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