteen
twenty eight to Pisti eleven. It says that if you
participate in the interfaith gatherings, it is apostasy.
Speaker 19: Okay, So if that pope was able to time travel
and show up, he would excommunicate the popes.
Speaker 1: That we're here now.
Speaker 2: He would probably say it's the it's the great apostasy
the church is you know, yeah, exactly, Yeah, I mean,
I don't know what he would say, but something like
that probably Yeah.
Speaker 19: One last thing I wanted to ask, didn't because they
bring up Peter as the kind of the baseline for this,
But didn't Peter start more than one church?
Speaker 2: Yes, he is the uh, the founder of multiple sees,
the Patrian Seas. Even as late as Saint Gregory the Pope,
Saint Gregory the Great, he calls the Patrian Seas, Rome,
Alexandri and Antioch three are called by him in his
letters the Patrine Sees. And so what Rome does in
order to counter this is say, well, but Peter died
in Rome, so it's the one that really gets the authority. Well,
where did that come from? That's just made up? Well,
I mean it's not made up. It's true that Peter
died in Rome. But if you look through the evolution
of the arguments for papal supremacy and power in universality
and all that, it's an evolving thing. A great book
that just came out that discusses this is Sishinsky's book
Papacy in the Orthodox, which really you only need to
read for this for what we're talking about, you just
need to read the chapter that deals with like the
first to seventh century, which is about maybe thirty forty pages.
It's chapters four and five. Those chapters really make this
point very forcefully that you have the idea of yeah,
Peter died in Rome. Yeah, there's you know, there's a
there's an honor that's due to the Petrine seas and
particularly at Rome, because of it being Peter and Paul.
So it is always traditionally called the see of Peter
and Paul. If you go to Rome and you go
to the latter in Basilica, which is the old traditional
first Millennium seat of the Bishop of Rome, it honors
Peter and Paul. Even in the Vatican, Peter and Poel
are situated up front as if they're equal, right, But
the argument of Vatican I and Leo the thirteenth in
statist Cognitum is that you cannot say that Rome is
great because of Peter Mpol. Paul has nothing to do
with it. It's only Peter, because Peter's a martyr there,
and the blood of Peter in Rome is part of
this idea that just evolves that that therefore gives the
Bishop of Rome this wild infallibility universality claim that he
didn't have until centuries later.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, yeah, I'll check that book. I appreciate you.
I just wanted to bounce all the thoughts off you,
so thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and everybody should read Moretalium Animals of nineteen twenty eight,
the famous paper and cyclical absolutely condemning any form of
the humanism and religious interfaith prayers and gatherings. And at
that time, keep this in mind, Pope Pious the eleventh
was merely talking about other so called Christian groups. He's
talking about Anglicans, Orthodox and Evangelicals. He's not talking about
praying with freaking Muslims and Jews and Moss and Synagogues
and Pagans and Buddhists like John Paul the Second did
so the post Vatican Two popes went light years beyond
even what was in the mind of Pious the eleventh
to condemn. Does that make sense, Yeah, that makes a
lot of sense. He's just saying, Bro, you can't even
pray with Anglicans, how much more can you not pray
with freaking Buddhists.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 19: I think overall their claims are are pretty pretty ridiculous,
and they were just at anywhere at the level they
would have to be in a back up.
Speaker 1: What they're what they're trying to say is what it
seems like to me. I'm not very smart or well
educated on.
Speaker 2: This, but well you don't have to be an expert
on it to see pretty clearly that the if you
read that Sushinsky chapter, you'll notice that, oh, it's an
evolving thing, like this idea of you know, for example,
Rome was always listed first because it was the Sea
of where Peter and Paul were martyred, so there's an
honor that's given to Rome. But the fact that say,
the Council of Nicea lists Rome as the first of
the seas by you know, eight hundred years later, that
has evolved into like total autocracy. So it's clearly an evolution.
And here's the irony. This is another key contradiction. If
you read Vatican One, if if you read Sati's Cognitium
of Leo the thirteenth, these are very important, you know,
papal documents about the papasy. They argue that it's not
an evolving thing. So it's later Roman Catholic apologetics post
Cardinal Newman that adopted the idea that, well, the way
to actually defend and prove this papacy stuff via Vatican one,
and what Vatican was claiming is we have to concede
that there's an evolution in this idea. It's a seed
that grows into a tree. But Vatican one and Pasture
Attornis and Satist Cognitium reject the idea that it evolved.
In fact, they claim that it was always universally the
case from the earliest days of the Church. So it
can't be both. It can't be something that was always
universally held and true and something that was a seed
that evolved. Those are mutually exclusive ideas.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I mean everything about it just seems very arbitrary
to me on their sides.
Speaker 2: So, well, have you read Dictatus pape I.
Speaker 1: Mean that, Yeah, I have it. I watched debates on YouTube.
Speaker 19: I haven't really read anything to be honest about this topic,
but probably should.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: I mean this is when you know, in the eleventh century,
the papacy becomes a geopolitical world power estate and actually
takes on all the machinations and operations of the state,
including warfare intelligence agencies.
Speaker 1: So what year would have been this view?
Speaker 2: Approximately the tatas Pappy is ten to ninety, but it's
under the papacy of greg Gregory the seventh and this
is called the Gregorian reforms. This is when you have
a vast change in the ecclesial structure in the Latin
Church from what was previously the model of the Orthodox
sonodal Church and in the these are called the Gregorian
reforms because it turns the Latin Church into the papal church.
And this is well known. This is admitted now by
Eastern Roman Catholic scholars. Devornik Sashansky used to be a Unia,
it became Orthodox. It's admitted by Kongar and others. It's
by the way, if you just read the Vatican's recent
declarations on history on Orthodox discussion, the Alexandria document from
June of twenty twenty three, it admits all this. So
the Vaticans basically admitted all this.
Speaker 1: Okay, I will check that out.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I mean I honestly I wrote off the back
when the news with the Catholic Church and the PDF
file stuff was it everywhere. I completely wrote off ever
even considering it until more recently when I've learned about Orthodoxy,
and then I thought I should give it a fair shake.
Speaker 1: Or at least try to.
Speaker 2: So, No, I think it's good to know their arguments
and know like kind of what.
Speaker 1: The I mean. When you only hear their side, they
can sound convincing.
Speaker 2: If well, yeah, I fell for it. I fell for
I fell for papal quote minds. I fell for forged
papal quotes back in my twenties. That's why I was
Roman Catholic. Yeah, so YEA great question for a long time.
So well, same here. So I get you like to
become orthonoxy Yeah, great questions, and keep keep looking into it,
keep searching. California Prepper, what's up? I'm you dude?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? All right? I'm driving?
Speaker 2: Hi, know what's up? Man? Hey Jamie? Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 1: I have a question.
Speaker 6: I have a family member who likes to flirt with
the Gnostic ideas, and I tried to have discussions with him,
and he likes to quote like the Infancy Gospel of
Thomas and say also like, hey, the church throughout all
this scripture because they're they were corrupt, they wanted to
like have their own power and not have any other
ideas in there.
Speaker 1: How would I respond to some sort.
Speaker 2: Of argument like that, Well, I mean, this is always
what Gnostics say, But when you really get into the
Gnostic worldview, you'll find out that it's like really contradictory
and really arbitrary. For one, there's not one Gnostic worldview.
There's not a Gnostic tradition. There's a ton of different
Gnostic sects from the first, second, third century, and they're
all over the place. They range from extreme asceticism to
extreme indulgence to ritual magic. I mean, they're essentially all
over the place. If you read the first few hundred
pages of Saint Aaronais's Against Heresies, the first few hundred
pages is him listing all the Gnostic sects of the
second century. So there's not a Gnosticism. So the first
thing I would go about trying to demonstrate to this
person is that ultimately the position that he's got is
itself very relativistic. And I've never met a Gnostic who's
not a relativist. Doesn't mean there might not be one
out there that believes and objective morals, But if your
position is a relativistic, you know, moral framework, it's pretty
easy to refute that. So I would just point out
do a basic presup of his ethics and morals as relativistic.
And if the morals and the ethics are relativistic, then
is gnosticism also relativistic. So if it's relativistic, then it's
not true. To be true requires it to have universal
truth value, and if gnostissism is relativistic, then it doesn't
have that. It's it's a fundamental epistemic contradiction.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Any resources that you can guide me towards.
Speaker 2: For extra stuff to learn, Yeah, I've done. I did
a talk on Aeronaus against heresies, and I have two
talks on my channel that are old critiquing gnosticism. So
just look up Jay Dyer gnosticism. I also did a
whole talk on Yarslav Pelicon's Volume one, which covers the
history of these early sex and gnostics. It's a it's
a classic sort of seminary text. Peter Putt teach us. Uh,
what's up, dude? What's a hook?
Speaker 1: Doude?
Speaker 2: Is this your first time on the internet?
Speaker 1: Jape, Hey this is doctor Pete.
Speaker 20: I don't know this talk like jumped for a few seconds,
but hey, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I'm a cradle orthodox.
Speaker 20: One of the comments on sort of the moving target
of the understanding of marriage and the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 1: You know, recently we've heard of them.
Speaker 20: Discussing topics about homosexual marriage, transgender concepts.
Speaker 11: As an Orthodox Christian.
Speaker 20: I never really quite understood a lot of these discussions.
Some rules don't seem that we can break. Others seem
like they've they've broken them unnecessarily. I think back to
why and how priests used to marry the Roman Catholic Church.
I can tell you my father was an eye surgeon
and a priest.
Speaker 1: And he had five sons.
Speaker 20: And I don't know why, in this age of secularism, humanism,
that we don't just go back to our roots and
free a billion Catholics from having to endlessly defend a
fallen position, which is sort of putting priesthood.
Speaker 1: Against the sacrament of marriage.
Speaker 20: And I'm just trying to understand the mindset of Roman
Catholic in terms of why, why that's not something they're
willing to compromise on. When you consider that they're willing
to compromise on, you know, well, let's just say making
room for homosexual marriage.
Speaker 2: In the Christian Church. That's a great point. Yeah, if
you're going to compromise, or from what you see as compromise,
would why would you not go back to the tradition,
which is actually the old, ancient tradition of married priests.
I think most Roman Catholics don't even know that. They
don't realize that. They think that that's a Protestant argument,
So they hear something like that and they think, oh,
that's Protestant, So they just assume kind of default, that
that married priests are abnormal when they're actually the normal,
you know, ancient normal state. They also aren't aware that
the Council of Trello affirms married priests, and that the
sixth and seventh Councils affirm Trullo. And then they don't
even realize that the papacy, especially had the seventh Ecumenical
Council also by default a firm Trullo. So at one
point they did a firm married priest and then didn't.
So they're just not aware of and they're usually very
reticent to accept any kind of historical arguments like this
because it's it's an und They see it as an
unfalsifiable system. Uh So, and you know, the reality is,
and I was I was a trad cat I was
in that world for almost a decade. The reality is
that it's like all over the place. There's not really
a Roman Catholicism. The only thing that quote unites them
is this verbal acceptance of being Catholic. When you know,
you can have one guy over here who thinks that
the Sades are true Catholicism, and you got James Martin
over here who thinks that, you know, the essence of
with Allism is Skittle's marriage. So they're all over the place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it just seems like low hanging fruit.
Speaker 20: You know, like in order for us to embrace the
twenty first century and like move forward to more substance
of discussions, can we just solve this marriage dilemma resulting
in so much carnage and and allow Christians to kind
of clean themselves off.
Speaker 1: And move on to higher end and topics. Right, But
you know, I just it just it reminds me of
when Kamala.
Speaker 20: Harris was asked, you know, are there any mistakes you've
made over the last four years, and she said I
couldn't think of any. I just I just feel like
it's so disingenuous, and when there's something so important and meaningful,
why why not just take that off the table from discussion.
Speaker 2: And also it's you know, it's a great point. Thank
you for your questions. And also I think they you know,
it's not so much the Catholics sort of on the
ground or the precis. It's the fact that the Vatican,
in my view, is a captured institution for the global elite.
So they're not going to make any moves back in
the direction of wholesome integrity, family and all that because
they're they're captive to a greater geopolitical power which absolutely
has no interest in the wholesome hades. What's up, yop,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yeah, just from the other guy who was talking about
the narcissism for his friend, I did want to bring
up that and also a great argument against narcissism if
you want to hit it from like a more historical
view that he was talking about the Gospel of Thomas
and all the other gospels, but all of our New
Testament gospels can be actually we're actually quoted by a
really early church fathers near around one hundred eighty. All
of the Gnostic gospels were quoted. We didn't even exist
until about three hundred eighty or four hundred eighty after.
So even if you were to, he doesn't think you're
pre He doesn't go for the precept. None of the
Nastic Gospels are anywhere near the time of the Church Fathers.
There are hundreds of years after.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great, great point. Yeah, thank you. And also like
the stories that you read in there are kind of
wacko and crazy, but I mean you have basically some
of those making their way into the Quran. So great point.
Classic husband. What's up to the trad? Cats in the chat?
Call in?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 2: What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Maw you there?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Hey, Jamie, you're cutting out?
Speaker 1: Bro?
Speaker 2: Maybe call back? Call back in? Pop out, pop back
in because we can't hear you. Tribe called Jake, what's up, dude?
Speaker 21: You know?
Speaker 1: Sorry?
Speaker 5: I thought you called somebody else.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize you were calling me.
Speaker 2: How you doing, Jays? Hey?
Speaker 12: I had a question.
Speaker 22: I was debating a friend, one of my you know,
previous Protestant friends. And from what I understand after listening
to a lot of your content on Protestantism, there's like
a it's like you make the case that mainly it's
issues with the position start from an epistemological perspective, and
and you kind of attack the Protestant position.
Speaker 2: Well sometimes, I mean sometimes I argue from history. Uh
so it just kind of depends on what Protestant I'm
talking to.
Speaker 1: Sure, Yeah, that that's actually a good point.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, are you there? Hello?
Speaker 1: Hello? Yeah, I can hear me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead. So it looks people's connections are going out,
so maybe pop back out, pop back in. I'll come
back to you the last two guys. El I asked
five dollars? Have you ever covered the incidents at Waco
Reby Ridge and Okay see Uh yeah, but it's been
many years. As we talked about that, I remember the
Terrence Yankee story is spooky and memory hole. Do you
mean spooky in the sense of like being a spook
or just creepy?
Speaker 23: Uh?
Speaker 1: The uh?
Speaker 2: What's the Oka See documentary? It's a really good documentary
they put out maybe ten years ago. And I'm going
blank on that, but that one was a good when
everybody watched that. But yeah, I mean I've been listening
to Lord Voldemort since two thousand and three, so I
was there for all that period when he covered all
that stuff. Extensively. Also, if you can find it. One
of the best things on OKAC is James Corbett's deep
dive into Tim McVay. That's a really important one. I
don't know all the details of Ruby Ridge. I know
a decent amount about Waco. I remember one of the
first documentaries I watched from Lord Valdemore was Wake Up
or Waco. Yeah, wake Up or Waco. I know a
little bit about Ruby Ridge, but not a whole lot,
but thank you for that. Yeah, just check out Corbett's
thing on McVeigh and how he was sheep dipped in
the what is the I don't can't remember that OKAC documentary,
but it's really good. Haiti's ond at thirty dollars day,
I envoid. You enjoyed your video with Dean about Book
of Revelation, specifically the point of learning from those people
who are non Orthodox. Well, we shouldn't be surprised. I
mean this is if you read the Church Fathers, this
is pretty common. I mean, you know, Basil said you
should get a classical education. Basil and the Cappadocians relied
heavily on origin, even though everybody knows Origin was heterodox.
Augustine relied heavily on the commentaries of Tico the Donatist.
So this is very common, and many people have, you know,
read Totillian, Tourtolian ended up heterodox. It doesn't mean that
we can't, you know, read and gain insights from Tertullian.
And I mean same principle for Plato and Aristotle. I
mean John Damascus, Saint Maximus, they read Porphyry, Plato, Aristotle,
they read all these guys and gleaned great points. If
you read Fount of Knowledge by Saint John Dmascus, it
relies heavily on Aristotle. So the idea that like we
never read anything but an orthonox person it is just
kind of a weird. It's almost like a weird Protestant
to solo scripture attitude, which is just not even accurate
or historical. I say this because I was Orthodox, and
I got in Orthodoxy from watching a lot of doctor
Michael Heiser. Yeah, Michael Heiser. A lot of people don't
know this. He was a subscriber to my website for
many years, and although we never chatted, I don't think
we ever. There might have been an email at one point,
but we never chatted personally. I always intended to get
him on to do a podcast before he passed away.
But yeah, I read doctor Heiser over the years. I
remember reading his Divine Council stuff, maybe even as early
as like two thousand and seven. So yeah, I think
he was very insightful for his exegesis. I mean, I've
got liturgical I've got books back here by Anglican liturgical
scholars and historians. I've got books by UNI eight historians
and scholars. I mean, it's kind of obvious that there
are truths and people have truths and wisdom and knowledge
even outside of the Orthodox Church. Bill Ward ten dollars.
There are those who say that the idea of Mary's
perpetual virginity comes from apocryphal texts. Well, it's true that
the pro Evangelica James and these kind of things are
not quote in the canon. But from the Orthodox vantage point,
that's not really a problem because for us, there are traditions,
and there are true traditions outside of the canonical texts.
So there might, for example, be an oral tradition that's
outside of the written Biblical texts that was passed down
and maybe somebody recorded it in the proto Evangelic of
James or some other thing where it got recorded in
a liturgical setting or a poem or whatever. And so
although we wouldn't necessarily claim the entire document or the
entire noncnonical texts as part of the tradition, those texts
can have elements of tradition. Sample the Dedicay has true
elements of tradition, But we don't accept everything in the Dedicay, right,
it's not part of the Canonscripture. But many church fathers
thought that the Dedicay was canonical. Many church fathers thought
First and Second Clement were part of the New Testament.
So even though some of the documents that these tech are,
these kinds of texts end up being Pseudobograthha or pseudonymous
or outside the canon. The Book of Enich is cited
in the Book of Jude, and so we would say, yeah,
the Book of Enich has true tradition. There's nothing anti
orthodox about that. It's obviously is true. But it doesn't
mean that I have to put Enoch in the Canonscripture
on the same level as the Gospels or Paul.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So I think in the Orthodox Church we recognize levels
of this stuff. That's why in the liturgy the Gospels
are given a place above Paul and above the Old Testament.
So there's levels to this, and usually the people that
say this kind of stuff, it's just really based on
kind of really low tier Protestant objections. But great question,
bill Ward. They say the concept was created around the
year three hundred. The problem with this argument from a
Protestant is that this cuts both ways because if you're
going to require a written proof of a document of
a doctrine post eighty three hundred, which is what the
argument assumes that in other words of Protestant saying, I'm
not going to believe anything from this patristic period unless
there's quote written evidence after the year three hundred or
something like this, there's no where's the Protestant canon prior
to the year three hundred. It doesn't exist. So you
see how that cuts both ways, and that what that
shows is that the Protestant doesn't actually hold to that principle.
It's a double standard that he's erected to where he's saying, well,
i have my Protestant canon, which doesn't have any real
hardcore evidence for existing prior to the year three hundred,
but I'm going to require that you give me the
written textual evidence for perpetual virginity at Mary prior to
three hundred. So you see, it's an arbitrary double standard.
Their own position doesn't have that which is built on
soul scripture for the most part, storm the cat ten dollars.
I started reading the Book of Revelation Explaining trilogy by
James Jordan Dean Ardel. That's really good. Yeah, for those
that are interested. We did do this interview the other day.
My godfather has spent the last four years kind of
collating the lectures of James Jordan over the years on
the Book of Revelation into this three volume series Revelation
Explain which is available at his website deanw Arnold dot com.
And if you go over to the interview that we did,
the book links are in the show description. I've not
had a chance yet to get to it because I'm
reading this espionage book that we're going to cover next.
I'm almost halfway through it, Black Gold Spies, which is
really really good and it actually relates to theology because
a lot of these spies used religious cover. So but
I do look forward to getting into Dean's Dean's presentation
of James short because Dean add it did a lot
of editing. Fun seven seven seven j What are your
thoughts on the Dark Soul series. It's very lore heavy
and esoteric. I tried playing it, and I'm sorry. I mean,
so there's a couple of things going on here when
it comes to I saw. I'm not a huge gamer,
but I like to, you know, maybe on maybe one
night a week, I unwind. And this is really only
when it's winter and it's freezing and you can't do
anything outside. I might for a night or two a
week unwined with a video game. Usually it's something that
is not infinite plays, do you know what I mean? Like,
I like a game I can beat in ten twenty
thirty hours, which is the way they used to make
video games, because I don't want to live my life
in a freaking video game. So, for example, I was
interested in the new Zelda, but then I noticed that, oh,
this actually has like hundreds of hours of playtime more
than the previous Zelda. Well, I'm not I don't My
time is valuable. I'm not gonna I don't want to
put hundreds of hours into tiers of the Kingdom or whatever.
It's just too much, dude. Just give me a freaking
Drake's Quest uncharted. You know, tomb Raider eat Resident Evil
that I can beat in eight hours. That's fun to me.
And also, I mean Black Ops is fun, but I mean, honestly,
like it's so addictive, like you just get addicted to
sitting there and you know, trying to trying to get
headshots for like eight hours. It's like, I just can't
do that, Like this, My time is too valuable to
blow it on the even Black Ops. So when you
say Dark Soul series, I remember trying out one of
them and like, if it's gonna take me hours just
to figure out the freaking mechanisms and controls, I mean,
it's just too much.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: I can't. Like video games have gotten way too dorky
and complex, and they used to be fun. I'd rather
just play Mario Kart with Jamie. That's way more fun
than sapping five thousand hours into some you know, soy realm,
I'm just joking. I mean, I've always liked role playing games.
I've always played. I played every Final Fantasy, so I
get it. I understand Storm the Cat five dollars do
you think the verses were Paul rebukes the Judaizers are
sufficient to refute modern dispensationalists. You know what, that's a
great point, I mean ideal, like, yeah, basically you would
think they would be. And you know, even when I
was a kind of a nube, you know, reading the
Bible for the first time ages eighteen, nineteen twenty, I
actually had a dispensation. I've got my skillfild study Bible
over there. Still I remember even being like struggling with
some of those verses. I remember like, like, what what
if dispensationalism is true? Why is Paul speaking this way
in these in these texts? It's just it was it
was a struggle. Uh So I think that's a really
key point, storing the cat. But you know what's funny
about theology is that a lot of times the stuff
that you would think is clear insufficient. A lot of
times it isn't. Quantum comment are five dollars? What's the
response to the Protestant that says, so scripture is wrong?
Are they even Protestant at that point? Well, that's a
good point. I mean, if a Protestant is saying solo
scripture is wrong, then they're departing from the Classical Reformation tradition.
So you know, you're not really Protestant if you don't
believe in the solos. I would argue you're something else. Right,
Maybe you're moving in the direction of High Church Anglican
or something like that, which is what we've seen a
lot of Protestants like, right, like James Jordan. Right, James
Jordan was at one point hardcore Calvinists, you know, reform dude.
And then you know, over time he's moving and now
he's wearing he wears a collar, and he's dressing up
like he's an Anglican. And you know, even though he's
not action Anglican, you would think he's an Anglican by
the way he looks and dresses right, and he wants liturgy,
and he wants this and that. So I mean I would.
I would. So if a Protestant said, well, look, I
don't believe in sold scripture, so why should I believe,
I would just say it, Well, then give me a
coherent account of where we get the canon and how
that comes about, right, I mean, in other words, you
can't What you eventually learn is that you can't divorce
the Bible from history. And if you can't divorce the
Bible from history, then it's intimately necessarily bound up with
the community that put it together. And so then the
question is logically, well, what was that community, what was
the belief system of that community? Well, guess what, it's
not Protestant. There are no Protestants in the first thousand years.
And that's the community essentially that puts together the Bible.
So sounds like your buddy quantum commenter is actually on
the right track. California p up or two dollars and
twenty two cents. Here are some shekels for your time.
Thank you appreciate that. Clarity conversation five dollars. Do you
know about this dude called truth unedited on YouTube?
Speaker 1: I do not.
Speaker 2: He has seven hundred fifty thousand subs and he's Hebrew roots.
Oh well, here is my issue. Here's my challenge to you,
Truth Unedited. I will challenge you to debate. He put
out a video against all the church fathers. You should
call out this dude for a debate or something like that.
I used to listen to him before I became Orthodox
many years Jay. Hey, thank you appreciate that. Yeah, Truth unedited,
I challenge you to defend your stupid heresy MKG ten dollars. Jay,
I'm currently doing We're gonna go back to Q and
are in a second or a debate. I'm currently doing
cover to cover reading of the Bible. I read the
story Jacob and Esaw. What is your understanding of God
rewarding Jacob and his mother get Isaac blessing. I read
a few interpretations. What do you think about this? Well,
I do think Jacob represents Israel, so he and he's
you know, he gets the name and he's gets the blessing.
Because I think there's something that, you know, prompted God
to choose the Jews to be the people from whom
the Messianic line would come. So the purpose of the
nation of Israel is to produce the Messiah. That's their purpose.
And yeah, there's ancillary purposes in Deuteronomy that they would
teach the nations and be a guide in the law
and all that, but they didn't. They really failed at
that mission. But they did succeed in their ultimate mission,
which was to produce the Messiah. So they are an image.
Jacob is a kind of an image of Israel and
the people of the Old Covenant, and both for the
positives and for his flaws. So I think that's the
that's my initial thoughts on Jacob. Obviously you can go
a lot deeper. There's a lot of typology, there's a
lot of symbolism in all of those Genesis stories. But
off the top of my head, I would say that
that's kind of the first point. Anonymous ten dollars Jay,
Sorry my phone cut out. I was questioning you to.
My question was, how would you sum up the epistemic
issues with the Protestant position. Well, remember that the epistemic
issues relate to ultimately what we call normative authority. So
we're not making the challenge that a Protestant can't know anything,
or that a Protestant can't tell you what's true. That's
a bad argument a lot of times. Roman Catholics, for example,
when they when they debate with a Protestant, they'll say
something like, you don't have the pope, so you don't
know what doctrines are true. This is a really low tier,
dumb argument because it just moves the problem back a
step that assumes that you're interpreting the documents of the
papacy correctly, right, So owther was a Roman Catholic will
say something like, well, you know you're a Protestant reading
the Bible. That's your private interpretation. How do you know
that interpretation is correct? That's why we have the pope. Well, again,
that's moving the problem back a step, because now every
individual Catholic just has more books and stacks of stuff
to read, much of which is way more boring than
the Bible too, I might add, to try to figure
out what the proper interpretation of the papal documents is.
So nine percent of the Roman Catholic pop car salesman
apologist ignore this and just move the problem back a step.
And smarter Protestants know this and figure it out. And
they usually make this point right like A, I don't
know who is a smarter Protestant. I don't even I
don't even know if I can even say that there
are smarter Protestants anymore. Maybe there's not. I'm being silly,
but if there were a smarter Protestant, they would say
something like maybe James White even said this at one point,
who I don't have any respect for or care for
at all, but I think he did make this point
one time, like, well, don't you have to interpret the
Protestant documents, I mean the papal documents. So I just
this is just a really bad objection if you know epistemology.
So I think a better objection to the Protestant position
is normative authority, which is the point that, well, did
Jesus actually leave any body of people that have authority
to bind anyone's interpretation? And that's the better way to
frame it against the Protestant because every Protestant believes that
they have right of private judgment. Nobody can bind their conscience.
That's a classical Reformation teaching freedom of conscience, freedom of worship.
You don't nobody can tell me my reading of the
Bible's wrong. Well, but did Jesus provide a means to
solve dispute when there were disagreements? It's kind of like, well,
there's the Constitution, but you need a body of people
to interpret it, hence the Supreme Court. So is there
a group of leaders, namely the episcopacy, that can interpret
these documents with authority? So it's not just can they
they're the only people who can interpret it. Everybody who
reads the Bible will have to interpret you. Now, you're
just going to interpret it. But when the Church has
disputes and disagreements in history, when they met together in
councils like Nicia, well clearly they thought they had the
authority to bind people's interpretation, because if you don't believe
in the Nicene interpretation, it's you're excommunicated, you're an arian,
you're outside the church. But in the realm of Protestantism,
it's premised on in the Classical Reformation doctrine, the right
of private interpretation. Nobody has the authority to bind anyone
to that interpretation. So hence the chaos. That's the better
way I think to frame the debate with a Protestant
Classical do you want to try again? Hey, Jamie, could
you make me a coffee? Jamie? Jamie. She came in
here and I'm mister, what's up?
Speaker 24: Man?
Speaker 1: Hey, what's going on? Jack? Can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 24: Yeah, So it seems that the Latins on Axe have
been absolutely fuming over their little wax figure scandal.
Speaker 2: I haven't even paid attention.
Speaker 24: Oh yeah, I had one guy just randomly tell me
that you're actually going to convert back to Catholicism.
Speaker 1: For the third time.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, sure, well let's just add hominem. So no,
I'll guarantee I'll never be a Roman Catholic again. Why
would I mean, why would he even say I'd be
Roman Catholic again? If like that's the thing that I'm
making fun of, Like I don't know what if I
was ever converted. I don't know what I would ever
convert to. But I mean it wouldn't it wouldn't be
to this entity that's like openly bringing in people to
destroy the country. And I'm talking about the Inga, the
Catholic NGOs that are open borders.
Speaker 24: Right, Yeah, That's actually what I was gonna ask you about, is.
Speaker 1: That it seems that.
Speaker 25: The calls for master legal immigration as well as all
the Catholic NGOs are pushing for this, but at the
same time they're doing things like calling out the persecution
of the Canonical Church in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Well, the there's nothing that requires evil people to be consistent.
So the fact that you know, Francis throws a bone
to trads here and there, which is just I mean,
the Vatican's always done this. Now, what he's talking about
for those that are not on X was some profile
this annoying profile that I ended up trying to debate with.
He never made an argument, He just like restated the
Roman Catholic position. So people, you can look this up.
This is not me, like I'm not making You're gonna
see how the Roman Catholics make this point. Right, So
he tried to say, oh, look look at the incorruptible
Roman Catholic saints. So you have this gamer kid who
was just canonized then supposedly Vincent de Paul, John Bosco,
and Padre Pio. Right, so oh, look here the proof
of Roman Catholicism as a miraculous institution, because look, these
people haven't decayed, they haven't decomposed. Well did you know
that as this Roman Catholic underneath here admits Vincent de
Paul's face is encased in a wax mask. Carlo Acutus
is also covered in wax, as is Saint Bosco, John Bosco,
Padre Pio is covered in a silicone mask. I believe
these people are holy, but we have to recognize that
it is admitted that they're all preserved in wax encasements
and even silicon. So I'm sorry, but that's not an
incorruptible and that's why I was making the jokes that, oh,
I guess that makes Taylor Swift now, you know, the
next saint to be canonized, because look there, she's incorruptible,
right or people were putting pictures of linen up. Linen's
encased in wax. I mean, it's just like such a
low tier bizarre thing. If Roman Catholic's realize that it's
admitted that they're encased in silicon and wax, So why
would I accept that as a miracle that this is
you know, uh, it's not incorruptibility. This is ridiculous, are
you there?
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's not even like necessarily what
you call it requirement for someone to be a saying.
Speaker 1: But they're really.
Speaker 24: Levying on it that that look how cool and important
it is and straight up looks like it's from a
wax museum.
Speaker 2: No, but you understand that the Roman Callolicy church admits
they in case they're incorruptibles in wax and silicon. It's
not a conspiracy theory, it's not an atheist objection. They
admit they do this. Just look it up. The other
Roman Catholics are admitting they do this, and this guy
is saying I almost left Catholicism when I found out
that the that these are wax encased people, they're not
necessarily incorruptible. And the guys, the guy who posted it said, well,
but they're incorruptible underneath the wax. That's how do we know.
I mean, that's okay, sure, that's your assertion, But I mean,
aren't there ancient Egyptian they find like embalmed mummies that
looked very well preserved for centuries of you know, millennia
of being in a sarcophagus. I mean, does that mean
that they're incorruptible mummy saying we've got to worship Pharaoh now,
thank you. It's just a stupid argument.
Speaker 24: The Cavean that they find like frozen inside of rivers.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, there you go. So Saint Saint Caveman, saint
in Sino Man. Right, we got a Brendan Fraser is
a saint now because he was in Sino Man. Saint
Brendan Fraser Caveman, pray for us. Yeah, great, points up.
I actually forgot about all of this Twitter nonsense, and
I guess it's because this guy's we got half a
million views on this, only I thought it had more comments,
but it was one hundred and sixty two, which is
a pretty good amount of comments. But I mean, I look,
it's kind of like the apparition stuff, right, So does
an apparition prove wrong Catholicism? I mean, if it does,
then does it prove Coptic Christianity? And they never they
never give you an answer to that. They just say, well,
Mary is trying to make them Catholic? Where did when
did Mary try to make them Catholic in his IU
and apparitions? None of the Coptics became Catholic from that.
But yeah, great point. I forgot about all the St.
Madam Tussaud's a Saint factory over there at Rome. Uh dude,
I went to Ripley's, believe it or not. I didn't
even realize in I was in the presence of relics.
Uh y'all ever been to the thing out in the desert?
And if you're when you're driving to New Mexico and Arizona.
When you're driving through New Mexico and Arizona, you start
seeing all these billboards about the thang, right, and then
you pay a dollar to go see the thing. While
you're driving out to California. Right this, this is it
right here. See this, and then when you you see
that glass encasement right there next to that uh gorilla
head or whatever the hell that is, that's right here.
I'm gonna ruin it for all, y'all because when you
pay a dollar to walk through the museum, do you
know what the thing is? It's just a mummified woman
and a I guess her baby, that's what the thing is. Well,
I didn't even realize the thing was a saint, saint thing.
What's that saint thing? Pray for us, Saint Vladimirlinin, Pray
for us, because all you gotta do is be encased
in wax and you're in incorruptible, and that proves your religion.
And you see how stupid this is, y'all gonna ask
for the intercession a saint thing? And the Roman galaxy
are just mad because they know that these are really
dumb arguments, and the only people who would fall for
this are the most gullible goobers out there, the people
who have It's like the people who believe in the thing,
right like, oh, that's that's a real alien over there.
It's not an alien it's just a mummified woman and
her body and it's I guess again, it's like and
what determines incorruptible? If you could put wax on it
and it's incorruptible, then I mean, have y'all not seen
v I Lenins in case in wax? And then when
I brought that up, they were like, it doesn't count
because he was evil. What do you mean it doesn't count?
Like it's the exact same thing that you're arguing, right,
So here's Lenin. Look how preserved he is and they
admit he's covered in wax. Good grief, dude, slow boy,
Brandon five dollars Jay. When I'm debating atheists, I can't
get them to concede to God with tag, Well, then
move on. I don't know how to use tag to
show that the Trinity is true. I just did it.
Somebody just actually found where I talked about it in
an old video because they're everybody asks this, I'm not
mad at you, this like this comes up like every day,
So let me see. Uh, I think I know which
video was they put this? They timestamped where I talked
about this one Drake Monotheis, where did I talk about Trinity.
Let me find this guy's comment, where's the what the heck? Okay,
let's see how does the tag? How does tag prove trinity?
I'm going to pin this comment since everyone asked where
did you cover this? So top ten bad arguments for
the transcend argument for God is the video and the
argument is at one nineteen.
Speaker 23: Forty three right there on you dude, there you go,
I penned the dog Is this your first time on
the inner webs? I need a ginger Mercury? What's up, dude, Mercury?
You over there in retro grady?
Speaker 2: Right now? You're retro grade?
Speaker 1: Sorry? Can you hear me? Hey man?
Speaker 18: My friends start introduced me to some of.
Speaker 1: Your videos, and I'm intrigued. Uh. One of the areas
of literature. I in very broad knowledge of literature, and.
Speaker 21: It seems like, you know, is the enlightenments through Anglophone
analytic philosophy to American pragmatism. You say two dogmas in particular,
So I guess what I just wanted.
Speaker 1: To do here.
Speaker 21: Is making American pragmicists a case for sola scripture. I
just see where you pull holes in it, right, because
I think there's a shared Germany equal background there.
Speaker 2: How would American pragmatism have anything to do with Sola scripture.
Speaker 21: So there's a turn in Western secular philosophy from epistemology
to linguistics. I think there's a linguistic turn in Western philosophy,
which line really seems to epitomize, right, I think we
can just stop and see if you agreed.
Speaker 2: Every Yeah, I mean the two dogmas eventually becomes a
debate about the circularity of lexicographers and dictionaries and definitions
and self evidence, and so he argues it's a big circle.
And yeah, that's linguistic philosophy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, clearly influenced by vicken Stein. I think he's like
a ghost in the background, and.
Speaker 21: Ultimately culminating in Richard Gordy's critique of all of Western
philosophy as an attempt to hypostatize reason as a mirror
of nature, as he titles his MAGNI about this in
my opinion.
Speaker 2: Okay, but just let me stop you right there, because
I would just simply say that solar scripture has nothing
to do with any of that. It's a historical question
of the formation. Well, it's two things. It's a historical
issue hold on of the formation of the canon. And
then secondly it's an issue of whether or not the
principle of socapture itself is true. So those are two things.
So what does that have to do with modern pragmatic
linguistic turns.
Speaker 21: If you believe in solely the word John one one,
then a turn from epistemology to linguistics.
Speaker 2: What do you think the word is? And what is
the word there that?
Speaker 1: What is language itself?
Speaker 2: No, that's not what it is. The word in John
one is the second person of the Godhead. It's not language.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the word is literally the word.
Speaker 2: No, it's the second person of the Godhead, who's identified
in John one as Jesus, the second Hypostas. It's not language. No,
you're wrong. So you have an assumption about what John
one is about. It's not language. It's the person of
the word.
Speaker 1: I don't have an assumption on a reason.
Speaker 2: You just literally told me that it's language, and you
said you don't have an assumption. It is not language.
It is the second person of the Godhead. He is
not language.
Speaker 1: We're focusing on the scripture right now, are we not
on the word?
Speaker 2: What does John want identify as the logos? Well, who
does it identify as the logos?
Speaker 1: The word was God, the word was with God in
the word was God. Who is it? Is it a he?
Speaker 2: Or an is? Language? Is an it? God is a he?
Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 2: I don't care what you're concerning you. Which one is it?
Is it the second person of the Godhead? Who is
a he? Or isn't an it? All right? Goodbye? Listen
to my listen to my wife. Huh, you're not letting
me finish because you're saying dumb stuff. Obviously, it's not language,
that's an it. It's a he, a named entity. Goodbye.
That's why there's no linguistic pro pragmatic Americanist argument for
soul scripture, because you literally thought that the logos of
John one is language and not a divine hypostasis. Isaiah,
Huh that soila. As far as I'm concerned, Well, let
me talk. What's up? How you doing?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 15: I got a question about about tag. You know, maybe
we can have a discussion on it.
Speaker 1: So, okay, can you so?
Speaker 15: I know, I I agree that the argument is an
argument between paradigms, and but I'm trying to learn more
about how can.
Speaker 1: We support the paradigm of of God?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 15: So, like I get the question a lot when I
try to argue TAG as to like what is the
mechanism in which God gives us knowledge?
Speaker 1: And I don't really know where to go from there.
Speaker 2: So the Christian worldview presents a specific paradigm of epistemology, metaphysics,
and ethics, and so all three of those things are
what you're arguing for I think when you're arguing TAG.
So TAG is a supra argument that sort of encompasses
like an umbrella, those three domains of a worldview. So,
for example, Christianity has a specific metaphysic about the natural world,
about the regularity of nature, providence, etc. Those things are
the basis, for example, of induction, and so induction is
possible because of the Christian metaphysic of divine providence, et cetera.
So that's one example to where induction or identity over
time is not a problem in a Christian paradigm because
the entire Christian ethos and metaphysic has God creating the world,
with things having natures, things having secondary causal powers, et cetera.
So if you're having that metaphysic then that explains and
grounds how it's possible to have those things. It doesn't
exhaustively explain every element of a worldview or every question.
It makes possible those things. So that's I think a
lot of people mistake the transitional argument for an exhaustive
explanation for everything, or an exhaustive explanation for every aspect
of a worldview.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: No, it's an explanation for how it's possible to have
those things, which is a meta level argument. So the
atheist paradigm, for an example here, contrasted to that paradigm,
how does it even make possible knowledge or metaphysical claims
at all? So the argument is not about the claims
themselves in terms of whether there's tels or whether there's
this or that. It's a question of whether the worldview
makes it possible to have metaphysics and knowledge and ethics.
Speaker 15: I mean, I don't even see a way that they
can they can get out of their own senses. And
it seems like, on the same hand, they're trying to
say that everything they get or practically everything they get,
is via their senses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and even the senses doesn't even make sense
that that assumes that there's reliable, meaningful information and data
coming in from the external world that's distinct from you know,
merely sensual reactions of you know, hot cold, this kind
of stuff like even hot and cold. Assumes that there's
some kind of like meaningful data interaction with an external world,
none of which has actually proven. They just assume it, right,
And and that's what I was gonna say.
Speaker 15: On the same hand, they they also say that your
senses are also not reliable, exactly when I asked them to.
Like so it's just I don't know how they do it,
but like.
Speaker 2: So let me, let me let me well, and not
even just not reliable, but like what's the difference between
you know, like when my when my hand reacts to
a hot stove and I and I jerk my hand
back because of the heat. Like why is that an instinctual,
sort of non important, not meaningful action versus the information
that comes in when I look at and touch the book, right,
So it's like this is a meaningful, information rich activity
looking at the book and touching it, smelling, licking the
book right, tasting to see what it did that versus
like the instinctual things of yawning or whatever, like things
that are not supposedly meaningful, or information coming in from
the external world that doesn't really Like, there's this, there's
an assumption that, oh, that's a class of things that
matter versus all these other things they don't matter. Well,
if I'm just a meat bag and this is just
like random stuff occurring, there's no classification of meaningful actions
versus non meaningful or instinctual actions versus rational high tier
sophistic Again, they're all just it's all just the same
bunch of things happening which have no meaning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, well I don't even know. I don't
even know.
Speaker 15: Like usually what they mean by meaning in the first
place is just what they're privy to, like what they like,
you know. So I don't even think, you know, I
don't even think that they can get out of that.
But let me let me ask you this, and uh,
you know, I won't take up too much of your time.
Speaker 1: I mean, I could talk all day about it.
Speaker 15: But so I'm having trouble.
Speaker 1: Let me let me put it this way. How can
I know?
Speaker 15: Right, Let's say that you're you're saying that God is
giving me information somewhere right, Like, I get divine providence
that that he set up the world in such a
way where it acts regular because he created it right,
and he's instantiating that at all times.
Speaker 5: Therefore, we can know.
Speaker 15: That our past future, well, we don't even need the
past futures because we have information about future futures.
Speaker 1: Right, I get that, But I don't.
Speaker 15: I'm having trouble on the epistemology side, right.
Speaker 1: I think I.
Speaker 15: Understand the metaphysic of it, and I definitely understand the
ethics of it, but I'm having trouble on the epistemology
of it.
Speaker 2: Okay, what specifically, I don't know how.
Speaker 15: I can know that divine divine providence.
Speaker 1: Is what is keeping it right.
Speaker 2: Well, the argument is that ultimately it's a theonymous epistemology,
meaning that it's grounded in the divine revelation that God
maintains the universe through his energy of divine providence. So
the way that we know it is because of divine revelation. Ultimately,
we're not knowing it in the sense of like, oh,
we did an exhaustive, you know, computer data analysis of
the natural world that tells us that there must be
a being that's providential. No, it's it's literally from divine revelation.
And so, well, how do you know that revelation's true. Well,
the way I would know, first and foremost is because
of the reliability of that worldview. In other words, the
worldview itself is what makes possible having knowledge or metaphysics
at all. So, in other words, the epistemology is grounded
in the revealed doctrines, the revelation of God's self, disclosure
of who he is, Trinity, et cetera, his third eye, God,
perspective of history.
Speaker 1: So is something is it something like through the world we.
Speaker 15: Can observe divine providence, right, and you would call that
observation revelation.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying that the way that I know that
providence is the answer to the question of induction and
the regulatory of nature is because of divine revelation. Divine
revelation tells me that God created the world in a
regular way that in Genesis won the seasons will continue
until the end of the world. The seasons act as
a kind of a you know, world clock, until there's
an end of the universe whenever God determines that to be.
So that regularity is not something that I just want,
you know, Like, so I go out and I look
at the seasons, and yeah, I see a kind of
a regularity. But the basis for why I think it's
divine regularity would be divine revelation.
Speaker 1: Okay, I get that.
Speaker 15: Maybe I could have been more clear when I said observation,
because like I think, I consider reading reading scripture and observation.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, so that this is this is
so the faculty of reading, or your senses and sense data,
is not the equivalent of revelation because your faculties are
created faculties. Divine revelation is God's own self disclosure of himself,
which is of his own divine thoughts or low gi
or divine ideas. That's uncreated divine revelation. And so your
created faculties and senses are perceiving the uncreated, sometimes to
the created and ultimately antheosis we hope eventually directly.
Speaker 15: Okay, I got, I gotta, I got some of that.
I think it would for me to absorb all of it.
Speaker 2: Do you do you have any good Let me give
an example. So, like when you're observing the natural world,
that's not divine revelation. Yeah, that's you observing the natural
world and you can do what Saint Maximus calls a
kind of natural contemplation to see the divine behind that
or through that, and in a sense it could potentially
become divine revelation, because he says something like when we
see God, we eventually see all things in God. Right,
so it's it's potentially revelation, but just perceiving the natural
world itself is not necessarily relationship.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, right, right, I get that.
Speaker 15: I think that I need to study moral on on exactly.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I think that you
did good there. It just seems like divine revelation is
a huge topic.
Speaker 2: Well, i'll tell you what to read on this. This
Saint Justin Popovich's chapter on Saint Isaac the Syrian called
the Mystery of Knowledge, and there he will distinguish revelation, knowledge,
et cetera. It's a very good chapter.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, I appreciate it. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's in the book Life in Christ by Saint
Justin Papovich and FDA. If you wanted to comment on
any of that about revelation, feel free. Welcome everybody. We're
having open debate We've had some great discussions so far.
We had one kind of wacko fed dude who was
going crazy, but pretty much on the whole, We've had
a really cool, calm, civil discussion. We had that one
kind of goofy Protestant guy. So we're batting about eight
for ten today, eight for ten for quality versus crazy
Palestine Palestine. By the way, if you want to follow
me on X you can follow me right over here
and help me out. I'm almost two.
Speaker 26: What's up, hi, Jay, thanks for the mic man, my
first time here. I'm a Muslim, I thought, Yeah, so
I I am not that much knowledgeable on uh, like
the different Christians six I know, like all of those
Catholic and.
Speaker 11: I have a few questions for you, but I just
wanted to We're Orthodox here, so go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I just.
Speaker 11: Wanted to ask if your questions before that, like have
you studied.
Speaker 1: The religion of Islam like at all? Or or Quran? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I mean, I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I've
debated all of your top guys for the last five years.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, So the only one I think the main
point that most Muslims say is like the as you
said just now, that that the Bible.
Speaker 26: Was written like, uh, and depending on on this, the
people that were there who wrote the Bible, because the
Bible has been changed.
Speaker 2: Well, now that's your assertion. But hold on, hold on,
that's your assertion that the Bible was changed. And what
is your actual evidence or proof of that, because the
Quran does not say the Bible was changed?
Speaker 26: No, no, But but you just said that, you know,
the writings in the Bible depended on the people that No.
Speaker 2: I said that the collection of the books, which we
call the canon. In other words, the canon means the
books that were decided upon to go into the Bible,
which is this big collection here of a bunch of
the Bible is a bunch of little books. Right. So
what I'm saying is that the community of people, namely
the Church of the first seven eight hundred years, is
who determined what books go into this big book. That's
what I was saying. I didn't say they changed.
Speaker 26: It, right, right, So the original version is still there,
like it's still exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If you look up the comparison of the manuscripts
of the earliest versions of the New Testament, there's about
a ninety five to ninety seven percent unanimity and accuracy
amongst the various manuscript traditions. That's the highest amongst any
of the ancient texts.
Speaker 26: Right, But then Quran does say that, and you you
probably know already that we have very high like we
think Christians are the closest to us, like because it
also mentions because they have love in their heart right
like the Christians.
Speaker 2: Well, the Qoran also says that people who believe in
partners with Allah or idolators and should be killed. So
now I don't think you actually believe that we're close.
Speaker 11: No, No, so that that's very upcoming. Quran says that.
Speaker 26: Jesus was a prophet, a messenger and not a son
of God. But Christians have like changed it or.
Speaker 2: No, I understand that that's what you say, we believe.
I understand that. But what I'm arguing is that in reality,
the Quran also says, and I believe the Quran contradicts.
I know you don't think it does, but I believe
that it does. So we have competing We have competing claim.
You believe your book is correct and doesn't contradict. I
believe my book is correct and doesn't contradict. My argument
is that the Quran itself, for example, in five forty
six and forty seven, says that Allah revealed himself in
the Torah and in a previous revelation. And so is
it true that all those words can be corrupted?
Speaker 11: Yes, people, people corrupted.
Speaker 2: It, right, Well, I thought, so hold on, So then
then the Kuran could be corrupted if people can corrupt
all his words, right, So that's where.
Speaker 11: I'm coming at. So in Quran, Allah has mentioned that.
Speaker 26: He's taken responsibility by himself, that this book will never
be changed because there's the laws.
Speaker 2: But wait a minute, it was his work. So he
wasn't responsible in the prior revelations that the humans corrupted.
He wasn't responsible for those. But he's going to be
responsible now.
Speaker 26: No, But he gave an open hand, like he gave
people the responsibility to be you know.
Speaker 2: Good, Okay, so Uthman and all of that with the
burning of the various korans, was that also his responsibility
or how did that work?
Speaker 18: No?
Speaker 11: No, no, no, So so Quran doesn't like book doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: I tell you why, because the book doesn't matter of
the prophet, right, the book doesn't matter seth, sir, what's up?
The book doesn't matter now, so what's up? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I should probably hop off and hop back in. Uh,
it's kind of I got him at the worst possible.
Speaker 2: Time, So that's fine. Yeah, come back when you're ready. Roscoe. Hello, Yeah,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 16: I have a question about Uh, absolutely defined simplicity from
a perspective.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 16: I was talking to my Iranian SHEI have friend, and
he said that Allah reveals himself through intermediary created principles
like the mom or the created.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it just moves the problem back a step.
So I was listening to all of doctor Khalil's talk
on all of that and everything that he was critiquing
the other positions for He's in the exact same boat.
Because if Gabriel gets the revelation from Allah and then
and then Gabriel makes it accessible to the humans, Jabril
is still a creature. So how is he getting these
uncreated words?
Speaker 16: Well, they don't believe it's uncreated like she has will
say that for example, the Kuran doesn't it does it does?
Speaker 5: It can be corrupted in their religion, that's what they believe.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying that I'm not talking about the book,
I'm talking about the revelation from the Eternal Scroll or
whatever to that Jabril is the problem is between Allah
and Jabril. It's the same problem because Jabril is a creature.
Speaker 5: So are you saying that, like, how does Jabriel ground
this knowledge?
Speaker 2: The problem? So if you watch doctor Khlill's lecture where
he critiques the Ashari and the Wahabbies and all of that,
he talks about the different positions and he says that
the the way that the going from memory, the way
the the Shari discuss it is that they don't believe
that Allah has parts, but they do believe that there's
this uncreated Qur'an. And so how is there an uncreated
Qur'an that's other than Allah? And so my point is
just simply that if he believes that there's an uncreated
or achievement that there's an eternal tablet, that it's still
there's still a gap between the uncreated, whether it's from
Allah to the tablet or whether it's from the tablets
to Jabril. The problem still remains. If there's nothing like Allah,
then how do you get any point in this chain
of a created similarity to the uncreated.
Speaker 16: Yeah, that's what I asked him, and he, I guess prevaricated.
I tried forcing an analogical predication, which we contradict his ads, right,
but he kept on saying that the action is only
done through the imoms from all of creation, and that
these are creative effects and they're.
Speaker 1: Not like Allah.
Speaker 2: Well, a creative effect does not like the uncreated.
Speaker 16: So when I tried saying, like, for example, is Allah's
knowledge uncreated?
Speaker 5: How do you share this? How do you share a.
Speaker 16: Similarity to what what knowledge Allah has revealed to you?
He said you appealed to the logic of Dionysius and said, well,
Allah is not lacking and knowledge he surpasses it to
the extent that he's not lacking, but it's sort of
overflowing in him.
Speaker 5: And it's so, is it sort of super knowledge that
cannot be compared?
Speaker 2: Well, how does he know that? Though, I mean, he
would have to have access to the thing that he
says is in question.
Speaker 5: It's in his Uh.
Speaker 16: I'm pretty sure some of these shiah hideas and then
thems no.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying that you can appeal to that, But
that's still begging the question that how do we know
that it's actually matt up to the thing that's beyond.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's no predication for them as all apathetic.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's what I'm trying to say, is like,
you can't have a totally apathetic system. At some point,
you're going to have to have something cataphatic to be
able to speak about it. But they've already sort of
shot themselves in the foot with their either their ADS
or just the you know, Quran forty two that there's
nothing like a lat.
Speaker 16: Okay, I guess I'll have to investigate it a little
bit more to explain it to him. But do you
have any books critiquing this sort of neoplatonism and the
ADS in general that you because we're just online resources.
Speaker 2: In general, I mean all the Orthodox Church fathers, I
mean especially the Cave Docians, like when they're responding to Eunomius.
Eunomius is a neoplatonist. So every argument for the essence
introduce sinction is by default an argument against the ADS
Neoplatonic Roman Caloic position.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I've seen some of these quotes, but honestly, I
think that only really maps on to like a worldview
where there's Christian presuppositions, you know what I'm saying, where
like there's a common sort of revelation that doesn't really
exist in the Muslim worldon.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, but but what I'm saying is that the
way that we go about critiquing neo platonic movements and
presuppositions is more than just I mean, there's internal problems
with those positions to begin with. For example, when the
last time doctor Khalil came on here or some of
his students, they were actually arguing that it's not neoplatonism,
it's actually from the Quran. And I'm like, so the
Kuran didn't get this from the positions that were centuries
prior to the Qoran, no, I mean, which I think
is kind of retarded. So I just ask your friend
if he believes, like, in other words, it's cribbed, like
most of Islam is cribbed. And so whether it's Islam,
it's whether it's they're cribbing from the Talmud or from
Christianity or from Orthodoxy or with the Shiahs, they're cribbing
from neoplatonism. And they'll even kind of admit this, But
then when you ask them if it's borrowed from neoplatonism.
They're like, no, it's from a lot, it's from the Quran.
So it's like, how is it from Allah in the Quran?
If it came from Plutina's centuries early, I.
Speaker 16: Think it could be similar to like a logo supermatico
as sort of like semi perennialism thing.
Speaker 2: They didn't try to argue that maybe they maybe they
could go that route, but no, they were actually just
saying that, no, it's not actually from Plato.
Speaker 5: And it's like they say it's original. Yeah, wow, I
didn't know that is that? I thought too.
Speaker 2: They don't say that, well maybe this was just like
misinformed students of his or something. I don't know, but right,
but I mean what I'm but still like the point
would still stand, like even if if that's the case,
then was that revelation from a law prior to the Quran?
And I mean, does did those that I'll get corrupted
to all his words get corupted? I thought all his
words can't get corrupted.
Speaker 16: They don't believe that actually, Like they say that the
Qur'an in some places has been like burned or taken
out or at itude.
Speaker 2: Right, I understand that the sis will admit that. But
what I'm trying to say is, like, then at what
point is the is it the true revelation? They're going
to say it's the eternal tablet?
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, so there's like no consistent Okay.
Speaker 2: So but how do I know where's the access to
the tablet? Where does that come from? Where do we
get that? How do I know what the infallible imams are?
And how am I supposed to know and follow them?
It's just it's just moving the problem, like from one
created thing to another created thing to another created thing.
It's like the just kicking the can down the road
in terms of a piscocology. All right, anyway, good questions. Yeah,
I'm not super well read on the she is, but.
Speaker 13: I'm not.
Speaker 2: I mean, you could critique neo Platonism on just the
way that we would critique Platonism, like why is there
a like what is the emanation from the one? And
like why is it of a lesser diminished status? And
you know, like Platonism, we like how do we know
that the one is ontologically superior to the many? That's
a hellenic presupposition that is just stated and asserted how
do we know that that's the case because the system
rests on these kinds of metaphysic assumptions which are all
from Hellenism. And then they'll just turn around and be like,
now it's not from Hellenism, it's from the Coron. So
I just don't know how you go about something like that.
But aside from all these metaphysical disputes, like, did anybody
just watch the doctor Khalil sam Chumun debate, I mean,
Sam Schimun demolished him. So, X Trip, what's up? What's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 2: X Trip? I'm mute, Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: M I just got a quick question for you.
Speaker 24: What do you think of the position that the modern
Jews of today are the descendants of.
Speaker 2: That's crazy lunacy who believes that Jews are the decid
What right are.
Speaker 24: You familiar with the dustin emos in his works?
Speaker 2: Ro I'm orthodox? Why am I going to be following
some quack weirdo Protestant guy? Like, is this like Christian
identity stuff? Is that what that is? I got sort
of all right, that stuff's all retarded. Man, Come on,
that's that's not even worth That's not even worth any place,
don puppet. I'm debating with a puppet.
Speaker 1: We love the Jews, unbelievable Jews not so much. We
don't love the jay I'm at Protestant.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 9: I'm an attorney as well. My other attorney buddy and
I are listening to you right now, and we've been
listening to you for a few weeks now. He said
something fifteen minutes ago about the judiciary and kind of
compared the ultimate authority of the Church having the judiciary
like care, comparing it to the Supreme Court of having
like a final say this to the authority of what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we had actually brought that analogy up earlier.
Speaker 9: We are wrestling with Apostolic succession, and we're listening to
you a few other people. How do you deal with
the objections that that's too restrictive, that that presents some
issues that like originalism would present where there's not this golden.
Speaker 5: Era where the Church was unified or that like on
the Day of.
Speaker 9: Pentecost, they were all unified in spirit, but they maybe
not necessarily had gone through all these problems of heresy
that encounters later on down the line. And to the
second point of that as you could respond the critique
of Protestanism of just us. You know, I can go
with some buddies and get my Bible and say this
is what it means. How do you respond, how that's
any different other than the time period for those councils
who also would kind of go in before the Bible
or with some of these scripts or some of these
people that knew Jesus and iron things out. Are they
kind of doing the same thing. What separates us now
from what they did?
Speaker 15: Right?
Speaker 2: Well, if you listen to answer the second part, I
said specifically that it's a Roman Catholic objection that you
hear all the time to Protestants that I don't think
is a very good argument to say that you guys
are just reading your Bible on your own, and you
all are coming to your own interpretations, and so therefore
the papacy's necessary. That's like ninety five percent of the
pop Catholic car salesman apologists. I specifically said, that is
not a good argument, because everybody's in the same boat.
We're all going to be reading the Bible and trying
to figure out what it means. We're all going to
be relying on our interpretation that's unavoidable. But where we
differ between Catholic protests and Orthodox is the means that
we're going to be using or relying on one to
interpret and get that meaning that data. For the Orthodox,
it's a collection of a lot of different things that
we don't pick one thing out like, oh, I just
follow this church father, I just follow this guy, I
just followed this book. For us, all these different things,
whether it's participation in the liturgy, whether it's reading church
history and church fathers, reading the councils, reading the Bible,
lies of the Saints, all those things are going to
be combined to be part of our ethos for where
we get the data and the meaning and the interpretation.
If you're a Roman Catholic, ultimately your ultimate epistemic principle
is not the Bible. It's not your private you know, experience.
It's what the popes have determined. And then you got
to like grapple with the papal documents and the councils
and where the popes confirm the councils. So that's the
ultimate epistemic principle for the Roman Catholic. For the Protestant,
it's ultimately you and the Bible. I'm not saying that
Protestants don't like church history or councils or whatever, but ultimately,
the the final authority of soul scripture is the only
infallible guide for the Church is the Protestant Canada Scriptures.
So that's the epistemic existential dilemma that everyone's in, and
everybody is going to say and believe, well, I'm relying
ultimately on the Holy Spirit. Where we differ is the means.
The Orthodox is going to argue that the means to
determine the scriptures and the divine what divine revelation is
is going to be that holistic stuff that I that
I listed. For the Roman Catholic, it's going to be
the decisions of the popes. For the Protestant, it's going
to be ultimately you and the Bible. So I would
argue that the Church in its history disproves both the
papal and the Protestant approach to the means of knowing revelation.
That Church history in the first thousand years demonstrates a
consistent principle of the Church using the Church fathers, the
scriptures and deciding what books go into the scriptures, and
apisode of succession was there before the Bible was there.
That's why Paul says the Church of the pilarm ground
of truth, not the written text. The church produced the
written text, and so appostolic succession is a presupposition for
having a collection of books known as the Canon. Secondly,
I would say that it's just an analogy to the
Supreme Court to illustrate the principle of normative authority. So
in philosophy we make a distinction between the individual existential
dilemma of how do I know which what's the true church.
It's a separate but kind of related question of what's
called normative authority in ethics, which is the question of
is there any body of people that has the authority
to bind people to an interpretation or to bind consciences,
and by extension, to excommunicate people, et cetera. So the
Orthodox argument is that, yes, you do also need It's
not that the Protestant can't read the Bible and figure
out things and see, oh, yes, the Bible teaches Jesus
is divine, he's the son of God, he does the
cross right protests most of the time get all that correct.
So it's not necessarily an individual epistemology question. It could be,
but usually what is that root here is a question
of did Jesus provide the Church, any historical body of
people with authority to bind consciences? And that the reason
I word it that way is that's what directly contrasts
to the classical Reformation doctrine of freedom of conscience, freedom
private interpretation. No authorities can bind you to your conscience.
So do you see how it's two different questions between
individual existential certitude versus the historical question of a public
body of people like the Supreme Court, who can bind
people to an interpretation?
Speaker 9: Yes, but how would you respond to the idea that
those that it would be a cop out for someone
who's used the Orthodox to say, okay, so the person
who was next to Jesus on the cross, he might
not have identified as he's in Orthodox, but he was
just an a noormative path sort of all drains lead
to the ocean. Or like what about the coal miner
in early America who has an encounter with the Holy
Spirit and God starts this movement in him, maybe in
his family, but he never even hears about the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 2: Well, Our position is that the normative way that people
are joined to the mystical Body of Christ, which we
think is the Orthodox Church, is through baptism and catechisis
now God has the means by which he can join
people to that body extra normatively and by his own power.
So the thief on the cross doesn't have to hear
the whole message of you know, I mean he didn't
even he wasn't even alive yet four palls Epistles, a
book of revelation, right, So it's not the amount of
knowledge again, it's the attitude of humility. And we believe
as Orthodox that he actually was joined to the Orthodox Church.
We don't believe that there's this like later period in
the seven hundred where there's this entity that pops up
called the Orthodox Church. We believe and if you read
the first second, third century Church Fathers, they teach the
same things for the most part, on the big issues
that the Church fathers after Nicia teach. So we don't
believe that there was some vast change, you know, after
the Council of Nicea as opposed to the pre nicing fathers,
or that there was some vast change by the prenessing
Fathers over the teachings of the Apostles. We think they're
all in harmony. And you can read the post Apostolic
fathers to see that, you can read Ignacious, you know, Polycarp, Clement,
all of those things will show you the continuity with
the teachings of the Apostles. So I don't see that
would be a cop out. Yeah, that was a great question.
I feel free to call in anytime now, guys. I've
got not a whole lot of time left because I
have a interview a big name person that we're going
to interview here in a little bit. I don't I
think we'll just prerecord it. I don't think it'll be live,
but it'll probably go up in the next few days.
You'll see who that is important person who left liberalism,
and so we're gonna talk to her about what prompted
her to move in that direction, what convinced her of
the problems of the left, and why she's moved more
in our direction to all the way where we are.
But she's left the death cult of the left, the
left death cult, which is good news. So I'll be
leaving her in a minute to talk to her. I
wan to remind you guys too that we have a
show sponsor who is Chalk dot com. Choq dot com.
Head on over here to chalk and be sure and
use the promo go J forty four life, that is
J forty four l I f E to get forty
four percent off all those great chalk products. It's a
great thing if you want to experiment with. You don't
have to use that recurring promo code there. You can
also use J y forty to just get forty percent
off any of the products. So if you want to
test out of that performance stack JAY four zero to
get forty percent off just a base test run there.
But if you use a promo cod J forty four Life,
you can get it coming on the regular. You're gonna
love it, especially the ton Catale especially the action to
point oh chad mode is really intense, so go easy
on it. It's definitely a great pre workout if you
want to test it out. But my favorite, of course
is ton Catalie. That's why I have so much energy
to do so many streams all the time, and we
still go into our workouts when we're not struggling with
freaking stomach aids or whatever. I had for for several
weeks or two weeks was a nightmare. Walmart welch one dollar.
Have you heard of Steve Stefan's his Stephan? Then this
makes me think of Stephan from setting out loud Stephan's
history of the world, I have not. He's a normy
science man. He asserts higher criticism as the true history
of the Hebrews, very much like myth Vision. Well, I
think you guys all saw that when we did our
impromptu debate with Derek Mythvision. It didn't go very well.
Ninety nine percent of the comments we're kind of laughing
at him and you if you remember, he said he
would he would be at million or whatever, he would
have the biggest channel on this stuff by the end
of the year, and his prophecy did not come true. MKG.
Five dollars. Sorry, no, I'm more characters. To be specific.
My question was what are the means by which they
get the blessing from Isaac. The interpretation that makes sense
to me was that he was breaking his hip or
the punishment later down the line. I'm not sure I'd
have to think about that. MKG. I appreciate the question.
Maybe remind me in the chat next time, I'll have
to go and think about I've got a bunch of
Genesis commentaries. I'll have to think about that. I'm not
sure Walmart weigh ninety six one dollar? All right? That
was the normy science man question, Dave two fifty? Can
you recommend a book? Can I recommend a book? Have
you read Rulers of the Evil Supper Saucy?
Speaker 11: No?
Speaker 2: Never heard of it, man, I highly recommend it. It's
out of print. It sells for three hundred to two thousands. Okay,
what's it about Rulers of the Evil Tupper Saucy? What's
it about?
Speaker 1: Dude?
Speaker 2: Sounds crazy? Jony h five dollars twenty five cents. Thank
you for your work.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 2: What do you think of the massive influx of Islam
into Europe? Well, I've done many talks on that as
an older Fabian socialist plan to bring in Islam all
throughout Europe. If you look up all the books that
I did on the Milliner Fabian works, they planned one
hundred years ago Vampire f five dollars. They openly said
they wanted to do that one hundred years ago. I
recall you was talking about a scenario where old parties
would fall out of favor, and then a technocrat would
run and he would be elected and turn out to
be a pro surveillance state. Old parties have fallen of
favor and a technocrat would run. Do you remember the
video or the book? I'm sorry, I don't remember what
you're talking about. Old party? Do you mean old political
parties follow out of favor, a technocrat runs and he's elected,
and he brings about a surveillance state. I'm not sure.
I can't think of any books I read like a
fiction book, a sci fi dystopian book. I can't think
of anywhere there's any scenario like that. But maybe you
don't mean a sci fi as maybe a Philip K. Dickbook.
I don't. I don't know. By the way, we're I
think we're going to do our next fiction book. I
think I'm gonna do Ubic by pkd that'll be fun.
I'm pretty sure Ubik predicted the Internet, right. I haven't
read it so, but I've heard that, so we'll check
that out. Andy Mont has three dollars? What's up to day?
Are there any books that disprove theistic evolution? I mean,
the most famous is Father Siff from Roses Genesis Creation.
Really man, guys, remember too that if you go to
the Jason Alis's shop you can get signed copies of
esoteric Hollywood and it's going to be a great weird
Christmas gift if you want to give your relatives and
your normy relatives to wake them up through movies a
weird Christmas present. Essotery Hollywood one too. They're all signed
copies at Jason Alysi's in the shop. I got a
little bit of time. Let's say if we've got one
more question here, last question before I have to go
to this interview. We got like thirteen people. That's crazy.
Next in line is Dan. What's up? Dan?
Speaker 27: Hey there, Yeah, I just gotta I got a question
for you. It's not so much at debate. You said
earlier in the chat that you'd be willing to answer questions.
That's still true you look at your debate.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 27: I was listening to a lecturer last night that John
Lennox did at the Stanford School of Medicine that was
kind of.
Speaker 1: About suffering, and.
Speaker 27: You could imagine that they probably they have to deal
with a lot of crazy things like kids with cancer
and stuff like that. Now I'm not gonna ask the
question of why do suffering happening happen? But what it
did make me think about is if we are just
supposed to be thankful when things don't turn out our
way with prayer, Like why do we pray if we're
supposed to be thankful in the moments that things don't
work out, because that's God's plan for us and he
must want us to learn something. If we're just gonna
get whatever we're gonna get, why do why would we pray?
Because it almost to me it kind of comes down
to like a free will question, like why pray if.
Speaker 1: We're just gonna get?
Speaker 2: No, we don't just get whatever we're going to get.
I mean, God has chosen to condescend to have a
reciprocal relationship. So there's a really good paper that doctor
Bradshaw wrote about reciprocity. I think it's his. Uh, it's
in his book on the Energy is the one that's
collectionable the say there's a section in the first essay
that talks about God willing and wanting to have reciprocity.
So it's not the case that we're just going to
get whatever we get. We actually wants us to participate,
and he's chosen to react to those that do pray
and talk to him.
Speaker 27: So there's if we do pray, there's I guess potential
that we could swim in one direction or another.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean if you read the Book of Amos,
so that's the whole point of the Book of Amos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much, sir.
Speaker 2: That's a great question. I thought there was a video
recently about this that popped up that was gonna share it,
but I don't see it anyway. Yeah, it's a look
up Bradshaw and reciprocity. All right, Thank you guys. A
lot of great discussions today overall, pretty good comments from everybody.
You can support my work right here through the bitcoin
while at QR code if you want to support with
bitcoin right there. Thank you guys, and everybody, have a
wonderful week. Remember that tomorrow, I think that tomorrow once, Yeah,
we're going to be doing our British spies that made
the modern world. This excellent book by French historian Galsmunier,
and we'll be talking about all these famous British spies
and Napoleonic ara spies which I didn't know anything about
Napoleonic ara spies. These people were crazy, dude. They were
doing some wild stuff. And it's crucial to understanding how
we got the modern world. How did the Middle East
come to be how it is. Well, you can't understand
that without understanding the Napoleonic era and the British Empire.
Napoleon wanted to take all of these areas from the
British Empire. He didn't succeed in doing that, but this
led to where we are today in the modern world,
with the carving up of much of the Middle East
and what's going on there today. So you have to
understand this background. You need to know who these people are.
They're very famous spies and operatives, and nobody talks about this.
Nobody ever mentions these histories except over here on my channel.
And hope you guys appreciate it. We'll be talking about
that tomorrow in the afternoon as we cover Black Gold
Spies and the T. E. Lawrence type material. Everybody, have
a good night.