Speaker 1: Bunker, buncer oo bunker, fuck up. I got married.
Speaker 2: I got married to a funcer fop. We got wedded,
come joined in the subway, shop.
Speaker 1: Or I'm married.
Speaker 3: I'm married to mother fuco.
Speaker 4: But we get joined, go white is soon a subway.
He shot.
Speaker 3: Stamins and biscuits and minerals. They come to me to
my whole life is spit what con to.
Speaker 5: To mm hmm.
Speaker 2: I'm married to a foco who we got wedding. We
got joining in the subway. He shot over and minerals.
They come to you.
Speaker 6: And then come from fuck.
Speaker 1: I got married, I got married to my.
Speaker 5: Fuck my monkey. You climb up in that tree. What
you're doing up there?
Speaker 1: Why are you scared?
Speaker 5: While you running from every debate you were from Andrew
and from me?
Speaker 7: I do monkey, mat o, my dila monkeys with them bananas,
be's rains hanging down upside down.
Speaker 5: Found that's a smile. Met so monkey, what you're doing
to me.
Speaker 8: Climbing up that tree.
Speaker 5: Matt and a female male monkey climbed up the tree,
k s s and he ain't doing much more and
worse than that.
Speaker 7: Muh madal monkey, my deal.
Speaker 5: Madla monkey.
Speaker 1: You know the flogs with them banadas.
Speaker 7: That's rain trees hanging down outside down found.
Speaker 1: That's a smile.
Speaker 5: That so monkey, what you're doing to me?
Speaker 1: A clement of that tree?
Speaker 5: Give me and nanaa nanana.
Speaker 8: One more than because.
Speaker 5: My name is mad marg A. But I say it's
not a banana. I say it's a JJ that reminds.
Speaker 8: Me of j hes me and that's a fake.
Speaker 7: Oh, Madlakey matla argy.
Speaker 5: Madila monkey, you say, hockeys with a bananas between that
standing down outside down frown. That's a smile, that's all monkey.
What you're doing to me, maje a monkey? What happened
to your baby? I thought you was all about reason
and it was all about science, but now you say,
in all kind of bunch of nonsense.
Speaker 9: Advance AI capabilities.
Speaker 4: So where do we get the Bible from?
Speaker 9: Did you even read the cannons?
Speaker 8: There is only one charge. You are in a culture.
You're a gobbling a demon, a bull merchard.
Speaker 10: You're so mean.
Speaker 8: I'm your dude? Is this your personally webs shay, I
need a gender Jew can't take it. He's a little to
your sable bodies on your dude. I want plus one
plus one equal free. It comes out of doll the tree.
Why do you pray eat dead people?
Speaker 1: The traditions? Ma new heretic?
Speaker 4: Un your dude, is this your personal webs shaggy.
Speaker 1: I need a gender jew.
Speaker 8: I can't take it.
Speaker 11: He's a little to your sable boys, un your dudeistic justification.
Speaker 8: Are not married to a bunko pap?
Speaker 4: Oh oh, we got better conjoint in the subway shop?
Speaker 3: A whoa hello to a bunkop?
Speaker 12: Whoa remmens and men?
Speaker 3: Who goes? They come to meet with two? It's been
watching them too.
Speaker 4: Whoa oh oh.
Speaker 8: Oh, we got wet coaches in a subway shop.
Speaker 9: Oh whoa, we got wetted coats in a subway shop.
Speaker 3: Whoa like a share?
Speaker 8: Nerds?
Speaker 10: Like a share?
Speaker 8: Nerds? We got weted?
Speaker 1: Got us in a subway shop?
Speaker 11: Oh y'all ready for some debate action, some hot debate action.
Speaker 3: This is how I get hyped up for.
Speaker 13: This.
Speaker 3: One's my favorite.
Speaker 14: The patty label one joint.
Speaker 3: In the sub bays.
Speaker 15: Shock, whoa, whoam mid roly to me?
Speaker 16: Like watching.
Speaker 17: Whoa whoa in somebody's shop?
Speaker 18: Who oh, all your traid nerds need to like a share?
Speaker 3: Where the nerds at? Where them haters at.
Speaker 9: Some shot.
Speaker 3: You know, they don't want to smoke. You have an
Orland don't want to smoke. We're gonna talking about all right,
let's do it. Welcome everybody, another open debate. I noticed
when I make it any topic, we don't get the heat.
For example, last night, no one called into debate in
four hours, which was unique.
Speaker 10: We had what do we have?
Speaker 3: We had like Q and A for four hours. We
had a lot of interesting topics. But I don't know
if it's a new layer of throttling due to the
predilection that's going on, because you know, for a while there,
every time my live streams start edging up towards thirty
forty thousand on the average, suddenly it drops back down
to fifteen. Now, that could be throttling. I think that's
probably what it is, But then again it could be
also every time time I try to shift away from
debating idiots, I get half the views because people just
love seeing dumb dums be dumb dums. It's just like
a thing, you know, people just love it.
Speaker 19: It's just a thing.
Speaker 3: And Gavin Ortland is pushing a lot of things against
orthodoxy because so many people are going to Orthodoxy. Have
y'all not figured that out yet? Why are all the
people addressing and talking about orthodox because everybody's converting? What
do you think they wouldn't if it wasn't happening, They
wouldn't care, they wouldn't address it. They would just do that,
They would do their thing. But these positions are so
lame and so weak. And all these people shoot themselves
in the in the in the foot too because their
positions are so weak and the actions that they take
are not really conducive to the best way for them
to prove their points in defendent positions. Then again, I
guess they're doing the best they can for their positions.
I don't think they know what else to do, you know.
I mean, look, Redeem Zoomer much bigger channel than Ortland.
Dude just quit. He just retired.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: Grant that he's about twenty. He doesn't want any smoke
for me, Well, Gavin Orland wanting smoke means he wants
to make comfortable videos on his own. But I mean,
how many times do we have to address these same
topics We've addressed icons since twenty eighteen, over and over
and over and over, and I make the videos over over,
no over, and I make the open debates over and
over and over, and it's always the same stuff. And
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe I should
just literally list every question and make a eight minute
video on every question. Is that only the only way
to do it. Sean Cobble says, we have so many
catechumen in our parents. He has pretty much every Orthodox
church that I hear about, and I know a lot
I hear a lot has doubled, and so people are
getting tired of all this just stupid stuff. All Orthodox
have to do is just be Orthodox and the people
are gonna come. We don't have to have funko pop
gimmicks creating funko pope. We don't need, you know, stupid
people don't want these gimmicks. Yeah, our church doubled in
the last couple of years, so I mean my personal parish,
another parish also doubled. I want to see, like the
debates that you guys want to see is really, I think,
for your entertainment. And you know, I've been debating for
a long time, and you know, I don't mind entertaining debates,
but after a while it's kind of like sometimes debates.
Sometimes debates give the impression that stupid positions are tenable.
Does that make sense in In other words, it's a
disservice sometimes to even do a debate with certain people
in certain positions, because it gives them credibility. It gives
the impression that these are some serious you know, these
are some serious things that need to be taken care of. Yeah,
we really got to address this now that we've got
a dude who says he wants to debate me on
Trinity today. He's got an AI picture of himself trying
to make himself chattified on Instagram.
Speaker 1: He said, I.
Speaker 3: Would love to debate you on the Trinity Sun. So
we'll see if Alex comes to debate, not Jones, We'll
see if he shows up. I see Alex in the quay.
Maybe that's him. Y'all want to go ahead and get started.
Let's see if this is Alex? Where is everybody today? Saturdays?
This should be a perfect day for a crowd. We
got I mean we just started, but we got four hundred.
Let's see what we got going today. Alex, what's up?
Are you the dude from Instagram?
Speaker 1: Thanks for calling me an AI generated person?
Speaker 3: It's a joke, dude. Yeah, well obviously, obviously, I don't
mean you yourself or AI generated. I said your picture.
Speaker 1: On Instagram, we're here Instagram? Is it Ai generated?
Speaker 3: I'm not making jokes. They always make jokes. What's up?
What's what's up?
Speaker 1: I would love to debate you, but.
Speaker 20: In Danish time, it's like seven and my boys six,
So we should definitely schedule like a whole evening where
we can.
Speaker 1: Get it on.
Speaker 3: Can you debate a little bit?
Speaker 1: Right now? You're asking me to to not to take
care of my son, but.
Speaker 3: Okay, so now yeah, now it's on the world. Yeah,
I'm an eve, a moral person. I'm asking you to
debate when you wanted to come debate now.
Speaker 20: I'm just I'm just saying we should schedule a day.
I'm not calling you evil, but I can give you
like an like an.
Speaker 3: Why would I give a random ask dude a whole
evening that I don't even know who you are.
Speaker 1: That's a good point, so I would. I've been making.
Speaker 20: YouTube videos about why the Trinity is falls, and I
base it basically on.
Speaker 1: My understanding of the Bible.
Speaker 20: Being Protestant, I believe in interpreting the Bible directly instead
of going to the church fathers and.
Speaker 1: And you know, doing it the Catholic slash Orthodox way.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, why should we think that's true.
Speaker 1: My way of reasoning and interpreting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, why do you think that that's the approach we
should take on what basis is that true?
Speaker 1: Well, you're right, maybe we should go Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 20: We could approach it in a more fundamental level and
talk about whether or not we have direct access in
reasoning with God by reading His word and interpreting script scripture.
But I guess that's a different, different topic.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean you said I start with a Protestant approach,
and I'm asking you, how do you know that that's
the right epistemic approach to the Bible?
Speaker 20: Well, I don't know if I would call myself. I
don't know if I live up to every tenant of
being a Protestant. I think Protestantism has fallen, you know,
it's a Protestant is a past a two original Protestantism.
Speaker 3: So I don't know if the original Protestants were Trinitarians.
So you're an Aryan? So how does that? How are
you the truth? How are you an original Protestant exactly.
Speaker 1: I'm not, that's that's kind of my pointment, but I would.
Speaker 3: But they had the right, they had the right hermaen utic,
they had the right approach to interpreting the scriptures.
Speaker 1: Partly, I mean they believe that they should.
Speaker 20: They have that humans reason with God by reading the Bible,
having access to the Bible, on being you know, persecuted
for for owning a Bible like the and a Baptist
and Huguenots and and and all of these people who
actually believed in in.
Speaker 1: Meeting every day.
Speaker 3: And okay, so I mean does the Old Testament throughout?
Do you believe the Old Testament? You reject it?
Speaker 1: I completely believe in the Old Testament. I'm actually a
Sabbath keeper.
Speaker 3: Oh so you're so, you're a judaizing heretic as well.
It makes sense that all those things usually go together.
How come throughout the Old Testament the Angel of the
Lord is called Yahweh and presented as.
Speaker 1: Divine, Come again, come again. I didn't get that last part.
Speaker 3: How Come the Angel of the Lord throughout the Old
Testament is called Yahweh and presented as divine and worshiped.
Speaker 20: Because an angel it means just a messenger. So Jesus
Jesus was called even though Jesus is divine. I believe
Jesus is divine. I believe Jesus is a literal son
of God, which the trainy.
Speaker 3: So you think there's multiple gods, you're a polytheist.
Speaker 1: That's a great question.
Speaker 20: And that's one of the things that would bring up
in my debate is that I would start by defining terms.
Speaker 1: So when when when you say God? Right? When you
when you use the term God.
Speaker 20: An average person on a Danish street anyway, but probably
like wherever in the West would think of the term
God as the source of everything and omnipotent, omniscient entity, right.
Speaker 1: H And.
Speaker 10: And I.
Speaker 1: Don't think that Jesus fits that that definition of.
Speaker 20: Being a god, even though I don't have a problem
calling Jesus God because he fits a different definition of God.
Speaker 3: So you believe in multiple gods, you're a polytheism.
Speaker 20: I believe, no, hold on, I believe in multiple definitions
of God. But I only but I believe just as
the Bible says that there is only one true God,
there is only one the most High, there is only
one the Ancient of days.
Speaker 3: So then why in the Old Testament, is the Angel
Lord given all the same titles as the One God Yahweh.
Speaker 1: I don't think he is.
Speaker 3: Well all of those passages, like in Judges where it
says Gideon that says Yahweh turned his face to Gideon.
Hagar says she saw God face to face. Jacob says
he wrestled with God.
Speaker 20: Yeah, so that I that's what I'm what I already answered,
Jacob did wrestle with God, but it was not the
One True God.
Speaker 1: He wrestled with Jesus in his pre human form.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but the Old Testament calls the Angel of the
Lord the glory of God the face of Yahweh in
Judges six.
Speaker 21: Yes, Jesus is the glory of God's So.
Speaker 3: There's a created glory of God God. So now you're
apoltheis no.
Speaker 1: Hold on hold on bro So.
Speaker 20: The One True God, the most High, the Ancient of days. God,
the Father had a son before he created the universe
through his son, just like the Bible says.
Speaker 3: Right, he had a son before he created the universe
through his son.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 3: Okay. In John one, does it say that the son
began to be or does it say that he was
always with the Father.
Speaker 1: It says that in the beginning God, in the beginning.
Speaker 3: He was what's the rest of our.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's let's go and read John.
Speaker 20: But I can't have the whole debate tonight. But I
get why you would want to have like a teaser tonight.
So but anyway, Jesus, there are many, many, many Bible.
Speaker 19: Verses where you're not going to answer what I just said?
Speaker 1: What did you just say? What does John?
Speaker 3: You don't know John one one, I do.
Speaker 1: In the beginning was the word, and the word was
with God, and the word was God.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that's what I'm saying this, that's.
Speaker 3: Not what you're saying. That's the opposite of what you're saying.
Speaker 20: No, I'm saying that this fits the definition, the second
definition of God.
Speaker 1: I have the Bible.
Speaker 3: There is no second definition. That's something you made of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but there is Where where is that? If
you hear me out?
Speaker 3: Where in John one is there two different definitions of
the word God.
Speaker 1: The word was with God, the word is Jesus.
Speaker 3: And the word was God. Yeah, where in that verse
is there two gods?
Speaker 1: In the middle of the verse, it was with God.
Speaker 3: You're an idiot. Come on, you're an You're an idiot.
Get out of here, Moving on. That was so stupid
in the middle of the verse, there's two different gods.
I knew that was a waste of time. I don't
even know why I wasted some time with that. Did
the stream cut out for a second? So look, enough
of that. Welcome everybody. We're going to be open topics today.
The topics are anything theological regarding Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Atheism, Gnocissism,
Hebrew Roots, Arianism, Mormonism, cult sects, Black Heeber, Israelites, Calvinism.
If you got a question, okay, I guess. But I'm
looking for people who disagree, people who want to debate.
I want to hear good arguments. That guy had no
arguments at all. He didn't even know what John one
one was without going and turning to it and reading
the rest of it and then saying that there's two
different types of God in John one one and his
Protestantism led him to his Arianism. What a great testament
to the stupidity of Protestantism Protestantism that this guy, this
Danish genius, has been led to polytheism. And you notice
that it's polytheism because for him there's two types of gods.
There's God, the ultimate God, and then the gods that
God created, like Jesus, the Son of God, who is
a created God. And yet Hebrews One, the entire chapter
of Hebrews One, explains that the Son created everything, and
so there's nothing superior to him. There's nothing that came
to be that he didn't create, which means that he
wasn't a creature. Well, I don't know. The internet must
have cut out for a second, I don't know, but
that was really stupid of the show. So if you
want to call in, please do call in here and
make your arguments.
Speaker 1: Hello. Yep, hey, Jay, A big fan of yours.
Speaker 22: And I'm basically just looking into Eastern Orthodoxy as a
protest then, and even though I've appreciated at the depth
and the richness of the faith, obviously there aren't just
some issues that I'm like kind.
Speaker 1: Of wrestling with.
Speaker 22: Which are the typical ones, which are the most basic
would be like justification by faith, the atonement, and obviously
you know the script authority of scripture.
Speaker 1: I just had a couple of questions on a couple
of verses on like justification by faith and that toonement
if you don't mind.
Speaker 22: Okay, So in terms of like just the official like
Eastern Orthoic position, just to kind of simplify and make
it clear, would it be that like kind of similar
to the Roman Catholics where you're initially initially justified by
faith and it works out through love and your works
or is there not that type of a distinction with you, guys?
Speaker 3: I think it's faith working through love. Is the living
faith that counts. We don't have the rigorous sort of
strictures that Rome has about all these categorizations of venial
and mortal sins and all of that. But the faith
has to be living in active for it to be
a faith that counts. Absolutely, gotcha, gotcha.
Speaker 1: Obviously I agree with that statement because it's biblical.
Speaker 22: But like, let's just say, hypothetically, if I word to
just quote like Romans three, where it says like we
pull that one is justified by faith apart from words
of the lot.
Speaker 1: And just kind of stop there, like period.
Speaker 3: Would that be like an issue now it's rather just
what that word means, and so the and the pro look,
I'm not I'm gonna I'm not trying to be rude,
but I've addressed this probably five hundred times. So if
you want to go over here to my Eclipse channel,
you'll see I have two talks right there that deal
with the doctrine of Calvinism. And even though it says
Calvinism by extension, this this part one and part two
here will address all of the Protestant doctrines. So I
would say watch that if you in terms of Protestant
doctrines of penal substitution and atonement, I have a video
right here called penal substitution refuted it in Byzantium, as
well as all of the Calvinist doctor uh talks that
we've done, and uh, if you want to see this
really loud, bro, I'm just gonna go ahead and turn
that off. The debate we did with Dale right here
on the CLIPS channel covers the issue of soul script trup.
So remember, guys, most of the FAQ questions that you have,
I just I guess there's just no easy way to
make these always available, but inevitably every time, I'm not fussing,
I'm just saying, like the topics are always into being
those things, and we have multiple multiple but I mean basically,
any live stream open debate that we've ever done covers
those topics. But that's okay. I'm not pussy Nicodemus. Nicodemus,
are you there? Don't haggle with me over stupid ass
spurgey how you doing?
Speaker 10: I would probably have one of those questions for you.
Speaker 23: So for those partisans that are saying that, you know,
the Orthodox or pagan worshippers or idle worshippers and that
kind of thing, I get that there's new testing references
to burning incidents or to the Saints and that type
of thing, But is there ot references that I can
share with those people that are that are saying those
kinds of.
Speaker 3: Things of burning incense or you.
Speaker 23: Know, basically saying that Orthodox are worshiping idols because they
have icons and that kind of thing.
Speaker 10: There.
Speaker 3: So in Joshua seven, Joshua rends his clothes and he
falls before the arc on his face until the evening,
and the Elder of Israel prostrate as well, and they
put dust on their heads. So they're prostrating before the arc,
which has two angels on it.
Speaker 10: Okay, is And I'm familiar with that one. Are there
are the ones I can share with them? I mean
that is a good one.
Speaker 3: I think its Chronicles twenty nine. Somewhere in there. All
of Israel does the exact same thing in front of Solomon.
Speaker 10: Okay, excellent, fantastic, thank you sir.
Speaker 23: What about I mean, if I may add up to that,
what about like the later Jews, like even Asidic Jews,
do they have also I mean, do they continue this
kind of practice or not?
Speaker 8: They?
Speaker 3: He said, Jews believe that righteous do intercede. I think
that pray for the dead, going from memory. But they
don't have icons or images because they believe that it
has to be what's prescribed in the Torah. So they
have to have a temple in Jerusalem. You can't build
your own arc of the Covenant.
Speaker 10: Okay, awesome, all right, thanks for blush flow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, those are great questions. Appreciate those questions. Those aren't
no questions. Welcome everybody. It's open for them if you
have your questions. Topics for debate, challenges, disagreements. Remember the
topics are fairly broad in terms of anything religious related. Bible,
church history, patricians, councils, Islam, Kuran revelation PROTESTANTSM Colvin doesn't evangelicalism,
arianism called Hebrew roots, JW's et cetera, et cetera. It
is your day, Parker Scott. What's up, dude? If you're
watching on YouTube, you can call in through the link
right here on Twitter. So come and join me.
Speaker 24: So, Jay, Yes, So I was debating my friend on
TikTok Live like an r tar and analyzeder that.
Speaker 21: But he he's a solempsist.
Speaker 24: And uh, usually when i've when I'm absolutely lost, I
just go to your channel because it seems like you can.
Speaker 1: Like pretty much back up everything. So I went to
Ja's analysis and I read the.
Speaker 20: Refute refutation of solutism, but I still didn't really understand it.
Speaker 1: Would you be able to?
Speaker 3: If you talk about that old ass article that I wrote,
It was like one page, Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I
mean it's basically just the point is just very simply
that if solipsism is true, you could never know that.
In other words, you can never have justified true belief
knowledge that soltism is true, because it's a self defeating belief.
Because if everything is a projection of my mind, then
I don't really know what is what isn't a projection
of my mind?
Speaker 10: Right?
Speaker 3: In other words, I don't have anything to compare it to.
And so if everything is in that sense like illusory,
then I don't have a benchmark of the true to
compare the illusory to or the false two.
Speaker 1: Right, And yeah, literally in an illusion?
Speaker 3: So well, And also, how would you know that everything
is a projection of your mind? It also seems like
something that that wouldn't be possible to know even if
you thought it was the case, Like, how do you
prove or demonstrate that everything is a projection of your mind?
It just seems like some kind of weird, you know,
eccentric belief that a person might have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean everyone knows that, even the sol
syste will tell you like they don't live like that.
Speaker 3: I like, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 24: Yeah, Like you're not debating a microwave right now, you're
on TikTok lack debating me. I got one more question, Yeah,
what do you think about Jonathan Pagot's work with like symbolism,
because that's what originally attracted me to Eastern Orthodox Uh,
do you think it's a little out there? Because sometimes
he won't be He'll be kind of like Jordan Peterson,
where he will kind of like dodge it and people
will be like, what do you think about the you know,
Adam and Eve, And he'll be like, that's the best
way to explain the event that occurred, and it is
explaining events.
Speaker 1: Do you think that could be like a slippery slope? Overall?
Speaker 3: I really like Pagio, you know, known it for several years.
We've always had overall pretty good rapport. The one area
where I disagree would be that I would take a
stronger stance on the historicity of Adam and Eve. But
I think he's intending to express good, good principles and
the truth overall. So I would say it's an area
where we disagree, but we agree on pretty much everything else.
So yeah, I would just take a stronger stance on
that issue.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, thank you buddy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, man, thank you, good questions.
Speaker 8: Thanks.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that, John claud Van Johnson, we got a
JCBD fan and audience appreciate that. Sarah Fime, what's up man?
It's open for him. That means you can call in.
I don't know, whatever. What else is there to do today?
Where is everybody. Why do we not have our usual
thousand live here? What's going on.
Speaker 19: Saturday?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 1: Hey man? I have two questions. The first one is
kind of debated, but it's not my position. I debated a.
Speaker 25: One as pentecostal, which is kind of hard, arguing tradition
and telling him that he's following a heresy from two
fifty eighty when he truly believes that, like the church
was revived in the Zuosa Street Revival.
Speaker 1: So he states Acts.
Speaker 25: Two thirty eight as Peter commanding everyone to be baptized
in the name of Jesus. And I point towards the
end of Matthew, Christ literally commands the apostles to baptize
the name of the Father.
Speaker 1: Son, and Holy Spirit.
Speaker 25: And his argument is that if they are baptizing in
the name of Jesus, then their ergo Jesus is the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: That's like his whole argument is predicated on that one verse.
Speaker 25: And I didn't know how to really go about, Like
I feel like there's a lot of cognitive dissonance, like
in a factor in this, But I mean, why would
the apostles baptize in Jesus's name only and not the Trinitarians.
Speaker 3: Well they're not. It's just that's just a terminological stand
in for in the name of the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. So in other words, when you say the
name of Jesus, what's assumed is that it is the
Trinitarian baptism. It's not literally only baptizing in the name
of Jesus. So that's that's just kind of a silly
hermeneutic assumption that many cults will bring to a text.
And if you're dealing with somebody who's so low tier
that they are basically using one verse as the lynchpin
of the restoration of their sect, you're dealing with somebody
whose borderline probably retorted. So I would say a better
approach than because that kind of person has a cult,
has cult blinders to all the verses are going to
throw at them. You need to bring a heavier machinery
to the debate and just cut out everything from underneath
him and say that your sect didn't exist. And the
people that put the Bible together are the or the Orthodox,
So how are you going to understand a book better
than the people that put it together? And you don't
even have the right collection of the books. That's a
much that'll that will destroy the thing that undergirds because
when you get into it with these idiot cult members,
they'll never stop throwing texts back and forth at you.
It's just a it's a never ending well what about
this verson, what about this Urson? What about this verse?
And they don't care about the like harmonizing all the
verses right because they think, well, now, but I go
by this verse. So undercut all of that with pointing
out through the canon argument that like you're not even
in the church, you're not a church, Like you don't
have the Bible, you're not anything except the crazy cult.
You gotta be stretched out.
Speaker 25: Yeah, so like battle the biblical presuppositions before we even
go to the scriptures. All right, next next question I have.
This one isn't necessarily a topic of debate. I have
a friend who is inquiring into Orthodoxy and he's starting
to read some of Father Seraph and Roses books, which
I think is not, you know, too bad. He a
lot of what he writes is kind of open for
anyone to sort of get into spiritual wise, but he
kind of read he's sort of reading the soul after death.
Speaker 1: And the conclusion that he comes to after reading.
Speaker 25: The position on the toll houses is that every religion
can be a pathway to God if after death we're
able to uh sort of atone for our sins on
earth and turn to Christ after death. And I think
a lot of it is him kind of coping with
the fact that his father recently died in the Sikh
religion and he's trying to find some consolation.
Speaker 3: But I think, well, the first one is that the
first thing I would say is that phrase is false.
I mean, even if God can, you know, reach somebody
on the deathbed in a miraculous, non normative way, that
has nothing to do with their false religion being a
means of salvation. There are no false religions that are
means of salvation, right.
Speaker 25: But his I think the major point that he was
driving was like, you so I also argue that, you know,
the toll house is just one of many orthodox views
on like what happens after death. But he he was
stating that, you know, in the book, and I've read
the book myself, it's been a while, but he was
bringing up certain chapters that deal on how when after
the soul's depart departing, you are sort of given in
what would be seen as, for lack of better terms,
like a second chance to sort of repent and turn
to Christ.
Speaker 10: So maybe not.
Speaker 25: He's saying that every religion leads to Christ, but that
no matter what religion you are, you would have a
second chance upon Well, I mean, we.
Speaker 3: Just don't know that for sure. And this is also
I'm not blaming you for thosing you, but this this
is a really odd entry way into Orthodoxy. Yeah, I
mean people need to get grounded in the scriptures and
in Katechisis and not come into Orthodoxy through toll houses.
That's like the worst probably a way to come at Orthoxy.
Speaker 25: Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's I mean, I plowed him for
reading Father's There from Rose, but I don't think that
the soul after death was.
Speaker 1: Like the best.
Speaker 3: No, he should have started with like God's Revelation to
human heart or you know, Nihilism or something like that,
or Orthodox survival of course, maybe, but now I would
say he should probably you know, read something like Pomazansky's
Orthodox theology and get a grounding in the theology before
jumping to the really speculative matters. It's like it's the
same thing as like when people come into Christianity or
religion through end times gibberish. It just creates all these
problems because it's you know, it's sexy and sensational to
talk about Antichrist and the end times and when no,
you need to come into it through uh, starting with
the doction of Trinity and Christology and all the stuff
that Katechiss teaches.
Speaker 1: Right, And what was the author of that book on
orthodox theology.
Speaker 3: That you just Mentionedzsky Orthodox Dogmatics.
Speaker 25: Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatics.
Speaker 1: Sorry, thank you, I'll recommend them. That's all I got.
I appreciate you.
Speaker 3: Yeah. A lot of times what happens is that people
get kind of also do they want shortcuts, and so
they want to like, oh, I want to go ahead
and just sign up now I want to be catechized
and Chris made it or baptized now, I want it all.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 3: You need to take your time. You need to learn
all of these things, and you need to attend all
the classes and work through the basics instead of trying
to jump into these like you know, extremely speculative, mystical,
difficult doctrines. Right, we don't come into Orthodoxy the philocalia,
so you want, you got to start with stuff like
orthodox dogmatic Theology by Palmazanski, which is what's used most
often in churches all over the place to catechize you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't blame him.
Speaker 25: I think he was coming into like he's turning towards
Orthodoxy to see if he can have an answer to.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, I know, but I mean I recommend that
book to him that I appreciate. That's all the questions
I had.
Speaker 3: No, those are good questions. We also can't let you know,
I'm not saying this is his fault, but you know,
we can't let the things that we want to be
the case dictate our religious choices. That's really the problem
everywhere because everybody, I mean, if you love truth, you
gotta basically submit everything to what's true. And most people
who are on their way to destruction, the reason they're
on their way to destruction is that they love and
believe lies. And they would rather love and believe lies
for whatever reasons, pride, simplicity, ease, comfort, believing they're going
to be on the winning team, whatever. But you know,
a broads that path that leads to destruction. So the
way out of that is that we all got to
be submitting to what's true. That means that we might
have something wrong and I can't choose my religion based
on the things that I want to be the case.
That's just another echo of the fall. You will be
your own God deciding what's true and false. Right, we can't.
We can't operate that way. The Saraceni. The Saraceni.
Speaker 26: Okay, I just have a quick question about circular reasoning.
Speaker 27: Is it Is it true?
Speaker 10: I'm kind of new that the whole logic and philosophy thing.
Speaker 1: Is it true that there is circular reasoning that is
not fallacious?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Maybe the using the term circular is inappropriate in that
case because it would be recursive or a different order
of reasoning. And that's because of the nature of the
thing in question. So, for example, if we use an
analogy to like linguistic philosophy, if we're inquiring into the
status and meaning of words themselves and how do words mean? Well,
aren't we going to have to use words?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: Well, I guess you're being circular because you're using the
thing in question. Yeah, but it's impossible by the necessity
of the thing in question, namely words themselves. It's impossible
not to utilize words to discuss words and how words mean.
So at the same time, in logic, if I raise
the bar and I'm not doing first order logic or
reasoning about the mundane things of the world, if I
start asking questions about logic itself, I still cannot avoid
using logic. I will be using logic in meta logic.
Does that mean that it's invalid because I'm using the
thing in question. No, it's unavoidable, and so in that
case it's recursive or it refers back. It's self referencing.
And maybe self referential is a better term than circular,
because people think that there's no such thing as meta
logic or reasoning at that level, because they assume that
when you talk about the fallacy of circular reasoning, that
this is some sort of in all situations and in
all cases. Another example might be something like, normally, it
is a fallacy to reason in a in a at
hominem way against the man. But what if what's in
question is whether the man is moral. Well, obviously I
have to if the man is not moral, discuss the
fact that he is immoral. Who I guess you're using,
you're at hominem. It's not at hominem in that unique case,
because the question at hand is whether in fact he's moral.
So you see how there's sometimes exceptions to the rule.
And in the case of circular quote unquote reasoning, the
exception here is when the question is about reasoning and
logic itself considered in itself, how does it work? How
is logic logical? That's a meta question, got it?
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, man, Thank you, great question.
Speaker 3: Hopefully that address is this endless, never ending atheist retort
which they can never seem to figure out. Our carry
got a ummute an hour? Carry? Do you want to talk?
Gets to ummute?
Speaker 16: Sorry, I was backing in a trailer. I'm at work
right now.
Speaker 3: But oh he's backing it up, baby, backing up, backing
up and back it up.
Speaker 28: Yeah.
Speaker 16: So I had a quick question. I'm an idiot, okay, Uh,
but I was wondering if you could just help me
out real quick. I'm a kind of human.
Speaker 29: But I was basically bating somebody and uh, they got
to a point I was making.
Speaker 16: I was about to bay and I was like, uh,
you know, we're having an argument or whatever, and it
got to a point where they said that, well, don't
you know that all opinions are subjective?
Speaker 10: And I'm like that, I use.
Speaker 16: I listen to you a lot, so I use. But
you say, you know that you can't say that all
opinions are objective.
Speaker 1: You're using a.
Speaker 16: Universal to say that there are no universals.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, I was thinking.
Speaker 16: About it because I was thinking at one point like like,
if there's like, let's say, uh, somebody sad, that wouldn't
that be like subjective that they're sad? Can there like
is there a possibility somebody can be objectively sad or
somebody can be objective.
Speaker 6: In some way?
Speaker 3: Well, I think this is just a we would just
make a distinction between the subjective experience of feeling sadness
and being in a state of sadness. And at the
same time, it is also objectively the case that you
are sad, So it's both.
Speaker 16: So something can be subjectively or objectively subjective.
Speaker 3: Well, well, just because something is subjective doesn't mean that
it's not objective. That's what your friend is talking about
is what's called subjectivism, And that's a different thing. Subjectivism
or relativism is the idea that all beliefs, all propositions,
all truths are purely relative and purely subjective. That's a
different thing from am I having a subjective experience?
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, that's all I wanted to know.
Speaker 16: That's a quick distinction is like, can I read more
about that? And like in Aristotle's works? Does he talk
a lot more about that?
Speaker 1: Is there like a.
Speaker 3: No Aristotle? I mean, this is more of a modern
philosophical type of discussion. I don't think Aristotle really thought
in those those ways. I mean, he had to debate
with sophists certainly in his day. But and the closest
thing to relativism in the days of the ancient Greeks
were the sophists. But I think a better book would
be something like W. J. Wood's book on Epistemology. You know,
you'll find him discussing in that book all those kind
of basic epistemic issues. So this is more of a
modern idea of a skeptical you know, relativistic skepticism or something.
Speaker 10: Very much.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it's a good question. Uh, welcome everybody. We
got glad to see you guys. Here, We've got three
people in line, and we've got a cool seven hundred.
We got the seven hundred club over here. I'm like Pat,
my boy, Pat Robertson over.
Speaker 30: Here, puts your hands on the screen and gonna heal
gout out there in the name of Jesus. Somebody's got
gout out there, and all of that gout money needs
to go to the Nation of Israel.
Speaker 3: My little seven hundred club plug there. What's up Xander
Anton Xander Levy or are we talking about Xander from
Buffy the Vampires Layer?
Speaker 10: What's up? Jay Unit? How?
Speaker 31: Why are you?
Speaker 10: Brother? So? I have one question about reincarnation.
Speaker 31: So I've been talking with some friends and I think
this is like it comes from Gnosticism. So they make
compelling cases for like early Christianity and like even Judaism,
like that they believed in reincarnation, that even maybe Jesus
believed in reincarnation.
Speaker 10: It's sort of encoded in the Bible, like.
Speaker 31: For instance, I think it was say John the Baptist,
was he talks about like perhaps being the So, first.
Speaker 3: Of all, that's addressed, how bad that argument is?
Speaker 10: No, the fact that which if you don't want, I'll
just like to form the question and be done.
Speaker 31: So it could you make like what is the best
argument for like reincarnation being something that might be true,
or that there might be there there or is.
Speaker 3: There not or not one, no, there is. It's a
silly position. And when they go to stuff to prove,
they'll say stuff like John the Baptist came in the
spirit power of Elijah. All that means is typeologically he
was of the same type of spirit in terms of
being an ascetic prophet like Elijah was. It doesn't mean
that he's the reincarnation of Elijah. So this comes out
of Rabbinic traditions and even Rabbinic traditions and Cabalistic traditions
that adopted this. They got it from Plato because so
much of the Kabalistic tradition the more you get into it,
they're influenced by, yes, in part elements of the chariot
angel stuff going on in Ezekiel, But more so Kabbalism
is influenced by gnosticism and neoplatonism very clearly, and the
scholarship in modernity on that is pretty much unanimous across
the board. We just lectured through the five hundred page
Cambridge Companion to Esoterism and every chapter in that that
dealt with Kabbalism and medieval Kabala, Christian Kabbala quote unquote
says all the same stuff I just said. So it's
not anywhere in the Bible that there's any ridiculous idea
of reincarnation. It's a completely pagan view, and most likely
the Jews were influenced again through perhaps even all the
way back to Babylon with Babylonian Talmud influence. But other
than the misinterpretation of the text, which is about the
Messianic era being initiated, that John the Baptist is a
type of prophet just like Elijah and Elishah. That has
to do with the fulfillment in minor Prophets, where it's
said that before the great coming of the Day of
the Lord, my prophet Elijah or my prophet Elijah will come.
So Jesus is saying that that Messianic prophecy in the
minor Prophets is fulfilled in John the Baptist. Nothing to
do with reincarnation. That's completely stupid anyway, I'm not knocking you.
I'm just saying that that's perfect. Uh, when you understand,
like the Messianic fulfillment. It's obvious. That's that's not talking
about it's it's also a partial preterist proof because it
shows that these Old Testament predictions about the last days,
the last days are inaugurated when the Messiah came the
first time. The esketon is now it invaded. Now, that's
why the heavenly liturgy, of which the Temple was a type,
is here in reality in the divine liturgy. That's a
great question. Okay, what's okay?
Speaker 1: Hello, what's up?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 27: Yeah, so I'm gonna acquire in the East, and I
had a question regarding their relationship oppositions or some of
the sessions with a few Muslims and like being able
to premise that a saty is a divine companty always
like it is intrinsic to like divine essms.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's called the Eunomian premise. And there is no
way to approve or demonstrate that. If you watch the
debate between doctor bo Branson and Jake, the whole debate
is over the Unomian premise, and the whole debate ends
up being doctor Branson showing through logic to Jake that
there is no demonstration of that. Plus it's a fallacy
because it's the same mistake of saying that all meat
eaters or carnivores, but not all carnivores are meat eaters. So,
in other words, the fact that one member of a
class possesses a saiety, it doesn't follow that every member
of a class must possess that to be in that class.
So no, if, in fact, if a sayety is the
thing that picks out the father, which is the orthodox position,
he's the one that is the self existent one, the
uncaused cause, and so forth, then it's a personal hypostatic property.
It's not the property that picks out divinity proper.
Speaker 27: And that doesn't make a few idea that the both
called eco booths them being equal is just in regards
to the divinity, right.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, Jesus says, for example in John five, all
the works that the father does, I do. Likewise, all
all that the father has, he is given to the son.
Right So, in other words, the father conveys to the
son the same nature. But to be the self existent, uncaused,
unoriginate one is the personal property of the father. It
is not the property of the divine essence.
Speaker 1: Okay, So just to picking back with your plan.
Speaker 27: So based on the argument, the Orthodox proposes and the
we Wisms refeat it. In a sense, if to hold
a position deal hold, then you could also argue that
our last glory isn't divine because that divine actually doesn't.
Speaker 3: Have a safe here exactly. Yeah. In fact, in that debate,
doctor Branson argues against Jake precisely that point that do
each of the each of all his attributes possessed society
or in incompass and do they all come possibly possess that?
In answer that Jake gives us no, and so Jake
refutes his own position.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 27: So based on argument, anything apart from a law cannot
be divine as they do not have a CT. And
that doesn't even make sense, right, Okay, So just what
I'm gonna Shay, I don't know if you know, John
five twenty six off your head, but is Delfa has
life within himself and then the Father also gives me
life within myself.
Speaker 1: So what does that actually mean?
Speaker 27: Because uh, a saty kind of can can and a
CT be passed onto another person or no.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying is that in the Orthodox position
of trends arent theology, a sayety means self existing, uncaused, uh,
you know, unoriginate. Those are all what we call hyposthetic
properties that pick out the person of the Father. So
it's unique to the person of the Father. It's not
a property of the divine nature itself. And so when
Jesus says that the Father gives him life, this is
a just simply regurd This is simply a restatement of
what we call the eternal generation doctrine. So Jesus is
just like this is what Nicia says, right. Nicia says
that the Father eternally generates a son of his nature,
which possesses the divine essence. Right, but the father's personal
property of being the uncaused cause or of being assay
is not transferable, just like the property the personal property
of being the son is not transferable. Jesus doesn't make
the Spirit his grandson or another. The Spirit is not
Jesus's son, right because hypostatic properties are not transferable. But
anything that is common is transferable. And thus Jesus gets
all of the same common properties that the Father has
in terms of nature. So this is why you have
to distinguish nature in person the trinity. So all of
the works, all the powers, all the actual buttes that
are proper to the divine nature Jesus gets from the Father.
They're all communicated to him.
Speaker 1: So there's nothing that Father can do that Christ con.
Speaker 3: Basically, except the Cappadocians say to be the cause.
Speaker 27: Okay, okay, and that's a hypothetic propacy, not something Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Cappuitotions are adamant that. This is why we
don't believe in the philioquay. Uh, everything that the Father
has the son has except for being cause.
Speaker 27: Yeah, and then the son doesn't have a and the
Father doesn't have a human nature of either.
Speaker 1: So so do you go to do you some overlooks
onto a relative identity?
Speaker 3: Well, this is a little more of a tricky area
because we could say that in a sense, there are
relations and you can identify the persons in a really
in a relations way. But it's as Loski says, it's
relations of origin, it is not relations of opposition. So
I absolutely recommend reading the Losky paper. It's called Procession
of the Holy Spirit and Orthodox Trinitarian theology. Let me
pull it up, okay, because it specifically addresses the tonistic
faulty theology of relations of opposition, and so you don't
even have to get three, four or five pages into
this famous essay before Losky is refuting the tonistic idea.
Speaker 27: So obviously, as an Orthodox you obviously don't hold it
to mystic view as well. You still hot events simplicity absolutely.
Speaker 3: In fact, we would argue that the Orthodox position is
the one that upholds divine simplicity and the Roman Catholic
position that actually compromises and severs it.
Speaker 27: Okay, Oh, and I've had a conversation with you, and
you use this tone to describe that the distinction between
the relations in the in the Godhead and the distinction
between the Good Head and humanity. I think it was
I told you, like I'll come in the actual way,
use like his basically to explain how how like how
even though Jesus is so borted into the Father in
terms of relations, used to have sovereignty over all of creation,
and then like, I think it Hasnarian economy about well.
Speaker 3: So, so this is just in Orthodox theology. One of
the first things we would say about how we go
about naming God is that there's two different ways of
naming God. The first is God in the intertrinitarian life. Okay,
that's different than it's not totally unrelated, but it's in
ways distinct from how we relate or name God in
terms of his relations to creation. So this is economia
versus the trinity or theology proper.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 3: And so, for example, Maximus talks about this in the
first five page of the two Inner Chapters, where he says,
can we call God actus purists or first cause? He
says yes, in one way, we can't. In another way
we cannot. How is it, well? The way that we
can call God first cause is in relation to creatures.
In that sense, God is the first cause of the
created order in the creative world. Sure, But can we
call God in himself in the intertrinitarian life, pure act
or first cause? Absolutely not, because it would be totally heterodox.
It would reduce God to the Aristotilian diad and lead
to all kinds of stupid heresies. So that's why act
as purist is both true and false depending upon how
you name God. I mean, maximuspects it very clear in
those first five pages. Roman Catholics don't even pay attention
to this. They just act like they have no idea
what we're talking about Does that make sense? Is that
what we're talking about?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 32: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 27: And last question, this last question, So in regards to
the safety, of course, Jesus Christ is in the uncos cause,
but it is crystal and necessary necessary existence by predication of.
Speaker 1: The follow because I'm not sure. I'm not sure, but
oh I did that.
Speaker 27: Goodness has to be extualized and love has to be reciprocated.
That's why the sun exists, because the love is specificated
as someone in the sun.
Speaker 1: Back to the Fowell.
Speaker 27: So even though Christ doesn't possess a saty, he can
still be described as a necessary existence, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well this is again precisely in the way that
I just described. When, for example, I think it's Oration
twenty nine Nazi Azis says that you can say that
the Sun is unoriginal when he's contrasted to creatures. You
can call God actors purists, in contrast to creatures. You
can call the trinity the monarchy of creation. In contrast
to creatures. That is distinct from how we name and
predicate in the intertrinitarian life. And all the idiots on
the internet confuse these two all the time and make
the stupid mistake because they'll think that the entire Trinity,
in its intertrinitarian life is the monarch is the false
first cause. Okay, so you're saying that the sun is
the first cause in the trinity. Obviously not, so you
cannot name the intertrinitarian life the same equivalent way that
you name God in contrasted creatures.
Speaker 27: So basically the term So yeah, because well before I
am credit into eating over those, I always used to
hold a notion that God cannot really be a dualistic term.
But it actually can be because every every form my
language can be because God isn't just used for the
Father with the Son.
Speaker 1: God is used multiple times and.
Speaker 3: Right, so let's look about unorriginal in the trinity? Is
the son and original? Absolutely not, that's a heresy. The
Son is original, he originates from the Father. But can
you call the son in contrast to the created order
and originate?
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's in It's in the It's in Gregor
Nazius Nazianza's orations. He says everything.
Speaker 27: Okay, so this is I actually have to go acredible
me over what would you recommend to get more well
versed in this is theology apart from the Bible, of course.
Speaker 22: Uh.
Speaker 3: Well, I would start with reading something like the theological
Orations of Gregory Nazianzus. Of course, the first the thought
what are called the five are really important, but there's many,
many more. Those are good. I would read On the
Incarnation by Saint Athanasius. I would read, Uh, Basil against
You Unomius Basil and Holy Spirit. I would read uh,
something like Loski's Mystical Theology Eastern Church. I would read
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomazanski. You know, I would get
grounded in those kind of works first, and I would
read something like Visiting Theology by my Endorff. I would
read the other Loskiy books which are really good, like uh,
a Vision of God or any any of the Lowsky
books are good. And then I would branch out into
like maybe Stunny Lloyd's Orthodox Dogmatics something like that.
Speaker 27: Okay, thank you if you're so off by the time,
I'm back all questions again, because I have a questions,
but I have to go.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, those are great questions. I appreciate. Thank you so much. Kay,
really good questions. Uh, and I love seeing seeing that
click with people, because so many people get caught up
in gotcha's and get confused. And you know, thank God,
in the last I don't know, like the last couple
of weeks, I've had multiple tomiss and Catholics and people
that were confused over these topics of relations of opposition
or whatever actually go and read the freaking Losky paper
and understand what's being said, and it's beginning to click.
So I'm glad to see that confused.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 8: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 33: So my question is this, So a lot of the
debates have been in the realm of the theological and
in talking to other Catholics who are seeing the sense
that prevails it's sort of a weight and something's going
to change there and sort all this stuff out, and
they don't and or they also lack a sense of
that theological understand where you can really interface with them.
Aside from something like that, What are the other approaches
or other ways to talk to an individual about why
Orthodoxy is correct compared to say Catholicism.
Speaker 3: Well, I think if you if you look at somebody
like Pago, I mean, he has a very popular approach
that's different than the polemical approach of what we do.
So you could look at something like the arts. You know,
I think probably the degradation in the Western Liturgical basically
the loss of the Western Liturgical tradition, the papacy not
wanting to continue and foster the Latin Mass and their heritage.
Those are are probably good inroads with Catholics who you know,
don't really care about apologetics or you know, logical issues
or whatever. The arts aesthetics, that's another a key angle,
is what I'm saying. I'm trying to think of other
A lot of people prefer you know, more pastoral issues
or questions and so or or practical maybe you know,
male female issues. So Father Moses a channel might be better,
a better inroad for people who are interested in those
practical types of topics, or Father Trinham's channel for dealing
with a lot more of those practical questions. Those in
the way they approach is probably you know what you're
looking for. Thanks, Yeah, yeah, not everybody finds debate and
you know, logic and all that, which is fine. You know,
everybody we all have different gifts, we have different skill sets,
so everybody contributes in different ways. Light vendor. It's a
cool name.
Speaker 1: Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 10: How you doing? Jay?
Speaker 34: I got a quick question for you here, and forgive
me if it's it's just like a shower thought from
this morning. I'm an inquirer into Orthodoxy. I've been going
to church off and on for about two years in
New York and stuff like that all over the place, UH,
in relation to the Trinity, and for that matter, any
created category like male, female, father, son, or.
Speaker 1: Even like you know legs or are you there?
Speaker 3: You got robot machine gun?
Speaker 1: Bro?
Speaker 3: We can't hear you? Are you there?
Speaker 1: Sorry? Can you hear me?
Speaker 21: I got a phone call right?
Speaker 3: Maybe call back in after your phone call? Anov we
got attacked by a I bought bro.
Speaker 19: Hello, Hey, how you doing?
Speaker 1: Jay? Nice talk to again? Actually piggingbacking off of two.
Speaker 35: UH guests ago with Okay, I had the same question about.
Speaker 1: Asity, but you kind of answered it.
Speaker 35: I just want to say, like my framework as a
Protestant was that a saity is an intrinsic property to God,
similar to the omnipotens.
Speaker 3: What I didn't hear you.
Speaker 1: I would say that before.
Speaker 35: My problem was that I would assume a saity is
an intrinsic property to God.
Speaker 3: Right, this is a Protestant idea. This is like Reformation
era Calvin type stuff.
Speaker 35: Yeah, so I'm trying to unlearn that a quick In
relation to the training, my question is how do we
define what a person is?
Speaker 3: The closest definition in the Orthodox Theologians that you read,
whether it's Cyril or whether it's Gregory Palamos, is that
a person is a subject or an agent. And if
you get to the time of the Fifth Acumenical Council,
it actually dogmatizes and and it states explicitly that by
hypostasis we mean pro siupon we mean person, subject or agent.
Speaker 35: Okay, so would that mean that they have mind with
they have they share the divine mind and will in
the trinity.
Speaker 3: Yes, And that's why there's That's why mind and will
are not properties of person, they're properties of nature, and
so they're common to all three. So in other words,
it's the subject that has the mind and the will,
just like in human persons. I am not as a
person reduced to or equal to my mind or my will.
My mind and my will are things that the subject
or the person jay has as part of human nature.
That's why that's why there's a distinction between nature and person,
both in the trinity, in Christ and in human anthropology.
Speaker 35: Okay, so I guess, and then that makes me ask
me next thing is something I've heard in support of
the philioque is the difference between Can you just say
what the difference is between procession and begotten?
Speaker 3: Now, the Cappadocians points out that what the difference is
we do not know, but that there is a difference
we do know.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 35: So if there's so, then for the Philiokua, it's like, okay,
So if there's that, then what's the difference between the
Sun and the Spirit if they're both being sourced in
the Father?
Speaker 3: Well, the one is the Son, and his difference is
that he became incarnate and revealed himself to us.
Speaker 27: Uh.
Speaker 3: And so the way that we know that he's different
is because he's revealed as the second person of the God,
had Jesus walking around talking teaching us all these things.
He performs the role that's specific and unique to him
in redemption, and the Holy Spirit is the third person,
the one that he sends who performs his unique roles
and actions and redemption. And so we don't need an
egg exhaustive scholastic definition of what the words or what
the things. The difference is to know the person's because
there's an element of mystery here that we're not revealed
what those things are. That's why the Cappadocians actually castigate
the Eunomians and the Arians for seeking to exhaustively understand
and define the difference between procession and generation, which is
what leads to their heresy.
Speaker 35: Yeah, okay, And then my kind of I think is
my last. It's so something I've gotten a lot recently.
I never really considered, and I think I know the answer,
but I want to hear your opinion is why three?
Speaker 10: Then?
Speaker 1: Why three? Persons?
Speaker 10: Like why not seven?
Speaker 1: Why not two? Like?
Speaker 35: Why is there a reason that number three is significant?
Speaker 1: Area?
Speaker 35: It's just I answer because that's where it.
Speaker 3: Is, you know, I mean, at the most basic level
that that's just who God is. Yeah, right, So God
doesn't answer to any higher standard of like because God
has to fit into this that scheme. Right, It's just
the way that God's God's self declaration, self revelation is
that that's who he is and that's always how he's been.
But there are places where the cave Dootionans and Maximus
speculate as to why it might be three, and their
answers are things like, well, if you think about ancient
notions of numerics, the a pure monad has certain elements
to it that are deficient, and the next move is
a diad, but a diad still has certain deficiencies and
opposition in it. And the next term is the triad,
and the triad transcends the diad. And so it's the
first of the numbers that is unique in that way
that it transcends unity and a diead state and refers
back to itself. Now, whether you find that a convincing argument,
that's up to you. But that's the type of argument
that the Cappadocians and Maximus make from ancient to number theory.
Speaker 35: Yeah, and so what do you say that, like, for example,
that when we talk about God being like creator, loving, merciful,
what do you say he always had was like, was
God always a creator even before creation?
Speaker 3: This is a distinction between first and second actuality. This
is a distinction between a power and actualizing that power.
So from all eternity, absolutely God had the power of creating.
He did not always from all eternity create, because that
would mean there's an eternal world, and we would be
in the originist problem at that point.
Speaker 10: Okay, so how is that different? Though?
Speaker 3: That, by the way, refutes tumism and shows that we
don't believe that God is reduced to pure act because no,
Thomas would say that God possesses both first and second actuality,
or that God possessed unrealized powers.
Speaker 35: So a creatism I have of Islam is that God
was not always loving in his creation.
Speaker 3: To actually like, well, in Islam, God is never loving.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but.
Speaker 35: I'm saying, like, even like a purely one person, one
being God, at least with the Tranitarian model, you know,
he love is eternal because the three.
Speaker 3: Persons, right, yeah, I made We've made this argument too,
I guess. Well, basically any unitarian system has this problem.
Speaker 35: Yet, So like, why can't the Muslims, for example, say
that God always had a potential to love? That's what
and then like the same argument for you with the creator,
God always had the potential to love. Therefore, it works
out that you don't need a Tranterian model for God
to always be loving.
Speaker 3: Well, because the they would then be positing first and
second actuality or potential or powers in God that aren't actualized,
which I'm not sure that Muslims even go into that
because every time I bring this up, this is what
I brought up in the asra Rahid debate, and he
never understood what I was asking. So if they want
to deny this, would this would at that point I
would turn the I would turn the Tomas dilemma on
them and be like, well, so do you believe that God,
that Allah has unrealized powers and that so if he,
if he has unrealized powers, then he would undergo some
kind of change by having not created to then creating, right,
because they have a very similar kind of scheme about
what's perfection in a law as Roman Catholics and Thomas
do about the metaphysics of perfection. So that's what I
was doing in Azrorashi debate because because I was trying
to get him to admit that if if Allah is perfect,
then then how is he perfect if he's not even
created yet? Does that make sense?
Speaker 35: Yeah, But so they can't use the same potential argument
that we would use.
Speaker 3: Now, well, they would have to admit like essen senter distinction,
stuff like that.
Speaker 35: Okay, okay, well that makes well, that makes so we
always say God is a creator because he always had
the potential to do it and to actualize in.
Speaker 19: The moment creation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, and this is why Basil says, you know,
the powers of God are infinite. We don't even know
all the powers of God. Okay, And you could likewise,
you can phrase the question to a Thomas differently and say,
does God have the ability, uh to create a world
where there's no pope and no Thomas aquinas, Yes, did
he do that?
Speaker 31: No?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: Okay, So then God didn't actualize all possibilities that he
has in his power.
Speaker 1: So we would say that he does actualize all the possibilities. No, oh,
we would say he doesn't.
Speaker 3: Because because he has free will, he doesn't have to
exercise every power. And Basil says his powers are infinite, okay,
infinite as many.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that's that was my uh.
Speaker 3: But none of that works if God is reduced to
pure act as Thomas say, I see.
Speaker 35: I see what you're saying now. Alrighty, I'm gonna.
Speaker 1: Fit with that for a bin. I'll come back next time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great question, all right, thank you. Absolutely anytime,
really good questions, Marcus. By the way, this was the
passage I was looking for in the Minor prophets Malachi three, Behold,
I send my messenger. He will prepare the way before
the Lord who will come into a temple, even the
messer of the Covenant.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Uh so it's John the Baptist that is the messenger
that prepares the way for the Lord, and that's why
he comes in the spirit and powerful Logiah. What's up, man?
You got I'm you.
Speaker 10: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hello, Yes, sir, yeah, Hi.
Speaker 26: I was wondering what you think about Halloween as an Orthodox,
because I I I asked my priest and he said,
it's a celebration of demonic powers. So I'm wondering what you,
as an Orthodox would think about someone celebrating Halloween.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I guess depends on what you mean
by celebrating. I mean, I don't think it's a big
deal to where a costume and go to a party
or something like that. You know, the way Paul talks
in First Paranthians is that he says that these things
really have no power over us. But you know, if
it causes offense then to other people or people in
your family or your friends or other Christians, Orthodox or something.
Then you know, Paul says, out of love, concede to
their weakness. But not only there's anything inherently wrong with
wearing a costume, But if you mean by celebrating it,
like setting aside time to honor this this you know,
demonic type stuff, No, I think that's ridiculous. But you
could use it as a time to pray for the
debt or something like that. That's my take on it.
Speaker 19: Okay, thank you, Yeah, good questions. What's up, Dave, there's
going Hey.
Speaker 36: My question is the essence energy distinctionion, and my question
is basically, how does eternal energies interact with the temporal
type of world?
Speaker 5: How?
Speaker 3: We don't know exactly. I mean, it's it's something that
we leave on the basis of revelation, but we're not
told like exactly how this happens. It's kind of a mystery.
It's the same same way as like, well, how does
how do the divine energies in Christ interact with and
interpenetrate his human nature?
Speaker 10: How?
Speaker 3: We don't know, but that it occurs we know. Okay,
all right, I mean I'm not trying to be dismissive.
It's just sort of like, you know, do you want
to maybe maybe can you restate it or be more
precise in terms of what exactly you're looking for.
Speaker 36: Well, well, when I was I was reading Rowan Williams.
Wells reading article about Rowan Williams, and one of his
objections to the essence energy's distinction was basically how the
energies interact with the world and would that necessitate like
an eternal world because their eternal energies or something.
Speaker 3: No, well, this is addressed in the very point like
I was saying a minute ago, which is that there's
different types of energies as as we say, there's what
are called the energies that are the case from all eternity,
like love or glory, and then other energies that are
only related to the temporal order, such as divine providence
right or Jesus walking on water. Right, that's a divine
energy that was specific to one time in one place.
It required a created order for that to occur, and
so Jesus was not from all eternity walking on water
like idiot Roman Catholics things. So there's different types of
energies as Maximus or ce me as Paloma says, and
the triads, so we have to make that distinction. But no,
there's also the distinction between first and second actuality, which
is that God can eternally have powers that he doesn't
always actualize. So that gets us out of that gets
us out of the eternal world's dilemma of originism. But also, yes,
God has other actions or energies or powers that he
was always always only actualizing, like divine love, divine glory. Right,
these these were always operant in the trinity and being
communicated amongst the persons in internity without regard to any creation.
Creation wasn't necessary or didn't need to be the case,
right for the Father and the Son and the Spirit
to love each other for all eternity.
Speaker 36: So just so I haven't run it there, there are
specific energies that are temporal and some are eternal.
Speaker 3: Well, the energies themselves are not temporal. No, they're uncreated,
but they're in time and space and only relate to
the created order, such as walking on water or you know,
divine providence. Right, God eternally has the power of divine providence,
but he has not eternally actualized the power to vine
providence until he created a world over which he's provident.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, I think I understand. I appreciate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, that was a great questions, and in fact
they relate back to the previous guys question about you
know why it wouldn't lead to eternal world again. If
you collapse the energies into the essence, you get either
modial collapse or you get this eternal world's origin problem.
This is what we've been harping on for I've been
opening on that for over ten years. Others have been
way longer than me, obviously, but you know, we still
have to repeat this, Lord mollin, what's up?
Speaker 1: Man? What's up?
Speaker 3: We were approaching a thousand over here for a second
there on YouTube. If you guys want to call in
on YouTube, you have challenges, debates, questions, topics, issues, you
want to set me straight on call in right there?
Speaker 13: What's up man, Hey, Jane, yep, I just have a
question in regards to one of your responses to an
argument that I heard.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 32: The apeist meant of saying that life is meaningless, and
you kind of retorted it by saying, if life is
meaningless and today is meaningless, and if today is meaningless,
then your argument is meaningless.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 37: But isn't this a word concept between like overarching t
los versus like meaning in terms of intelligibility.
Speaker 3: No, because in the old grand scheme it still is meaningless.
So if you can't ground meaning in anything outside of
localized physical phenomena, you can't. You can't ground meaning at all.
Speaker 37: But it was it was in response to like this
statement itself being meaningless.
Speaker 1: How is it the same thing as like.
Speaker 32: An overarching purpose to the universe? I feel like it's different,
is it not?
Speaker 3: But if there's not an overriding purpose, there's no purpose
in the particulars? Is the point? Have you read the
article on demarcation.
Speaker 10: Enough?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 3: There's a Russ Manion article that's really good on this,
and it's on demarcation and the signs of nature. You
can find it right here. It's called on Demarcation of
the Signs of Nature Energetic procession. And if you read
that article, if you get down to the bottom, it
makes the point that I made a couple of days
ago on a livestream, which is that there's a you've
really only got two options when it comes to meaning
and signifier in linguistic philosophy, either the world is an
accident and everything is disteleological and accidental, and if that's
the case, then nothing has meaning, no words mean at all,
or the world is intentional purposive and there is telos
in words and signifiers do have meaning.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll read that article, but that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, if you look at the like the last
few paragraphs, it actually lays out this point that answers
your question. It's a great question. I'm not trying to
be dismissive. It's it's a and this is a really
good article for I'm kind of utilizing linguistic philosophy in
the domain of transcendental augmentation to show that if the
atheist worldview is true, he can't make sentences, as you've
heard me say for many, many years, light Bender. And
what I mean by that, all you low tier atheists,
is not that you physically can't make a sentence and
understand the meaning of a sentence. I mean that your
sentences don't make sense in your worldview. You can't ground
or make sense of language and predication is what I mean.
What's up, man?
Speaker 1: Hey, Jay, Sorry about that. I got a phone calling
new to my last question.
Speaker 34: So, in regards to God, this morning, I was thinking,
you know, I'm inquiring into Orthodoxy. I've been going to church,
I've been going to liturgies and talking to other converts
and people, and I'm very interested and I.
Speaker 21: Feel to drive to that.
Speaker 34: But I have this question, this shower thought this morning,
in regards to God and the.
Speaker 21: Trinity before creation?
Speaker 34: What is any created category before creation, such as like
a father son relationship or having human traits such as
hands or feet, or a father without a created female.
Speaker 3: Like, well, you've got it backwards. They're not created categories.
They're uncreated categories. The created ideas of father and son
are grounded on the uncreated eternal relationships of father and son.
Speaker 21: Okay, got it?
Speaker 34: Because I know Muslims believe that God is completely unlike creation,
so I was trying.
Speaker 3: To which under their religion when they try to talk
about him.
Speaker 1: Right, right?
Speaker 34: And I have another question because I was also thinking about,
you know, Jesus walking in the garden and making noise
and being heard by Adam and Steve.
Speaker 21: Sorry, I got the skittles new translation, but that was
preincarnated Jesus, right, So.
Speaker 34: I was wondering, was he an energy manifestation walking through
the garden.
Speaker 1: That can get heard? Yes, okay, cool?
Speaker 3: And how we did that? How he did that, we
are not told, but that he did it, we are told.
Speaker 34: And that'd be the same as Moses having a meal
with him on Sinai and stuff like that.
Speaker 21: Yep, okay. And then also one other thing, like the
dove the Holy Spirit. The dove obviously not like an
incarnated dove, right.
Speaker 3: Now, that's an energetic manifestation proper to the spirit.
Speaker 21: Okay, all right, that kind of clears it up for
me a little bit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is not the So the later icon synods
discuss this and explain that whether it's the dove or
the tongues of fire at Pentecost, those are energies proper
to the spirit. They're not the hypostasis of the spirit,
because the Spirit does not become incarnate, nor does the
Father become incarnate.
Speaker 1: Got it all right?
Speaker 21: Excellent?
Speaker 34: And then I have one other question.
Speaker 28: I don't know.
Speaker 34: You probably addressed this plenty of times, that it has
to do with free will, and and that I just
believe it. You know, God is an all knowing, infinite being,
and I just can't shake the idea personally that you know,
being that God knows everything my entire you know, every
decision I make, and therefore an extension my will has
already exists within the mind of God in.
Speaker 21: Prior to you know. Yeah, but therefore my fate and
my judgment right.
Speaker 3: Well, knowing all things does not entail that God is
the cause of all things. So that's the mistake there, Okay.
If you read John Damascus, book one of on the
Orthodox Faith, he explains how God created a world where
there really are secondary causes. So God is not the
immediate direct cause of every event, even if he knows everyvent.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: In other words, I might know that my neighbors are
going to rob a bank, and then they rob the bank.
That doesn't mean that I cause them to rob the
bank because I had the knowledge of it, all.
Speaker 34: Right, But I guess in this case, in your analogy
would be as though you know, you created your neighbors
from scratch and every decision and act they make in
their whole life.
Speaker 3: Right, so well, But it's but again, being the creator
and the first cause does not mean that I am
also the immediate direct cause of every action. Because I
can create a world where there are secondary causes. So
the argument that you're making hinges on there not being
any secondary causes. And I mean that might sound like philosophical,
but no, this is this is actually Muslims actually reject
this position because they believe that if there are secondary causes,
it detracts from Allah sovereignty. And so to be consistent,
they believe in a form of occasionalism, which is that
every single event, every single second, is directly caused by God.
But why can't God create a world where there are
real secondary causes?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 34: I guess the tire none of this would make any
sense in a judgment or anything without us having free will.
Speaker 21: You know, everything changes on free will.
Speaker 34: So but I just had trouble shaking that one idea there.
Speaker 10: So well.
Speaker 3: Again, to know a thing does not necessarily mean you're
the cause of the thing, right, and that's why we
do not say that God is the cause of all events.
Speaker 1: I got it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then I'm sorry I cut you out too quick.
Did you have one more? You can come back, dude,
I thought you were done, michelhel, I.
Speaker 10: Can't shoot me.
Speaker 12: Uh oh, just gues simple question, How would you defend
historicity of the entertook against textual criticism and the hypothesis.
Speaker 1: That they all like developed from earlier traditions or whatever.
Speaker 3: Well, I would just the only way to really argue
against that is because that position is based on unbelieving presuppositions.
Our position is based on believing presubpositions. Is that you
have to compare and contrast the presuppositions. And most of
the time they don't really have a justification for their
so called textual science, their empirical claims. If you look
into textual criticism, assume me a higher criticism. Going back
to Vellhausen, it's very easy to see that Vellhausen has
an agenda. He's not a neutral scholar. So most higher
criticism is built on the Enlightenment idea of scholarly academic neutrality.
So you can prove and demonstrate very easily that that
doesn't exist. So if reality is they laid and then
they're presenting a deceptive sales pitch when they try to
present their position as neutral. Also, you can show that
a lot of their arguments just presuppose the thing in question.
The idea that because different names of God are used, well,
that must be different authors well maybe there's theological reasons
why one author chose different names in different sections. So
you see how like they have these assumptions that well,
clearly this is the Yahwish tradition because you're using the
name yahweh. Well, that's just based on an assumption. It's
based on the assumption that there wasn't an author who
wanted to use different names for theological signification, for theological meanings.
And then they'll say stuff like, well, that's just assuming
you know that the text are inspired and all this stuff. Well,
that's the thing in question. So you'll never get anywhere
with throwing academia back and forth with those people. And
also you can point out the textual criticism itself under
goes all of these fads, the fad of fifty years
ago and Q and all this kind of stuff. When
it came to the Gospels, they don't believe that anymore.
That's not even popular anymore. So why should we trust
this thing that's shifting sands and comes and goes with
all kinds of different levels of popularity. How is that
supposed to be reliable? Jamal? What's up? You gotta mute.
Speaker 10: Guys?
Speaker 3: You want to support the stream. You can do so
via super chats. Super chats are done through stream labs
and the link is pinned. I'll also put the link
in the chat here.
Speaker 10: For you guys.
Speaker 3: If you want to support me via supergener right there.
I am still sick, so I have to go to
nibble on solid foods here and there that I can take.
If you want to call in, there's the link right
there on Twitter to call in on through next space
that got dropped off. So let's see Mark.
Speaker 10: Yo.
Speaker 1: Hey, yeah, hey, my friend was on yesterday.
Speaker 28: He was asking you about donatism and we had talked
a little bit about that afterwards.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh you can hear me, okay, and he wanted
me to come on and talk with you.
Speaker 28: So here I am about as far as you know,
like rebaptism.
Speaker 1: Within the Orthodox Church, okay.
Speaker 28: So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily go out all out and
just say Orthodox are donatists, right, because I think a
little of the nuance was lost there when when he
when he came on and was talking about.
Speaker 3: So let's just make this really really clear. So if
I go to Athanasius and his Festal letters and he
says that the Eucharist eating outside of the church, the
Orthodox Church or communion is a dead meal and doesn't
give you any grace? Is that donatism?
Speaker 1: Not necessarily?
Speaker 28: So it all depends on wouldn't it all depend on
the validity of the apstock succession and the holy orders
of the priests.
Speaker 3: Who are consecrating that you obviously they have holy orders,
that they have the attempt to have the Divine liturgy
outside the church.
Speaker 28: Okay, so and so then it comes down to whether
or not it's devoid of grace, right.
Speaker 3: Well, what it comes down to is that you have
a mistaken idea as to what donatism is. And so
this is because a lot of times that people hear
about the Orthodox view, they think that it's donatus because
it tends to say that sacraments outside of the Orthodox
Church are graceless. That's not donatism. Donatism precisely is the
efficacy of the sacraments depends on the worthiness of the minister.
And so, in other words, any sin that a minister
might commit, including having a dirty thought at the point
of your baptism, would invalidate your baptism. That's donatism. Orthodox
sacramentology is more precise that we're not saying that the
sins of the priests have anything to do with whether
or not your baptism is gracious per se. We're saying
that certain things are necessary as presubsisitions to have an
Orthodox sacrament, and one of those things is the Orthodox faith.
That's where we differ with the Augustinian position of ex
opera eparato, which says that even if you lose the faith,
or even if you're an atheist or a Satanist, you
can still perform certain rituals and rites such as baptism,
or the Roman Catholic position that if I get ordained
and that day become a Satanist for the rest of
my life, I can still confect the Eucharist and blasting
it as a Satanist. We think that's absurd, and we
are not donatists because we're consistent in saying that that's
an absurd position.
Speaker 28: Okay, So then in that case, then so would you
say that all out, like, let's just use Roman Catholic
because that's an easy, easy example, right, So would you
say that all baptisms within the Roman Catholic Church are
devoid of grace?
Speaker 10: Yes?
Speaker 28: Okay, So then wouldn't that mean then that there's vast
amounts of converts within like the Russian Orthodox Church and
certain dicees of the of the OCA, where you just
have unbaptized converts because they're accepting converts.
Speaker 3: In No, because I believe that when they are received
into the church, whatever defects are lacking are made up
for by their reception into the church. So I don't
believe that God is a legalistic being. Counter it's the
Roman Catholic view that actually believes. It's the Augustinian position
that makes God into this absurd legalist because if you
don't say the words correctly in the Roman Catholic position,
it's all invalidated. That's the legalistic position, not our position. Okay,
have you seen the recent Arizona story about the priests
to his entire diocese for the last thirty years. They're
all invalid because he said the wrong words. No I have, Okay,
it's a very famous popular Roman Catholic story going around
for the last few years in Arizona. Go look it up.
That's legalism. The idea that God requires an atheist or
a Muslim to baptize me, that's legalism. That's your position.
Speaker 1: I'm not Catholic, and I'm I'm more exploring this.
Speaker 3: Okay, Okay, I I tellt you're Romancolic, I must say.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not Catholic.
Speaker 28: I'm I'm discerning denominations right now, Like I'm more convinced
of Anglism. But you know, like I'm not fully decided
on any one.
Speaker 3: Thing but Anglicanism. Yeah, I mean, so, yeah, you want
you want a good trans bishop?
Speaker 19: Is that what you want?
Speaker 28: Well, I mean, you know obviously eighty percent of the
Anglican community. Well, yeah, I'm not going to come on
and like argue Anchanism at the moment because I haven't
even like I said, I haven't even landed on one.
And my friend more wanted me to come on and
talk with you about the aunatism thing. But this to
make sure that I understand what you're saying correctly. So essentially,
someone it doesn't really matter whether or not someone's baptized
or not coming back into the or coming into the Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: No, they should be baptized. I didn't say it doesn't matter.
I said that they should be baptized if there was
a situation where you know, it was totally out of
a cord, the ritual wasn't even done correctly, it's in
the Orthodox Church. It's to be determined on a local
basis by the local episcopate. Now, not every local episcopaatee,
and the Orthodox Church unfortunately does this in a proper
faithful way. Sometimes they're a humanists, sometimes they're lazy. So
but the point is that it's not ironically. Our position
is not the one that's rigid and rigorous. Our position
is the one that's actually flexible. It's the Roman Catholic
legalist position of ex opera eparado that's the real source
of the problems here. Our position, I think, is perfectly reasonable.
It's supposed to be left up to the bishop to determine.
But a lot of times what complicates this is that
modern day post novasorto Catholicism has gone so far from
what's even remotely traditional. You've got novasorto priests baptizing people
in the name of the land to see in the air.
You've got nosort of people baptizing people in the name
of the mother Earth literally, so in those cases, and
because it's getting so hard to determine whether there was
any trinitarian form at all, a lot of Orthodox churches
are saying, and people are beginning to say it might
be wise to just baptize them all to make sure
because things are getting so crazy. I think that's a
wise discipline. So you can't boil all this down into
either oars. There's a lot of nuance and there's a
lot of practical pragmatic questions at play in this as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense, it does it?
Speaker 28: Like from an outside perspective, it does seem like there's
like this is something that would need to be settled
because there's a lot of inconsistency across you know, the
different metropolitans.
Speaker 3: Well, you're not going to now, but that quote inconsistency
is precisely what we call economia. And so why we
don't need you an outsider telling us what we need
to do as the one universal standard. Who are you
to tell us what's supposed to be our standard? You're
you're not the judge of our of our inconsistency when
we believe that there can be economia, Okay, I mean,
do you think you're going to find that consistency in Anglicanism?
Speaker 28: I mean that depends so, and like even if I
can't find that an Anglicanism does that that doesn't necessarily
take the focus off of the fact that it exists
within orthodoxy, right, so like you know that what exists,
like the fact that that's an inconsistency, right.
Speaker 3: So No, I did say it's an inconsistency. I said
it was differing approach. It's called Economyia. Do you don't
even know what that is?
Speaker 1: Yeah, a household family basically.
Speaker 3: No, no, you don't know what so you don't know
what they are?
Speaker 1: Economy sorry, economy right. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So in other words, as I said a minute ago,
the local bishop is supposed to be able to determine
when and where and how you apply the canons. This
is a canonical canon law question as to how people received,
and different people are received in different ways because people's
cases are different. So, for example, if I'm anophice site
is baptized in the exact Orthodox way that we that
we believe is the way that it'd be done, right,
if that Monophysite person renounces their heresy, many bishops can
and have decided to receive them without rebaptizing or quote
baptizing them, because if the ritual is done correctly, then
what's the impediment is the heresy once the heresy is removed,
the baptism becomes efficacious when they join the church.
Speaker 28: Okay, So then that is where you have an entire
you know, like an entire church within Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: I don't know the exact correct term for.
Speaker 3: That is, being like you have the Russia about jurisdictions, Okay,
when you.
Speaker 28: Have a specific jurisdiction that you know, with the broadbrush
says we recognize, we recognize Roman Catholic Holy orders, and
so they don't practice, you know, they don't baptize converts
from Catholicism.
Speaker 3: You're missing the point, though. Recognizing does not necessarily say
that those things are gracious. It's saying that the ritual
is done correctly, and when they join the Orthodox Church,
the impediments to the grace are removed. By the way,
do you know, that's actually the Augustinian position. So even
though we disagree about oper Avarado, nobody in the modern
Roman Catholic or Protestant world or Anglican world actually follows
the Augustinian position, which we are actually on this point
closer to, which says that the impediment to the grace
is the heresy. So even though Augustine believes that there's
valid baptisms and even gracious baptisms outside the church. If
you persist in the heresy, it doesn't get you anywhere.
So we're actually closer to the Augustinian position on that
point than anyone else's.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that much makes sense, Can I get you?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you're confusing different jurisdictions, having decentralized different approaches
to as if there's theological error and confusion everywhere.
Speaker 38: Well, then maybe help me first to this same because
the whole thing is that, So I get the fact that,
you know, the grace becomes efficacious or whatever the exact
particular language used was there when they come in, and
you know, like it seems like the standard way of
receiving heretics is confession absolution, right you accept.
Speaker 3: Them in And no that's not true. So you don't
know the canon law. The ancient canons, the CANSA, the
sixth the Council for example, give us different strictures and
different approaches to different heretics depending upon their case. So
this is why it's a canon law issue. It's very
complex at times because of all the different sects. This
wouldn't be complex if we didn't have a thousand different
crazy heresies doing all kinds of crazy stuff. And if
we didn't have nuanced, complex issues in people's lives and
in church history. So again, the Orthodox position is flexible
on how to receive converts and heretics and schismatics from
any different group. And if we take in a Roman
Catholic and the bishops determine that they don't have to
be re whatever because they were the rituals were done
correctly or whatever, that does not say or necessitate we're
saying that they had the grace that whole time. It
just simply means that the ritual is done correctly, it
does not need to be redone, and the impediment to
the grace is now removed.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I get that.
Speaker 28: I don't want to come across like I understand the
position that it would be nuanced and you taken on
a case by case basis, it's at tenable.
Speaker 1: I told you we know what.
Speaker 3: Canon law is, yes, okay, So Orthodox canon law is
different from Roman Catholic canon law, and it's different from
Anglican canon law. And so because it's nuanced and complex,
and it goes back through all the seven a Chemical
councils and all the different canons that they have about
the reception of heretics. There's a lot of confusion about
different heretical groups. That's the source of confusion is all
these heretics. So that's why it's up to the local
bishops to make those determinations. And because it's decentralized, it
can lead to or give the impression that, oh, you
guys don't have one consistent position on how to receive people.
We got you reality, the romancality position, because it thinks
and prefers prefers to have this single unitary position on
this actually leads to more stupid positions, like the idea
that atheists and Muslims can baptize people.
Speaker 28: Yeah, I guess I think my my underlying point might
be getting lost here.
Speaker 3: Then, or maybe tell me what you're not an only point?
Speaker 17: Is so because I, like I was saying, I.
Speaker 28: Get like the fact of dealing with it on case
by case basis. You know, you evaluate each person like
a meophysit or a menophitisite that you call them.
Speaker 1: You accept them because you know as long as you
can validate that the actual formula used and the underlying
you know the consideration.
Speaker 28: But you still obviously have to accept them in and
at that point that it becomes gracious.
Speaker 1: But that's so that's the case by case basis, that's
what you're saying right now.
Speaker 28: But you're saying actually case by case on each bishop,
like an entire region.
Speaker 3: That's what economia means. Yeah, that just leads to them
there's not a universal application of the canons in the
Orthodox Church. Economia means that the bishops apply the canons
to the situation.
Speaker 1: So that's just essentially the saying that it's not a
settled matter on this.
Speaker 3: No, your assumption is that it's possible to have a
settled matter on a complex matter that is precisely left
up to a decentralized church in the Orthodox world. And
the very question that you have is assuming the Roman
Catholic tendency towards there being a universal position on this,
which I'm saying is what led to all their stupid stuff. Yeah,
so when this comes up in the Augustinian disputes, this
eventually leads the Roman position to dogmatizing three things necessary
for a sacrament. Do you know what those are? No,
not matter, form, and intention. So that means that anytime, matter, form,
and intention are there you have the genuine celebration of
the Sacrament and the grace. That's why it leads to
the position that because baptism is necessary, if I don't
have a Roman Catholic or any or even an Orthodox
person around, if I want to become a Catholic, I
can go to an atheist and I can get the
atheist to baptize me. This is because of the seeking
for a universal resolution to a complex issue that's economia.
Speaker 1: But matter, form and intention are either there or not there, right.
Speaker 3: So, but you just now learned that you don't even
know how. That's itself leads to the stupidity this position,
because how does it mean? How does an atheist? Do
you know what intention means in that matter form? Intention?
Speaker 28: Yeah, like, what did you actually have, you know, intending
to properly perform the sacrament?
Speaker 1: Did you have the proper understanding of you.
Speaker 28: Know, like a Mormon might say father son an olighosts,
but they don't actually.
Speaker 1: Mean a true trinitarian form? Is that what?
Speaker 3: That's well, the it's not even that because they realize
that the an atheist is not going to have the
intention of true belief in the Trinity. And so what
the romancallaig charis dogmatized was the intention to do what
the church does, which is retarded. But so, in other words,
if an atheist, so now I'm gonna get baptized an atheist.
All I need the atheist to do is to baptize
me in the doc the form of the Trinity. Uh,
and to for him to intend to do what the
church does. And this is absurd, And that's.
Speaker 1: That's why I didn't include. I tried to include, you know,
a more digestible.
Speaker 28: Example than an atheist, obviously, because I don't think an atheist.
Speaker 1: Could give a proper baptism. But so let's let's see.
Speaker 3: The reason I brought that up was to say that
the idea that you can have a universal answer to
these types of church law questions is precisely what led
to the definition of matter, form and intention and trying
to give a scientific, universal definition of when a sacrament
is practiced. That's my point.
Speaker 28: Okay, I don't want to take up too much time here,
so I'll just try and get even more specific, just
for one last example, and see if we can get
anywhere with this.
Speaker 1: But I mean, obviously, you know we're gonna end up
with you have.
Speaker 28: Your opinion, I mine, and maybe, you know, maybe I'll
learn something that I didn't realize here.
Speaker 3: But well, I mean, I'm also going to demonstrate that
what you're saying is false. So I'm happy to do
that too.
Speaker 28: That's that's totally fine. I mean, if you can't, like,
that's awesome. I mean, I just I care about the
truth truth obviously.
Speaker 3: Well then why would you be attracted Anglicanism. Let's get
to that in a minute. But go ahead with what
you're saying.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we can totally get to that.
Speaker 28: So okay, So let's say let's get really microscopic here.
Let's say an individual priest baptizes two persons, two people.
One of those people goes and joins the Greek Orthodox Church,
the other one joins the OCA. The OCA does not
rebaptize him. I know, I think they do case by case.
They're not like broad strokes as much. But so and
the Greek Orthodox I think they rebaptize all Catholics. Right,
I could be wrong on that.
Speaker 3: I already said that the grace of God makes up
for whatever's lacking. Pretty much all Orthodox people are going
to say that even if you're a.
Speaker 28: Reader, then so then there is something that could be
lacking in how converts are being received into the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: I already said that you can have liberal Acumenist bishops
who do not operate faithfully. But that's a different question
from whether there's economy. So in other words, so so
can economya be abused absolutely?
Speaker 28: Of course, Okay, okay, So then yeah, I mean that's
essentially my like, So that's what I mean. This isn't
like the biggest thing that would scandalize me from Orthodoxy,
but I would say this is something that's scandalous from
I know, you don't care too much what someone not
on the outside would would say about that, but like
just from trying to be honest about like that is
something that does seem to scandalize some.
Speaker 1: People on the outside. But I get there has to
be nuance. I totally respect that.
Speaker 28: But what I'm saying is this is a singular priest baptizes.
Speaker 1: These two people one area.
Speaker 28: They declare it yes that you know his there, It
was properly administered. So they accept this person in with chrismation,
and you know, it becomes gracious. At that point the
other person is rebaptized. Is like either the baptism was
was valid or it wasn't right or not?
Speaker 1: You don't want to use it. Either it was correctly,
it's just valid.
Speaker 3: Is ambiguous because sometimes people think that necessitates that it
also possesses the grace.
Speaker 28: Okay, so so it was either valid or it wasn't
and in one case it is taken to be valid
and the other it isn't. So obviously God is going
to be He's going to have grace with you know,
an individual priest or bishop is going to you know,
like we can't have perfect knowledge of whether or not
someone received the sacrament properly. My concern is when you
have an entire jurisdiction with a sweeping yes they're valid
or no they're not valid. And then there's also ones
like the nuanced position seems the most tenable, and just
from the outside, it seems like that is a pretty important.
Speaker 1: Thing to be able to settle. Is how you receive.
Speaker 28: Converts, even if that's like a case by case basis.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, have you if you know the history
of the church, you'll know that the Church in many
controversies or in h you know, disputed issues, Many different
jurisdictions will take different signs or different sides in different
positions and institute different policies. So what how does that?
Speaker 28: But then then if it's a big enough issue, then
ec Medical Council has gathered so it can.
Speaker 3: Be settled if it's a big enough issue. Yeah, but
I mean we've had the flexibility about the reception of
converts for a long time.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 28: To me, that just seems like that's a pretty important
thing to have figured out. But I understand we're probably
not going to be able.
Speaker 1: To take this point.
Speaker 3: Why do you who are we? Why are we supposed
to think that you are the one that determines what
the most important thing for the Orthodox Church to figure out?
You haven't even figured out which church you believe in?
You have you're gonna come tell us what the most
important things that we have to have solidified is? It's
just arrogance. You you just did. What do you mean
that's what you just argue?
Speaker 28: I'm yeah, I'm saying this is this is the perception
that it comes across to me as it seems like
it would be important. I understand, I don't have holy orders.
I'm not someone of authority to be able to call
a counsel. So Yeah, Like I could just shut up
and never talk about these things, but I'm going to.
Speaker 3: Well, but I mean, when you get into church history,
you're going to realize that it doesn't matter which of
the communions you choose, Like each of these communions has difficult,
challenging periods all throughout church history and even into even
in whichever church communion you choose you choose to join. Uh,
do you think that Anglicanism is going to be immune
from the kinds of questions that you're raising out Orthodoxy?
Like these are pretty universal types of issues and questions,
and so the idea that the idea that I'm going
to make my decisions based on the ones that I
arbitrarily decide ought to have the universal answer to certain questions,
to me seems like an absurd picking and choosing about
how you're going to pick the real church.
Speaker 10: I mean not at all.
Speaker 1: Obviously it's not. I don't think I'm going to find
that anywhere.
Speaker 28: And that's that's why I think Anglicanism in that sense
with branch theory, it recognizes the messiness of church history
and the fact that it is difficult to simply.
Speaker 3: That I would improve branch theory. I mean that would
just prove that there's like, you know, canonical issues in
every church. But why a canonical issue is not a
dogmatic issue.
Speaker 28: Yeah, well, yeah, because it hasn't been turned it hasn't
been turned into dogma yet.
Speaker 3: So well, no, I would say that the I mean, okay, maybe,
but like the dogmas of the church in their you know,
credle sense, have already been solidified. And that's why it's
easy to demonstrate that the Anglican Church does not teach
what was solidified in the first seven centuries.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously I would I would disagree.
Speaker 3: With well, I mean depends on how many how many
churches are there there's one Holy Catholic and Aphostolic Church
and you're saying that, no, it's actually they're split into
a bunch of branches.
Speaker 28: I mean yeah, I would say from from what it
seems like from history is that they're like the Great
Schism is a very difficult. It's not like where you
have okay, the you know, the Nestorians break off and
over time it becomes very clear which one is which, you.
Speaker 3: Know, like, well, the problem with this is that when
you go to ephesis and you read the way that
ephesis speaks of the Nestorians, how do they interpret the
church and the people that are no longer in it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I.
Speaker 28: Imagine they said something along the lines of that.
Speaker 1: They are no longer within the church exactly.
Speaker 3: So that refused the branch theory right there.
Speaker 28: Well, the problem is that what I was saying is
that with the Nestorians, it becomes very clear which is
the real church, right, it becomes very clear after enough
centuries of time.
Speaker 1: But we're, you know, a thousand years past the Great Schism.
Speaker 28: It's still incredibly difficult for people to recognize both of
these massive institutions.
Speaker 1: Which wants to correct correct one.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's very I mean, well, that's that's
a subjective. Well, maybe you think it's difficult. I think
a lot of people do find it pretty simple to
I mean, do you mean, but you say great institutions
about Rome.
Speaker 1: I'm saying big institutions, yes.
Speaker 3: But you're saying that it's neither Roman orthodoxyous Anglicanism.
Speaker 10: Uh.
Speaker 3: And I don't understand. I don't understand your answer.
Speaker 28: Doesn't say that Rome and Orthodoxy are invalid churches. That's
that's the whole thing of branch theory, that is there are.
Speaker 3: It's it's a ridiculous position because it assumes that none
of the positions are actually the Orthodox Church. There is
no Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: Subjective opinion.
Speaker 3: Now, it's so so every position, so every opinion is
a subjective opinion. Though, So now you're a relativest relativist.
Speaker 1: No, that's not at all, that's completely How was that
as well?
Speaker 3: You just said it's suddenly a subjective opinion.
Speaker 1: How did you get to that, because you're saying.
Speaker 3: Well, you just admitted that Ephesis teaches that there's one
visible church and that the Nestorians are out of it.
So you're saying, no, you're shut up. You said that
that's how Ephesus understood itself in the church, right, yeah, correct, Oh, okay,
so you do not believe in the ecclesiology of ephesis.
Speaker 1: No, I agree. At the time there was like, oh
so at.
Speaker 3: The time when it evolves, was it was was branch
theory true at that time?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah, because it was in the trunk form.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, branch theory was true when ephesis was
not operating on the basis of branch theory.
Speaker 28: But I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to think that
there was branches when there was no branch.
Speaker 3: Yet, when do the branches happen?
Speaker 28: I mean, I would say the easiest to point to
would be the Great Schism.
Speaker 3: And that's how is that not arbitrary and subjective? So everybody,
and let me ask you this one. Did anybody understand
any branch theory at that time? So you believe in
the evolution of doctrine? Evolution, So nobody had a coherent
ecclesiology until the schism?
Speaker 1: Oh, I think that it was. I mean, that's like
saying nobody had a.
Speaker 3: Clear That's what you dis argued, Gufus. You just said
that they didn't know yet about branch theory and they
didn't think there was a branch theory. But by the
time of the schism, now branch theory becomes true.
Speaker 1: Well, it's the same as like most like plenty of
people who.
Speaker 3: Did not know about uh No, So you're saying they
didn't understand ecclesiology and was defective until there was a schism.
That's that's a stupid position.
Speaker 28: As much as the father's part in Icia didn't know
about the trinity, there was still.
Speaker 3: The fathers of Icia. I didn't know about the Trinity.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about the fathers before I said.
Speaker 3: So they did know the Trinity, So what are you
talking about?
Speaker 39: They did, but.
Speaker 28: There but there's a confusion around certain terms like where
you see being in person are not used fully consistently by.
Speaker 3: No, that's a false analogy because they're still trinitarian. The
people at Ephesus are still conceiving of a visible, single
institution as the Church. And you're saying that that was
a perfectly correct ecclesiology until there was a great schism,
and now it's no longer the case that there's a
single visible institution. That's evolution of doctrine. That's why you're hairtic,
because no.
Speaker 28: It's not evolution, that's simply what existed at the time.
Speaker 3: No, it's an evolution of doctrinal truth. On ecclesiology. You're
saying that it wasn't the case that branch theory was
true for the first thousand years, then in ten fifty
four suddenly, because of a heresy, branch theory becomes true.
That's what you're saying.
Speaker 28: No, I would say that, like I said, it's true
regardless it was. It was a trunk at the time.
Speaker 3: There were but the church didn't. So Christ didn't give
to the church the mind of the church to accurately
understand for the first thousand years that there's one Holy
Catholic Aposolic Church and it doesn't mean branch.
Speaker 1: Theory, and there was one Holy Catholic episode church.
Speaker 3: So you're a sophist now because you're saying that by
the time the schism there's no longer one Holy Calthic
Aabsolic church.
Speaker 1: I would say there is, but they're no longer.
Speaker 3: But now you've redefined it to be not the ecclesiology
that they had for the first thousand years. So you
believe in evolution of doctrine.
Speaker 28: It's it's simply a the church came into schism, they
were no longer in communion.
Speaker 3: Withes, So now they have a new understanding of ecclesiology
called branch theory, which, by the way, did anyone at
that time teach branch theory? I mean, i'm did anyone
at that time teach branch theory?
Speaker 1: Probably not?
Speaker 3: Okay, So that's bullshit Again at another level, you can
you can do it that way, No, it is that way.
You just admitted that no one taught this way, but
you retroactively because of Anglican theologians and the seventeen hundreds
can look back and pose it in a revisionist way
that they suddenly became branch theory proponents when you just
admitted that they didn't actually believe that at the time.
Speaker 28: So, once churches are no longer in communion with each other.
Speaker 3: Guess what, the theology of the first thousand years of
the church is still the same theology, which you've already admitted.
That's the point, right, So I'm out, I'm done. I
can't do any more of it. Notice the absurdity of
branch theory. Hopefully everybody sees how stupid that is. So
they had a self understanding of the church as a
single visible body for the first thousand years, the church
has a schiz on. Suddenly branch theory is the case,
even though nobody at that time believed in branch theory.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What's up?
Speaker 10: Yo?
Speaker 16: So I just said a request.
Speaker 1: After listening to that last.
Speaker 40: Argument, I guess my main question is for someone obviously
you're very smart, and you spend you know, decades probably
understand this stuff. I would say, what would be like,
do you really expect everyone to understand these super long
terms to find the right church?
Speaker 21: Or is there some other means to which people will.
Speaker 3: I already addressed this about an hour ago. We already
talked about other means by which people can find and
identify the church or to know it does not require
people going deep into theology. Alex, what's up? I mean,
if you pay attention to what he conceded. He conceded
that the attitude of the first thousand years is the
attitude that the Orthodox still have. If you paid attention
to what he was saying, go ahead, Hey.
Speaker 41: Jay, I actually I don't want to debate you on anything,
but I am a Catholic. I would like you to
if you can explain the differences in what Orthodox believes
in on the topic of exorcism, and a follow up
question that is, do you think there's a lack of
practicing exorcisms in today's society?
Speaker 3: Orthodoxy doesn't have this like you know Hollywood idea of
like this, you know guy that roams around and does it.
I mean there could be that you could have an
elder a saint that does that, but no, I don't
think that we have this same idea as the I mean,
the orthodox position. Any priest can do that. I'm gonna
have to go pretty soon because of course we've got
a big interview that we're gonna do with Jake Rattlesnake
or good Buddy. We're gonna be covering the Peterson Dawkins
debate over on his big channel, So I got to
hurry it up pretty quick here because that's at four o'clock.
See Stefan DV. Fifteen dollars. Thank you for the content.
Have you seen I already read that? Excuse me, Bumblebee
five dollars for having less people call in and ask
the same questions. Could you make a playlist for the topics?
I guess, but I don't even know how to classify
all these? Ryan Beemish one dollar. Would you do a
debate against Gavin Ortland on now? I don't think he
wants to do that? Tyler? Five dollars, Thank you so much.
DC war Working three dollars, Thank you so much. Valentine
five dollars. What do you think about padre Pio stigmata?
I think it's a bunch of bunk and probably fake. Uh,
you gotta make it quick. What's up? Chase, kah mhm, Chase,
can't hear you? Man didn't turn your speakers on or something?
Tennessee and anybody wanta we got a almost up to
a thousand again, what's up?
Speaker 1: Hello?
Speaker 10: Up?
Speaker 3: Yep hey?
Speaker 29: Uh So I was curious about the Orthodox of you
on church attendance and with the Protestants. It seems like
every time the door's open, you're kind of expected to
be there Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday.
Speaker 1: What's the Orthodox do you on?
Speaker 3: Pretty much the same every time the door is open,
you're expected to be there. So Sebastian, what's up?
Speaker 1: Hi?
Speaker 10: Have a quick question.
Speaker 1: It's regarding brother Nathaniel. Would you be willing to debate him?
He called you on in his stream yesterday? Now okay?
Speaker 3: And why it's a waste of time?
Speaker 1: I mean, like a reason as to why that's my reason? Why?
Speaker 3: What do you disagree with the goodbye Sidartha? I mean,
if you don't have a discernment to figure out who's
got problems?
Speaker 19: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't have time for it.
Speaker 42: So my question is, how is the Orthodox theory of
atonement biblical in terms of I just see in the West,
there's an emphasis on propitiation and expiation with particularly Christ's death,
but an Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Doesn't seem to focus much on the death.
Speaker 42: And so I'm just confused as to how you guys
view like a lot of the language and Hebrews of
this propitiation.
Speaker 3: It's covered in the live stream that I've done many times.
It's covered right here penal substitution refuted in Byzantium. So
you could look at that video. The address is that
specific issue. We've covered it probably five hundred times. Jamal,
what's up?
Speaker 10: Hello?
Speaker 1: Helloo?
Speaker 39: Yep, it was her opinion on the t and eighteen
split on what on the excuse me between the patriarchy.
Speaker 3: Of covered it for like six years. Man, I'm not
going to repeat all that come on the cilias.
Speaker 19: Two mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Are you done to talk to Dean and Parker? Know
where they are? Who Dean and Parker?
Speaker 43: Dean and Parker, the two if you want, like Jubilee
where they talk to you talked to Ben Shapiro. They're
like always on TikTok. They get like seven thousand views
all the time day and stuff like that. They what
they debate like Christianity. I think Rachel knows who Rachel
knows who they are.
Speaker 3: I mean maybe I have no idea who these people.
Speaker 43: Are apheists if you anybody else here like on TikTok
or no, but uh, they talk to I think one
of them talked to Andrews.
Speaker 3: Okay. I mean they can always hop in here. I'm
waiting for it. But you know that's all though, Yeah,
I'm open to that. I guess, uh to the people
talking smack like, why don't you come in debate? So
I like how people think that anytime you don't interact
with somebody, it's because you're scared, Like what if I
have discernment and I've known that that guy was a
quack for the last twenty years. It's just so stupid.
Speaker 1: Guys.
Speaker 3: Remember, head on over to chalk dot com and use
from a code J fifty or forty to get forty
percent off jy four zero Michael choq dot com.
Speaker 28: Hey Jake yep Okay, So I know I know the
last time it didn't last that long, but I wanted
to ask about the cosmological argument.
Speaker 16: I watched you a video of it.
Speaker 1: I know you don't have a lot of time, so
I just wanna I just want you to kind of
rehash it because.
Speaker 3: I can all have time with you right now. I'm sorry,
I gotta go, but UH appreciate that everybody have a
good night. I gotta go be on Jake rattlesnake h.
Speaker 10: M hm m hmm