Speaker 1: Dire wave. The scientific method cannot justify the scientific method.
Therefore itself, it is a dogmatical presupposition. It's a lovely
man voice.
Speaker 2: Not a effeminine positive defamation.
Speaker 1: Yes, welcome, we're live. I think should be good. We're here,
and today it's a little bit different. We're going to
have my discord with me because I'm scared. I need
all my backup people because I'm afraid of Ejahs and
all the Muslim I'm joking not but we're going to
do Q and A or stump or debate or whatever. Now,
if you just want to come on voice and ask questions,
you can do that through the discord. I'll put the
link in in a second. If you want to come
on a video debate, I have a zoom link open
as well, and I can send you that link. So
we offered. Ejaz said he was ready, he was ready
to go, ready to debate. We've offered for months and
months and months to set up a debate with this guy.
Anyone doing so He says, oh, I don't mean today,
even though he said I'm ready to go. Anyway, we
will do Q and A. We'll do Q and A. Also
we have a. We have all the discord wirdos here.
What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you get debate Jordan Peterson if you want.
Speaker 1: If he wants, you got him right here.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm ready to debate. I can debate anyone right now,
ready to go.
Speaker 1: So if you don't want to come on audio, thank you, Jordan. Uh,
you can also leave me a stream lab super chat
question or challenge right, it's it's the challenge is open.
We make it really easy to debate, Like, it's super
easy to come debate. There's no hoops. You don't have
to jump through hoops to come debate here. It's very easy.
And now I've even opened it up to audio, so
that is the link there. If you want to join
the discord, you will have to be vetted, of course first,
to come in the discord. You can't just everybody can't.
Just pile and read the rules, rules, questions, and then
you'll be vetted. And after you're vetted and we decide
that you have the balls, we'll let you come in. Yeah,
what it toos, you're not late? Welcome?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: We got a good crowd here. Be sure to leave
a like and a thumb up. Well that's the same
thing and then also share it super chats. Thank you,
okay as a mod there, he's putting the stream lab
superchat there as a rough outline I'll be covering just
because we're probably waiting for people to come in if
they want to. We got a couple of Roman Catholics
in the in the in the discord right now. I
don't know if they're going to come in, but we've
got the emergence of the Catholic tradition, the excellent Yarslav
Pelican book. I'll use that as a rough outline for
topics to discuss. But you can talk about whatever you
want if you want to ask me questions about philosophy,
if he challenge me, this is we got. I got
incense burning up in here to make to set the ambiance.
I saw one of them, p u a guys. He
always lights incense before he starts his live stream, so
I thought i'd rip him off into that. So I've
lit incense. We've got the ambiance. We got the whiteboard here.
If you're Muslim, if you're Rumman, Catholic, if you're set
of a contest, if you're Protestant, Calvinist, evangelical, atheist, even
if you're Jewish, or you're welcome to come and ask
your questions, debate, challenge whatever if you want to. Now
I'm not smoking weed, it's just incense. Pro If you
want to come into the voice chat, go to the discord,
join the discord. There's the link at my Twitter. Let
me see if I get the actual just the discord link. Now,
you know you gotta go to the you gotta go
to the Twitter. That way, we can't have we can't
just have everybody pulling in there, so you got to
go to my Twitter. Catholic nonsense. Somebody said the chat anyway,
what's up discord? Anybody? Is anybody in the discord right now?
I know we got a full room. Does anybody want
to come on the live stream and give us some
chat material, questions, challenges?
Speaker 3: Silence?
Speaker 1: I mean we had I know, I know. So we
opened this up today because we had a lot of
Muslims talking and you know, making a lot of fuss,
and so we opened it up. We had two or
three Muslims talking smack all over Twitter. And then I said,
come on, I even I'll even let you on here.
Well we'll do a live stream. We'll start at the
live stream, come on and debate Bra, debate me, Bra,
and the dudes just left. We at least the dude
that was talking to Smack left, So so I thought
we were going to have some That link has expired. No,
it's not. Go to my Twitter. At the top is
an unexpired link. If that link was wrong, then go
to my Twitter and then the latest link is not expired.
I can't be expired. It's an hour old, not expired.
Uh all right, let me try. Let me get another
link for you guys, and it's expired. Okay, rest in peace.
Let me get another link that shouldn't be expired after
hour though, I don't know whatever. We got Father Deacon
and Ias in the house. We got Lewis. We got
a lot of our old old discord friends all here
with us, old timers, old timers because of course we're
all scared. We got to have a mob, right we have.
We have to have backup because none of us individually
can handle anybody in a debate.
Speaker 4: Or Yeah, finding Muslim people to debate is like trying
to herd cats.
Speaker 2: We can't find them. Right. We got the chebar Ali debate.
Speaker 4: Okay, he did great in that I think shaver ally
comported himself honorarily. And then now suddenly everyone's scared. Now
it's no debate, no one debate Jane, and we.
Speaker 2: Can't find them.
Speaker 4: So it's like they accused lots of ox Christians is
being scared.
Speaker 2: We offered the debate.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've said we've done three debates with Muslims, now,
so how are we scared?
Speaker 2: It's just nonsense, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And then they set up conditions that they want to groups.
Speaker 2: For us to jump.
Speaker 1: You don't debate me on a blood moon, on a leap,
ear in the middle of Texas in an underground cave
at two am. Then and we have to debate only
in morse code I want to be and it has.
Speaker 4: To be you have to wear seal skins and it
has to be more code.
Speaker 2: But you have to write haiku and then you have
to record that morse.
Speaker 4: Code onto slate tablets, and then you have to have
a blind.
Speaker 1: Man readout has to be translated into Hebrew and then
written on vellum.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like okay, it's like, how about the.
Speaker 2: Next thing. It would be give me ten million dollars
and I'll debate you.
Speaker 1: That'll be the next thing, I require a debater's fee
of half a million dollars to appear.
Speaker 5: I have three goods and four CAFs.
Speaker 2: Please, I would also my way, all right, so read
check out? Yeah as well, guys.
Speaker 1: The debate has to be done in sign language or Braille.
If you don't do an animal sacrifice, if you don't
do it in braill, it's because you're low.
Speaker 2: Like yeah, all.
Speaker 1: Right, so, uh, you guys, just you guys interrupt me.
You guys can interrupt me if somebody comes in, if
they want to do is there anybody who has any
questions or challenges or or debate topics issues? I think
I shared the newer link, by the way, so there's
the new link if you want to come in. Uh,
there will be people vetting people right now, so you
guys can come in. I'm not talking to any I'm
talking to you. Who am I talking to to you?
In the chat?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 1: You Byzantine in the chat in the discord chat. You
can come on. It's open, dude, We've got to open.
Speaker 6: Can you tell people to change the AVI? Is the
profile pictures on Discord from the default because we kind.
Speaker 2: Of have a rule against that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so if you come into the dis you
come into the discord, you got to do our rules,
all right, So when you leave you can go back
to whatever you want, but in our discord, please follow
the rules.
Speaker 2: Uh have a charge.
Speaker 1: Okay, we don't really do no hintai avatars, no, no whatever,
there we go.
Speaker 2: No anime advatars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't do that.
Speaker 2: You know this small us in the general.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's the guy from a couple of nights
ago that we spent the whole night with. So, uh,
he says he's going to come in. Here we get
a uni E who says he'll come in. But we
had this discussion for about three hours the other night.
So now being mean to the guy, I'm just saying,
I think I know where that chet's going to go,
But if nobody's going to come in, I'll just kind
of like wait until people come and I'll talk about
some of the notes from Pelicon.
Speaker 7: Go ahead, Yeah, Jay, So I've been watching your stuff
for a while.
Speaker 2: It's really interesting, But I was just wondering if you
could like point to.
Speaker 7: In the early church, any points where a father is
saying that, you know, asking for the intercession of saints
is Okay, it.
Speaker 1: Gets explicitly mentioned up by the time that you're dealing
with Augustine or with the Cappadocian saints Cyril in the
categorical lectures I think mentions it. I know Augustine mentions
it explicitly in multiple places in his writings. So yeah,
I mean you can. You should be able to pretty
easily google like church Father's intercession of the Saints, like
that's not really too controversial of a topic.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I mean I guess in my own research
when I look into it, it seems kind of not
like explicit, if that makes any sense.
Speaker 1: Well, it is explicit when it becomes a question, right,
So by the time of Jerome, actually Jerome talks about
it explicitly when he writes multiple letters against like Vigilius
and the other guy who questions relics and saints, and
he writes this really funny treatise just making fun of
the guy, telling him that he's basically possessed and he
actually just needs to go touch the relics to get
the demon out of him. So, I mean, he makes
other arguments, but so Jerome has treatises explicitly on it.
Augustine mentions it. I'm pretty sure it's in the catechortical
lectures of Saint Cyril. But if by explicit mention, we
can't think of it like there has to in the
first century be a theological defense of every doctrine, or
I won't believe it because there's all kinds of things
that we wouldn't believe, right, I mean, we don't have
a first second century mention of n hypostatized, but this
becomes a crucial chrystological statement by the time of Saint
Cyril and afterwards. So it's just it's just kind of
like a bogus criteria to argue unless I see it
explicitly defended or stated, you know, in the post appisode
period on will believe it. Well, that's ludicrous. Nobody actually
follows that. Like there's all kinds of crystological dogmas that
most people believe that you wouldn't believe because it's not
stated in the first, second, third century.
Speaker 2: Okay, thanks, just coming for a Processant background.
Speaker 1: Right, understand, understand, I mean, but I mean there's no uh,
I mean, I could just turn that around to Protestant
and say, where is the Protestant canon in the first
second third century.
Speaker 7: Yeah, of course, that's that's one thing that I've been
sort of struggling with and you know, looking and listening
to your talks, you know, and help me out understanding it.
Speaker 1: Word right, Thanks, no problem. Yeah, so we got you're
our first caller in the pseudo live call in stream. Welcome.
You were my first ever. I don't really like the
idea of calling streams, but whatever, I thought it'd be
fun to try it out.
Speaker 5: Long time listeners, Yeah, you're on the air.
Speaker 1: I've got the documents, folks, you're on the air all right.
By the way, only an intercession of the saints, I
mean that's even in scripture, right, It's even it was
even in the Jewish tradition prior to the Church, right.
So I'm not saying that's true, because I'm just saying
there's early attestations to that. There's prayer, prayers for the dead,
and Maccabee's there's the idea of the intercession of the saints.
Just comes from the idea of the intercession of saints
on earth. Read the Book of Amos where he intercedes,
and read you know, when Abraham intercedes, he saves the city. Well,
in the Book of the Apocalypse four and five. The
saints aren't dead. They're in heaven interceding, so they continue
the work of salvation with us as they're in heaven.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 8: That's also in the Book of James. In the Book
of James, at some point Saint James, because of the Lord,
says that we have to pray for one another. And
in other places we know that people, even after the
physically dies, alive in Christ. For if you can pray
for one another, you can still do it on one
specifically sat person is dead. And Saint Jame's also mentions
the fact that the prey of the Righteous are especially powerful.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, good prayer. So this is a scriptural there's
a real spiritual.
Speaker 8: Basis for all of it, and we can see it
being attested in the early history of the Church and
even in the Old Covenant.
Speaker 2: There's a full continuity.
Speaker 1: Right. Gert for three dollars says, what do you think
about lucid dreams? Uh, we don't really. I mean there
are lucid dreams. I've had lucid dreams, but we don't
really pay attention to dreams and visions and this kind
of stuff, which is not say it can never be done.
But you need to be under the guidance of a
spiritual father to be kind of looking into that kind
of stuff, because we are very prone to delusion, and
so most of the Holy Fathers and the Elders and
our tradition warns against following dreams and visions and omens
and this kind of stuff because we're just so easily
deceived by that stuff. Father Deacon, you would agree with that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely absolute. It's funny because in my department up
in the office, you know, the Social Sciences building, and
I was disgusting with one of the professors I think
they were a psycho ecology professor, and they have this
like reading group and they said, one of the things
we do is we interpret dreams. And so this issue
kind of came up from an Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 2: So you have these groups of people that.
Speaker 5: Will interpret dreams and trying to attached mean and so
we Orthodox shy away from that just because you could
think about all kinds of crazy stuff that the conclusions
that you could come up from.
Speaker 2: That's not something that we particularly would suggest is safe
to do.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you one go ahead.
Speaker 4: I was just going to say, also, when you know,
when a woman talks about our dreams, you just want
to shoot yourself in the head.
Speaker 2: So boring, So like, we don't really want to encourage.
Speaker 1: Men to do that either, Father Deacon, could you give
us a brief because we have a lot of people,
I think in our chat who might be new to
these topics, just a brief explanation of maybe, in contrast
to Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, what is the spiritual Father
and why is that important? Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So one thing that excuse me, that we worked
about are keenly aware of in our practice and our theology.
Speaker 2: Is what we call spiritual delusion. Priest and all of
us have it.
Speaker 5: And what I think so dangerous about spiritual delusion is
that you don't know you have it, Whereas a temptation,
it's very easy to IDENTI that the fact that you
could actually be being manipulated by demons under the guise
of something holy and spiritual impure is quite dangerous. Now,
as far as I know, Protestants don't even have a concept.
Speaker 2: Of having spiritual delusion.
Speaker 5: They may talk about temptations and correct me if I'm wrong.
In my study of Roman Catholicism, I don't think it's
even addressed, is a concept of something existing. And I
think it's really important that not only do Protestants not
have a concept of being spiritually deluded, but have no
mechanism on how to cure that and treat them. And
I would say this is something that's so important in Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Why we have a spiritual Father is that if we.
Speaker 5: All assume I'm constantly being manipulated by demons, not only
in temptations, but being spiritually deluded and thinking that oh,
this is from God, or this is something holy that
I should be doing, maybe I should maybe God's telling
me to interpret people's dreams or something like that. How
do you know that you're not deluded? Well, you don't
if you are the problem. And so this is what's
so important about having a spiritual Father is there's somebody
who's experienced and has the credential spiritually speaking, that can
have proper discernment and the way that spiritual delusion and
the whole spiritual progress as well is acquired through obedience
and repentance With an Orthodoxy, so we're really going to
stress that means we don't rely on our own abilities.
In fact, we're going to admit we're incapable of healing
ourselves and getting ourselves out.
Speaker 2: Of the you know, the muck.
Speaker 5: And so what we turn to is an advanced physician
of souls who's experienced, and.
Speaker 2: We make ourselves obedience.
Speaker 5: So, as we say in Orthodoxy, there is no spiritual problem.
Speaker 2: You can read all.
Speaker 5: The theology books that you want, You can go to
school and get all the degrees and never make any
spiritual progress. So the whole point of Orthodoxy is to
make spiritual progress to heal ourselves.
Speaker 2: And you need a physician. And so you make.
Speaker 5: Yourself obedient, even as hard as it may be that
your spiritual father tells you something you're like, I don't
agree with that. Part of the obedience is I'm no
longer going to trust in my own abilities, and I'm
going to listen to the spiritual Father. And because the
spiritual Father, the priest is a sacrament, there is grace bestowed.
So even in the faults of individual men is priests,
the grace of God still comes through that sacrament and
that office.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 5: When you're obedient to your spiritual Father, you're blessed. You're
blessed by God, and you begin to again, a spiritual
father is somebody that's like a counselor and a doctor
that knows you, knows your spiritual medical history. And this
is why what you don't want to do is being
jumping around from different priests and making confessions, and you
need one spiritual doctor who is taking care.
Speaker 2: Of you and can help you in your own repentance.
Speaker 5: So I'd say that's something unique about Orthodox that not
only do we have the concept that we're all spiritually diluted,
we have the mechanism in place in the structure of
the church over the last two thousand years for dealing
with that. So that's not something a lot of people
talk about.
Speaker 2: But I'm Jay, I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we got some questions about that because people
thought that I was saying that you can't talk about
a dream. No, what I said was that it's in
the Orthodox tradition, you have a guide, right, Paul talks
about being Timothy's spiritual father, So you have a guide
that you know helps you sort of discern who's actually
been down the road already. That's the point here. It's
not that you can't talk about these things. In fact,
you should talk about these things with your spiritual father. Now,
it is correct that a lot of times it's hard
to find a spiritual father, especially in America, so that's difficult.
Father Deacon. If you're not talking, can you mute because
there's kind of like a staticky f back and whatnot.
That's okay, but you're welcome to definitely talk. But thank
you for that. So, by the way, and the guys
in the chat, I'm not saying you can't talk about that,
but and there's Lewis and Kai and Grido. There's a
guy who's a Roman Catholic named Tony g He says
he's trying to get in the discord. Oh okay, Tony,
are you there? And for those yeah, hold on for
the hold on. If you're not talking, please mute. Guys
in the YouTube chat, this is discord, all right. It's
not a guest on the show. If you want to
come into the discord and chat, you're welcome to. As
of now, it's ghetto set up, so I don't have
a better way to do it, so there we go
go ahead. Guy, what's up?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 9: Hey Jay, I'm a Roman Catholic bit of a layman.
I just had a quick question. You often say a
movie portray real life. I appreciate the work you do
as far as the esoteric work. I just wanted to
know the Orthodoxy position on spiritual battle as far as
demonic possessions and you know, demonic things that are in
living people's houses, because you know, we always see Roman Catholic.
Speaker 2: Priests the forefront.
Speaker 9: As far as handling this battle, I just wanted to
know the Orthodoxy position on debt.
Speaker 10: Yeah, if you're not talking pretty mute, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Of course Orthodox Orthodoxy does house blessings. The priests do
this like once a year they go around and do
house blessing, So there's there's no difference between the Orthodox
and Catholic view of that kind of stuff of sacramental theology,
blessing the house, blessing water, blessing rivers. I mean, this
is very common in the Orthodox Church. So of course
we believe in the reality of spiritual warfare. I mean
all of the spiritual ascetic writing is about battling the demons.
If you read Larsay's trilogy, I mean Larchais wrote this
gigantic trilogy Therapy of Spiritual Illness, and it's all about
how all of the vices, you could say, are kind
of like battling demons. This is all just from the
Father's philocalia. So I would argue that really Orthodoxy is
who continues this tradition. I mean, we have a lot
of monastics in Orthodoxy, Monasticism and ro Catholicism is basically vanishing.
So I would say, definitely check out somebody like a father,
but not Father, but Jean Claude Larcher therapy of spiritual illnesses,
which would answer your question.
Speaker 2: I definitely appreciate the comments.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 5: Also, Father Georgia Korro is really good at He's an
Orthodox priest that has a lot of experience with possessions
and exorcisms.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's who you mentioned in the past. We
need to do it interview with him, Yes, exactly, Ulson says,
for seven dollars, here's my imp to roasting you. I'm
late to the game. People won't debate you because you're
doing brain keto royds. No, sorry, bro, that's that's not
a good joke. It would be fair to say that
ninety percent of your audience is happy that you did
not become I can't read the rest of that. Sorry,
he remember if you if you send me a super
chat on stream labs, I can only see one long sentence.
I can't see a gigantic paragraph. But even though I
appreciate the seven dollars, a Ulson, that joke was kind
of lame. Bag. I tell for ten dollars, says, what
do you think about the Finnish Orthodox Church. I don't
have any knowledge of the Finnish Orthodox Church, Father deacon,
do you hadn't know anything about this.
Speaker 2: I think they're pretty good. I think they're technically under
the EP. But as far as I've heard of it,
I haven't heard any problems.
Speaker 1: With he says, with my finished roots, I would feel
like it's more natural to join that, But people from
the Russian Church tend to speak against it. I don't know.
I don't know the drama.
Speaker 5: That's because there's a you gotta know the history between
Finland and Russia, right.
Speaker 1: I don't know what is what is the isue, so.
Speaker 5: You know, acquiring lands and wars and stuff like that.
So there there's some sensitivity with that. That's not a
theological issue. That's a cultural, a cultural issue. I don't
personally I imagine this person's asking in Finland because I'm
trying to think, like what other Finnish.
Speaker 2: Orthodox churches there are outside of Finland.
Speaker 1: I mean it sounds like that's what he means.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna say, I'm ethnically finish,
and our greatest hero is our greatest hero because he
killed like a lot of Russians.
Speaker 3: Like a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah you know, do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, so,
like a lot of Russia.
Speaker 4: Like he killed a lot of Russian so and that
guy's out national hero.
Speaker 2: So like Russian Finland relations are still sketchy to this day.
Speaker 1: So basically, you're defending du that is what you're saying.
You're here to defend.
Speaker 2: Yes, I am a douan Is, but I get we must.
Speaker 1: We must train the American the right wing to take
down America.
Speaker 2: The Dougan Bitcoin.
Speaker 4: I get that, and I share before Jed Dire and
kJ be on Twitter.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 1: Anyway, is there anybody in the discord that wants to
speak up?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I had another question?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: A bit of a lament question.
Speaker 9: During this gism when the church is separated, I wanted
to know how it worked when it came to going
to battle together against you know, Islam and the Crusades.
Speaker 2: How did all that come together? Did they you know,
get together and it was.
Speaker 9: Okay for that time when they just separated, you know,
just a little bit of clarity on that situation.
Speaker 1: No, I mean the Byzantium was sacked. What do you mean?
Speaker 2: I was wondering because the schism was in ten fifty.
Speaker 1: Four correct officially, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the Crusade were a little bit after that, correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were there were at camps.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there were several attempts to kind of unite, and
that offered, uh, what we thought would be kind of
a promising lead to possibly be united in something, and
it kind of backfired. As Jade pointed out, Byzantium was
under attack, and uh, we thought that we could unite
and call for the help of the Latins and it
really didn't.
Speaker 2: Work out well.
Speaker 1: No, the Latins eventually sack the Latin Bysanthium eventually.
Speaker 2: Okay, man, you guys, I appreciates the answer.
Speaker 1: Man, Yeah, I'm wrong, dude, Hey Jay, yes, sir.
Speaker 12: I only have a minute, but I did wanna I
guess ask you already know me as far as we
talked for a really long time yesterday or the day before.
If you remember, you probably talked to a million people.
But anyway, I guess my question is okay, good.
Speaker 1: Your question as well.
Speaker 2: Craized Latin.
Speaker 12: I guess the clitice learned about extraordinary form, visit team,
all that kind of stuff, as well as the Orthodox
UH spent about tens visiting Eastern parish Orthodox parishes to
the priests.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember the story. You don't have to. I'm
not trying to be mean, but I remember. You're cutting out.
Speaker 2: Bro.
Speaker 1: If you want to leave the discord and then pop
back in, it usually resets the setting. So maybe you
won't be cutting out, but you're cutting out right now.
Speaker 12: Kristen diving into the possibility that she might be in
the wrong.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 1: But it Hey, I didn't hear any of that. You
cut out for all that, damn, so so exit and
come back.
Speaker 2: All right, all right? But oh the joys discord.
Speaker 4: If people want to ask a question and you don't
want to hope on stream, just go. If you're in
the discord, go to voice text General. I tagged everyone there.
You can ask questions and I'll see them.
Speaker 2: To Jay.
Speaker 1: This is the first ghetto pale attempt at a call
in show. I don't even like the idea of Collin shows,
but we were trying to get okay, well, well we
were trying to get it. We were trying to get
Is to come debate, and he wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2: But we got a question, what's.
Speaker 4: The explanation of Noah's sons and grandsons having different features
and skin color?
Speaker 1: Why does it need an explanation? What I mean, people
go into different climates and there's a symbiotic relationship between
you know, people's physiognomy and their environments. I mean, there's
nothing wrong with adaptation. And you know, yeah, people go
into southerly climates, they're gonna you know, gradually developed, you know,
darker scin or whatever. I don't see why that's even controversial.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got another one.
Speaker 4: What would you say to people who tell you the
Bible is impossible because of dinosaurs skeletons existing.
Speaker 1: Well, there's two possible answers. I think that anything that
modern science proposes that is bound up with Darwinian naturalism
can be legitimately doubted, and we have a basis to
be skeptical of. So there's a lot of questions about quote,
dinosaur skeletons to begin with. But even if they are real,
the Book of Job speaks of all kinds of things
that could absolutely be a dinosaurs. So there's nothing inherently
contradicting about either position is conceivably defensible.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Behemos is a good example of what could possibly
be a dinosaur.
Speaker 2: Saying, okay, another one, do you think.
Speaker 4: That the Orthodox and Catholic Church could unite in some
way in the future. Personally, I couldn't see it. I'm
not sure what your take is, Jay, So I just
wanted to ask and know your side.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, there's our like if you look at
Metropolitan surfim Prius, he wrote a long letter to Francis.
He's a famous Greek Conservative bishop. He wrote a long
letter saying the thirty four or five elements that the
two churches could not unite over. That would have to change.
So that's the classical Orthodox position. It doesn't matter what
modern and humanists say. You have to adhere to the
traditional arguments that we've always made on the basis of
the canons and the councils as to what the elements
of change and innovation in Rome are. Right in the
Middle Ages, in the East. They were called Byzantine lists,
and these are the lists of the problems that we
have with Rome, things like forbidding pedro communion, forbidding married priests.
Those are just one of the many, right, there's a
whole bunch of other ones, like philioque and that kind
of stuff. Obviously comes first. Papacy. Those are the main issues,
but there's a bunch of other issues too.
Speaker 4: Okay, now the question these questions are rolling in, so
thanks to everyone in the discord, can you discuss the
difference in Protestant Christus Victor versus Orthodox attirement?
Speaker 1: Well, Christus Victor is an attempt to borrow elements of
Patristic ideas. So there's nothing inherently anti Orthodox about some
of the ideas of Christa's Victor. Because the Lutheran theologian
that I think it was a Lutheran guy who went
back and tried to reconstruct different theories of atonement from
the Patristic period. He's just borrowing from different church fathers
and different ideas. So I would actually argue that the
Orthodox position has the correct elements of all the positions, right,
So all of the positions have elements. Is there a
penal substitutionary aspect to it. Yes, Is there a Christ's
victor aspect to it?
Speaker 13: Yes?
Speaker 1: Just read book three of John Damascus and he explains
perfectly in line with all of the Eastern fathers before
him and many of the early Latin fathers as to
what the orthodox doctrine of the death of Christ and
the Atonement is. The last part of book three is
the perfect excellent harmony with Christology doctrine. And the Protestants,
especially Calvinists, end up as historians with their doctrine. It's
that easy, so we don't have to go into Lutheran speculations.
And as if we don't know what the doctrine of
the atonement and the death of Christ and the descent
into Hades is, we do know. Like it's all just
academic theories up in the air, not for us. No,
the herowing of Hades is a dogma, it's nowhere in Protestantism.
Speaker 2: We have another one, curious on your views on the
Church of the East.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't accept that as anymore than any of
the other Churches of the East, the so called Orientals.
They're just as much in schism as the others.
Speaker 4: Okay, short answer love that in what sense would an
Orthodox say that Pope Leo was the archbishop of.
Speaker 1: All the churches in the same way that that same
phraseology is used of Con Sentinople. I mean, these kinds
of glowing terms and phrases are used often. Uh. The
Alexandrian patriarch it is sometimes referred to as the head
of churches, the head of all churches Antioch and Basil's
letters as he uses that same phraseology. It's that there's
a common usage of florid. Uh, what's the term that
there's a there's a term for like the glowing phrase
phraseology that's used at times. It doesn't always necessarily mean
the Vatican One doctrine of papal infallibility. So if you look,
if you look at the way Canon, look at the
what can you mute if you look at the way
Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon speaks of the ecumenical patriarch.
It it's ecumenical patriarchate, universal patriarch. It's just a term.
There's we don't necessarily read into that universal dogmas or
in terms of Vatican One view is all we have
to do there. Ifew the Vatican One view is just
show that it's not present in the Seven Councils. And
that's very easy to do. If that's the case, the
Vatican One refutes itself because Vatican One says that its
view was always true.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got another one. How do we get people
over the quote sky daddy.
Speaker 4: Argument and the quote if God good, why bad things happened?
Speaker 2: Mind? How do we get people over that?
Speaker 1: The easiest way to go about that is just to
point out that to do basic pres up first of all,
like we're not calling God a sky daddy, as if
there's a one to one correspondence between the earthly notion
of father and a heavenly literal father. Those are what's
called analogia, right, There are analogies between human fathers and God.
The Father doesn't mean that God is identically literally a
quote guy with a long beard and a dad. He's
spoken of as like a father, but he's also spoken
of as like many other things. Mute. Can you mute?
Just boot that guy if he's so so? Uh so,
The sky daddy argument is based on a misunderstanding of
what divine names are divine terms. So if you read
Dionysius in the Divine Names he will go into detail
explaining how we predicated God in what sense we use
these words in terms, and then ironically, you know, just
boot that guy.
Speaker 14: Uh.
Speaker 1: Ironically, atheists even do the same thing. They will speak
of nature like it's a mother, like it's an artificer,
like it's a designer, like it's a personal cognizant agent
able to create and make things, when it's an impersonal
chaotic force. So they will do that. They will do
the exact all right, booting that guy, just doing that, understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can see.
Speaker 5: I'll keep my eyes by the way, even better, look
at the personification of science.
Speaker 1: Yes, we got almost three hundred people, by the way,
welcome everybody, Thank your father digging. Go ahead and finish that.
I thought, if you want to, well, I mean.
Speaker 5: If you notice, let's consult the oracle science. Science says,
it tells.
Speaker 1: Us, oh, yes, exactly right.
Speaker 5: It's perfied form of deity that you go to the
oracle and givinize.
Speaker 1: Your Yes, the science gods have spoken that COVID you know,
doesn't affect riots, right, but it does affect anything else exactly. So,
so sky daddy God, I would just do a basic
prese up and say that this, First of all, it's
not accurate. You guys did the exact same thing with
personification of nature, and then you turn around and act
like nature has no qualities like this, there's no actual
design actually in nature, as they all argue, But then
they turn around and talk like there is te loos
in nature. Then I would turn around and say that
what was the next one? Oh, morals, And I would
just simply say that you need something like Christianity to
provide a system for a basis for objective ethics. I'm
not saying that there's objective ethics just because I say
Christianity is true. I'm saying that the system of Christian
theology or metaphysics and ethics gives an account for how
there's ethics. That's different than just saying well, it's true
because we have ethics. And that's two different arguments, right.
The atheist doesn't have a basis at all to say
something is wrong, something is ethically morally wrong, it's arbitrary.
That's two different arguments. So if you can make those
that argument and just say oh no, wait a minute,
so Christianity is quote evil or bad, but you don't
actually believe there is any objective evil or bad, so
you have no basis to make an argument that Christianity
is bad.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question is, yes, what advice would you give
to an atheist who simply confine it within himself to believe?
Speaker 1: I mean, belief is not a like thing that you
work yourself up to. I mean you have to repent,
you have to change your life to believe. There's a
symbiotic relationship between the repenting and changing our ways and
the acquisition of the gift of faith. Right. I mean
it's all grace ultimately, in the sense that God is
the one that's giving us our providential situations that lead
us to believe and repent. And at the same time,
grace is all I mean, faith is also a gift,
So I would ask God for faith and at the
same time, you know, stop whatever degenerates that you're into.
That's that's how it works.
Speaker 4: Also, I'm going to send you a someone ask that
you put up a screenshot of each as his tweets,
So I'll send you a screenshot.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. I'm
not We're not doing stupid drama. I mean it's an
open invitation. I've invited this guy for eight months to
do a debate and he just talks around it all
do it in six months? Oh were you you made
fun of me? I didn't make fun of you. This
is all he does. He just asks, you know, it's
it's just drama. I'm not doing that. I mean, we
set up we set up a debate with we set
up a debate with his teacher. If we set up
a debate with his teacher, we set up a debate
with everybody else. Have no problems with Zephon Molini, Matt Dela, Hunting,
Adam Okesh, all these different well known people and that.
I mean, it's been months and months and months of
trying to set up a debate with this guy. It's
just a waste of time. I'm not gonna even interact
with him.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Another question, is there an attempt to unify the Church
of the East and Orthodox Church actively going on?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't keep up with that.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know there's been discussions with Monophesites. I
don't know about Syrians.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Okay, can you explain what is meant by formal distinctions
in God and why Orthodox reject this.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what terms you use, because we're not Scotis.
If you read Scotus's treatises, he has two treatises on
the unicity of God and the Existence of God. I've
got the treatises right over here on my shelf, and go.
We did a whole talk on this. Go watch the
talk that we did, me and father Deacon Ananias, where
we covered Anselm's ontological argument and Scotus's arguments for divine simplicity,
where he equates in a strict identity, will, knowledge, essence, unity,
et cetera, all of the attributes of God and he
predicates it all on the basis of natural theology. Okay,
that's that's not our position. We can't unite with Scotism.
So formal distinction of Scotis is just a scholastics, quasi
scholastic thing that's invented to try to have a closer
position because he's trying to do justice to the Eastern position.
It doesn't matter. We already know what the correct distinction is.
It's not based on speculations of later theologians in the
Middle Ages, because the dogmatic councils have already determined what
the distinction is. It's a real distinction between essence and energy,
just as real as a distinction between the hypostases. It's
not even debated in the in the in the in
Our Fathers, It's very clear. I mean, Maximus has tons
of passages that discuss this distinction. Right the sixth Council
predicates its argumentation on the essence energy distinction being real.
I mean imagine saying that creating the world is only
formally distinct from Jesus walking on water. I mean, just
think how stupid that is. So formal distinctions, A formal
distinction is just a scholastic thing to try to have
a position closer to the east. But it doesn't matter
because I can go to Scotus's other works where he
is explicitly says things that we could never agree with.
Speaker 4: Okay, we've got a question that I think if Father
Daton is there, I think this would be a good
question for him. So I'm an inquire in a very
evangelical family. They really don't like orthodoxy, and I don't
want to be evangelical anymore.
Speaker 2: What do I do? I can't drive yet, and I
don't know anyone orthodox around me.
Speaker 5: I'd say, tickets slow, thank you for your question. I
get a lot of these questions and you know, consulted
with my spiritual father on how to approach.
Speaker 2: These sorts of things. You know, as many of you converted, know.
Speaker 5: That sometimes you spend a long time is a catechumen,
many years. It can be a slow process. So I'd
encourage you if you can't get to a service that
you know, we have a Catechises program on the discourse
here and in fact, I think we correct me if
I'm wrong, Jay and Lewis, but we have a Metropolitan
Jonah aiding in that process. I'd say, really start trying
to you know, get some good reads. We have a
good book recommendation. You can always right me questions and
if it's above my pay grade, any wisdom that I have,
again it comes from my spiritual father, and I'll off
to take questions.
Speaker 2: So I think we can help you, and we can.
Speaker 5: You know, you're not hopefully you're not going to be
living with your parents forever, and you know, pray, pray
that God, you know, provide the means to eventually attend
a SERVI us and.
Speaker 2: I would definitely suggest don't argue Orthodoxy with your parents.
Speaker 5: Just try to acquire the spirit of Orthodoxy, and they'll
notice a change and they'll begin to inquire, what is
this new thing that you've found. That's what i'd suggest,
So feel free to write any of us again, We've
got a lot of great resources and you can still
experience Orthodoxy and.
Speaker 2: Learn a lot about it that way.
Speaker 1: I'm not upset. I get tired of the same questions
over and over and over. And when we do entire
streams answering those questions and then people ask those questions
over and over and over, that's I'm not upset. I'm
just saying that it's already been dealt with. We've done
this million times. And also because I know the people
that will rely on these kind of bogus, you know,
ways around arguments. But I'm going to read you from
the philosophical writings of John Damascus on page fifty six,
says that I establish this knowledge and will of the
First Being or God or God is the same as
his essence, The divine essence is absolutely identical to its will.
And he goes on to say, I have proved thus
that the knowledge the Self love and the essence are
all identical in the first being, there is no knowledge
or accidental He says, there's nothing accidental. No knowledge can
be accidental to the first essence. He goes on and
explicitly states, so there's nothing. But he says, act as purists. Okay, So, like,
how long do we have to keep making the same
responses in the same arguments? And he says it over
and over over. This is not, you know, like one
thing I'm taking out of ord. He says, the love
of God is identical the essence of God. Again, don't
you understand that that's not the triadic christological dogma of
the first seven centuries. We don't teach that, The councils
don't teach that. Johnamascus writes entire books against that.
Speaker 4: Okay, we have someone in voice chat who wants to
ask a question.
Speaker 1: Welcome manifest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can everybody hear me?
Speaker 3: Fine?
Speaker 2: Can you all right?
Speaker 11: So my question is kind of a compound question, but
it's adhering to one ultimate questions. That's okay, Okay, So
my question is are you familiar with the letters written
in the late nine hundreds and early one thousands, going
back and forth between Roman Constantinople that led to the
Great Schism, and would you, and if so, would you
please explain for us the contents and refutation to the
Roman Catholic argument at the Orthodox Church schisms and not
the other way around.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Read Francis de Vornik's entire book on it, and
he is one of your top Unity eight scholars who've
been indicates and admits our position. How's that?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: What was the name of that book again.
Speaker 1: Father Francis de Vornik, The Phocian Schism. It's a famous,
well known book.
Speaker 2: I think it referring to the you know, the business.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, but I'm saying that the Vornick covers that
whole period of the Phocian Schism.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you. I'll look into that. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 4: Manifest Okay, next question, Jay, how do you see the
alien slash extraterrestrial syop evolve in the coming year.
Speaker 1: That's not really what we're here to tell. I mean,
I mean, I specify it's okay, I mean I don't
I don't know. I mean, it's entirely possible that they
could throw that kind of a thing at us. After all,
the corunka nonsense. I don't. I don't personally think it'll
go that far, but it could. But I mean, we're
here right now to talk about I said, atheism, logic, metaphysics,
biblical theology, Early Church, Islam, Protestant Roman Catholics. So that's
what we're here to talk about today, not not UFOs.
I guess, I guess that fits under metaphysics. So I
guess do aliens exist as a metaphysical question? So I
guess I guess he is within the balance of what
we're here to talk about. But anybody else, if you
want to, feel free to offer up a super chat
question whatever. I put into the link in the chat here.
Sometimes the discord app crashes, so Discordous crash. Let me
pull it back up. So the app the app crash.
But if you're on the video, if you're watching on YouTube,
I put into the chat the link to Father Deacon
and Night's discussion of Dunscotis and and some we deal
with the theology of those two guys, and are they
compatible with the Orthodox theology? So contrary to the Ecumenists,
they're not. We already have the decisions of the Palomite
Synods which are binding for us, which make it very
clear that you can't. I mean, just read the Tomos
of John Becos. You can't accept Romatholicism if you're Orthodox.
I don't know why people don't know this. It's not
very difficult to see what the Tomos of John Becos says.
It explicitly denies union on the Filioquay issues. It's not
rocket science that we're doing here. What is the Orthodox
position on? I don't know what that is, Gertz says
on sestuy Quay v Act of sixteen sixty six. I
have no I have no idea what that is. Sorry,
I can't. I'm not trying to avoid it, but I
don't know what that is.
Speaker 2: Okay, back to the questions, sure.
Speaker 4: Okay, So when I asked, would you end capturing Christianity debate?
Speaker 2: I know this has come up before. I think Capturing
Christianity refused to debate, didn't he?
Speaker 1: Well, we were supposed to. I was supposed to debate
inspiring philosophy.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then they said they said that I had to
agree to not make any quote insults, which we'd already
agreed to the debate. And then they added on these
new criterias that you can't say anything critical or insulting
of the other person. And I said, well, that's too vague. Uh,
And I said, I'm We've already agreed to a debate,
and I'm gonna You know, if I make a mistake
in the debate, you're supposed to call it out. You
don't change the criteria of what I can and can't
say before the debate happens that you've already agreed to.
So they changed the criteria of what couldn't couldn't be said.
And so I said, I'm still willing to debate, but
you're not gonna tell me what I can and can't say.
So then I said, well, why don't capture Christianity. Why
don't you come debate me as well? And he wouldn't
do it. So neither of them wanted to debate. This
was before they were actually familiar with what I do
or what I talk about. And then when I went
and looked into what I argue in my background, then
he decided to come up with this new criterion how
to back out. So I think he backed out. If
Cameron would love to to, I would love to have
Cameron come on, because he believes, with absolutely no training
at all, that he can destroy and refute the transcendental argument.
I would love, I would I would die to uh
to debate capturing Christianity on the transcendental argument and whether
it's sound and valid. So please, Cameron, I pe either
one of you come debate. I promised I won't be
mean to you. I won't hurt your feelings. I promise,
But I don't think that they actually they don't really
want to debate. That's the root of this issue.
Speaker 5: And Cameron, if you're listening, if you don't want Jay,
I'm always here and I'm a nice guy.
Speaker 1: Father Deacon is much nicer than me, So he's uh,
he's a better he's a better philosopher, more, he's well,
he's more trained than I am. So feel free to
also have an interaction with Father Diacon. Doctor Annias, We've.
Speaker 2: Got another question.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts on the visions of Bishop Hieronymous.
I've got angelos. He prophesied the mass future conversion of
Germany to Orthodoxy, as well as the destruction of the
papacy in World War three, as well as a final
ecumenical council to stamp out every heresy.
Speaker 1: I've never heard this as new to me. I don't
know anything about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, heard that.
Speaker 1: Sounds pretty cool, but I don't know what about it.
Would you be willing to debate ef Dawa, Dude, I've
already debated. We had an aazam before on they uploaded
this to the channel. I mean, here's a challenge. So
Christianity has been on the defensive debating their texts to
the Muslims for thirty years in you know, online audio
debates right all the way back to twenty thirty years ago.
Right when is a Muslim actually going to step up
and defend their theology? They never do it. They won't
debate their theology. They will only debate basing their arguments
on liberal higher criticism. That's all they ever want to debate.
And then because anytime it gets into their territory, it collapses.
So I'm not going to just debate you on the
Gospel of John. Just like sam Simun Shamun said, We're
going to debate Gospel John and the Koran and whether
it contradicts itself. Those are the we don't just do
only our texts, and you guys know that you won't
debate your text because it's difficult to defend because it's impossible,
and none of them. I'm starting to figure out that
the reason that the Muslims won't debate is because they
don't have good theology that's logical, Like, they won't do
logic debates. They're not good at logically debating because they
don't know typical basic fallacies. I'm not trying to be
mean to those guys. I'm not saying that none of
them are good at debating. I'm saying that most of
them who talk all the smack, they don't know basic fallacies,
and so they'll talk about you use a bunch of
philosophy logic. Yeah, you can't debate without philosophy logic. There's
no such thing as a debate that doesn't have criteria
of fallacies contradictions. That's called logic. Those are called fallacies.
That's philosophy. That's the domain of philosophy. It's called logic.
Everybody knows this right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Okay, we got another one.
Speaker 2: We have literally like two hundred questions.
Speaker 1: No, hold on, hold on, So there's a guy in
the chat say that is false. No, your debates, You
guys won't debate your texts. Shaver Eli did not want
to debate his text. I don't just mean the text itself.
I'm talking about the theology of those texts, right, the
Taoheed doctrine, the Tanzi doctrine. You don't want to debate
those doctrines. That's what I'm talking about. It's not a
cop dude, What are you talking about it? He says.
He says, I'm copping out, dude. We've invited what's seven
six seven of your top scholars and they won't debate
Shabira Lee. Credit to Shabira Lee because he did. So
what are you talking about? I'm not This is what
you guys do? You say cop out when we invite
you on all the time. There's an open invitation to
Muhammed he Jubb yesterday, right undred four hundred, four hundred
likes on the tweet, two one hundred and twenty retweets,
and he ignores the tweet like you didn't see it.
Come on, come on, don't don't tell me it's a
cop out. When you guys won't come on in debate,
I mean imagine inviting. So this is that we've done
three public debates with Muslim No One of them. They're
top debaters. And their reply is, you're scared and you're
copping out. We've invited what Lewis tell me? He isn't
six seven Muslim scholars.
Speaker 2: Now it's like seven or eight?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what are you talking about? Total nonsense? All right, sorry,
go ahead, Grido, do.
Speaker 2: You want to Oh?
Speaker 4: So, someone asked, I know that there have been critiques
of the Catholic view of Mary where they almost view
her as a co source of salvation. How is this
different in the Orthodox Church where they ask Mary to save.
Speaker 1: Us the same way that we ask anyone else to
pray for us and save us. Obviously her prayers have
more efficacy because she's the highest of God's creation. Right,
But Paul says, in doing so you will say you know,
he says, keep this, this, this, and in doing so
you will save those around you.
Speaker 13: Right?
Speaker 1: Does Paul mean that creatures become saviors like Jesus? No,
this is the standard typical Protestant heretical slipped up on words.
You guys get slipped up on words because, just like
the Muslims, you think that words only have one meaning
in one sense. So it's just the word concept fallacy.
It's two different senses to salvation. Right, you can have
a person who aids in your salvation without being the
ultimate source of the salvation. Paul says we are co
workers with God. Does that mean ah, he said, a
coworker with God. So Paul thinks we're equal to God.
You see what this is? Just silly. Nobody does this
in the rest of their life, in the rest of
their texts. Right, you don't always squish. Yeah, you don't
squish a word into only having one meaning in one sense.
Nobody does this in the rest of their life. Right,
what does doctor bo say? A kid? Oh, a kid
always means a goat. Right, So if you have a kid,
you have this is what are you talking about? It's
different senses of the word. This is childishness. Anyway, I'm
getting all wild up. Uh, just go watch Craig Triulia's
videos on Mary. He has plenty of great videos on
Mary and the northodox Ya. So there's your answer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Greg, In.
Speaker 4: General, another one, Keny the deacon, you'd probably want to
can you outline an atheist starter kit for Orthodoxy? What
should be the duties of an ex atheist before joining
the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 1: Well, Father Deacon, while you answered that I'm gonna go
we we So do you feel free to take over here.
Speaker 4: An atheist starter camp, start a kit? So, like what
should like an atheist person, like what books should they read?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: What what what should they buy first? Coming into Orthodoxy?
Speaker 3: Like nihilism?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Father Sarah and Rise is great. Ye.
Speaker 5: I'd also probably supplement some of the Orthodox reads with.
Speaker 2: See because I'd say a lot of the atheists you
encounter are just deficient in the rich history of kind.
Speaker 5: Of theism within the kind of concepts, even like Aristota
on the Plato that.
Speaker 3: And then.
Speaker 5: John I would probably the Orthodox faith saying John Damascus
would be good because then you're you're talking about the
attributes God. Let's see, you could always have them reads.
Speaker 2: He's brothers. Karen is off too. That's converted a lot of.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 14: I'm trying to think, you know, just generally, something that
I noticed is that.
Speaker 5: Most atheists that we encounter are generally deficient in the
great works in literature and theology.
Speaker 2: So you know, Leje Toli, just take up and read it.
That's what I mean.
Speaker 5: If you you never want a strong man your opponent's position,
so when you go into debate, you know, like us,
we read as much as possible of our opponents theology
or philosophy and literature so.
Speaker 2: That we're not misrepresenting it, so that when we do
form a critique, the critique is a good one. You
don't want to ever straw Man. And I think that's
something that most atheists could learn from.
Speaker 5: You know, you get these people like Lawrence Kraus, even
like the popular atheists.
Speaker 2: Dockings. None of these people have studied philosophy.
Speaker 5: Let alone theology, yet they're going to formulate these stupid
straw Man critiques. So again, I just think it would
be a really good atheist starter kit, great books, liberal
arts program. There you go, because you're going to get
the church history of the philosophy.
Speaker 1: All right, Okay, I'm back and we're done.
Speaker 2: Yea. I was just saying that, actually, you know what
a good atheist starter kit.
Speaker 3: Would be.
Speaker 5: Simply a great books, liberal arts program for atheists. Uh
read Well, I'm just saying they're deficient in the literature.
They don't even know, you know, what they're talking about
when they're formulating these critiques.
Speaker 2: And I don't think I think it would be beneficial
not just to read up on orthodox theology, but.
Speaker 5: The history of Western thought in general, going back a
Greek philosophy as well.
Speaker 4: Oh, I guess I highly doubt Lawrence Craft ever read
Crime and Punishment.
Speaker 2: Okay, next question.
Speaker 1: Crime and Punishment is great, by the way, I highly
recommend it.
Speaker 2: There's one of two thousand books on my reading list.
I have a book for every year that I have
a book for every year that the earth has existed.
It's like two thousand, roughly two thousand.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: What significant theological differences exist between Eastern and Oriental orthodox
other than the Calcedonian issue.
Speaker 2: I've not been able to find.
Speaker 4: A good articulation of their differences other than the Calcedonian controversy.
Speaker 1: They're not united. A snack you could probably speak to this.
If you're in here, you may have gone. I don't know,
but I mean, they have a lot of division. They
meet like once or twice a year, and they just
kind of act like they're in communion. But they have
all kinds of vast divergences amongst them, from animal sacrifice
to circumcision to all kinds of bizarre things. So I'm
not trying to be mean, but I mean that the
Oriental quote unquote Orthodox Communion is not really any kind
of unified thing at all. That's just in theory.
Speaker 15: It's more similar to the Anglican Commune, where they will
have like new large differences and even like vising them,
you will have you know, the Armenians today they are
more Cacedonians in terms of christology. Yeah, again circumcision because
in marriage, use of living and unleven bred.
Speaker 2: Animal sacrifice.
Speaker 16: Between these ches, you're forgetting one of the other crucial
differences neck, which is that the Ethiopians have a different
canon from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox, so they include.
Speaker 2: I mean we have slight variations again between the different works.
Speaker 3: Is that.
Speaker 15: Yeah, when it comes to the it's like really different,
Like they literally have changes to the New Testament, which is.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean there's all kinds of other issues too.
I mean that the the the I mean, you got
like the poption out a writing a whole treatise a
few years ago against the Osis, which is I mean ludicrous, unfathomable.
It reads like something James White would have written. I mean,
the idea that you could be an Orthodox pope of
Alexandria quote unquote, that's they're called the pope of Alexandria
and uh, you know you're the successor to Athanasius and
you write a whole treatise against the Osis. I mean
this is just preposterous.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And by the way, some people opposed it in his
church for doing this one.
Speaker 1: Snack snack you cut out there? Can you repeat that?
Speaker 15: Yeah, there's been a lot of opposition because it's inside
this church.
Speaker 2: So this Matthews the poor where you have burst it.
Speaker 8: He read the Fathers in Greek and he taught Theosis
and at this point and he was one of the
biggest mystics of the Coptic quote.
Speaker 1: Well, imagine having this stress on the union, but right,
I mean they have this over emphasis on union when
it comes to who or what Christ is and then
turning around in denying Theosis. This is it's like, I
don't know, I can't fathom how. But I mean when
you when you read their theology in that guy's theology,
or if you listen to David's debate, I mean, if
you heard David's debate, it's they're they're like all over
the place, right, you start talking about energies and they
don't even know. They're like, I don't know, Yeah, there's energies,
but maybe there's one or two or kind. I don't know.
I mean, it's come on, we have a clear, precise
theology when it comes to person, nature, will, essence, energy,
all that stuff. It's consistent from the Triad to Christology.
That's the big difference there too, is that they don't
see that there's a correspondence between nature, person, will, energy
in the Triad into Christology. They disagree with that. Republicative predication,
reduplicate predication.
Speaker 4: Excuse me, Okay, what would you say to someone who
claims that John seven, five, three through eight to eleven
is a fabrication by the early Church to push Christianity
over Mosaic law, or just the fabrication in general.
Speaker 1: We covered this in the James snapstream. We did a
whole stream on this. I don't even think it's out
of accord with the Old Testament. Go listen to the
James snapstream we did on textual history.
Speaker 6: So, yeah, because in mosaic law you had to have
the man who she committed with you exactly.
Speaker 2: That was what the issue was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean in many in many other places, Jesus
absolutely upholds the continuity with the mosaic administration. So the
idea that there's not continuity is kind of ludicrous. But
go ahead, Okay, this.
Speaker 2: Is for either you or Father de Yeah. Are my
prayers for others, both alive and past, even uh even heard?
Speaker 4: If I'm not baptized in the Orthodox Church or participating
in the EU Christ, do you have any recommended prayers
for those who have died before finding Christ slash Orthodoxy?
Speaker 1: I would answer that yes, God can hear all prayers
because God, it says God heard Cornelius's prayers before he
was baptized.
Speaker 2: All right, Yeah, and you can use any prayers.
Speaker 6: The only place that non Orthodox aren't commemorated is that
the alta in the preparation of the Eucharist in the Proscamede.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 16: Jordanville has a really good prayer book if you want
one of those.
Speaker 1: Yeah, bather Digan, did you want to comment on that,
I mean to cut you off.
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly correct answer.
Speaker 3: Of course, got.
Speaker 2: All our prayers. But at the same time it encourages.
Speaker 5: Us to go further into Orthodoxy because the prayers are
a righteous man avails much.
Speaker 14: And so I try to use that.
Speaker 5: As you know, it's hard to motivate myself to do
stuff when I just think about myself. But if I
realize that you know, other people depend on me. And
I don't know how all of you feel about this,
but for me, that's kind of a motivating factor.
Speaker 2: At lights a fire and it needs me. And the that's.
Speaker 5: Something that we could do, is that know that you
know other people depend on us, and that maybe I
can't motivate myself to get, you know, further my spiritual life.
Speaker 2: The fact that if you get further into spiritual life,
you will be helping others is a wonderful thing.
Speaker 1: Garbage man has a question for seven dollars that looks
like it's probably intended to trap me. The position on
the church is that the church is the new Israel.
So that should tell you the obvious answer to that question.
It shouldn't be very hard for you to figure that out.
Although I do appreciate your appreciate your seven dollars. There
should be plenty of quotes that explain to you what
our position is. Gert sends a dollar and he says,
in the future garden City, will we go back to
being androgynist beings described in Genesis? We're not androgynist beings.
Genesis I don't think describes androgynist beings. So if you
if you read uh Father Sara from Rose in Genesis
Creation Early Man, he actually has a section where he
talks about how he and I think he's correct. Uh,
there there was gender before the fall. Some of the
Eastern fathers speculated on this and speculator that maybe gender
wasn't introduced after the Fall. I don't believe that. But obviously,
by the way, Jay.
Speaker 5: I'd avoid the what's called the woke PC translation of
the Bible.
Speaker 1: We might actually get, Yeah, I get an orthodox study.
By yeah, I would say, I don't know what, but
which which one are you talking about? Like N I
V or something or I'm just you mean, like when
they come out with the like the the literal woke
Bible exactly, they will probably have like the woke study Bible, right, Okay, And.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's just a prosperity gospel and uh liberation theology.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's your wife stuff, right. Next question.
Speaker 4: The next question is what, if any difference is there
between monophysitism and mea physicism. Is there an actual difference
or is it just an attempt at obfuscation by the Orientals.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean again, all of these have been dealt
with with hours and hours of streams with David me
and David. David has an entire lecture course on this topic.
He just did a stream on my physicum. So go
to David the real medwif's channel. He did a two
and a half hour stream on my ephicitism. And yes,
there is an orthodox way to understand my physitism Saint
Cyril of Alexander, the Christological controversy. That whole book is
written by Father John McGuckin to explain that topic. So no,
it's not all obbliscation. I'm not trying to be rude.
I'm just saying that one of the reasons that we
do like a long two hour stream answering each one
of these types of topics, whether it's John Denscotis or
whether it's my physitism, is so that we don't have
to like constantly rehearse, you know, an hour's worth of material.
One reason I'm doing this is because when people come
to the discord, which I'm fine with, I enjoy that,
you know, every other day we're doing like five six
seven hour talks and then this you know, two days
later the same question comes up. How is some sooner
just sinction, not pell I mean, not neoplatonism. And we've
already spent four hours the day before talking about that,
so there's no point in just constantly redoing the same talk.
So I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying
that if David does twenty different streams explaining that very question,
go watch David's stream or read the mcguck and book
searching for three dollars. I'm an atheist who finds myself
unsatisfied with moral relativism and unanswered big questions. I can't
seem to accept any non empirical evidence outside of my senses.
How do I? And then it trails off. I can't
see the rest of it. So I mean, just think
about numbers and math objective or excuse me, abstract entities.
They're obviously not identical to empirical stuff. So you already
do believe in non empirical things. If you believe in logic,
if you believe in math, geometry, you already believe concepts
those are non empirical. So I would just argue that
you already believe in non empirical evidence, because evidence as
a concept is not matter. So when you say you
believe in evidence, it's non empirical already. That's my response
to that. But thank you for this.
Speaker 6: If he, if he has issues, is more relativism. He
presumably believes in the existence of moral facts, which are.
Speaker 1: Also not matter. Right, So you're talking about value judgments, right,
if you're making a statement about something being morally wrong
or right. Well, if everything's just matter, there are no
value judgments. Everything just is, you say, So saying something
is wrong requires categories that are not identical to or
reducible will to matter or states of matter.
Speaker 2: It's called the naturalism, Pallas.
Speaker 1: Exactly, Thank you, But great question. They're searching much appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Okay, what happens to people who never heard of Orthodoxy
after death? For example, the Pagans that died before they
had contact with Christianity.
Speaker 2: How are they judged?
Speaker 1: So I think we had this same question about an
hour ago, and then we had the same question, yester,
I'm just laughing because that's why we're doing this, So
we don't have to keep doing this. I mean, so
again we have the heroing of Hades doctrine, everybody that
died before the coming of Christ were told in the
New Testament they were in Hades. Peter says the Gospel
was preached to those who were dead. Jesus descended into
Hades at his death to preach the Gospel. The church
fathers are very clear about this. Saint Cyril of Alexander
has multiple section wy he talks about this, and he says,
the Gospel has preached to all of the Old Testament dead.
That's it now. People who nowadays die outside of hearing
the Gospel. Paul says in the Romans too, that they
have a light that is given to them the law
of nature. They will be judged by the law of nature.
That doesn't mean they're automatically saved. They still have to
have some exposure to Christ to attain theosis. You can
be saved without theosis. So whether God preaches to them
in some way, we don't know. We leave that up
to God. The Orthodox Church or the Eastern tradition is
not as interested in trying to figure all this stuff
out because we're simply not told. Ubi Petris just did
a giant floora gellium of the fate of unbaptized infants, right,
and so go to Ubi Petris, and you'll see that
we have a tradition of not really trying to speculate
other than to commend people to God. We don't know,
but we have the injunction that we have to preach
the Gospel. We have to convert people. Whether God reaches
them in some unknown way is up to God.
Speaker 4: An interesting factoy into tradition, Plato heard the Gospel while
in Hades and repented, and he actually appeared to a
monk and told him to stop cursing him.
Speaker 1: Entirely possible. So I will there, funny, here is the
Here is Ubi Petris's patristic list of fate of unbaptized infants.
So that will kind of give you an insight into
the question you're asking there. So you've got quotes from
iaron a is talking about the recapitulation that Christ's incarnation
reaches to all of human nature. Gregory, the theologian, Gregory,
of course, spoke often of this Ambrose, Innocent, Zosimus Carthage.
What else is in there, Gregory the Great? So that
you'll you'll see that there is a kind of a uh,
we should know that the when baptized infants die, they
enjoy paradise. Those not illumined by baptism do not go
to paradise nor gahinna. So that's on the Sunday of
meat fair, you see. So anyway, there's more in that link.
We don't speculate, We don't worry about those kinds of things.
We don't know. God doesn't tell us everything, so we
can't sit around speculating try to figure it out.
Speaker 4: Okay, we got a question, which is actually four questions
from a Muslim, so we'll just go one by one.
So how come the trinity is hard to explain when
the Bible says in First Corinthians fourteen thirty three that
God is not the author of introdusion.
Speaker 1: Okay, so just because Paul says God's not the author
of confusion, if you look at the context, he's talking
about people who were being riotous in the church. He's
not talking about theology. Paul talks in many places about
difficult theological writings. In fact, Peter even says Paul's writings
are difficult, so difficult and meat Hebrews calls doctrine. That's me.
It's not the same thing as confusion. The confusion that
Corinthians is talking about is people getting drunk, people committing fornication,
people not taking the Lord's Supper seriously in all manner
of you know, it sounds like a Protestant charismatic service
that Paul is rebuking, right. I mean, he's saying, you
guys are acting like looms here, flopping around, acting crazy,
doing all kinds of nonsense. That's the confusions. He's not
saying that there's no difficult theology. Your own Muslim schools
of philosophy are difficult. So that's a terrible argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd also.
Speaker 6: Say, if you're interested in I just want to add
is check out the videos I did with bo on
the Trinity, because I think the current sort of popular
Eganitarian or social Trinitarian view where the divine essence is,
you know, God, is the problem that a lot of
Muslims might end up having. So we need to reinstate
the doctrine of the monarchia of the Father and the
energies absolutely because if you go by Cappadocian theology, they
absolutely reject. I mean, I'm sure if your listening Muslims,
you know you're here that you know, oh yeah, well
so there's the you know, there's the nature, and that's God.
Speaker 2: And then because all the persons participate in that, well
that's how we we call why we call them God.
Speaker 6: But the whole, the whole premise of the Cappadocians who
did to basically fleshed out the Trinitarian theology was to
just absolutely deny that you could predicate any name of
the divinessence, including God or anything. Okay, so that's not yeah,
yeah no, So just check out the just check out
the videos I did with both at Orthodox you had us.
Speaker 1: Just go over to my community tab on my channel
right there, the community tab, and if you look at
the first one there, David has a three hour lecture
on Mayaphi site. So there's the answer to the myophasite question.
Scroll down a little bit and I have a one
hour talk from two days ago with al Fadi on
the monarchy of the Father. So it's all it's all
right there, or you can go to.
Speaker 5: My twenty four hour talk hours. By the way, guys,
I'm gonna I need. I want to say what a blessing,
my prayers to you all and great questions and thank
you Jay Lewis so Bros.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Father. Well, I'm still here. We got we
got our largest crowd yet, We're right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just I just wanted to bow out in
case there of questions directed at me. Okay, I'm sure
you guys will be fine to answer that.
Speaker 1: I'll put Father Deacon in and eye. I'll put everybody's
channels below as well. When the stream is done, so
I'll be sure and follow Father Deacon and then they'll
have Lewis and Kai and everybody's snacks stuff too. So
David as well, Thank you, Father, appreciate that absolutely.
Speaker 2: David. Yeah, O cool.
Speaker 6: Thanks to see if other from this, let's try let's
keep trailblazing through these Muslim questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, can you explain why the Trinity is not in
the Old Testament and why it was only reviewed during
Jesus's missionary.
Speaker 1: Like every debate and topic that we've had on this
top on this question is arguing the Trinity from the
Old Testament. So first of all, go look at all
the things that we've done to date, every time that
I've had a discussion with Sam, with any the whole
list that I put up on the whiteboard, it's all
the Theophanes of the Old Testament. That's the Trinity. Okay, Father, Son,
and Spirit are all over the Old Testament, so go
watch those and you'll see where I cover all the
Theophanes in Genesis. This is a personage separate from the
person of the Father, who's given worship, who's given the
divine name, who's called the Redeemer, who's called Yahweh, who's
called the Lord, he's called God, he's called all of
these things consistently. Right, I've done many, many talks. I
have a whole stream on the Theophanes and and the
Trinity in the Old Testament. Just a stream on that
you can go watch. That is Jesus God is the
Trinity Biblical. That's whole stream against rocking mister e And
all I do is argue at this point, read Zechariah one.
There you'll see Father, Redeemer, Angel, the Lord, and Spirit.
If you read the book of Isaiah. I just did
a talk on Isaiah, and I talked about the many
instances where you find the triad in Isaiah. So the
doctrine of the Trinity as explicated by the Cappadocians and
the Niceno Constantopolitan Creed is not in the Old Testament,
because we believe in redemptive history that there is a
period where there's a coming of the Church that completes
the fulfillments of the prophecies of the Old Testament. So
obviously the life of the Messiah is not going to
be present in its full form prior to the coming
of the Messiah. Obviously the prophecies of Isaiah are not
going to be present prior to Isaiah. So that's like saying,
why isn't the fulfillment of all these things there before
the fulfillment? It doesn't make any sense because of the
progression of progressive revelation, redemptive history, and the fulfillment of
these things when the Messiah comes. So obviously, look, that's like, look,
there's not a full fledged, full revelation in the sense
of what Isaiah has in the time of Abraham. Right,
does does Abraham know as much as Isaiah?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Obviously would we therefore conclude from that that Isaiah is
false because it's not fully revealed in Abraham's day all
the things that Isaiah said. Of course, not so in
the same way, just because not everything that's fully revealing
in the New Testament is not present in the Old Testament.
We don't cancel it out. That's just presupposing that we're
not the fulfillment, but we are the fulfillment. That's the
point here, right. The New Testament is the fulfillment of
what the Old Testament is. Looking forward to countless Old
Testament prophecy. How many times does it say the gentiles
will be brought into the Covenant, that they will be
worshiping the God of Israel, and that when the Gentiles
begin to convert in mass, that's when you'll know the
Messiah has come. And what do you know, when Jesus
comes suddenly entire Gentile nations for centuries, for millennia converting. Obviously,
Jesus is the Messiah. So this kind of Muslim argument
just is based on ignorance about our theology and the
notion of the completion of the Old Testament prophecies in
the person of Christ.
Speaker 6: Can I add to that, guy I Chris here he
can add as well, is the we have to really
consider also that even in Islam there's a development of
the theology of God over debates for centuries after the Qur'an.
I don't know, you may not. Whoever asked a question
may not be familiar with this, but there ends up
being a very specific formulation of what attributes there are,
what an attribute is, what constitutes an attribute, how they
relate to creation, whether or not, how they relate to
the essence of God, and those are very precise, and
they're not contained in that in their formulation of as
part of Klam philosophy inside the inside the Qur'an, but
they are still required believing for people who are part
of those schools. So I don't know if you're if
you're a Salafie, but that's mainstream Synism anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but as we see every time we get into
this kind of argument, it's moved the goalposts. Right, Oh
that's the case for you, but not for me.
Speaker 3: But in all fairness, if I can just must yeah, yeah.
Speaker 13: Muslims in the majority, they are even just completey ignorant
of their own traditions, and so they don't even know
that there was this development within Islam itself. They are
typically of a mindset like that Islam is has been
static for fourteen hundred years, that it was revealed and
hasn't changed one bit, and so they just either there's
just a dumbfounded when you start encountering them on this,
and then they'll just start making up.
Speaker 3: Excuses and this and that, switching positions. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's just important to note that, you know, if
you want to, you know, we're happy to say, for
the sake of debate, if you're willing to accept that
our scriptures hold our core doctrines, then we're happy to
accept that the Quran holds the you know, the specific
like ashari or matter ready formulation for the sake of debate.
But you know, if you're going to use that argument,
you know that the trinity that even the hardware or
as Jay use, the analogy of the gems, the the
or the raw or of the trinity isn't in the
biblical text. Then you know, we're just going to say that,
you know that the attribute specific attribute theology isn't there
in the Quran.
Speaker 1: Either, right exactly? Yeah, excellent point. How chicken baby five
dollars can you explain the Trinity? For NWBS? There is
an eight minute video that somebody clipped where I did
this kind of an explanation of the Trinity. I think
it's on this Institium Bourbum website or channel. I'll post that,
but basically, we believe on the basis of what's in
revelation what the Trinity is right, so it's not sitting
around and philosophically speculating. Primarily that gives us the doctor
of the Trinity at scripture. So the Old Testament reveals
God the Father, and God the Father has this secondary
person that he generates that is the Angel of the Lord,
that is the Messenger of the Covenant, that is the
Angel Redeemer. In the Old Testament, there's many, many, many passages.
Again I've gone over this many many times, and that
Angel of the Lord so to speak, is revealed to
be fully divine right and eventually revealed as the Son
of God. We say so, we say that that is
Jesus right, because Jesus the Trinity has always been there.
It's always been who God is. It didn't change or
become three gods or something like this. It's always been Father, Son,
and Spirit. But the full revelation of that was progressive.
Now even in Judaism there's progressive revelation. Again, they don't
believe that Isaiah or excuse me, in the time of Abraham,
that you know, Abraham knew as much as Isaiah would
know or Malachi or any of the later prophets right,
because there's more revelation that comes via the Spirit of
God speaking through the Old Testament prophets. So this revelation
is progressive. It never contradicts previous revelation. But it's very
clear in again dozens and dozens and dozens of passages
in the Old Testament that it's not just a strict
Father God. There's also this Angel of the Lord, this
theophanic manifestation that wrestles with Jacob, that speaks to Manoah's parents,
that goes to battle for the Israelites, that's present in
the the burning bush right, that appears to David, even
in the historical books, that appears over the altar of Israel,
the cloud, the pillar, over and over and over. We
see this stuff throughout the Old Testament. Ezekiel sees, and
Ezekiel one, and Ezekiel ten, Ezekiel one, and Ezigel nine
and ten. This wheel and then in the midst of
this chariot that he sees is one like the son
of Man. That's the same one like a son of
Man that Daniel sees right in his vision in Daniel seven.
It's the same that's what we're saying, that's all we're saying. Now,
that's Father, that's son, and spirit. Spirit is mentioned many times, right,
It's mentioned in Genesis, it's mentioned in Zechariah one, it's
mentioned in Isaiah. So we consistently see in many, even
in many chapters of Isaiah, this triadic manifestation of Father,
Angel of the Lord, Messenger's son, and the Spirit of
the Lord. The Spirit of the Lord does this spirit.
So how is the Spirit of the Lord doing this
and that and yet also being distinguished from Father and Messenger,
Angel of the Lord logos. Well, because there's three persons.
And when we get to the New Testament, which again
we're saying, is the fulfillments, the full explanation and explication
of the Old Testament, there's not a discontinuity. It's continuity. Right.
When we see Jesus in the Book of John, especially
not just the Book of John, but in the Book
of John right fourteen, sixteen seventeen, he goes into linky
explanations of the relationship between him and the Father and
the Spirit who he will send. So it's imperfect. When
you are really fluent in the Old Testament, you see
it everywhere it's like it's a no brainer. It's like, well, yeah,
this is everywhere in the Old Testament. What are you
talking about? So the fact that modern day Jews debate
over this is really irrelevant to our position. It doesn't
mean anything. I mean, it's just relevant in the sense
that it's like an academic you know, dispute or whatever.
But to our theology, it doesn't matter because we don't
have the same theology as modern Judaism obviously. I mean,
you see rabbinical debates after you know, the the first
century with Judaism and Christianity part ways. When you get
the eventually the different talmuds that are that are put together,
you see debates amongst rabbis over what these Theophanes are,
you know, is it the essence of God? Is it
a second manifestation of God? Is it an emanation? Is
it uh, some sort of angelic metatron being?
Speaker 5: Is it this?
Speaker 3: Is it that?
Speaker 1: Is it a hologram an angel? Right, so they have
the same debates right going on that we will see
when we bring this topic up. Right, It's an echo
of the debate that that Justin Martyr has with Tripho.
What does Justin mart keep going to the Angel of
the Lord. Right, Why is the Angel Lord given worship?
Only God can be worshiped anyway. So the easiest way
to start with the Trinity is I got lost in
that explanation. But these way to start with this is
to start with the Bible. Right, So we're not because
we're not basing this on philosophy like oh the you know,
I sat around and I read a bunch of Plato,
and I figured out, you know, based on number theory,
that now there are analogies that you can make to
numbers and this kind of stuff. Think about one to
the third power, right, that's one thing and three things
at the same time. Think about the number three. It's
singular and it's also triadic at once.
Speaker 13: Right.
Speaker 1: I Mean, there's all kinds of things in the world
that do have a one and many aspects to them
that the church fathers frequently make usage of to demonstrate
a one many relationship that's analogous to God, not a
one to one correspondent's been an analogy. They do it
all the time. They do mind, will and soul right
or spirit as an analogy, on on and on. So
there's all kinds of things that are analogous to something
being one and many. But there's no perfect creaturely analog
or one to one correspondence to God because God may
the creatures, and so by definition God being infinite, being omniscient, etc.
There's never going to be anything that perfectly matches up
to God. So that's why we're talking about on one level,
a revelation for us that is kind of the final authority.
But that doesn't mean that it's out of accord with
logic or reasoning or these kinds of things. Because the
created world and the logic and the principles of logic, numbers, math,
whatever that God has put into place in the created order,
they do bear some correspondence to the mind of God.
And so there can be at one at a certain
level and analogia analogies that are made, but we don't
do a one to one correspondence as if the number
one is equal to God's unity. God's unity is not
identical to the number one. The number one is a
created concept.
Speaker 2: Next mism question, Okay, so this is or from the
same guy.
Speaker 4: The next not mind memory boring questions, So do you
believe the Bible is preserved or even a trustworthy document
about the life of Jesus and his teachings.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we have we have to believe that. I mean
that the doctrine of the inspirational Scriptures is part of
our dogmatic theology. There's no church father who denies that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the next part and then thank God, we can
move on. He says, if you have Okay, So he's
posing necessarily.
Speaker 6: If the Bible, if we believe it is not preserved,
you don't need we don't need to ask that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we'll just skip that.
Speaker 6: I mean he said, he said, he said, if you
accept the Bible is not preserved, the question for but
we we accept as preserved.
Speaker 1: I mean there's yeah, we don't accept that premise.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's dumb. Okay. It's like saying, can you
imagine infinity?
Speaker 1: Could you imagine a well, where's that? Imagine a universe?
Was there is a planet with a computer and no gun?
Speaker 3: The quant.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you have the machine else maybe they can
take chill infinity.
Speaker 2: Uh okay.
Speaker 4: Next, is is there any good Orthodox books that deal
with Buddhism or Eastern religions?
Speaker 2: Does Saint Nicholas in Japan have any books on this subject?
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy in the religion the future deals with the far
Eastern religions. The now of Christ deals with the Eastern religions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what I mean, Baba seraph and rises
biography has.
Speaker 3: Some good stuff in that.
Speaker 1: The easiest, the easiest response is just orthodoxy in the
religion in the future, because he's he's talking about Hinduism.
But I mean that's kind of encompasses all of them.
Speaker 2: Really, Okay, does the Guru, the young man, and older
parties right humans? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Does Islam have a one and many problem? For example,
if truth is one in many, how can the Islamic
God be the metaphysical metaphysical condition for the multiplicity of
unity of truth itself when Allah is without multiplicity in
his being?
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. I mean that's an argument I've been making
sure well stated.
Speaker 6: The mainstream Sunny position has more multiplicity in God than
the Motazila Ads position that was rejected by mainstream Studdyism.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I mean, even though there's all these different schools
because of the you know, emphasis on the transcendence of
God in Islam, I don't think you're going to ever
get a really sufficient coherent answer to that problem. So
there's always going to be the assumption of unicity as
metaphysically a ontologically prior or primary or superior. So they
can't really do justice to uh distinctions or multiplicity. And
by the way, it doesn't matter if they admit that
as well. But we don't have three persons and so therefore,
but the same problem arises with the attributes or the
actions of Allah. The same problem is still there.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 6: That was one of the Jewish and Metazula critiques of
the Asheri and mat Ready position was that it was
too Christian because you believed in like they believed in,
you know, subsistent attributes that weren't Allah.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. The problem that.
Speaker 1: We can't hear you. You have to speak up, you're
really low.
Speaker 13: God has to be absolutely unique, which makes it difficult
when you up at the group of.
Speaker 2: God such with life that are probably showed by Greek.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no analogy in that position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the one of the many problem meticods very clearly.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question, I'm confused about the Christian explanation of suffering,
and I'm hopeful that the Orthodox view can offer a
more compelling explanation than the Protestant one, How did sin
have the effect of changing the fabric of reality from
the perfect pre false state to the current state after
the fall, so as to introduce suffering to the world.
It seems like the laws of physics themselves are in
are inhospitable to human life and course suffering. Example, a
rock can fall on one's head while walking under a cliff,
and this seems to be entirely causally disconnected from man's
sinful nature. How is sin connected with altering the laws
of physics post fall?
Speaker 1: If you want, if you're asking how in the sense
of the mechanics, nobody knows that. If you're asking how
in the sense of theological revelation, well, we're told that
that's the case, because the entire it's not like all
of the fabric of reality was changed. I mean man's body.
We have animalistic bodies because of the fall. Right, we
don't know what the pre false state of man's body
was like. We don't know what Eden was like. But
all of the way the normal course of things function
did not have, for example, the presence of decay, the
presence of death. All those things were foreign to Eden,
and we believe it on the basis of what's revealed, right,
so we don't we don't have to have an explanation
of the mechanics of exactly what, you know, the chemical
reactions that occurred when the fall happened. I mean, nobody's
ever going to know that. So, but whether there is
a connection between death and events to the natural world
and man sin, we believe it on the basis of revelation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I also like that that is a very high
IQ way of asking the question, if God real, why
bad things happened? It was Yeah, very high IQ.
Speaker 1: But the same question Chris says for thirteen dollars and
nine cents, God bless you for your work. Well, thank you, Chris,
much appreciated for that.
Speaker 4: Okay, trying to find guys, please don't clutter it with
your like Jay's answering questions, not you.
Speaker 2: Guys, So please don't clutter it with your answers. Okay,
where can someone from a.
Speaker 4: Schismatic Apostolic church find out where they differ specifically as
in the reason why they are considered outside of the church.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that would depend on what schismatic
episode church you're talking about. That I mean, you're asking
me where to find out how your church differs. I
don't understand the question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are so let's see very Antichalcedonian.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what question I mean again, go
watch David's videos if you're looking for where we say
we disagree with you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, David's videos are really good. The Orientals are just
scared of him.
Speaker 2: So yeah, let's see.
Speaker 4: If God is the infinite source of all being, from
which everything ultimately emerges, how can it.
Speaker 2: Be that evil things are not from God?
Speaker 4: I want to believe that God is good, but it
seems like I can't reconcile this with the notion of
God being.
Speaker 2: The source of all that exists.
Speaker 1: So evil has no being and no subsistent ontological status.
Evil is not a metaphysical reality. It's a negation, it's
a privation. It's a movement of the will away from
the good. So you will find that from the earliest
days of the Church up until to present day, we
have always explained what evil is in this way. So
we differ from pagan religions, from dualistic religions, Manicheanisms, or Astrianism,
and that we do not predicate any real existence to evil.
That does not mean that we're not saying there's no evil.
We're not saying there's no evil, we're saying that there's
no metaphysical, ontological status or substance to evil. Because when
God created the world, all that was created he said
was good. So being is inherently good. Being manifests the
quality of goodness because it's made in the image of
and on the basis of God's being, which is good.
God is good, His creation is good. It shares in
a participatory relationship with the goodness of God. So in
that way, nothing that exists or has being can be evil.
So what is evil, Well, evil is only a privation,
it is only a negation. It is only a movement
of the will away from the good. If we want
to use an analogy, we could think of something like numbers, right,
negative numbers. Do they have an existence? Not really? I
mean they're a movement away from one right, And so
in the same way, analogies to evil are things like darkness,
you know, non existence, non being. Those are the many
types of analogies that are used for moral evil. So
it's not so much a metaphysical thing as it is
a moral thing.
Speaker 2: Would you would you agree.
Speaker 6: With misstatement, like something like the lion increases in being
and the zebra decreases in being.
Speaker 2: No, that's like when the lion kills like when the
lion kills.
Speaker 1: The zebra some ludicrous, What do you I mean, Because.
Speaker 6: That's just that's tomistic, Like it's because the lion, because
the lion is for its own good, the lions seeking
its own good and fulfilling its own good.
Speaker 2: But the zebra. Obviously what's going on for the zebra
is bad.
Speaker 1: So but that wouldn't have anything to do with their
their status in terms of existence itself.
Speaker 6: No, yeah, but I mean in terms of just like
good and evil, the zebra is being privated of it's good.
Speaker 1: Oh well, that's that's so. Even the Western Church makes
the Latins even make a distinction between different types of
the senses of evil. So there's a the privatory sense
is an analogy for the moral sense. So if we
say that there's you know, if I lack sight, that's
not the same thing as a moral evil. It's a privation.
I lack the faculty of eyesight, so it's a it's
a negation. But that's even distinguished from moral evil, which
is you know, when I intentionally move my will away
from the good to do something evil. So even the
Latins will distinguish that.
Speaker 13: If I could just add on to that, There's one
egesis of Genesis that I really like in terms of
connecting this kind of question is if you notice Day
two of creation is not followed by and it was
good or God identifying it as good. And the one
thing that you can notice here is this is in
creation where you start seeing a separation. And so then
the separation would be analogous to this kind of privation
or moving away from God. And if you're moving away
from God, that is what is not good, that is
analogous to the sin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the darkness of Genesis one is not evil, right,
It's some sort of you know, potentiality within creation for
God organizing, you know, the creative world, you know, the
original abyss, whatever that is. It's not inherently evil. And
again darkness just like just like darkness isn't evil, right.
I mean, scripture says you made the day, you made
the night, right, there's nothing wrong with with nighttime? Okay.
Those are just analogies to moral movement away, like when
we say you are far from God. Right, it's not
a spatiotempal relationship. It's a spiritual moral relationship. But that's
a good point. Kai kung pal chicken wait. Searching for
a dollar says uh, searching for Windell says Is the
evidence for logic working equivalent to the evidence for God's existence? No,
because I would say that in order to ground logic itself,
you need the type of God that we argue for.
So I'm not equating God to logic. How should I
start my journey to believe voice? How do I know? Voices?
Voices in my head are not the general God. So
we don't go from those kinds of like you know,
personal mystical experiences. You might have a mystical experience, but
that's not how we go by knowing God or knowing
these religious truths. Again, Scripture is where we start. Scripture
is the primary source of revealed theology. There's other sources
that it comes to tradition and you read the Fathers
and this kind of stuff too, But like it starts
in scripture and nobody denies this right, So you're not
going to be listening to and this is a temptation
I think for a lot of people who are maybe
new to Christianity or whatever. They start thinking, Oh, it's
God telling me to not go to this to work
at this place anymore. Oh, God's telling me not that.
You need the first and foremost learn what God's telling
you from scripture, not from what you think you feel
at this and that time. That a way, don't worry
about it. You need to be catechized in scripture and
in the church. Then you can make the accurate judgment
calls as to well, God was telling me that I
need to move to this city. God's telling me I
need to date this person or not date that. God's
telling you what's in scripture first of all, and then
you're making your life decisions on being in accordance with
what's in scripture. Right, So don't listen to this like
the charismatic gibberish nonsense. Right, if you want to be married,
God gives you the freedom to make that choice. If
you want to be single and inter amonastery, God gives
you that freedom if you want to make that choice.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 1: But so often people are like worried about God's will
for their life or what God's will is in scripture.
He tells you what to do right. I'm not saying
you can't have like a providential event that helps you
make decisions. But people are so obsessed.
Speaker 2: With like this.
Speaker 1: I can't wait for the dreams and the visions and
this kind of stuff. No, don't even worry about that.
God has told you what is good. Scripture says, so
you don't. You don't have to go through that bunch
of nonsense. You are. We already know what the will
of God is. It's revealed in scripture and in tradition
in the church. All Right, it cut out there Sometimes
discord crashes. But are you guys still there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, very good. I literally just lost my place.
Give me a second. Six.
Speaker 1: Okay. He has shown you, oh man, what is good
to do? Justice, love, righteousness, you know, et cetera. Scripture
says this. You don't have to be hunkered over in
a corner, flopping around the ground speaking gibberish, waiting for
some so called prophet in the charismatic church to tell
you what God's will is. It's in scripture, dude.
Speaker 3: And we have a history.
Speaker 2: We have a historical question. Do you believe that the
shroud of Turin was housed in Constantine.
Speaker 1: I don't have any opinion on it. I don't know.
I'm not opposed to this.
Speaker 2: It was, Isn't that historical?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I mean, I mean, how can you have an opinion
on a historical fact.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose some people can doubt what's believed to
be historical facts. I mean, it happens in Academia.
Speaker 6: Well, I thought the Crusaders took it from Constantinople back
to Venice.
Speaker 3: That's what I understood.
Speaker 1: I don't again, I don't have any pro or con
opinion of the shroud. I'm fine with it being Jesus
and a real relic or not. I don't have any
opinion on it.
Speaker 4: Next question is, would you, father, deacon, or another orthodoxicologist
in the circle consider writing a big book addressing frequently
asked questions about Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: There's probably a book for it already.
Speaker 1: No, probably not. Yeah, I mean I think we have
plenty of those already.
Speaker 2: So yeah, if we have plenty of catechisms, Like I'm.
Speaker 1: Not a catechist, right, if you want to come to
the discord, and you know, there's plenty of people who
can do catechisis that's I'm not here to do that.
So anyway, Yeah, the.
Speaker 6: Admins here can do basic katakiss, so the baptized ones.
Speaker 1: Anyway, there's plenty of resources for that.
Speaker 2: So what is your view on divine command theory?
Speaker 1: We have an aspect of divine command theory, but we
also have aspects of the other views. I mean, if
you're talking about moral justification like Utafro dilemma.
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 13: What is that?
Speaker 1: What they're getting at?
Speaker 2: That was just a question what was your view of it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: So if you're talking about the Utafro dilemma, I mean
I've answered this this many many times. We did Kallopian Club.
We had two different hour long discussions and two different
discord amas where we argued over this question. And I
try to explain that we don't equate the command of
God with so God doesn't have to submit to a
rule that's higher than him. And every time this question
is framed in the youth throw of the limit, they say, well,
then therefore God can just will the good to be
something opposite to itself. We don't believe that because we
have a different conception of God and the essence energy distinction. Right,
God's commands God's actions. What comes from God is on
the basis of his character, but it's not identical to
his character, so we don't identify God's will with his essence.
Speaker 3: Rip erse.
Speaker 1: Onward as theo Von says, onward.
Speaker 7: Okay, now what a back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, next question.
Speaker 4: Okay, So next question is what was the limit of
the Byzantine emperor's powers in the church.
Speaker 2: Could he appoint and remove.
Speaker 1: Bishops he's not supposed to. He probably was involved in
you know, those kinds of ceremonies or whatever. The emperor
can go behind the Kona stasis, so he's almost given
a quasi deaconant role because Paul describes the emperor as
a diaconos of God. But anytime the emperors tried to
do this, this was seen as a violation. I mean,
you have many heretical, heretic emperors who tried to do
this and tried to run the church and it never worked.
So but no, I don't think the emperors like took
over the church. If they ran the church and subverted it,
then we wouldn't have wor the doxy right, the heretic
emperors would have been condemned. But none of the heretic
emperors ever ended up victorious.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got a little bit.
Speaker 6: Pointed popes and stuff sometimes as well.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good point in the in the in
the West, its same problems, right, I mean the papacy,
as we just did that stream with snack, I mean,
the papacy becomes a tool of the Franks, and that's
not even in question in terms of history.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question is this is a really weird one.
I just feel like banning the guy for asking it.
But what's the rationale behind the church prohibiting first cousin marriages?
Speaker 3: Is?
Speaker 4: Uh, it's practiced throughout the world, and it's not prohibited
in the Old Testament. Also, the genetic defects that result
from it are exaggerated. Yeah, okay, but I don't want
to marry my cousin. I'm just curious, okay, don't I
don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, for.
Speaker 1: A friend, why can't I marry my president? I don't know.
Speaker 13: You look at the you look at the Arab world,
and then you say that the genetic defects is exaggerated.
Is not exaggerated?
Speaker 1: Bounty US five dollars? Couldn't a god of another faith
system have revealed himself to be similar in an essence.
In counter argument to TAG, no, because the TAG argument
is not just a rational argument for for our view
or an abstract argument. It's the TAG argument is the
entire Christian paradigm. That's the point. That's the strength of
TAG is that we're not arguing for a little piecemeal thing.
I mean, we might have to argue on the basis
of one area of the worldview at a time, just
because of the limitations of of us as humans, we
can only talk about one thing at a time. But
the argument, the TAG argument isn't just an argument for God.
If I'm arguing for the triune God, then I'm also
arguing for that whole paradigm, the God. Who didn't the
Triune God create the world? Didn't he have providence? Doesn't
he have you know, an incarnation, etcetera, etcetera. So it's
an argument for the whole paradigm, not just for an
abstraction of logical argumentations or mental structures or something like this.
So even if I start arguing on the basis of
logic or the metaphysical status of logical entities or whatever,
I'm just picking that as a place to argue the
entire paradigm. That's the point here. I'm not saying it's
true because I'm arguing for an entire paradigm. I'm saying
that that is the argument. The argument isn't just for
the Trinity, it's for the entire paradigm. You see. That's
why the argument is unique, because I can't argue piecemeal
and be consistent if I can't just argue for the
Trinity without the rest of the of the revelation of
the Trinity. Right, the revelation is holistic. It's not just
the trend, it's all the other dogmas they go along
with the Trinity. It's a whole system that I'm arguing for.
That's the point. So, no, you can't come up with
a ripoff version that's like the two god system or
the four gods system. That's all the things in your system,
but mine's for gods. Well, dude, that's actually just a ripoff,
and our argument is not divorced from history. Our argument
includes a God incarnate that's not going to be what
you argue for. Like, I mean, would you argue, did
did the four person God become incarnate? Really?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Well, guess what, dude, that's from us, like you're ripping
off us, right, you see what I'm saying. I mean,
our whole system is already a two thousand year old
into history system based on four thousand year prior to
that Old Testament revelation. It's an entire system that we're
arguing for the whole thing, including history, including the Church,
including the incarnation. It's all part of the argument. So no,
you can't consistently just say, well, I have a you know,
trinity in my head that I've come up with that
solves all the epistemic dilemmas of your trinity system, and
therefore why can't I just post mine? Because my argument
is the entire Christian paradigm, all of it, ten Commandments,
Jesus in history, all that stuff.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question, Uh, I was wondering if Jay can
give a short elaboration.
Speaker 2: Of theosis difnation. Uh. Yeah, How it differs from Mormon view?
Speaker 1: Well, so, our our view is not that you become
a God of your own planet.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Our view is not that God the Father impregnated but Mary.
We don't bear any similarity to the Mormon view. Our
view is what the Church always taught, which is not
the Mormon view. Obviously, it's a participation in the uncreated
energies of God, which is not what Mormons teach. We
don't teach that the triad is a literal Father with
a body who impregnated Mary. All this goofy crazy that
we don't teach that, dude. Come on, So there's absolutely
no similarity to the Mormon view, because the Mormon view
is like a space opera, you know, like you're going
to be God of your own planet and have celestial
sex and space babies and that. What are you talking about, dude,
that's what That's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 4: Next one is when God cursed the serpent to eat
dust all the days of your life.
Speaker 2: But that had been a reference back to Adam being
formed from and returning to dust.
Speaker 4: Was God telling the serpent that it would feed on
dead matter and thus death itself?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't think that Satan or the
serpent literally feeds on dead matter. But there is a
connection between the dust of the earth and the curse
pretty consistently throughout scripture. Absolutely, just like thorns and briars
and thistles will come up. That's an image that's used
throughout the Old Testament of the curse of the Fall.
So yes, in a certain symbolic sense, but not like
snakes are literally eating dead things or something like that.
Speaker 2: Okay, next question is this is from someone seeking advice.
Speaker 4: He says, how should I deal with the fact that
most of the priests in my area are gambling, drunkard
di divorces, gallivanting with women of the nine.
Speaker 2: So the christ I guess is, how do you deal
with the fact that you have bad priests in your area?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, first of all, I mean I'm not convinced
that gambling itself is inherently always wrong. There's a little
this is ambiguous territory. I mean, if if I have
a business venture and I take out a loan or
whatever to I mean, that's a gamble. So I mean,
at what point exactly gambling is this is you know,
we're not Puritan Protestants here with this kind of stuff,
but I mean, there there's really no church that's immune
to corrupt leadership, right, that's in Protestants, that's in Roman Catholics,
it's Orthodox. I mean, this is this is just a
problem of the human domain. So I don't have any
easy answer as to what you can do other than
to try to find the best that you can that's
not corrupt. I mean, can you go to a different
city that's nearby if it's a little bit longer. I mean,
I've had to drive one two three hours before to
go to church. And if you if you've got a
long drive and it's you can't do it every Sunday,
then plan you know, like once a month to do
you know, your one month trip to the church that's
two hours away or whatever. I had to do that
for a long time before I had something closer to me.
So it's just, you know, I don't have any easy
answer for that kind of stuff, but it is unfortunate.
There are a lot of corrupt clergy out there, no
doubt about that.
Speaker 4: Next question is, if the Creator is separate from this
cosmos in a manner opposed to pantheism and panentheism, wouldn't
the totality comprised of Creator us his creation be more
encompassing than the Creator by himself, such that the aggregate
of Creator and creation then comprise a greater entity than
the Creator by himself.
Speaker 2: And wouldn't this mean that the aggregate slash totality.
Speaker 4: Would then better fit the characteristics of the absolute or God.
Speaker 2: Then would the creator alone.
Speaker 4: I have heard in places that Orthodoxy is panentheistic, but
I'm not sure if most orthodox.
Speaker 1: Would confirm, Well, this is equivocation on the notion of
what is greater or not greater? I mean, on what
basis are you saying that because there is God and creation,
that's somehow greater. Now we would say, with Dionysius in
the Divine Names, that the fact that God creates he
did intend to create to express and to share his goodness.
He wanted to share himself and his goodness with creatures.
So that is in a sense greater. But that doesn't
mean that it adds greater to God himself, right, because
God did not lack anything. And Maximus himself deals with
this question many places in the ambiguity where it comes
up with Well, if you read Toolos and his dissertation
on Maximus covers this question about well, why did God
choose to create? And Maximus says, we can't say other
than out of his own goodness. But his goodness doesn't
add to being like like, oh, God lacked, he was
lonely or something like that, and so he created because
he was lonely and needed more.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: No, it's just out of pure, overflowing goodness and love,
is what Maximus says. So, uh, no, it doesn't add
to his being. And there's no there's no, there's no
aggregate goodness that like trumps the goodness that God has,
because the goodness that creation possesses is a participatory goodness
that God has. And by the way, panentheism is kind
of orthodox, so I'm confused as to what what what
that person is talking about. We don't believe in pantheism,
but we do believe that God permeates the creative order.
Speaker 4: Sure, okay, cool, it seems as if we actually got
through the questions.
Speaker 1: Also cool, Well, we've been going for two hours, so
let me see if there's any more of the super
check questions. Uh, there's a.
Speaker 2: Couple here that says we also got another one.
Speaker 1: Okay, now there's a few here. Let's let me go
back to where I missed a bunch of these. Well,
a whole much Kung Powell for ten dollars? Why was
the virgin Mary necessary? Could God create recreate without her? Sure?
But God always chooses to use and have humans participate
with him in redemption. God just wanted to do it
that way because again, like I said before, creation occurred
out of the goodness of God, not because God needed
or had lack. I mean, this is precisely one of
the reasons why we don't have a bare, strict monotheism
of a self existent person from all eternity. God always
had a over ever flowing, overflowing love from the Father
to the Son and in the Spirit. So there is
that triadic love and communion from all eternity. And so
God didn't create the world as a reflection of himself
because he was lonely or because he needed some way
to be Lord. He was always Lord right, the Father
was always Lord, He was always the cause in Arka,
and always had the Son. So there was always that
perfect triadic relationship in the creation of the world. Therefore,
is not out of necessity. It's not an emanation. It's
not a determined thing on the basis of eternal forms
in the essence of God or Platonism or anything like that.
It's purely out of goodwill. This is what makes Christianity
unique is that the creative world is a willful expression
of God's love and goodness in being and not any
kind of necessary emanation or determined process. That's the chief
argument that Maximus makes against Origin and Plotinus and all
these weirdos and creeps is that, no, it's not a
necessary emanation or creation, is not an eternal generation from
God or anything like that like the Platonist thought. So
that's what makes it unique. And therefore when we read
Genesis and we see that Mary, when we see that
Eve is the mother of all, right, now we start
to see how Mary is the new Eve. You see,
it's a common comparison. Mary is the ark of the covenant.
Mary is the answer to the destruction that Eve brought.
So that's why Mary was necessary in a secondary sense,
not that God needed her, but that He chose and
willed to have humans or someone like Mary be necessary
in the economy of salvation. So that's the answer to
that question. But thank you for that, Kung Paw Bounteous.
Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I think a lot of people sometimes, especially Muslim critics,
forget the whole concept of like divine drama and stuff
like that, Like how do you talk about and Athanasius
talks about how the crucifixion.
Speaker 2: Had to be a particularly kind of violent and kind
of obvious.
Speaker 6: Things so that people would know about it and the
economy and you know, like the divine counsel and stuff
like that. Like God doesn't need to consult with his
divine counsel to make decisions, but he does. And it's
like a divine a divine fittingness to all these things,
to this order because it's pedagogical as well for us,
it teaches us things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, God didn't need Abraham to intercede for Sodom.
Orrybody knew that he would, and he chose to operate
through Yeah, creaturely co operators. As paulses, we are God's
co workers. God didn't need Amos to intercede, but he
wanted Amos to intercede.
Speaker 2: Ythan says, well, that too.
Speaker 6: He's like God didn't need like he didn't need Moses
to raise his staff to split the sea or anything. Like,
he didn't need all these human specific human involvements.
Speaker 2: To a lot of the things he does well.
Speaker 1: The incarnation is thus a affirmation of the goodness of
creation and God's will to use the created order, because
it was always his intent to become incarnate and always
his intent to use the created order. That's key. Creation
itself presupposes incarnation. That's what's unique to orthodoxy. Let's see
Bounteous for five dollars, could God create? Wait, Noah, that's
the one I already answered, peak brain capacity a dollar.
If the world we are living in is not operating
the same way as described in Genesis because of the fault,
then evolutionary theory could be regarded as balanced science on
the basis of pure empirical evidence. Well, they're necess saying
it is pure empirical science or evidence. All data is
theory laden, All empirical experience is theory laden. Go listen
to this stef On volume debate. I outline the four
problems of basic empiricism that nobody in an empiricist tradition
can answer. Their basic well known classical problems of raw
not eve empiricism that have been asked for centuries now
ever since David Hume Willard sellers up in the present day,
William ben Orman Kwine, those are the basic problems that
empiricism can't answer. So you're wrong about the idea that
there is such a thing as a pure empirical data
or science or whatever. I can't see the rest of
your question, but that looks like where you're going. And
if you mean by evolution adaptation, nobody denies that species
adapt But if you mean by evolution this grand theory
of death being natural and AONs of time to produce
Adam and Eve out of Kate, Geico, Caveman or some
of this nonsense, then no, be chez wait searching one dollar. Okay,
I read the scripture, but I can't overcome my skepticism.
Well that was pretty quick too. That was like an
hour ago. So you you read the Bible in an
hour again, So it could be just a book. Well,
how can just the book predict the birth of Christ?
How can just the book predict all of these messianics
specific that one guy comes and fulfills. How is that
just the book? When you pray, does God speak to you? No,
it's again, it's not audible voices.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So Jesus answers this very question by saying, go to
the scriptures and study them, and you will see that
they have all kinds of things that show them to
be miraculous. Right, they predict the coming of them Assiah.
Look up the messianic prophecies start there, and then you'll
start to see that the book itself is of divine inspiration.
That's the visible proof argument that Jesus uses. Right, he
has no problem just saying, look, if people rise from
the dead, that's not going to convince somebody. If they're
not going to be convinced by the predictions of the
law and the prophets, they're not going to be convinced
by anything. So what I'm saying is, go and look
at the Messianic prophecies. I mean you responded by saying, oh, okay,
I went and read scriptures, but I don't see it.
Do you even know what you're reading? That's what I'm saying, Like,
you have to understand what you're reading, right, I'm not
saying just look at this verse, like, read the thing
and understand that there are prophecies of when the Messiah
will come, what he will do. Right, the Book of
Isaiah start there, So man light is right, Lucius for
three dollars, what is the Orthodox position on why people
are born with incapacitating illnesses? Well, because of the fall.
I mean all illnesses, all death, all decay, all of
that comes as a result of Adam's fall. I don't
know how how else to answer that. That's just another
problem of evil question, but thank you for that. Lucius
Militaris three fifty three. What is the Seraph and Rose
book on Genesis and Creation? Genesis Creation Early Man? And
I'm sorry it does appear to be out of print.
I was looking the other day at a lot of
different places and sites as to where it might be
perfect just and I couldn't find any. So I'm sorry
to say that that book appears to be gone. I
mean not gone, but I don't I mean you can't
get it for like under nine hundred dollars. Every place
has that book for sale for nine There may be
a PDF floating round, but physical copies apparently are sparse
because it's out of print. But maybe if you drove
to a monastery or a bookstore somewhere, you can find it.
Speaker 2: About you.
Speaker 1: Yes, this Creation early means.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think he's talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anyway, So I am going to continue this talk.
I think we'll close up the Q and A. I'm
gonna keep going because I did say I would do this,
and it is time to finally dude the Pelicon book.
So I'm not going to end the stream. I think
we'll close up the Q and A part and then
if anybody wants to continue with me here on YouTube,
I'll just continue doing this stream. But I'm not going
to keep doing the Q and A part. I want
to get into early church the development of the Patristic
tradition from Pelicon's book, because I did say months ago
I would do.
Speaker 13: This, and.
Speaker 1: Church of Eternal Logos tonight will do our part two
in the next few days. Jamie and I will do
our part two in the next few days. And thank
you to all you guys on the discord for chipping in,
and I'll put everybody's links and whatnot.
Speaker 13: J before you cut off, If if I could ask,
did you want to maybe make an announcement with regards
to what is Seminin's Metropolitan Joonna has.
Speaker 1: Planned for the server, Uh, sure, if you want, If
you want to go ahead and announce it, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can just announce this.
Speaker 13: So we're waiting on some more information hopefully forthcoming next
week sometime, but his eminence, Metropolitan Joonah has offered to
start up a weekly ctaschtical lecture your series right here
on Jay's discord, so stay tuned for that. We'll make
some more prominent announcements as we get more information, but
hopefully next week we'll we'll have a set time and
date when all this stuff is going to happen.
Speaker 4: And they're reminded to everyone watching the stream, if you want,
please do come to the discord.
Speaker 2: I'll break you personally myself. We'll ask all your dumb questions.
Blah blah blah blah. Love all of you.
Speaker 4: Jay, make sure to put my Twitter down there because
I won that Internet cloud.
Speaker 1: You know, I know I will do that for all
of you.
Speaker 6: By the way, hop over to Sam Shimunt Shimonian's channel.
He did an interview with Craig on the Orthodox view
of Salvation and I listened to as much of it
as I could and it's actually really, really, really good.
Speaker 3: So go and watch it after Jay's finished.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, after guys, am I going to be
cutting into a lot of people's streams. Is Cotel doing one?
I don't know, It's okay. I mean everybody can eventually
watched come back and wash. Yeah, yeah, it's not a
big deal. How many of people watching live. But I
am going to cover because I've got so many notes
on on Pelican, I took hundreds of pages of notes,
and I also have hundreds of pages of notes, well
about a hundred pages of notes on the medieval Heresy Book,
which all