Speaker 1: Tis. The problem with science is that they use a
quote mathematical theories such as multiverse or quote dark matter.
By the way, that's all speculation of metaphysics, which supposedly
modern science and scientism is against. They say it is
true and that it exists in almost purely metaphysical way exactly.
That's the main critique is that, you know, modern scientism
is built on the anti metaphysical stance of the post
Enlightenment worldview, and now they've come back to crazy sci
fi metaphysical stuff with multiverses and you know, quantum foam theory,
all this nonsense. Trombone coach ten dollars, Thank you so much,
Don Walker, twenty New Zealand. No, we did that one.
Call me Trinity becoming what's up man? Tedy's two dollars.
This is a dynamic duo. Thanks ted True became a member.
He says, I got to run back one of these
Nick livestreams. Jay might have to borrow a disguise from
Jimbob hell Hell now hile soul ten dollars, happy birthday.
I hope you have a good one. When you're going
to go back on Sam Heights PGL. I don't know,
if they asked me to come back on, I'll be
you get. The way to get me on shows or
Nick on shows, you guys, is like people need to
go in the chat and just remind them in the
chat in the comments, like yeah, that's a better way,
because if I just constantly spam and ask people to
come on their shows, they get annoyed, and it is
they want to know what the audience wants.
Speaker 2: Not right, Yeah, if you keep on spamming in the
chat enough, they'll be all right, maybe didn't they want
to see the people.
Speaker 1: Same with debates, right, So if you want Nick to
debate some dude, like constantly ask that person's chat, you know,
go into Jake's chat or Muslim Whoever's chat and be
like you need the debate, Nick, blah blah blah. Yeah,
locks toe up two dollars. Do you have any thoughts
on the assisted un alive in government program? Well, that's
part of you know, euthanasia and eugenics, So I mean
that's part of the government strategy Jesus in a lot
of these socialist countries like Canada. I've been talking about
it for fifteen years, so yeah, I mean I have
a lot to say about it, Ton twenty four, Smith
ten dollars. I'm trying to understand the difference between nature
being corrupted and quote guilty. Well, first of all, guilt
in the Orthodox conception and even in the Roman Catholic conception.
Now nowadays, it only makes sense in terms of personal
decision and action and responsibility. There's no such thing as
nature being guilty. That would be Manicheanism, that would be
something that just doesn't make sense with anything but Calvinism.
So nature is good, but guilt is accrued when an
individual makes a sinful action against God's law or against
that nature. And that's what you see James saying that
sin is when passion is consented to. He doesn't say
that the passions are sin. He says that as sin
technically is when you consent to the passions against God's law.
Even the passions themselves are not evil. But there's also
saying as a guilty nature, And this is actually to
confuse nature in person in anthropology. This is what Augustinian
anthropology does, is that it collapses individual persons into their
nature such that the entire nature is guilty in the
mass dam nada, and that just doesn't make any sense
if you read Saint Maxims, so particularly if you read
Free Choice in Saint Maximus, where he can trast the
Augustinian anthropology and modive willing versus the maximus Orthodox anthropology
and motive willing. And that's why so many Orthodox Church
Church fathers and saints will say, our nature itself isn't guilty.
And when we use that language, it's to speak of
the deprivation or the lack of the grace after the fall.
If we are justified by being united to the divine nature,
doesn't this mean that nature that isn't united to the
divine nature is guilty. Again, it's deprived of grace, but
it's not inherently guilty because it exists. That's why Orthodox
theology of Mary makes this very point. Mary is not
immaculately conceived. She doesn't need to be, because there's nothing
inherently wrong with her nature. But being deprived of grace
is what's lacking in our nature. So you see the
difference there, that there's a jump between the deprivation of
grace that we're all born into to saying well, if
we're deprived of grace, then we're guilty and evil. No,
it doesn't follow. Evil and guilt are not natural qualities
or properties. They're negations, their privations. So the only way
to be evil is to actually do an evil action.
It's not a state of being. This thing as an
evil state of being. That's Manichean. Why didn't Mary need
to be quote saved even though she quote never sinned? Well,
she never sinned due to grace, So she was full
of grace, right she was, But she still died. And
that's what disproves the immaculate conception. She wouldn't have needed
to die or under death if she was not under
original sin. So the arguments I think that you're arguing
about Mary actually prove our position.
Speaker 2: And I think it actually makes Mary like so much
greater in the Orthodox Like more people think that she's
greater in Catholic, but like she's greater in Orthodoxyalism because
she still had the corrupted nature that is, you know,
subsidized to death. And even with that nature, she chooses
to you know, not sin, to actually follow God exactly.
And but in catholicis much a little bit different. She
doesn't have that nature.
Speaker 1: She has a cheat code. There's a cheat code with
Mary in exactly the exact conception.
Speaker 2: So it's more about, like, you know, not what she
did at all, more about God is just kind of
rolling the dice and granting someone this nature already exactly.
Speaker 1: Black King's Black Bishops, Black Players. Contimperary companion says, happy birthday, Jay,
and what's up Nick? Thank you. That's a great clips channel.
Be s trying to follow a contimpreak companion. By the way,
the clip channel's been popping off. Shout out to Jake
Ridlesnake between Instagram and YouTube. He did some clips of
me that got like five hundred thousand to a million
views total. Shout out to orb On on Twitter over
here or what's orb orbo Bro did some clips, one
that got one hundred thousand, another got one hundred thousand,
So appreciate those. The clips are popping off, y'all. Keep
doing it, keep turning it out. Feel free to clip
myself anywhere, do whatever you want. I don't care monetize it,
go for it, just link back to me as the
only thing I request. Let's see, all right, I think
I've got all the super jets. Let's see who's next.
Is intanted? What's up man?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 4: J Hey, Happy birthday.
Speaker 5: Hello, Nick, I just had one idea, one short idea
I'd like to share, and two questions.
Speaker 4: Okay, more on the reading list.
Speaker 5: So the idea creditally I have is it's related to
how dualism and modernism just destroyed metaphysics and even our
basic understanding of the world.
Speaker 4: It's basically about the free will and free choice.
Speaker 5: Orthodoxy teaches that the free choice is given to choose
between goods good things, that it is even possible to
have multiplicity of good things.
Speaker 1: And the way if be a tific vision was true,
it is not possible but good.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And currently, even in the fallen state, we still
experience and choose between good and evil things as if
they both are good, and.
Speaker 4: I feel like we still see them as.
Speaker 5: Equivalent or possible paths, let's say when they're not, because
that is basically a part about our nature to choose
between good things, and that's how we perceive them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think when we are in the fallen mode
of willing and we choose evil, we're choosing. We might
deceive ourselves into thinking that we're choosing a good but
we're still choosing something that is ultimately a negation or
a privation if that makes sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, we if we talk about light and shadow,
we even just in the basic words, were still presumed
that shadow has its solemntology.
Speaker 1: When it doesn't, right, Yeah, exactly. I mean I like
the analogy of I mean, they didn't really have this
in the Patristic era, but like negative numbers are a good,
you know, idea for how kind of I mean, it's
a thing, but it's not really a thing, right, So
it kind of has a you know, a linguistic and
linguistic existence, but you know, negative two hundred and fifty
three doesn't actually have ontological existence, right, other than some
sort of conceptual analogical reality that we're saying, it's kind
of evils, kind of like this where you kind of
keep digging yourself, you know, deeper and deeper into negative reality,
so to speak.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So that was kind of my idea I wanted
to share.
Speaker 5: And so the first question I had is I've been
watching your debate.
Speaker 4: With Tim Gordon, and on.
Speaker 5: The section of Philly Oquay, the topic of the Trinity
came up, and Tim said that we know members of
the trinity based on our relations of opposition, and I
understand the intuitive argument for why strong, especially since we
have the Orthodox model, but I don't have the specific
concepts and you know.
Speaker 4: Formulations for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so first and foremost, Yeah, absolutely gladly in fact,
because this is a persisting problem. So the first and
best Orthodox essay on this issue of the problem of
relations of opposition in terms of the Trinity is Loski's
essay Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Doctrine. Let
me get that pdf for you. That one is absolutely
necessary and when if you read that and understand that,
you really probably won't need any of the other critiques
because Losky is so precise and so clear and so
just devastating in this. I mean it's only like twenty
I think it's only fifteen twenty pages. I'll put it
in the chat right here, and if you pull it up,
you'll get on Google. You'll get the PDF right away.
I think it is a chapter in the book Image
and Likeness. Yes it is, so it's chapter four. If
you have the book Image and Likeness, you do know
what to get the PDF. But there's the pdf. There's
multiple levels of critique here. And this is relevant too,
because if you remember when I had that so called
interaction debate quote unquote with Wagner. Wagner had no idea
what I was talking about, and he just assumed that
everything that I was saying was somehow my ignorance of
Tomism had nothing to do with that. I was pointing
out that in the Cappa Docians, relations of origin or
relations of the persons is not the same thing as
a relation of opposition. Relation of opposition as a theory
that Augustine begins to kind of toy with that really
gets solidified in the Medieval Church, Latin Church, and in Aquinas.
Now Loski deals with all this in this essay and
he explicates it very well. And some of the main
critiques would be, first of all, in a this is
a critique that Pharrell makes in God History and Dialectic.
So I think it's in book. It's either book one
or two. This is another book you should get if
you can. God History, Dialectic, Volume one or two. That
doesn't make sense in a triad to talk about opposition,
because opposition in the medieval world relates to a diad, right,
because remember they counted by division, and we've covered this
in the debates of the Muslims about counting by division.
Versus counting by identity. In the ancient world, for example,
in the Nicene Creed, we count by division because we
say that God is one and undivided. There's also counting
by identity in the ancient medieval world too, but specifically
for the triad. When the church fathers and the early
writers talked about and the medieval writers thought of counting,
they counted by division, which means that you have a whole,
and then to count to two, you divide that by
itself and you get two, right, and then you divide
from that and you get three. So they're counting by
dividing a hole or a monad. And this is kind
of platonic counting as well. And that's why the Creed
says one and undivided. Why would they use that term. Well,
they're counting by a division. And doctor Branson has shown
this by the way, and a lot of his essays
and debates. They got into this with Jake years ago
with doctor Branson versus Jake and their debate. I got
into this in my debate with I think Jake or Kikachu,
one of the two I forget. But this has come
up multiple times to refute the lpt right. So the
logical problem the trinity. You got to understand this kind
of stuff anyway. That's separate from this, but it relates
because in a triad you can't have opposition. There is
no opposition. If you read the Cappadocians, for example, and
Big or Maximus and Big one number one. He goes
to the Cappadocians to say that the trinity cannot be
a diead. There's no opposition in God, so it has
to be a triad because the triad transcends the diad.
This is a numerical argument that Cappadocians make. This is
what I was trying to explain to Wagner. He didn't
care about any of this, had no concern with it.
All he wanted to do was clip a supposed own.
But here's the problem. If you read Congar has an
essay making all the same points that I made to Wagner,
so Eves cone Gar on the Trinity and relations of
opposition in Augustine, and I'm gonna give you that essay
right here. You'll notice that, oh, okay, so Jay actually
didn't know what he was talking about. Between the Roman
cality theologian and the Orthodox the Elosian critiquing relations of opposition.
It's all in these two essays. And actually Wagner was
the one that had no idea what he was talking about.
But but and I since have asked Wagner if you
would like to read these things and we can revisit
this conversation. He has to date no interest whatsoever in
looking at any of the materials or discussing it. Now,
last point, beyond the fact that I mean Conear in
this essay basically says everything that I argue that relations
of opposition is not the way that the Cappadocians lay
out their triad. That's a later medieval specific development in
the Latin Church. Loski says, there's a really there's a
couple easy points here. At number one, the Cappadocians teach
relations of origin, not relations of opposition. And if they
use the terminology of opposition, it's not relations of opposition.
You can't define persons by what they're opposed to because
it begs the question, So the Father is the father
because he's not the Son and not the Spirit. The
Spirit is the Spirit because he's not the Father not
the Son. That doesn't tell you who they are. That
tells you whether they're not, so they're negative statements. And
Loski critiques this and says a relation is a predicate,
not a subject. So it's confusing subjects and predicates to
say that the father is the relation that he has
with the son. I am not the relation I have
to my dad. That's a property or an attribute about me.
That's not who I am as a subject. It's just
one of the many predicates that you could say about me.
So it's confusing subject and predicate. It's so stupid. But
Aquinas says person is relation, persona at rolatio. So it
makes sense why Tim would argue that way because in
Tomistic theology are because of divine simplicity the relations that
they have to the other persons. But that's preposterous. A
person is a subject, not a relation. So the father
is not the relation that he has to the son.
The father is a divine subject of the father, the
cause of the archae of the fount, et cetera. All
of those terms that are hyposthetic properties go into define
the person's not relations of opposition. And that's why when
I said it's hyposthetic properties that define the person, something
very basic to Orthodox and Eastern and Triad and in
cappodotion and Christology, Tim Gordon had no idea what that
even is? What do you mean hypostetic properties? What is that?
Relations of origin? What is that? Well, just read the
Lost essay and it's all right there. I apologize with
that long ramp.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just wanted to quickly clarify so my understanding
that they basically have the only way out of absolute
divine simplicity in relations of oppositions, and it's.
Speaker 4: Just basically picking the can down the.
Speaker 5: Road, yep, when you could keique the ADS position correct And.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, if you read on the Trinity, if you
read on the Trinity, Augustine struggles with and he says,
you know, if God is this absolutely simple neoplatonic definition
of simplicity, and he explicitly uses the Plutonian definition what
simplicity is, which is not what the capinitions do. He says,
how can we distinguish how is there a real, you know,
distinction between father and son? He says, well, maybe we
could say that they're not the other, you know, the father,
isn't this one and isn't this one? Well, but that's true,
But that doesn't really tell you anything about like who
they are. And it's that's also not a relation of
opposition because there's two things that it would be opposed to.
Relation of opposition is too So how can it be
a relation of opposition when there's actually the father and
the son and the spirit. So that would be pryad
of opposition, which is just nonsense. It makes no sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and basically what I wanted to say, oh is
that it.
Speaker 4: No, I just forgot one second.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll read a super jare while you're thinking, so
we got nick.
Speaker 6: If you want to say a thing, feel free, I mean, yeah,
to your point about when you're talking about counting by
division and stuff like that, and how they used to
count by division, I mean, there's a paper you're probably
read by David Liisman.
Speaker 2: He says we don't count by division. He gives some
good examples and that as to why we don't count
by division. Like, for example, if you have you know,
like a baseball.
Speaker 7: Analogy, if you have you say eight there was eight.
Speaker 2: Batters struck out, right, does that mean that eight people
struck out well? Not necessarily, because there could have been
you know, two persons that batted twice, right, And so
we're not going to count two different things that can
be predicated differently necessarily by identity, because that can lead
into issues. And then obviously Bop Branston gives his whole
analogy with like the gallon of water and stuff like that.
If you drop a molecule, is it's still a down
of water. So we see in everyday life we're not
counting by identity, you know, in every day scenarios, right,
So we still do at times, but it doesn't mean
that we.
Speaker 1: All exactly exactly. And so counting by identity works for
certain specific things that you can't kind of put into
parts or divide, for example, a logical law or a
set right. It doesn't make any sense to say you
know half of the law of logic. So things that
are abstract or conceptual you kind of have to count
by identity. And this is in medieval philosophy, as arct
Brandson pointed out, this is first and second imposition. But
things that are objects or mundane objects, everyday world objects,
even the ancient medieval world, they would count by division,
but in abstract objects they would count with identity. So
and I think in the trinity you could argue that, well,
we're kind of doing both because we're counting the essence
by division, but we're counting the persons by identity. So
this is something of that. The Muslims just this is
way too high high tier. Yeah, they have no idea
what you're talking about. But JB says, for ten dollars,
a ton of heterodox positions are premised on the idea
that none of those Orthodox saints or church fathers are
better than me. God just picked them and it makes
it easy. I think you could argue that, Yeah, I mean,
it's like a lot of the Protestant attitude is just like,
you know, it's so based on hubris. They don't even
realize it.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, actually, I don't need two thousand years
of church fathers and saints and scholars. I can figure
out what the canon is, and I'll read some books
and that'll tell me what the Bible of canon is.
Let's talk God. Five dollars. Why would Oriental Orthodox have
a dogmatic problem with infant baptism if they hold or iconoclasm.
I don't think they have a problem with infant baptism.
So I'm not sure what you mean. Now you say
they have a problem with iconoclasm. I mean, I think
Snack pointed out several years ago that there is a
kind of a tendency amongst Orientals to become more and
more iconic classic and and to lose their iconographic traditions.
But I'm not sure what you mean by them not
believing infant baptism. I thought they did. Birds aren't real.
Ten dollars, Thank you, Jay, We appreciate you. I appreciate that.
I think I'm getting a cold for my birthday, so,
oh trombone, five dollars, Happy birthday. Does astrology play any
role in your spiritual practices?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Can the energies of the celestial luminaries be called God's energies? No,
because anything that would be a created energy is not
a divine energy. All God's energies are uncreated.
Speaker 7: Sound very originistic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that does sound like origin And I mean if
you go back to the Church fathers, I mean they
thought the celestial spheres had influence on Earth, but they
would be you know, like the moon and the tides,
that kind of a thing. It's not like, you know,
the moon is like a deity that's you know, controlling us.
And causing women to have periods or something huge Jackman
five dollars. How would you respond to the objection that
divine conceptualism conflicts with define divine a sayity. I don't
see why that would be a problem. If God is
assay or exists of himself, that really wouldn't have anything
to do with whether he's a divine mind who can
conceive of things. So I'm not I don't understand that objection.
You have to flesh it out more. Crypto Crusader five dollars.
Did Aquinas know? Did Aquinas not know that I think
you're talking about relationship apout position or did he just
think he didn't need to address it. Well, one thing
that you have to understand about Aquinas and a lot
of the Medievals and people today don't really get this.
And I'll let Nick talk. I don't mean to be
hogging the microphone. But in the medieval era, in the
medieval world, it was actually considered an argument to cite
an authority. I mean, I think they had a conception
of the fact that authorities could be wrong. But if
you're citing Aristotle or Augustine to the medial world, that's
a really strong argument, and so authorities had a lot
more power in argumentation than they do nowadays post Enlightenment.
So I think you know, if you read say semic
countriest in Telas, like volumes one or two or three,
where Aquinas makes a lot of argumentation about apologetics or
about the trinity and how he thinks that he For example,
he argues, I'm pretty sure in Semicuntrides in Telates the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence, which is a really bad,
stupid position, right, but he's forced into that position because
of his presupposition about divine simplicity. And when he in
de Veritate is arguing against John Damascus on the energy
as a, Quinas says, well, mima IDs says that simplicity
can't have any real distinctions or any strong hard distinctions,
because that would mean that there's parts. So he just
assumes that distinction entails composition and division, and his source
is literally Aristotle in Mimon eighties. So, I mean, I
know people want to exalt Aquinas like he's quasi infallible,
but like that's just not a very good argument. And
as you get older and more mature, I think you'll
understand that Aquinas makes a lot of mistakes, and to
sort of put these individual people on pedestals as Rome
does is just just doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2: So I literally, I literally hear so many like Catholics
on TikTok and like being so serious. They'll say that
like he's greater than all the church fathers and that
he is like he might even be greater than the apostles.
Speaker 1: Like crazy, yeah, And that's that's really a papal mind
It's a papal Protestant mindset, right. I mean, it's not
accidental to the Church that exalted one bishop to be
the dude. They're also going to pick and choose the dudes.
And the irony here, of course, is that the modern
Vatican for the last hundred years they don't care about Aquitas.
They moved past homism. Darkamer twenty dollars Happy birthday, Jay,
what's up Nick?
Speaker 4: You?
Speaker 1: And made by Jim Bob were successful in getting me
back into church. Well that's good man right here, that
dark banana up to about five dollars. How come there's
no people calling in. He's great man. He's like the
biggest super chatter of the last month. He's like one
hundreds of dollars of super chests. So we love banana
of the butt.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by the way, is that a reference to TJ. Kirk.
I'm assuming that's what that means, banana of the butt,
because he famously, you know, supposedly did that to prove
something about atheism. I don't know what it was. It
was gross. But how come no callers are calling in
to disprove Yakub and that he manifested wig Xantheum. That's
because they can't, because the transcendental argument for Yakub is
so strong. That's why you'll never see him call in.
What's up, man, Go ahead, enchanted? Did you have any
last comments? Yeah?
Speaker 5: I just wanted to make a brief point. It seems
that the Roman Catholic view, they have collapsed energies partially
into the essence.
Speaker 1: And into person and into person, and.
Speaker 9: It's completely incoherence.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 5: And maybe somehow someone you know from the Orthodox sphere,
could you know, make a video or something to actually,
you know, deconstruct the Roman Catholic view and show how
all these attributes that don't match up.
Speaker 1: We've been we've been we've been making those videos. We've
been making those videos for ten years, so uh go
back to my series on that. Man. Yeah, we've been
I mean I'm not distant you understanding, like we've been
making those videos. They don't care, Like they don't like
the Roman Catholic apologize by the ways dying, Like it's
resorted now to like TikTok just gibberish. That's it. Like
all Roman Catholic apologetics is TikTok gibberish. And Trent Horne's
you know, low tier videos. I mean they're pretty much
cook man. They have totally just had disaster after disaster
in the last six months, whether it's Trent Doherty and
although oh we're the same as the Muslims, God like
all that was a massive flop. What was the last
debate Alex Soren Yasi flopped bad. I mean they're cooked, dude.
All they have is the low tier. All they have
is the lowest common nominator, lowd tier stuff. That's all
they do. Miss Roberts five dollars. What is the difference
between Orthodox sex. I mean, there's not really Orthodox sex.
There's a few groups that are like small groups that
claim to be you know, true Orthodox, but I don't
even think that's even comparable because that's just like a
few thousand people in the world. I don't even think
that's comparable to Protestant denominations. So but I wouldn't. We're
not arguing that Orthodoxy is true because no one claims
to be a sectarian. We're arguing and that Protestantism's own
ecclesiology allows for multiple sects. Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't allow for that,
even though there are some groups that claim to be
Orthodox sects.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the only way these small little groups like
genuine Orthodox and stuff like that are growing is just
because people are going to the church thinking it's just
regular Orthodox.
Speaker 7: I don't know that it's like a schismatic sect.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you hear what something?
Speaker 10: Okay. So, as somebody who's wanting to get into online debating,
I just want to know, how do I how would
I determine if I'm engaging in Christian apologetics?
Speaker 4: Like if I if.
Speaker 10: I'm debating like let's say a secularist you know about
you know, the existence of God, is that would that
be considered engaging in Christian apologetics?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean to be honest with you, I would
say you got to be an Orthodox Christian like I mean,
I know, I mean, I know there are apologists that
are Protestants and Catholic and all that, but I mean,
I mean, I can't support or you know, condone apologetics
that isn't Orthodox. So I would say, I would say,
I need a person needs to become Orthodox first and
then kind of go through catechesis. And usually you know,
people need a time period to not you know, immediately
be debating when they're a Catechuman. There might be some
exception to that, but usually it doesn't work out.
Speaker 4: Good.
Speaker 1: Okay, here we go, God, God, what's up? Um? There
we go? We got Reddit Live. What's up? Man? God
can't connect? I would think you would have omnipotent powers you,
but God doesn't have a good cell connection apparently. You know,
I'm not being blasphemous because this isn't actually God. By
the way, Let's see we'll try somebody else. We got
all these orthodox guys. Is there anybody disagrees? So every
time I do a live stream, which I don't mind it,
it's just because it's no more in my of them
don't come atheists. It's all just piles up with all
the Worthrow Bros. Which is fine, But it's like, does
anybody in the chat disagree? There's still like almost twenty
people give me like an emoji or something if you disagree,
and I'll bring you up. Okay, kart krt, Cardi k
he disagrees. What's up? Cardik? What was up?
Speaker 4: I mute?
Speaker 11: Anyamy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 9: I had a question of later took tag okay.
Speaker 12: So I was watching na could debate with nold ax
my bus and it was a.
Speaker 4: Bit confused about.
Speaker 12: Why that presents like a better alternative to let's say,
just taking things as an assumption or taking things as
Brett physically assumed.
Speaker 9: So, for example, the.
Speaker 12: Regularity of niche is just assuming the reduction happens.
Speaker 1: Well, it is a better.
Speaker 4: Thing to do.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't come to a debate and say, well,
I just want to assume it. I mean, can I
come to debate and say, well, I just assume God exists.
Speaker 12: So debate's over, right, But like it was, more so,
why is that a better alternative of what does it solve?
Speaker 4: Exactly?
Speaker 1: Well, if you read David Hume, for example, he argues
that if you're an empiricist, you can't prove or justify induction.
So the solution to that to just say, well, I
just assume it. I mean, you don't see why that's
philosophical nonsense to just I just assume it. I mean
that's the thing in question.
Speaker 12: Well, right, But so I guess what I'm trying to
unascern is why does assuming the Christian God help explain
that better?
Speaker 1: Well, because if God exists, and if he's provident, then
that explains why there's regularity in nature because of divine providence. Right,
in a world where God exists, where there is a
creator and a created order with intentionality and purpose, it
makes sense why there would be regularity in nature. In
a world where it's pure chaos and materialism, there is
no justification for the regularity of nature.
Speaker 12: So by it makes sense, what do you mean in
the context.
Speaker 1: That it's justified incoherent? It makes sense in a sense
of it being purposeful and intentional because the world has order,
the world has Tello's purpose, and it has an end.
In a world without all of that, it doesn't make sense.
It's incoherent, Okay, So just saying that it like it's
nested in.
Speaker 12: A another criteria I fits the world being moreculological being
what illlllogical like having a purpose.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm saying all of those metaphysical ideas that our
part and parcel with a Christian metaphysic makes sense of
induction in the regulative nature and thus the possibility of knowledge.
But the other worldview, where there's none of that, it
doesn't make sense and there is no justification. That's a
that's a pretty strong argument, I would say. So it's
an argument comparing world views on the question of induction.
That is the argument.
Speaker 12: All right, So, okay, I guess pardon me, but I'm
still a bit confused on it. It makes more sense
because it's more core.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's coherence and incoherence. Correct. The argument here is
partly hinging on coherence. Correct. But it's not just it's
not just any kind of It's not just any kind
of coherence. It's coherence in regard to something that is
so fundamental to knowledge that it's a precondition of knowledge.
You couldn't have knowledge if there weren't the principle of induction. Right, So,
in other words, it's not just denying any kind of thing,
it's denying something so fundamental that to deny it would
make knowledge impossible, and that's why it's a strong argument.
Speaker 12: H So you're saying that without those assumptions, O, without
this world you knowledge itself.
Speaker 4: Is not very possible.
Speaker 1: Yes, correct, mm hmm.
Speaker 12: Okay, let's.
Speaker 1: That is the argument exactly right there. It's an argument
about worldviews.
Speaker 12: Oh okay, one small question this, So sure would you,
but wouldn't that still assume like coherence theory before any
of your assumptions or any of your no.
Speaker 1: Coherence theory is a is a epistemology that treats every
belief as foundational. So it's a form of foundationalism that
treats everything as a foundational belief. It's just it only
differs from foundationalism in the sense that there's not specific
beliefs that are foundational. So it's not coherence theory in
a secular epistemic sense. I'm arguing that the Christian metaphysic
as a whole is coherent and gives a place for
in a basis for a justification for induction, whereas the
atheist metaphysic and worldview does not. So no, it is
not relying on some secular coherence theory, but it is
relying on all kinds of things. Sure, but we're arguing
that every position relies on things. So the argument is
premised on the atheist view relies on induction. The Christian
view relies on induction. Only the Christian worldview as a
whole can make sense of induction, whereas the atheist worldview
makes induction and knowledge impossible. It's not an arguments saying
that we don't assume things and you do. The argument
is is argument everyone assumes things. Okay, yeah, great questions.
So I appreciate that. I mean, I welcome, and I
thank you for being, you know, civil, and a lot
of these people are not very civil when it comes
to this topic. But feel free to interject Nick if
you'd like to. And by the way, everybody's being very generous.
Thank you. I'm gonna share the super chats with Nick.
So I appreciate all that.
Speaker 7: Wow a little guy man.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, we're doing very very nice on super chests already.
We got uh Chadner, excuse me, free reign, says my
my Ricci family like Christina Ricci, Saint Catherine de Ricci,
who is a history onic hysterical woman, Mateo Lorenzo Ricci,
my great grandfather was or with King Romberto stood up
to the Venetians who infested the Vatican. Oh that's interesting.
I didn't know there was a Richy drama opposing the Venetians.
Bootmun twenty dollars. Have your birthday, Jay, Your work was
critical for me to stay Orthodox during a very spiritual
low point. Yeah, just persevere. I think everybody you know
you're going to hit spiritual low points no matter who
you are in your journey. Just try to stay, you know,
consistent with attending the liturgy. Croatian five dollars. Can you
explain the difference between being in person? Can you put
me to resources on this idea? Maybe your contemporary stuff
Orthodox elogians, I mean the best contemporary theologians are like
you could read Fluorofsky where he talks about the energies
and some of his writings. But doctor David Bradshaw's books
Aersault East and West and the Divine Energies book that
he has a separate little book of essays. Read Anything
by Vladimir Lawsky is good. But I mean, being is
a very generic term in philosophy and patristics, and it
really kind of is synonymous with existence or you know,
ontology it's just kind of a it's used in different ways.
When the church fathers are Polemaster, people speak of God's being,
that's called an energy as well. So God's existence is
an energy. So person is subject or agent in Orthodox Christology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I actually did an interview with doctor David
Bradshaw my channel a whole out of a year ago.
Speaker 7: If you can check that out as well, and my help.
Speaker 2: I think we talked about person and being in there
a little bit, but we just talked about some of
the major objections and what it is to understand a
little bit better.
Speaker 7: So whoever that person was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So you could check out Nick's interview, and I
also have an interview with doctor Bradshaw as well from
four or five years ago on Essen's Interduceinction two. So
I think you got you guys would like that. Dan
Good five dollars, Dan Pott our dollars, quick question. Do
you believe in actus purists? And if not? Why? Yeah? So,
John Damascus and Gregor Palomus they talk about God as
in his essence or in terms of his in his
eternal existence. God is in a sense, you could say,
pure act in contrast to the created order. But you
cannot reduce the divine persons or the divine energies to
pure act. And the reason for that, first and foremost
is that we believe in apathetic theology. So to call
the divine essence pure act would number one be not apathetic.
It would be a cataphatic attribution to the divine, to
the divine essence, and also a divine being that is
reduced to pure act. Especially if you reduce the persons
to pure act like Rome does. You can't have one
person incarnate in time and space and engage in kenosis
or self limitation, as Philippians two says, and maintain a
God that is reducible to pure act. So that's one. Also,
the God that is pure act doesn't create because pure
actuality must, according to Ariosotol, always have something else that actualizes.
And Aristotle's reason this out to mean diet right. The
first actualizer must always have something other than himself that
he eternally actualizes, Otherwise what is he actualizing? And that's
what led Aristotle to a diad. And if you read
Besilos Examron, he critiques this as a nonsense position. And
that's why we don't reduce God to pure act. But
there is a way of speaking of God that. For example,
I three the first five pages of Saint Maximus's two
interred chapters, he says, you can call God first cause
and first act in contrast to the creator order, saying
a great Renald Sandozows says the exact same thing. He says,
in the sense of the Trinity being contrasted to the creation,
the Trinity is the monarch of creation. You can't take
the economic attributions and import those into the intratrinitarian life.
For example, you can't call the divine essence the first
cause of the Trinity. You can't call the entire triad
the first cause of the Trinity. Only the Father in
the intratrinitarian life is the first cause. So you see
how this terminology gets confused between economic predication of God
an intratrinitarian life predication of God. And this is a
common mistake the Roman Catholics make, not just with the
Philly oquay, but with naming God in general. And again, yeah,
first five pages, two inter chapters, Maximus explicitly makes this
distinction between two ways of naming God, God in contrasted
creatures and God in contrast God in the intratrendary in life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think a lot of the times people
like notice pure act, like it just the first thing
people think is, okay, he has passive potency and active
active potency.
Speaker 7: Does he have any passive at all?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, obviously we don't think that, like in
accordance to creation needn't change how we do it in
any ways, like because none of his essential properties are
going to stop being essential properties.
Speaker 7: He doesn't have things like accidental properties.
Speaker 2: And a lot of times when people talk about pure act,
that's all they mean, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 7: They canto account everything that it has to do with.
Speaker 1: Also, there's a thing that people years ago took me
out of context to say that I was saying that
God is determined or affected by creatures because we were
talking about passive potency, and what I was saying was
not in the sense of like in himself. No, God
is not changed or acted upon by creatures. However, there
is a great essay I think it's a Bradshaw's longer
essay on the concept of divine energies, where there's a
section where he critiques the Tomistic and Augusitian notion of
if God is reducible to his essence. Then you have
a problem with prayer because prayer in divine revelation, God
does react to creatures into prayer. And there's a really
powerful critique that Bradshaw does of ads where he says,
if God is this, there isn't an interaction to prayer.
So what's the solution to this. Well, Bradshaw says in
the economia, God condescends to will to react to creatures
in terms of their prayers. And hence, if you read
the Book of Amos, for example, God says to Amos,
if you had not prayed for Israel, I would have
destroyed it. But since you did intercede for Israel, I'm
not going to destroy it. That means God condescends to
will to react to creatures. It does not mean the
divine essence is affected or changed by creatures. And they
took me out of context when all I did was
repeat what Bradshaw argues. So the dyer says that God
has passive potency and he's changed more creatures.
Speaker 2: It's funny because I literally get people like in my
life probably Muslims all the time, that are like, you know,
Jay doesn't believe in pure act He thinks God has
you know, passive potency and all this. I'm like, I
can almost guarantee you're clearing amount of context.
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 1: No, So so if you read uh Pino's dissertation right,
he says, Palamas does say that you can speak of
God as pure act meaning that there's no unrealized you know,
like deficiency or lacking God. And that's still in contrast
to the temporal, created, finite limited lacking things to the
created order. But you can't say the divine sense is
pure act which is what Thomism says. For example, actress
puros Actions Puis Thomas says God is in his essence
absolutely identical to pure actuality. That is very problematic for
Orthodox theology and for any kind of Trinitarian theology. It
really negates the trinity, not just that, it also makes
the incarnation impossible. And you'll notice every time I brought
this up with Roman Catholic theologians and Thomas, when they
call in and I say, let's say, you're right, fine,
God is absolutely simple essence, irre and reducible to isomorphically
identical to pure actuality. Now explain to me how one
hypostasis of pure actuality enters into time and space and
willfully limits himself a llah the Canosis Passage of Philippians two.
They have no idea what I'm talking. They don't know
because they do their metaphysics irrespective of Christology. Orthodox theology
is the reverse. Our metaphysics is based on trinity and Christology,
not metaphysics that then determines the trinity. That's all atomism
right there. Octavian twenty dollars. If a Mormon and a
Calvinist walk into a Catholic church, will the mom give
them communion? It may if they're at the churches in Germany,
probably banana up to but fifty dollars. Thank you for
being such a generous, you know, wealthy super chatter fifty bucks.
I wonder if the Muslim debates, Wait you mean, I'm
wondering with these Muslim debates, if you guys ever bring
up the diacritical dots issues and the seven different readings,
I'm curious how I know how they would respond to that.
Diacritical dots actually change the letters in Arabic into different
words and meanings. I'm not familiar with this argument. Have
you heard this argument?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think he's referring to the fact they have
like different variants of the text, where like some will
say that like I created something, or someone will say
like you created something, and so it's clearly referring to
different subjects. And so there's some textual variants that are
considered like major textual variants that they don't know exactly
which one it's supposed to be. So the whole one
Quran argument kind of falls apart.
Speaker 1: Oh so this is even after Outhlin, right, yes, after
a moment and with this, remember when there was a
some drama over was it Muhammed hit job when he
was admitting that the Koran isn't free from textual variance?
Was that Remember that a few years ago there's like
a rally, maybe it was Ali Dawa, one of those
guys you know, admitted this and it was like a
huge deal and they were all freaking out.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's true if you actually are being honest.
I mean, there's there's obvious variants there, unless you just
decide to stick with one specific variant, say that's the
only one.
Speaker 7: But I don't think it's a justification for that.
Speaker 1: Okay, Lean, three dollars have your worth day?
Speaker 4: Jay?
Speaker 1: What order of books is the best to read the Bible? Uh,
so that it isn't confusing, honestly. I mean I would
start with Genesis. I mean, it's going to be difficult,
but you really can't understand the New Testament without, you know,
the Torah, so it is really important to read the Torah.
I would get Orthodox study Bible and just you know,
start from the beginning and you know, read all the
notes because it's going to help you.
Speaker 13: Uh.
Speaker 1: Sergeia, it's fifty bucks man. You guys are being so generous.
Thank you so much, he says, Happy birthday, big dog.
Happy birthday to you man. Even though it's not your birthday,
it could be. How about merry Christmas since technically it's
still kind of Orthodox Christ. All right, let's see who's next.
Any disagrees, By the way, we still got we still
got twenty people in here. Give me an emoji if
you do. Okay, So here here's some my Amanda disagrees.
What's up, Amanda? You gotta I'm mute? What's up, Amanda? Amanda?
I'm youte that sure?
Speaker 4: So right now, a mute check.
Speaker 1: Even though it's not a dude, I mean, I guess
you could be a dude named Amanda. Are you there?
Did you? Hey?
Speaker 4: Can you guys hear me?
Speaker 1: Amanda's a dude? What's up?
Speaker 4: Sorry?
Speaker 14: Man, my wife made this profile for us.
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. What's up? Man?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 9: Uh?
Speaker 4: I wanted to give you a little bit of pushback.
Speaker 5: I guess for your birthday or it says it's your birthday.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 14: We just recently left Baptist Church. I grew up Fundamental Baptist,
but we've been we've been attending an antioaki in Orthodox Church,
and certain parts of the liturgy I noticed when they're
talking about theo Toko say mentioned save.
Speaker 4: Us or save save me.
Speaker 14: I guess the last little bit hanging up on me
as a Protestant would be like, how could you argue
that that's not like a statement to her to save us?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it's just like when Paul says to Timothy,
if you act godly and are faithful, you will save
those around you. Right, it's not saying that Timothy is
the ultimate savior. And sometimes this cynthology is called middle salvation,
and it just means just like with Amos. Right, you've
read the Book of Amos, Amos saved Israel. Oh, I
guess the Amos is replacing Jesus. No, it just means
that God was using that means to save Israel. Right. So,
in the same way that Theotokos saved us in that
she's the mother of God, she's the mother of you know, Jesus,
the divine person of the Sun, in the sense that
she gave him his human nature, and that she acquiesced
to the you know, let it be done according to
Thy will. So she acquiesced, and in that sense she
saved us, not that she is the ultimate cause of salvation.
She's the proximate cause of salvation, just like your Monica
prays for Sant Augustine. Right, So his mom, Saint Monica,
saved Augustine through her prayers, not as the old toimate cause.
That's all it means. Anything you want to say on that, Nick, I.
Speaker 7: Mean, no, I agree. That's what I was going to
bring up the prayer example too.
Speaker 2: If I pray for someone to go to church, right,
and then we would have to say as Christians that
God is actually hearing our prayers, and our prayers can
be efficacious. So if I pray for someone to go
to church and somehow those prayers affect him in a
way to go to church. He goes to church and
ends up being saved. Well, my prayers saved him. Am
I this savior? Though, do I, like you said, replace God?
Speaker 13: No?
Speaker 7: God used me as a tool as an instrument to pray.
Speaker 2: It's like, as an example my prescape one time, it's like,
imagine like God is running a hot dog stand, right, and.
Speaker 7: He's given out hot dogs. He's hot dogs a salvation.
Speaker 2: But the only way that you can get one is
you got to walk by the hot dog stand. So
he's given him out. Either way, nothing changes in him.
But the only thing that changes is whether or not
you receive one, which is about if you take the
hot dog. Now, that doesn't mean that you cause yourself
or tell you say, you told a friend go to
the hot dog stand, you save them because if you
didn't tell them to.
Speaker 7: Go to hot lack stand, they wouldn't have gone.
Speaker 2: But the ultimate salvation is what comes from the actual
hot dog stand owner is giving it out in the
first place.
Speaker 1: Exactly Anonymous ten dollars and Jay You argued that onom
sanctum says all Catholics are temporily subject to the Pope
to be saved correct, and there's a forged bull sped
spread by King Philip that the Pope claimed feudal control
of France. Bonavas denied this and its claims. Now, I
hope you're not saying that Unum sanctum is a forged bull,
because it's not. In fact, Unum sanctum is still sighted
in Denzinger, So that's total nonsense. But and by the way,
Pius the ninth, as we argued multiple times in Lamentabiley
and the syllabus of Errors, restates that you still have
to believe in the temporal supremacy doctrine all the way
up until Vatican One. That state of the papacy is
still dogmatic in binding. So the way that you worded
this is a little ambiguous, because I don't know if
you mean that when them signed them as a forgeabull,
because I've never heard Roman Calolque say this. It's still
cited in Catholic dogmatic authoritative sources. Or if you're saying
there's a separate bull that is claiming feudal control, and
let's say for this say it's not. But let's say
for the sake of argument, you're correct Okay, Well, then
why is Pious the Ninth sighting and reaffirming a forged bull? Right,
So that would mean that Piaus the Ninth made a
huge error. He didn't even know his own documents in
his own church history. Nico three dollars Jay Cradle Orthodox.
I went Protestant, but I'm now back to Orthodoxy. I
got an Orthodox calendar about feast days. I've been fasting Wednesday, Friday,
et cetera. Is the non lent Easter fast something that
you do? I mean, I have medical issues and so
we do fast, but it's not exactly the same as
everyone's fast. But you should take up fasting and all
that with your spiritual father, because that's going to be
determined between you and him. I don't give spiritual advice
to people. Marco ten dollars jay am Orthodox. I mean
hearing an argument that the Orthodox Church is not universal
because there is an ep MP schism. How would you
argue against this? Well, this is an easy one right away.
If a schism between patriarchts means that the church is
no longer universal, then the Roman Catholic Church is not
universal because there were schisms amongst the patriarchs in the
first millennium. So if let's say, for the sake of argument,
the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church is the church
of the first thousand years, and if schisms amongst patriarchates
is a disqualifier, then you just disqualified Rome as being
the church of the first thousand years. Nick, do you
have any comments?
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I agree to say that disagreement itself
is going to make it, you know, not the true churches.
It doesn't make any sense, right because we believe that
obviously they themselves are not infallible, but the councils themselves
there wouldn't be deemed infallible, So them disagreeing really has
nothing to do with anything. We've had individuals who have
been in certain seats who have been corrupted and have
been bad. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Speaker 7: Men are fallible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, in the Orthodox conception, there's many, many
patriarchis and bishoprics that have gone into schism. And that's
a feature of anybody's church, whether you're Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
So really, a schism occurring amongst patriarchis doesn't disprove or
disprove anything. However, you could argue that the schism of
the Roman papacy and his patriarchy against all the others
seems to indicate maybe that Rome is an error. But Marcos, no,
we did that one. Yeah, let's go to the next call.
Speaker 4: Waffle. Hey there, I was learning.
Speaker 15: If you had any recommendations of books on the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would read Losky's works on the Holy
Spirit because uh, Perceptional Holy Spirit that we just referenced
earlier by Vladimir Lovsky. You can get that pdf. That's
a good one for Orthodox theology. Alexander, what's up? What's up? Alexander?
Speaker 4: Hi?
Speaker 16: Ja, Yeah, I have I have two questions for you,
if you don't mind.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 9: The first one.
Speaker 4: Is regarding the end times.
Speaker 16: So what do you believe when Jesus comes back and
steps foot on the ground somewhere in Jerusalem.
Speaker 4: What is the order of events that will happen.
Speaker 1: Again? You could read uh, or you can watch the
video essays from Jordanville Monastery called Apostsey and Antichrist on
YouTube for a fuller treatment of this. But I mean,
we don't believe that he literally has to like fly
down and stand on the amount of all of this.
I mean, he may do that, but I mean, really
just the Orthodox conception is that you have an apostasy, Antichrist,
persecution the church, and then conversion to the Jews, and
then the return of Christ and then you have the
resurrection and Great White Throne judgment. So for us, it's
pretty it's a pretty clear, simple process. We don't get
into all this like you know, John Hagey in time
speculation stuff.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I noticed, like there is not much details obviously,
but I was wondering if maybe Orthodoxy provides like more
in detail, like first this will help and second this third,
like but I understand.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, so I mean I think, like if you
read this Elders and the Saints, they point out that
as the Church gets closer to the end of the world,
the church will have a better sense of the order
of these events. But you know, as a presently we
don't fully know the exact order of the events. But
the closest that you could get, I mean, there are
some good Orthodox commentaries. My godfather printed a three volume
commentary on the Apocalypse from James Jordan that he helped edit.
It's called I just want to just look up a
Dean Arnold revelation commentary. That's a good one. Days of
Vengeance by David Chilton's pretty good anyway. Dirp's ten dollars.
Great work, gentlemen, keep it up. Thank you A are
you forty crush five dollars? You guys should check out
Rob Christian. He has many videos and streams against Islam,
particularly the Muslim academic sources and the dots variants. Are
you familiar with Rob Christian? I believe he's someone on
TikTok Yeah, let's see who disagrees. All right, we still
got twenty people in here. Give me some kind of
an emoji or something if you disagree. Okay, real wiga disagrees.
What's up? Got I'm you?
Speaker 7: I really understand this right now.
Speaker 9: I'm you, Jay, I'm you?
Speaker 4: You am you?
Speaker 1: Okay? What's on your mind?
Speaker 17: Well, it's kind of a personal matter, and considering you're
the wisest person that I could ask this question, I'd
like to hear your thoughts on it.
Speaker 1: Okay, are you trolling already? Detect something?
Speaker 9: I'm serious about this.
Speaker 1: I'm serious a personal matter with me and you or
me or you?
Speaker 4: What do you mean?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 9: No, no, no, My life when it comes to it. You know,
I have a fork in the road in life, and I.
Speaker 17: Don't know whether I should you know, uh go where
my heart is or.
Speaker 1: Ill your heart rather. I'm just kidding. What's the problem.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm really into make martial arts. I mean, I've
been training it since I'm fifteen.
Speaker 17: And it's as if I have this this hard choice
to me, why do I go full sanded? And in
the process I lose my marginally higher intelligence and I
become retarded because you know, what are the consequences.
Speaker 9: Of full professional fighter?
Speaker 1: What's it called a ct C?
Speaker 17: There is no cure pretty much because the protein towel
builds up.
Speaker 9: In your brain after getting hit, Like every.
Speaker 17: Small hit creates like a mini concussion in your brain,
which stacks up over time, and it's like really damaging.
And it's as if I have this fastian bargain, like, hey,
trade my marginally higher intelligence for something.
Speaker 4: That I really enjoy doing.
Speaker 1: How old are you?
Speaker 4: I'm twenty two, all.
Speaker 1: Right, I'm gonna tell you this now, being of over
age seventeen myself, I would in middle age, I would
not trade my brain for some brawls. In my twenties
and thirties, so as you get older, I think you're
gonna want to not have CTE. That would be that
would be me.
Speaker 17: Yeah, okay, yeah, Well, the thing is, I'm not looking
at it from the you know, perspectacle brawler.
Speaker 9: I'm more of a tactician. You know, I've you know,
watched all the grades.
Speaker 17: If you know who I'm talking about, GSP Dimitrius Johnson's
people who are legit tacticians.
Speaker 9: They don't go there to you know, brawl lose brain cells.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean, you know, even still, I just
I don't know if it be worth it, man, Honestly
I understand that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's also what I was thinking.
Speaker 17: I mean, I've lost so many opportunities in the last
couple of years just because of this dead look in
my life, Like, hey, should I pursue this or should
they you know, google down the aviation?
Speaker 7: Yes, yeah me personally. Me personally, I just wouldn't get hit.
But like that's just me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So just like do it perfectly and never get punched,
and you're good man. I like Nick Plant, Uh, Anthony
one dollar, I meant King Philip Spare spread a forged
bull okay called dayoum Time that claimed a feudal control
over France to deceive French Catholics against the pope. No
pope ever used the bull to support the papacy. Please
learn the full context. Well, what does that have to
do with unam sanctum and the contradiction in Roman Catholic
dogma post Vatican two? So you can get snarky with
me and tell me to learn the full context. But
your forge bull has nothing to do with my argument,
So you need to learn the context contemporary compendi him
since five dollars and says, here's some money, Thank you, Anthony.
Why don't you call in since you seem to know
everything about setting us rate on papal history. Uh, do
you want to address the actual argument or you just
want to bring up irrelevant papal bulls that have nothing
to do with when I'm saying them. So please let
me know, Anthony, I'd like for you to call in,
And the link is in the show description. Who's in
the chat and disagrees? Please raise your hand? Here we go, Federalf.
Where's all these people in the normal streams? And maybe
Nick brought them all? I guess they want a piece
of Nick. What's up, man?
Speaker 13: I'm mute, dude, I wanted to talk about the papacy,
you know, Jake.
Speaker 4: Are you up with that?
Speaker 1: When am I not up to talk about the papacy? Dude?
Speaker 13: Exactly, Man, That's what I'm saying. So, yeah, man, I
wanted to talk about it more from the logical point
of view. You know, as you know any orthodoxy, there
is like this thing as this three tier model, like
if you can call it a model, like you have
the local synods and then you have the regional. Right,
So in the local you have when you have an
issue which is on the local level for example, multiple
priests or clergy and whatnot, you know, and if it
has to be a result, there is the bishop, right,
who is the head of this local synate? Then here results, right,
he is responsible for a resolution. Now when you go
one level up, on the second level, you have the
regional level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're going to argue that the regional should
be reflected into the universal. This is a Lofton argument
that he made like five years ago.
Speaker 13: Is that would your arguing, Yeah, I mean pretty much
if you would say that it's Loftons.
Speaker 4: So if this if we follow this.
Speaker 13: Trail of logic, right, and we go up to the
universal level, wouldn't you say that there must be a head,
just as there is a head on the local and
regional level.
Speaker 1: Well, what you are missing that is consistently already in
the New Testament in the Patristic period, is that there
is a head and his name is Jesus Christ, and
the purpose of the Holy Spirit is that it's the
Holy Spirit that is his earthly manifestation of that headship.
So it's the Roman Catholic position that seems to not
grasp that the Holy Spirit is who does that function
in time and space, and they think it has to
be replaced with a juridical high priest of the Old Testament,
living person. So you're actually moving retrograde into the Old
Testament to think that you need to have a living
high priest to solve the problems. When why wasn't this
established at Nicea Like why in other words, why don't
we just move the logic a little further and say, Okay,
the Bishop of Rome literally just tells every single bishop
and person in the world what to do in every case,
and get rid of the synods in general.
Speaker 13: Yeah, yeah, I'm going to respond to that. The second
one just going to the first. Of course, you know
Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate head of the body, right,
He's the source of everything.
Speaker 4: Of all unity, of all truth.
Speaker 13: Yeah, of course, But that doesn't mean that Christ has
not given us a hierarchy.
Speaker 4: Right, because if we do this reductionist.
Speaker 1: Move, this is but you're assuming that you're assuming the
thing in question though, because I'm asking you so. In
other words, the logic of where we take this models
of hierarchy is going to depend on what we think
Jesus did, what he established. Do you think that he established
Peter as the sort of arbiter of that? And I'm saying, okay,
why didn't Peter act that way? And why didn't they
accept this in the first, second, and third century when
that should have been the logic of it. Do you
believe that the papacy was always there from day one,
as Vatican One says, or do you think it developed?
Speaker 13: Yeah, so Peter, Yeah, of course in East Antholos, there's
also belief that Peter was given the keys and he
is the head, right, He's the point.
Speaker 4: Of unity of the apostles.
Speaker 1: Was the Vatican One there in the beginning or did
it develop? Do you believe the Vatican One deals there
is or developed.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 13: So if we think about the papacy like as a
dogma of the church, which was a place in Vatican One,
as a dogma, right, as.
Speaker 4: An infinitive dogma. Now if we think that this is.
Speaker 13: A normal dogma, we also have other dogmas too, like,
for example, the trinity, right or or for example.
Speaker 1: We have the papacy there at the beginning or did
it develop Vatican One style? I'm sorry, what for the
third time? The Vatican One definition of the papacy. Was
it there in the first, second, third century or did
it develop?
Speaker 4: Well, I would say it was better.
Speaker 13: It was more fully expositive, right, so there is a
fuller exposition of this doctrine. It's not It's not like
the way we see for example, if we go to
pre n icr right, we don't see the exact definition
of the trinity in like the year one hundred. We
see a an implicit the view of it, but we
don't really see.
Speaker 1: The full So it's doctrinal development.
Speaker 4: What do you say, was it?
Speaker 1: So it's doctrinal development?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean with it, I mean if you understand
by doctrine development that we just developed doctrine out of
thin air.
Speaker 4: That's not what it's meant.
Speaker 1: I know that you don't think that you think it's
I mean, do you agree with the Newman definition that
it's a seed that grows into a tree?
Speaker 18: Uh?
Speaker 4: Not even that, not even that.
Speaker 13: It's more of the exposition, like a fuller exposition of it.
Speaker 1: Just like so basically it was there for all those centuries,
but the pope didn't use that authority until many centuries later.
That's the bar route sometimes that he takes.
Speaker 13: No, it's not that the pope never use it, it's
it's that.
Speaker 1: Okay, can you give something Can you give some examples
of the Vatican One style papacy in the first millennial?
Speaker 18: Yeah, So, for.
Speaker 13: Example, the same Pope Leo's claims which he made about Peter,
about the church many.
Speaker 1: Scholars, what hold on many scholars. So, but where does
that teach Vatican One because a lot of those phrases
can be read in an Orthodox way.
Speaker 13: Okay, So phrases like, for example, that no pagan faithfulness
faithlessness will ever overcome this Roman.
Speaker 1: Seed, and and then the same honorifics that are used
for the other seas. Do you agree without or no.
Speaker 4: Okay, So you're talking about Clory language. Now what Flory language?
Speaker 1: Like honorifics like Alex Thorn just brought up with yasi
like uh wull be brought up with aborrow.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've seen, I've seen.
Speaker 1: Because how do you know which honorifics applying which ones don't?
Speaker 4: Okay? So honorifics I see that. You know when you
apply honorifics? Right? I see?
Speaker 13: Honorific says when one person says something about another person.
I don't think the honorific is when you say that
about yourself. At most it would be arrogance if you
if you say.
Speaker 1: Well, how do you know that? They don't? So the
only honorifics that count are the ones that you say
about yourself.
Speaker 13: No, no, I didn't say. I didn't say I said.
Honorifics are when somebody says.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you know that? That's the definition of
when you do and don't take it? You just invented
a new definition of all. These are the ones that count.
It's when someone says it about when you say it
about yourself, that's when it counts. Because Leo says it's
about Rome. So that's when it counts.
Speaker 13: Okay, Yeah, so because because if you speak honorifically for
your own self, that's arrogance, right, that would be basically arrogance. Right,
you're just saying something about yourself, which you're actually not.
So at most you are going to say that Leo
was being arrogant and he was deceiving himself.
Speaker 1: No, I don't have a problem. Again. First of all,
I don't know that you you've yet to show that
because he uses those terminologies they are equivalent to Vatican one,
that would you be That would be you retroactively reading
it back into it, which hasn't been demonstrated yet. And
that's why you have to go to these honorifics to
say that. Well, it only counts when it sounds like
Vatican one, when it's the guy saying about himself. But
I mean, but again, how do you know that that's
the case? You're just assuming the thing in question? Why
is that the fact you made a qualification at criteria
on the spot to make that count? But how do
we know that that's? Like, so if the council says
it about the emperor later on in the seventh Secumentical Council,
why does that one not count.
Speaker 13: Okay, yeah, yeah, exactly because he's saying that.
Speaker 4: I mean, what did he even say to the emperor like.
Speaker 1: That the emperor the gates of hell will not prevail
against the Emperor. I'm sorry, what the gates of hell
will not prevail against the Emperor and the empire?
Speaker 13: Okay, I mean these.
Speaker 1: Have all been brought up in the debates. You said,
you said, you just watched these debates. These have been
brought up in all those debates.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna say, this is funny.
Speaker 1: This is what Alex Soren brought up in the debate,
and you said you watched it, and then you'll be debate.
Speaker 13: Okay, yeah, but they haven't tooken notice of like everything
they said I.
Speaker 4: Have to rewatch.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, I will take note of it.
Speaker 13: I'm just gonna say that. You know, it's again like
Flory language. You could say, because someone else is saying that.
Speaker 1: To the emperor, you made up this criterion, So how
do you know that the only ones that count are
when you say it for yourself?
Speaker 13: How do you know that it would be because it
would be arrogance and it would just inflatory.
Speaker 1: So and again, that's your criteria that you've invented at hawk,
And I'm asking you, is there anywhere in Catholic theology
or in your magisterial documents that tells you that that's
the principle?
Speaker 4: Okay? So yeah, in theology or is.
Speaker 1: There in anywhere in manisterial documents? Is there a thing
that tells you that's the criteria?
Speaker 4: Okay? But it doesn't have to be in every magistrate Is.
Speaker 1: There any magisterial document that tells you that's the criteria
when it counts?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 1: I want to say this, Okay, is there No, You're
not answering. Is there in the magisterium any clear, identifiable
epistemic criterion or principle for that?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 13: And I am going to say it that in theology,
right in the Catholic theology and.
Speaker 1: Even in Okay, where is this? What magisterial document are
you signing?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm citing the fullness of the faith.
Speaker 1: So the fullness of the faith is the magisterial document?
Which one is this? Where's the fullness of faith? Document?
Can I read that?
Speaker 4: Okay? No, it's not a single document.
Speaker 1: Okay, So name one name a document, name any documents,
Name any document?
Speaker 4: Okay? Can I just make no just make this point.
Speaker 1: We're donewhere, go ahead.
Speaker 2: And it's funny because if you watch the Alex debate,
you'll see the Alex he literally like predicted what he'd
say too if you actually watch him. He said, I
know he's going to bring up honorific so he so
he actually watched the debate. That was one of the
first main.
Speaker 1: Parts exactly, uh and uh. He went through multiple honorifics.
And by the way, there's more honorifics than than Alex
even mentioned. For example, Basil's uh uh many many honorifics
in the in his letters that I pointed out in
a podcast five years ago where he talks about the
Church of Antioch being the head of the entire body,
all the graces flow from the head to the rest
of the church, blah blah blah, and he says Rome
was worthless in the Malitian schism. Now, if I bring
that to Roman Catholic none of that counts. None of
that counts. FDA. Did you want to say something about this, Yeah, it's.
Speaker 4: A point that I made before.
Speaker 1: With Pope Leo for example.
Speaker 19: So the council calsnom except something from Pope Leo.
Speaker 4: What did the Roman Catholic say, oh, you see, he has.
Speaker 19: A supreme authority over councils, and if the council doesn't.
Speaker 4: Accept or is called outside of Rome, they say, well
it's not a legitimate council. That's obviously the.
Speaker 1: Most But I think, you know it's funny because he
came on saying, you wanted to talk about the epistemic
logical issue, and the problem was that as we dig
into the weeds, it turns out actually it's just the
Roman Catholic position that is the logical position. Okay, but
we're asking you, where in your system do you get
the epistemic principle? And he says, well, does the system
tells you the principle? By the system? Okay, where what's
the magisterial document that tells me? That's clearly because remember
they have a system that's rounded on magisterium and that's
a fixed set body of propositions and doctrines. Now it
is debatable what makes that up, but that Roman Catholicism
is based on magisterial statements and documents isn't in debate.
So we know that's their principle, that's their epistemic go
to thing. And when we actually asked, remember the Trent
Horn thing. When I asked Trent this, and Trent finally
in a video, tried to address it. He said, oh,
canon law, which is fallible by the way, in their view,
canon law tells us that it's magisterial and binding when
it's manifest that it is so. So in other words,
a circle exactly the thing in question is the thing
in question or the thing in question is answered by
just restating what's in question. Skate monkey, how do you
know where I find good material on I don't well.
I mean you could look at you know, RFK stuff
that was that's probably a lot more acceptable to a
lot of people then, you know. But I have a
talk on Jonas Salk's book Survival of the Wisest, So
that's that's what convinced me. I just read his own book.
But Nick, do you have any other comments on Roman
Catholic papal magisterial claims.
Speaker 7: I mean, I just think that the point is that
it's arbitrary.
Speaker 2: Most of these things are arbitrary, Like when you ask
them for the claims and the first millennium, I mean,
we just we don't see them there when you ask
them for the justification that you find like like Alex
did in the Bay. You know, what's justification for how
we know whether or not he's speaking infallibly in the
first millennial.
Speaker 7: We don't find that anywhere.
Speaker 2: We don't find any sort of criteria there, We don't
find anybody speaking about any criteria. So it's all kind
of arbitrary, and it's like looking at things from a
view of a lens of the future.
Speaker 7: It's like kind of like a oh, what's it called.
It's like presentism basically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anachronism where you read back into the history of
the present. Yeah.
Speaker 19: Oh, you know, I thought about this. So it's it's
similar to certain Protestant heresies. Right, So that's exactly what
Roman Catholic system is. Don't you think it would have
been that important that it was spelled out in details?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, I mean, why why why do we need
eighteen We've got to wait sixteen years before we get
Then we'll.
Speaker 4: We'll get our magic glasses from Vaticum.
Speaker 19: One that we dug up, and then we'll be able
to see We'll just look at it.
Speaker 4: It's like if that is exactly what the church is like.
Speaker 3: So you have to quote mine and go through all
this stuff use a Vatican.
Speaker 19: One principle that doesn't come up eighteen hundred years later.
Nine And that's your position. I mean, think about that.
It's exactly, you know the same as dispensations or any
Protestant heresy.
Speaker 4: Is that, well we had just have to wait eighteen
hundred years.
Speaker 1: Well, they're just like, it's just like James White trying
to say no, Actually, the Church Fathers the justification by
faith alone, and let me find you a few quotes
where it says just we're saved by faith, we're saved
by grace. See that's the Protestant doctrine. So they do
the same thing. It's like James White reading the Church
Fathers where it's like, let me craft out of the
Church Fathers with a bunch of you know, copy paste,
you know, phrases out of context, and then I'll ignore
all the country evidence. That's the whole that's the whole thing.
And by the way, why don't the Church Fathers in
the first thousand years argue like today as modern Roman
calolquy papist apologists. Have you ever noticed that they don't
argue at all like them, like they're spent, they're spending
all their time arguing Christology transterarrent theology. Why aren't they
just doing papal apologetics in the first thousand years? Oh, well,
because it developed and it wasn't explicated very clearly. Well, then,
why wasn't it explicated right away? Wouldn't it have been
in Rome's interest if they had all this prerogative empower
to immediately magisterially state what the doctrine of the church was.
Why isn't this in the creed? By the way? Okay, So, Lachlan,
what's up? Hey, Jay?
Speaker 18: I've I'm sort of pushing back from a Roman Catholic
sort of point of view. I converted to the Church
probably around three months ago from a Protestant Anglican background.
Speaker 4: I sort of sort of been pushing through the Church.
Speaker 18: Fathers for the last year and for the last three
months has sort of been starting to get into the
Greek Fathers at the moment, and just started reading through
Maximus the confess there and his sort of logoy doctrine
good and it was sort of his logo, a doctrine
that sort of realized made me sort of configured as
an Anglican that my sort of view of reformed Sacraments
didn't really line up with sort of in Hypostasis and
the Calcedonian Fathers, and it sort of collapses really Christology
in a sense and sort of isolates it.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, yeah, and let me enter that real
quick here, because I had a similar track right where
I sort of was was Catholic of tradcat and sort
of reading Maximus and Cavedotionans, and that's when I started
encountering a lot of this stuff that just isn't romancallic theology.
Like Maximus says, the energies are the things around God,
So I mean, are you how are you gonna? I mean,
especially when it comes to Christology, right, he makes the
energies essential to his Christological doctrine to refute the mono
Thelites and the model energiest So I mean, is that
not the essence energy distinction?
Speaker 18: Yeah, So that's where I'd like to go with this
as well, because I've.
Speaker 4: Sort of I haven't really.
Speaker 18: Done a lot of polem my theology from being honest,
so I can't really push.
Speaker 4: Back too much.
Speaker 18: But from what I was sort of from what I
understand is from what I give from Maximus is he
sort of keeps all things in the LOGOFS. So it's
like even the logoi doctrine is sort of a precision
inside the one LOGOFS.
Speaker 4: The mean he is the one and the one, the
meaning you.
Speaker 1: Know, well, the procession of the procession of the energies
and the logi are also energy is through the logos,
but there's no in the logos procession because all of
the energies, as Basil says, have a triadic movement. They
move from the Father through the Son and the Spirit.
So everything in the trinity is triadic. And as you
if you're I don't know if you're reading the ambiguita,
but if you progress through the Ambigua, you're gonna notice
that he doesn't. He talks about the energies and the
operations all the time, and he explicitly says they're not
the essence. So, I mean, Maximus teaches the us and
scenergiesstinction explicitly, not just in that but more so in Christology,
because he says, in Christ there's two wills into energies
and the energies deified the human nature. That is impossible
with the Roman Catholic doctrine that grace or the divine
energies in us or in the human nature of Christ
are a supernatural created reality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's specifically in business, and Pat speaks about that
a lot.
Speaker 18: See I would say, because so that the logos of
Natsch I mean, you know, sort of in hypostasis, and
everybody has a logos of your own nature, and so
in a scene, the logos of your own nature is
created because it's not it's inseparable from you.
Speaker 20: So in a scene that has created grace, no, that's
not right, No, Maximus city, No, you don't understand or
misunderstanding the logi doctrine. So the logi are the divine ideas,
they're uncreated divine thought wills, and the created order is
created based on the pattern of those. So for example,
your created nature is a created nature that's not grace.
Grace is the uncreated energy of God that deifies you.
In fact, there's a specific statement in Ambiguity that I've
cited in multiple places where Maximus says, the same energy
that God has is the energy that deifies the saints.
So unless you think God has created energies, which would
be the Tim Gordon domestic position, which is idolatry, no
it's the same energy that God has.
Speaker 1: That defies us. That's why Jesus says that we partake
of his uh glory that he had with the Father
before the foundation of the world in John seventeen. God's
glory is not a creature. So Maximus is very explicit
as you and I've read him extensively, at least a
few thousand pages of Saint Maximus. You're gonna notice that
he consistently says the energies are uncreated grace. That's not
the same thing as the logie of you, which is
a divine idea and pattern of you. But your nature
is created. It's not a divine grace.
Speaker 18: Yes, but our natures are sort of in hypostaces of
these divine ideas, and in.
Speaker 1: Hypostats you're missing. You're missing, and you're misunderstanding. The terminology
in hypostasis refers to the mode of the nature that
you have. The logi are not hyposthetized. The logi are
divine energies. What's in hypostatized is the nature in the
person Bob, in the person J.
Speaker 4: Yes, but I.
Speaker 18: Think because my nature is in hyposthicized, because of the logoi,
there is a in this sort of an insuperableness to
the logoi that there is no there's no complicate, you know,
there's no complication between my logoy and my nature.
Speaker 4: That is in hypostosised.
Speaker 1: Yeah, again, you're you're not understanding you.
Speaker 4: Think incarnational logic.
Speaker 1: It's it seems to be that you don't understand these
you're confusing the terms. So the things are related, but
you're collapsing them. So the logi is the plan and
process that that God has for you in his divine mind.
That includes your birth, it includes your process and maturation
and floration, floor and flourishing and your eschatological uh in goal.
That's the logi, the plan, the architecture that God has
for you. It is not identical to your nature. The
logi is an uncreated divine thought. It's a divine idea.
And God creates you on the basis of the eternal
predetermination or plan that He has of you. But you
grow and progress and mature either in a cour with
that logi or against that logi, which is your your downfall.
So that's what is the architecture or the structure of reality.
It is not reality itself. There's a distinction between for example,
in God's mind there's an uncreated number seven that he
has an idea of, but the number seven is a
created reality that that's based on. Another way to show
this is Maximus's doctrine of universals. Universals are not logi.
Universals are patterned on the logie of the universal. So
there's a universal concept that is in the operant in
the created order. But according to Maximus, universals can perish,
they can go away. So that shows us that natures
and universals are not logi.
Speaker 18: Okay, I think I argue where you're coming from. I
just think maybe I was getting caught up. Is based
on the idea that sort of, I mean, the logoy
sort of we're always sort of placing it was, well,
they in hyperstaicize each instance of our nature, and we
are sustained in a sense by the divine ideas by
well how they relate to the one will of God.
Speaker 4: So in a sense, the.
Speaker 18: Logoy sort of their sort of relation to us is
the constant will of being. I suppose, so there is
we are tied up to it in a sense.
Speaker 1: I think we are. I mean, I mean you exist.
Speaker 18: His statement for the logos of God, who is always,
God will always and in all things actualized. The mystery
of his embodiment and sort of seeing these logo is
insuperable from creation.
Speaker 1: That's not true. That's not true. That's why they're called
thought wills. Don't you think God has in his mind?
God has omniscience and knowledge of the world, the worlds
that you didn't create, right, Yeah, So there are logie
of which they were not actualized because God has knowledge
of a world where there's no Aquinas, so there's no
you know, there's no beatles. Okay, but God didn't create
those worlds. So not every divine idea has it's created
analog and that's why Maximus and other church fathers will
call them thought wills, and because only certain logi were
actualized in the created order, namely the ones that he
created on the basis of But God is omniscient, and
as Basil says, God has infinite energies, not just many infinite.
So the thoughts of God, by the way, which are
the divine logi, Besils says, the thoughts of God are
also infinite, So there's infinite logi. But he didn't create
infinite worlds. He created this specific world, which is why
it's tied not to Platonic ideas of conceptualism, but that
he says, the Logi that he willed are you're correct
to say in hyposthetized in the logos, meaning that the
logos is the one that determined, because its creation happens
through him, which would be created and which would not?
I mean the Father and the Son and the Spirit
all decided it wasn't the Son and not the Father.
But when he talks about the nhipod that the logi
or nipostetized, he means that they're also personal. And this
is too if you read Tolosen's dissertation on the Logi,
he says this is what Maximus is doing to combat
Platonic impersonalism, because Plato thinks that the divine ideas are
really the determiners of what it emanates from the monad,
and Maximus wants to distance the created order and the
divine ideas from Platonism by saying, no, they're not immaterial,
or that they're not ideas that are determinative causes. They
are ideas that the Son wills to create, and hence
thought wills for the created order, and that makes it
not platonic. So there's a very important distinction. If you
read the Tolis and dissertation on this, this the whole
book is about that. This is why it's not platonism
or platonic divine conceptualism.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, thanks to Jack.
Speaker 1: Yeah, keep reading though you're on the right track. Also
read free Choice in Saint Maximus. That will help. I
think sort of lay this out. Oh, I didn't mean
to FDI. I didn't mean to remove you, so excuse me.
I'm sorry for that hit the wrong person. Okay, who disagrees.
We're probably going to try to wrap it up pretty
soon here because we've been going for three and a
half hours. Guys, thank you so much. Nick is available
on YouTube and TikTok. He is fearless truth. Josh says,
for five dollars, do a debate with Wagner on essence
INERGI distinction. I've asked him twice to debate different topics,
and the last two times i've asked, Wagner explicitly says
I am not a debater and I'm not doing debates.
He says, if you disagree, replied to the videos. So
Wagner has disagreed twice the last time. Two times I've
asked to debate, I think, I mean, I don't remember
mentioning energies. I think I'm asked him to debate tomism
and epistemology and he said no. And then I said
what about papacy and he said no. So Wagner does, officially,
in two replies in the last year, does not want
to do a formal debate. Skate monkey, I know we
did that one. Uh the rad God five bucks. Papists
are actually Mohammedan's and they're in terms of a target argumentation,
I would say nowadays they pretty much argue an act
like Muslim John Vatican two doctrine makes complete sense for
their religion. Maybe actually Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
Well yeh they yeah, they kind of act the same.
Uh Aka, Yesua five dollars Jay, would you debate deconstruction zone.
He's an atheist and he's convincing people to become atheists.
He teaches the God of the Bible is false. I
mean he could call in uh if they want to
have a conversation. Is he a TikTok read it?
Speaker 2: I mean he went on a one time with inspiring
philosophy on the Big Debate and his bying philosophy the
show like you're.
Speaker 1: A TikTok so, it's load tier.
Speaker 7: God is God is bad type stuff.
Speaker 1: Alex Orthodox shout out to Alex soaring five dollars. Nick
sells Coca Cola better than Kendall Jenner sells Pepsi blessings.
Speaker 7: They need to sponsor me. I'm telling you this is
quality stuff.
Speaker 1: Alex says, why can't we get Roman Catholics to just
give straight up answers to any questions? Well, because it's difficult,
that's one. Okay, Colin, what's up man? You're you're ferociously
thumbing down? Go ahead? What's up? Man?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 1: Hello, what's up?
Speaker 4: Bro?
Speaker 1: Hey? Go ahead?
Speaker 15: So the Table Nations are very accurate. I agree, but
I don't think it's talking about every nation.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fine, man. I don't really have any hard
opinion to debate you on the Table of Nations and Genesis.
Speaker 15: Okay, but it relates to the flood in your point
you were making earlier.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do we know that it's inaccurate? What's what's
the proper view?
Speaker 15: No, I'm saying that it's accurate, but it's not talking
about every nation though.
Speaker 1: Okay, and how do we know this? What's your source
for this?
Speaker 15: Because Native Americans in Minnesota jhibwe people, can you say
which part of the Table Nations that come from?
Speaker 1: Well, the fact that there's gaps in the history of
the Table Nations wouldn't mean that it's not true. It
just means that there's a lot of things about the
you know, Antiediluvian post Alluvian world that we just don't know.
So how would that How would Native Americans necessarily disprove
Genesis ten being universal?
Speaker 15: Because well, because I think that the flood didn't kill everybody.
Speaker 4: It left some people alive.
Speaker 15: But I have faith that well because the Native Americans
were on the continent.
Speaker 4: Before the flood happened.
Speaker 1: How do you know that.
Speaker 7: I trust scientific people in opinion on.
Speaker 1: Then we go, yeah, good job, trust the science people.
Signs people said it Man dominate, what's up? I go
trust the science buople, then go for it. Coleman says
for five dollars, Sorry, I'm dude. You know Raven Ibraheim,
I don't is that a does he? Do you know
who that is? The apologist? Cool somebody mentioned that the
other day, but I'm not familiar with it. Dominate, what's up? Okay?
He can't connect. Joseph, what's up? Dominic?
Speaker 7: Are either?
Speaker 1: Dominate? What's up? Joseph? What's up? I'm mute, Joseph, I'm mute.
Why are you raising your hand? I'm mute. Excuse me, Jones?
Jones Pepe, I'm mute. Why are you raising your hand?
Speaker 4: Man? I'm sorry, I'm sorry to my back. Oh what's up?
Speaker 12: Jay?
Speaker 4: What's up? Nick?
Speaker 3: I guess for the sake of time, I'll just I
have some questions here. I'm a Catholic, so I do
watch your content.
Speaker 4: But uh yeah, so I guess.
Speaker 3: I'll just rapid fire these questions really fast.
Speaker 4: Thought's okay with you? Oh?
Speaker 1: Good with the person?
Speaker 4: Oh okay?
Speaker 3: So how do you view the Fatuma visions and the
fact that the children said that everyone must do the Rosary?
Is this evidence of the Catholic faith or Catholic truth?
Speaker 4: That is?
Speaker 1: Is uh zy tune uh maryan apparitions proof of the
Coptic faith.
Speaker 4: I've never looked into that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I mean it was like tens of thousands
of people like Vadima, So how am I supposed to
know which one is the real Marian apparition?
Speaker 3: So there's maryan oparitions in the Copic faith, So that's okay.
Speaker 1: The most famous apparition of like the last fifty or
sixty years is Zune Egypt.
Speaker 4: Okay, good?
Speaker 12: Uh?
Speaker 3: And then the next question, I guess I also have
Nick wants.
Speaker 1: To join out with Nick, feel free to say what
you watch?
Speaker 3: So, how do you view Catholic monks? Are they heretics?
Speaker 6: Necessarily Catholics as everyone that is outside the church is
going to be formally here, it.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't matter whether you're a monk or not. Monks are
just lady by the way, unless they appreciation.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 3: And then the next one is Peter Diamond's Vaticancatholic dot
com rebuttal video on orthodoxy is a common video.
Speaker 4: I see with track Catholics.
Speaker 3: How do you view this? And would we ever see
a debate between you and Peter?
Speaker 1: Diamond responded to it probably ten times in the last
seven years, so you can find all those response videos
onstead of a concism on my channel. Uh. And no,
I'll never interact with them on a personal level. For
other reasons. Who's next? Raise your hand? Anybody have a
specific f the eight? Did you want to come back
at it? Mean to get rid of you? I hit
the wrong person? Paypist. Oh we got a papist.
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 1: Many Dirt says for twin dollars? Happy birthday, boss man,
Thank you appreciate that. Happy birthday to you too, man, papist?
What's up? I mute?
Speaker 7: Thank that we had one.
Speaker 1: He's trying to connect, so we'll give it a second.
See if he connects the skuy? What's up? Man? The skuy?
You want to unmute while papist is trying to connect.
Speaker 12: Oh?
Speaker 11: Hi, good, good evening, Happy birthday with day. I'm a
papist for your information, so I think to be patient
with me.
Speaker 4: Uh so, uh isn't talk to you first? Stuff?
Speaker 11: I watched your content pretty regularly. I like your discussion
as a sists.
Speaker 4: Are really awesome.
Speaker 11: Another lot from them.
Speaker 9: But I guess I had a couple of.
Speaker 11: Questions and that in a response to a video of
you made in regards to Fatima, what would you say
your personal stance on the whole miracle generally?
Speaker 1: I mean, did you hear the previous guy?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 11: Yeah, I'm wondering what you stance is on it, because
I know because I think the areas In the way
he framed his argument, I'm not trying, I'm trying to
understand you before I I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I don't I don't think any apparitions or claims
like this prove or just prove anything. They have very
little weight with me in terms of apologetics or epistemology
because every religion, every sect, every cult claims to have
miracles and visions and predictions, and it's literally impossible for
any individual to go and empirically, scientifically verify every one
of these claims. Now, I'm not saying there are no miracles,
but I'm saying, in my view, miracles attend and attest
to whatever the true faith is. They're going to accompany it,
but they don't themselves necessarily prove it in some strict
epistemic sense. So to me, it's just classed with any
of the other types of apparition Gara bundal or magic,
gorey or you know the Coptics with the Marian apparitions
in zie Tune, Egypt, Like, none of that proves or
disproves anything for me I have they have little to
no way, uh, but you but.
Speaker 11: Even if they don't have any weight for you personally,
but you would also understand that each apparition or each
individual miracle probably has a different amount of substance behind it.
Like obviously not every claim is valid just because it's claimed.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean I'm sure, I'm sure some of
them have more pedigree or more so called evidences than others.
I mean sure mm hm.
Speaker 11: And so in regards to fatima specifically, like I understand
that one of your major buddles to I guess the
fatima being used is almost kind of like, not as
like brute evidence towards saw some of them, but almost
kind of like if it were to point towards the direction,
it would be towards there. But I wouldn't say it
could be specifically to Proocosolicism, usually rebutted by saying like, well,
does they two improve the Coptic Orthodized Church, right? And
I feel like that's kind of misunderstanding the evidence behind
both of them, because.
Speaker 4: In regards to our lady thought.
Speaker 9: To them on our lady they tune.
Speaker 11: The Coptic Orthodox is very public and very very open
to the fact that our lady they Tune, Uh, with
a silent apparition where there was no doctrine bound to her,
but she mainly just appeared in miracle healings miracle.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do? You're just sort of
like giving this explanation and story about Matt Fatima and
zy Tune And how does this prove or disprove any
anything with a religion.
Speaker 11: Well, well, I'm telling you that the our lady that
in regards to the difference in substance between the two
of them, is our lady thought to him actually as
doctrine connected to her, like for example, the affirmation.
Speaker 1: Of why does doctrine connected? Why does having doctrine connected
to it in any way necessarily make it true or better?
Speaker 11: Well, because if it did happen, right, and if.
Speaker 4: Mary did actually show up the.
Speaker 1: Question her then went to the firm that's begging the question.
Do you understand begging the question?
Speaker 4: How would I be begging the questions?
Speaker 1: Because you change the criteria of what makes it substantive
and namely, if it's true, then it would have because
it has doctrine connected to it. If it's true, then
it would have doctrine connected to it.
Speaker 11: So it's like, oh, no, no, no, sorry, I guess
I'm not. I'm not really like a like a debate
or anything that I meant.
Speaker 1: But this is why debate matters, is that these bad
arguments convince people of things that are not convincing or
not good arguments. So you're missing the point of like,
go ahead, f d A, f DA, go ahead. What
do you want to say, father, deacon? Go ahead?
Speaker 4: How could it prove something false?
Speaker 21: That's oh if you guys men, it's just like, if
it's a false doctrine and a false religion, how can
you be like, we'll look at this miracle and.
Speaker 4: The holy theotous proving something false. That doesn't make any
sense to me.
Speaker 1: Well, they argue that it's proving a true religion.
Speaker 4: Well I would argue it points. I wouldn't say it's
stick proof.
Speaker 11: I'm not going to go that far into saying it,
but i'd say it would.
Speaker 21: A would that theo tokos be pointing to a false religion,
even pointing to.
Speaker 4: And stuff that's false, Like why would she have anything
to do with it? Oh? Well, I'm not a I'm
not orthodox.
Speaker 9: I don't believe cassim is false.
Speaker 1: So I'd argue that It's doesn't matter what you believe.
Speaker 4: It is false. I don't care what you believe. It
actually is false. That's the whole point.
Speaker 22: So you're going, but look, look at this miracle that
proves something that's actually false in reality, regardless of it
doesn't change being false because you don't believe it to
be false.
Speaker 4: It's false. I mean, what would you what would you argue.
Speaker 11: Happened during the event of Famamamuskin.
Speaker 1: But it really doesn't matter what I what we think happened,
because it could be I mean, it could be an
actual manifestation of an evil spirit. It could be a
government hoax and forgery. I mean, it could just be
a fake news story. I mean, the only evidence we
have is there's a you know, Portuguese news article claiming
that ten thousand people saw this. I mean you know
there were you know, there was fake news stories in
eighteen hundreds, right, Yeah.
Speaker 11: But just because there are a fake news story, it
doesn't mean that this news story.
Speaker 4: Must be fake.
Speaker 1: So why Okay, look, you're missing that. You're missing the
point that so you're.
Speaker 4: Saying it must be true. Jay's just saying, we don't know,
it could be it could be false.
Speaker 21: So especially if it's pointing to a false religion, like
that would be evidence itself that it's like, well, it's
obviously it's not legitimate.
Speaker 1: So Father Diggan's point is that evidences and these kinds
of events are secondary to the question of the religion
itself being true. So you're trying to approach the religion
as somehow vindicated or attested to through fatima, and he's
saying it's the other way around. The religion is either
true or false first, and that will actually determine whether
we accept or reject fatima. So it's not so you're
you're approaching it from an evidential perspective, and we're saying, well,
we're not evidentialist. We're not going to accept all these
myriads of competing claims about miracles. I mean, do you
accept Cybaba's claims of miracles and Hinduism, Well.
Speaker 11: I think every miracle claim has just needs to be
judging a case by case basis, not every place case.
Speaker 1: So this is this is why this is so okay,
this is so low tier and silly. How is anybody
going to Are you going to go through one million
different religious and cult claims about the miracles? Of that sect.
How are you going to judge all those on a
case by case basis?
Speaker 21: And also, why don't I just create a newspaper story
that can be judged on, like you said, on case
by case basis, where has.
Speaker 4: Dogma and it has everything that you want? Right, it'd
be like, well, in terms of the quality, doesn't this
seem better?
Speaker 21: So if that's your standard, I'll just we'll just create one.
We'll just create a news story and be like, hey,
trust us twenty thousand people and this new dogma was given.
Speaker 10: Oh it came from the.
Speaker 4: The propost too. Well, if that's your standard, man, that's
pretty bad.
Speaker 9: Well, I said, what was a stand?
Speaker 4: Well would make it stronger?
Speaker 9: Evidence in regards that the miracle claim.
Speaker 11: Would be the fact that the newspaper and a lot
of the witnesses were hostile. The first newspaper to publish
the miracle will that's what?
Speaker 1: But again you're.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I can do everything you say about that.
I can recreate that.
Speaker 11: What would have been their motive to I guess make
it some kind of like Ah.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your question. It's enough of this. I We're
not gonna have to do a whole like uh, you know,
epistemology lecture for like, why why this or that claim
doesn't prove the thing? John Wison your mind.
Speaker 8: As you know, I've been coming through all the neo
Pentecostal and Pentecostal stuff.
Speaker 1: Well there's a lot of claims of visions in Pentecostalism too.
Maybe I mean, I mean, I've seen I've seen news articles.
I've seen news articles claiming Billy Graham appeared to me. No, no, listen,
what if think about uh CBN right Pat Robertson. CBN's
is the news outlet for Pat Robertson's evangelical nonsense. Okay,
pat Robertson claimed to have visions and messages from Jesus.
Maybe there he does a public uh Mega church thing.
We've had Protestants and Charismatics call in and say, I've
witnessed Mega Church charismatic miracles. Are you telling me that
God's Holy Spirit is not healing the people at my megachurch?
And and how is that not a direct proof of
my megachurch Christianity? So let's take that, and then let's
take the Roman cavoc fatima claim. How are they in
any way substantially different?
Speaker 8: I have evidence from watching TV in the nineteen nineties
that Robert Tilton healed a thousand people.
Speaker 1: There you go there himself.
Speaker 8: He made the claim on cable TV back in the nineties.
You can go on YouTube get all the clips of
Robert Tilt Tilton literally blinking and freaking out and see
and claiming that there are thousands of people who have
been healed by him, just uttering gibberish through the television screen.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, yeah, but as he said, Fatima is more substantive.
So now you move the goalpost and you've tacked on
this extra thing that well yeah, see, but Fatima has
more stuff going on, and it's older and it's cooler,
and so that's better than Pat Robertson.
Speaker 8: Actually there's there's kind of costal there's pentecostal.
Speaker 4: Visions before Fatiba.
Speaker 23: Interesting, it's like Descartes, uh, stupid argument that he presents
in the meditation. Well, it has more presentational reality, you see.
Speaker 1: Little big Fish has a good comment and says at
the Azusa Street Revival, there were many many people claiming
that a gigantic fireball of God shot up fifty feet
in the air. So that proves the Azusa Street Revival.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we can show something false, it doesn't matter how
many clients.
Speaker 8: And the weird thing is, I do believe that a
lot of the Pentecostal stuff and you know, subsequent other
stuff is demonic.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying that it isn't.
Speaker 8: But but there were you know, if you read into
that history like we have, is there were people in
other parts of the world who were attracted to coming
to California and particularly is Zusa.
Speaker 4: Yeah, by similar.
Speaker 8: Visions in other you know, like in Romania and things
like this in uh Armenia, and so yeah, I do believe.
Speaker 4: That stuff is demonic.
Speaker 8: But at the same time, once again, just because somebody
has a vision somewhere and it appears to be something
nice and good, it's not always the case.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. We'll get to the last couple of super jets here.
As we closed out about four hours, Ruiz says, for
five dollars, Fatima is actually nowadays a business who can
prove whether it was an apparition or was it a
demonic interaction? Well, ultimately it's you know, Paul says, don't
believe visions of angels or whoever. In Galatians. Won He says,
use my theology and what I delivered to you as
the standard and Roman Catholk's flip it around charismatic flip
it aroun and they make the visions and the experience
is the standard of the divine revelation. It's the other
way around, all right, guys, thank you so much. We
got up to about fifteen hundred life today. Shout out
to jim Bob with the George Landians coming in. I
hope you guys enjoyed my show yesterday With Jimbob, we
went pretty deep on a couple of movies that were
pretty allegorical symbolic films that were fun to decode. And
thanks again to Nick for joining me today and chiming
in with all of his apologetics. He is at Fearless Truth.
He is linked in the show description, so go follow Nick.
Thanks for coming on man.
Speaker 7: Yeah, definitely do live on mine too. We can try
to do some debates as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe we can get you can probably get more Muslims.
They don't want to come around here anymore. But they
don't come around here.
Speaker 2: I put you on a black spreen or something so
they don't see. And then yeah, okay, bring like the
terminator in the.
Speaker 7: Secret Weapon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I'll have like a voice changer or something.
I like, I really gave away, and I'll come and
I'll talk like this. I just I just seem so
scared of Muslims that I thank you can bring Yeah right,
uh on Matthew coughey on man, I'll do the whole
debate in Matthew McConaughey. I'll make sure I didn't miss
any super chest Nellie says for twenty dollars, Thank you
so much. Happy birthday. Happen to birthday to you, man.
Here's another one I missed. Dcinc. Says for ten dollars,
Happy birthday, Jed. I discovered you at twenty twenty four.
I've been watching you consistently ever since. My only question
is do you think TAG by itself is sufficient to
argue the existence of the Christian God. Yes, and I
have a talk called from Tag to Trinity, so I
just renamed it so you could find it more easily. Guys,
be sure and follow Nick Over on Fearless Truth. Be
sure and follow Father digging In and as on Twitter on
patrisic Faith. Thank you guys for joining me. A lot
of fun and everybody, have a good night.