Speaker 1: They've seen what it actually says. And we've hammered this
for months and for weeks and months. Well, but it
is it's true. Now they do they do worship.
Speaker 2: Oh I thought I thought was supposed to be so clear.
And the position doesn't change. No.
Speaker 1: You see, as Tim Gordon pointed out, you got to
know uh, Frega's linguistic theories to understand Vatican two. And clearly,
clearly anybody who has an IQ above room temperature would
see that the rate. The way to interpret Vatican two
is uh, you know Frega's linguistic arguments. You can't make
this up. That was his argument last.
Speaker 3: Night in Romans One, doesn't Paul talk about how no
one can claim ignorance because they can see, like they
can observe creation and infer there is a creator.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's the external witness is attested to in
their hearts. That that's why he said. And it's not
the intellect, that's what That's what we're saying, is that
it's the noetic. It's the noetic problem, not an intellectual problem.
The noos is the heart. It's not an intell The
intellect gets darkened too. But the only reason the intellect
gets darkened is because the noetic faculties the heart is
are dark is darken first.
Speaker 2: Just on Paul's talks that they then suppress it through
their unrighteousness.
Speaker 1: And who does he say that they're worshiping and serving
in verse twenty five? Is it the true God? No,
it's the creation. They exchange the truth of God. And
they don't worship and serve the God anymore, the Creator.
They serve the creature. Amen, their worship is not God,
it's the creature Romans one, which.
Speaker 4: Is what we've been seeing all the time.
Speaker 2: It's idolatry exactly.
Speaker 1: The whole passage is making our point. And it's not
the intellect that is the problem, it's the heart. As
Paul says, did they retain the true God in their knowledge?
They did not retain the true God in their knowledge?
Romans one eight. Are they worshippers of God? Romans one
thirty says they are what haters of God? If I'm
a hater of God? Am I a worshiper of God?
Roman Catholics?
Speaker 5: Well, you see, if the reference freaks according to by
freaking right thing about natural objects that don't apply to
things like God, then well of course it's worship, but.
Speaker 4: God just doesn't accept it.
Speaker 1: You see, well, the whole dat Vatican, the cons like, yeah.
Speaker 2: Just because people use is a Roman Catholic professor friend
of mine.
Speaker 4: Said, it's sort of stupidity.
Speaker 2: You got to go to school to learn. Yeah, like
go with your heart and your intuition, like I mean,
look at the poll before this started. Of course Christians
and Muslims don't worship the same God. And then all
of you are gonna get so caught up. And I
can do I can dance.
Speaker 4: You want me to.
Speaker 2: Dance Frega, you know, Krypti Parsky.
Speaker 4: I can do it.
Speaker 2: It's a whole bunch of nonsense, like intuitively, listen to
your heart. It's absurd, and that's what the poll showed, right,
And all of y'all getting confused, right, none of you
are to even understand like the depths of these kind
of theories of reference. But like lean into your heart,
like you know.
Speaker 1: Of course, we talked about this today at church, and
all the guys at church are like, I can't believe
that we're even having to debate this because even Protestants
just intuitively know. Of course, Muslims and Christians don't worship
the same God. Come on, it's just obvious they don't
and seeing the actions of the papacy tells us what
they mean.
Speaker 2: Well, that's because you haven't read Crypteme and Straws and
bertrand Russell.
Speaker 1: I have read some of them, but I don't see
how that's how that's going to help us with with
one John two when it says that if you don't
have the son, you don't have the father. So yeah,
here was the original poll in the midst of the debate,
seven hundred and thirty three votes, almost eighty percent agreeing
with us, and these guys were losing. That's Cameron's Catholic poll,
by the way, And.
Speaker 2: That's amazing, especially in this Dame age when everything's just fan.
Speaker 1: And everybody's fanboys and they're not honest. That's pretty amazing. Exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's actually says a lot.
Speaker 1: To remember. The gods of the nations are devils. Do
not go after the other gods. The things that gentile sacrifice,
they sacrifice to devils and not to the one true God,
the Trinity. First Grientia ten twenty Romans one, that they
exchange the worship of God for the creature and what
do the medieval papacy called the Muslims, infidels, demon worshipers, pagans, heretics,
on on dean limb ten dollars. They want to vilify
you guys so bad that they're willing to check out
the Superman Lowest Hill analogy. They're very deceitful and malicious.
I think that's becoming aware. See, I've been saying to
you guys since twenty eighteen, when all we had all
the loft In drama, all the Ibarra drama. I've been saying,
it's not me being mean. These people are devious and
they're slimy, they're snakes, And I think maybe finally people
are trying to actually figure out these something's off with
these Roman calogue dudes, the so called pop apologetic sphere.
Matt five dollars, Martin Luther, Uber Allas Luskiddell became remember
for four months, I love Clark Kent, but I hate Superman.
Jordan dearedof five dollars Roamed says that Muslims arnor Mary.
But how is that? They say? Is she honored by
saying that she will be Muhammed's wife in heaven is
that honorable to say that she divorced Joseph.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean they're just picking and choosing and ignoring the
ways in which Islam blasphemes and vilifies the Virgin Mary.
Straight why mel ten dollars? If a man worships a
demon disguised as the God of Catholicism, we have to
say that he is actually worshiping the same God as
we are, because they are corrupted by people infallibility. It
does seem like that right, like it would this would
be transversible, reversible, you know, in all these different ways.
And that's why Father Deacon was actually correct to say that, No,
I'm sorry, Protestants and Catholics do not have the worship
of the Trinity or Christ. They don't. They've lost it.
That's precisely why we don't grant that they have gracious sacraments,
because they've lost the faith. And we're not saying that
because we're happy or gleeful. We want them to come
back to the faith. Monarchical trinitarianism. And what you're hearing
here about Theophanes and the Trinity in the Old Testament
is the Patristic teaching. It is the Orthodox Catholic church's teaching.
It's the teaching of the first thousand years. The stuff
that Rome now teaches is the deviation, and it should
be evident to all for the world to see that
the papacy has deviated through the very actions of praying
in the synagogues, I mean in synagogues and moss towards Mecca. Well,
they're just suiting.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: No. In Roman Catholicism, you're not just sinning when you
do actions of apostasy, as we saw in Aquinas, those
actions cut you off from the Church and our specific
serious sins that automatically excommunicate you in traditional Catholic canon law.
They're not just random sens. It's not like sleeping with
your girlfriend. It's not like cheating at work or something
is stealing five dollars of the cash register. Yes, they're
all sins, but in Catholicism there are strata and layers
of sins. Some of the sins are so severe they
remove you from the mystical body. And as we saw,
one of those is heresy and apostasy. Those remove you
from the mystical body. In Catholic theology, as we already
saw tonight, that's mestichi corporus twenty three insideast conidum nine. Okay,
so who's next, tallahassee what's up? Down two to six
two dollars? Be careful, Jay, Superman is going to get you.
Sincere hypocrite five months. Mott and Bailey fallacy is that
Vatican two says they adorning worship the same God, but
then cats tray to cats repeat to well, but Muslims
misunderstand that God in worship to make the position seem agreeable.
Interesting it could it be a Mott and Bailey fallacy?
I think it is, because that's kind of just shifting
the meaning of the words, right, Probably, Deacon.
Speaker 2: And I'll go ahead. What was the question?
Speaker 1: We're we're investigating whether the Vatican to approach of the
Roman Catholics might be a Mott and Bailey fallacy. It's
a ahatorical tactic where one advances a controversial claim and
then when challenge, retreats to a different, modest, easily defensible
position of the mott and then pretends that the original
claim was never made. I think this is a Mott
and Bailey fallacy. That's a really good I think.
Speaker 2: That's I think so Father Russell was saying was the
stocking horse fallacy. I think it's similar, like you put
yourself out there and then you can retreat when the
deer or whatever you know in the analogy starts to
move and be like, oh no, no, no, I'm behind the.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So like if I say, well, they say, look,
we all worship one God, right, we all worship a
unitary unity in some sense, and it's a creator living
and subsisting in himself, as Vatican two says. And then
the bailey is the controversial claim that we all worship it,
and it's the same reference. And then when you get
into the specifics the speaker when challenged on the bailey
the difficult part, they retreat to the mott. Well it's
the same. But what about where I show that it's
not the same. Well, but it's just the same because
we say the word God together.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're definitely doing this, do you.
Speaker 2: And all these fallacies, right, do you notice the stemonic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a form of lying because.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look what the devil says, Oh, you'll
become like God's or like the devil himself is always
manipulating and equivocating on the words, right, taking a little
bit of the truth, which is actually has a reference
and then what.
Speaker 4: Does he do?
Speaker 2: He switches it and the.
Speaker 4: He dissolves.
Speaker 2: The boundaries have been like, well, it could mean this
and this contact and fix the reference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what they're doing. Yeah, they're they're interchanging the
definitions of the words depending upon what needs to be
argued at the time, and they're shifting. They're shifting between
specifics and generic. That's what they're doing. Misty Rain I
grew up in Protestant I was raised Protestant. He'd about Orthodoxy.
I thought it was Catholicism. I steered clear from it.
I broke away from Protestants because of unanswered questions. I
found your videos and knew I was on the right track. Well, yeah, exactly,
check out good you know Orthodox Church. I would avoid
the Greeks, Saint trifon five dollars Jay, I just joined.
Did you see that they're going to do a therapy session. Yeah,
I saw this is the They're they're crashing out and
so now that the actual issues are out there, they're
going to try to come after me personally and do
an exposed video. But like all it is, that's only
going to help us they don't even understand that, Like
nine percent of the comments.
Speaker 2: Are if they won, why are they doing.
Speaker 1: This exactly if they're confident and if they won, and
this is not but they know it's not. It's a
huge optics nightmare, which is why they've spent ever since
then just coming after me an FDA non stop midnight light.
Why would unbelievers Why should I say to non believers
that try to refute the Bible if they haven't read it,
Jesus didn't act like that he loves everybody. Well, they
have a false conception of Jesus. I mean this idea
just like Mormons, right, Mormons, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Messiah and the divine Son of God, the Father. Yeah,
but every meaning attached to those terms is not what
orthodox Christianity means.
Speaker 2: Because false conception of love as well, right, Because if
God is love.
Speaker 4: That's one of his energies.
Speaker 2: Can't not be loved. But then when he says I
came to bring the sword right Father against.
Speaker 4: Son the second world, well that's not loving, you see.
Speaker 2: But like, but God's always love, so that even division
right in rebuking and condemnation and judgment and casting out
is love. And so not only do they they not
have an understanding of like who Christ is, they don't
have to understand what love is, right, and so don't
ever grant that to people love is not emotional, you know, boomer.
Speaker 4: Hippie kind of like, yeah, just be like love is.
Speaker 2: Like there's an act of love in actually executing somebody
for Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, they think love is an affectation of being nice
and agreeable. That's what they think love is. Yeah, and
by the way, they're totally dishonest about what I presented
in the debate. I did I present the nine different
slides of the from the Middle Ages on Islam from
the papacy. I didn't present one. And this slide for
this example here from the Council of v N. It
makes basically the same equivalent point as the very first
one from Pope Urban about the status of Islam. Where
did it go? Islam is an infidel religion. Infidels are pagans.
Saracens are called pagans, So they're not monotheistic Abrahamic believers.
They're pagans. Jack Jack, Oh, okay, can you hear me?
Speaker 6: Uh yeah, yeah, I hope you guys are doing well.
I kind of missed the drama with all these discussions
the past, I don't know, going on for weeks or whatever.
But I am a Catholic and I was just interested
because my from what what I remember hearing from clergy
and whatnot, has always been that the Angel of the
Lord is the second person of the Trinity. That, uh,
basically every thing.
Speaker 1: That you've said, well, some Catholics are better than their
the some Catholics are better than their theology. Because most
of the academic ones will deny that. But if you're
talking to like just you know, a local priest or
something like that, he might actually just think from the
Bible and the liturgical tradition that it is, because it's
pretty clear in the Bible that it is. I mean,
when Justin Marter argues against Trifle the Jew, he argues
that your text as a Jew, show the aims of
the Lord to be distinct from the Father, and that's
the Messiah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think I actually recall hearing about that.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that in the later Roman Catholic
medieval discussions from Aquinas and then the responses to Palamas
from Barleum define that the light of Tabor is created,
and Aquinas explicitly teaches that these are just visions. It's
when when Abraham, when jo Jacob's wrestling with the angel Lord.
These are visions because God cannot be in time and
space because he's not a body, so there's no way
for the Lord can't stand there. He's not a body.
In fact, that's yeah.
Speaker 4: There was something today.
Speaker 6: A reading we had today actually for the Peace of
Saint Peter and Paul was from Acts right when when
Peter is in jail and he has a vision of
an angel and he's being guided out of the prison,
and it says that Peter thought that this was just
a vision and he didn't understand that it was really
happening until he was of course on the on a
side street in Jerusalem, and he realized that physically happened.
So I mean that I don't know if that was
the that was Christ, that being that angel of the
Angel of the Lord. I don't think it was, But now.
Speaker 1: I think that was just an angel. Usually it was.
Usually when it is at the Theophany, it's identified and
you'll notice there's a great paype. I would recommend it's
not very long because you guys have heard me reference
the Benjamin Summer book Bodies of God, which is the
Jewish text, the modern scholarly Jewish text that admits multiplicity
in Yahweh, in the Torah and the Old Testament. This
is a paper that somebody wrote at a seminar that
compares Sommer's analysis of these Theophanes, the Jewish scholar, versus
Aquinas's analysis in their Night and Day. And we are
saying that the Orthodox tradition is faithfully accurately presenting what
the Hebrew tradition is, and the tonistic metaphysic explicitly departs
from it.
Speaker 6: That's interesting. Do you know if anything in the chemistic
philosophy has been dogmatized per se?
Speaker 2: I think?
Speaker 6: I know, transubstantiation and probably a million other things have been,
but has there been anything about the.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think and whatnot? There are later
statements that what you for example, Trent says that what
you partake of, and for the Orthodox, the uncreated light
is the uncreated grace that we partake of. For for
Roman Catholicism, at Trent it is specified that the grace
that you partake of is a creature, so it is
not an uncreated reality.
Speaker 6: Even like like sacramentally being in like the mystery of
the Eucharist, like that would be something that would be
that's supposedly a creature, that would that's that's the.
Speaker 1: Maginst We would argue that Roman Catholicism, because of its
divine simplicity doctrine, does not have any explanation for what
the divinity is in the Eucharist.
Speaker 6: Hm, hm, can you expound on that?
Speaker 1: Well, we all agree, we all agree, we all agree
that no one partakes of the essence of God. So
if you're Roman Catholic and you have a strict Fourth
Laddering Council Peter Lombard doctrine of divine simplicity or a
Tomistic doctrine divine simplicity as your framework, then you're going
to be forced to say that the grace that is
itself in the sacrament is a creature. And that's what
Lili God says. Lili Gott says, the grace that you
get in your soul is a supernatural created accident.
Speaker 2: And why do you think Christopher, uh, doctor Christopher Thomas
Waswaski said, you don't experience God in the U chorus exactly.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, I didn't I don't. I mean, I am
not familiar with.
Speaker 2: That individual or what.
Speaker 1: Well, he's the Thomas professor. He's the Thomas professor.
Speaker 2: I'll give him that.
Speaker 6: Okay, what was So is it is there like a distinction?
I guess, I guess maybe maybe it's.
Speaker 4: A semanticable thing.
Speaker 2: Is it that you were not?
Speaker 6: Well, I guess you are. The eu Christ would be
the totality, like the Trinity is president as present right
and in the the body blood salon divinity.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean not in the same mode. So it
is the body and blood and soul and divinity of
the Son of God. But the divinity there, according to
Saint Cyril and the Council of Ephesus and Orthodox theology,
is the uncreated grace, light, and immortality of God, not
the essence of God. Cyril has two letters where he
talks about those, So that's the essence inerg distinction. And
Rome rejects that.
Speaker 2: And that's why Christopher said what he said.
Speaker 6: He's okay, so he said that you're not you're not
receiving that receiving God?
Speaker 5: Is that?
Speaker 4: Is it not?
Speaker 6: For the same reason though that you said that that
you're you're not receiving the essence of God. Is there
some sort of I'm sure there there is a super
philosophical dichot like difference there that I'm not that I'm
wollefully uneducated and can't understand.
Speaker 4: But we're not that chasing them. Obviously, they want to
say that you're in some way and it's contradictory.
Speaker 2: The essence of God is actually there because they according
to coins, the substance of the essence of God is there,
and the substance of bread is removed, and the accidents
remain in the accidents that here in nothing rather than
the substance, which is contradictory itself.
Speaker 1: Well, they're not going to say that you can eat.
Speaker 2: The essence of the actual essence.
Speaker 1: So they're going to have to say that it's a
way of seeing.
Speaker 2: You partake or directly experienced God. So he said what he.
Speaker 1: Said, it's right here in loud with God. The sanctifying
grace that is in your soul from whatever source when
you're baptized or the uchus or whatever, is a created,
supernatural gift, really distinct from God. So it is not God.
But do you notice proposition five. It is a participation
in the divine nature those are tradictory statements because there's
no such thing as created God.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, that's that is interesting.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, good questions. I appreciate that. We always welcome
a civil Roman Catholic calling in DZ the king. What's up,
straight white male? Five dollars. Maybe Muslims can actually join
Sam Shimmun's Apostolic church exactly the one that he made
up v Scott five dollars. They're trying to draw a
wedge between you and FDA now, saying if you look
at Jay, he was mean, but FDA was nice. All this. Yeah,
all they have is this stuff they don't know. They
can't address sexual issues. Orthotoko's ten dollars just one second.
Here is a simple one for the Roman Catholic slowboys.
The Council Florence says Tranitarians are condemned unless they become
Nontrinitarians are condemned lest they convert to papalism. Vatican too,
says Muslims worship the true God and should be esteemed.
That is a contradiction. Exactly what's up?
Speaker 7: Hey man, Thank you for taking my call. So, yeah,
I was listening to your conversation. You and father, Deacon
with Trent and the gentleman. And I believe it was trying.
He was trying to pay you to do a syllogism
for your for your argument, and I don't believe you
gave one, not that you had to give one at all,
but I just took the luxury of making one. And
I wanted to just hear your thoughts or receive if
you could poke holes in it for me.
Speaker 2: I want to before you begin, I want to I
want to spell pylogism for you. S I L L
y T your O s M I s M. Now
go ahead.
Speaker 4: I appreciate you Father, thank you.
Speaker 2: I have sorry speak Peppi and this Alexia. It's hard.
I'm sorry for give those things.
Speaker 7: But no, I but I appreciate your father and I
everything that you do. I read a lot of your works, Father,
and you taught me a whole lot. So yeah, So
what I have here is premise one, which is you
can't honor the father without honoring the son.
Speaker 2: As Jesus clearly says in the in the.
Speaker 7: In the description right, and primise too is honor is
a necessary component for worship. Honor is a necessary precondition
for the possibility to worship, right, like, you can't to
do any type of worship without first honoring I think,
And Primis three would be Muslims reject honor to the Son,
at least in the sense that Jesus demands that you
have to honor him, to honor the Father, as we
Christians believe. So the conclusion therefore, Muslims don't worship the
same God as Christians.
Speaker 1: Father Diagan, watch your assessment.
Speaker 2: Sorry to you, just repeat that again, sure, father, Primis one,
you can't honor the Father without honoring the son. Primis two.
Honor is a necessary component of worship.
Speaker 7: You can't worship without first given honor. Primist three, Muslims
reject honor.
Speaker 1: To the Son.
Speaker 7: Yes, Muslims don't worship the same God as Christians.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna just do this request. Let me just write
it out.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that seems to be valid, actually, and it includes
the belief operator too, so and which would be honor
which was the point that I was making with the
Berlian stipulation.
Speaker 4: Right right.
Speaker 7: And I remember you giving one argument, father, and I
can't remember what that was on, but I did want
to ask I guess one of you guys just before
we depart.
Speaker 2: I think the only.
Speaker 7: Way that a Roman Catholic could poke a hold of
this would be premise. Three Muslims reject honor to the son.
Maybe they were trying to redefine what honor is or
some how make some type.
Speaker 1: Of Well, we're just saying worship. I mean, the whole
debate is over worship, so why not, right, I mean
Muslims do not worship the Sun, So just put it
that way.
Speaker 7: Okay, awesome A I love you two guys, Thank you,
and I appreciate your.
Speaker 1: Yeah, straight white male, I know we did that one. Sorry,
Laser Turtle Productions ten dollars. I came to a faith
by way of AA. Oh, you mean like addiction. I
struggle with obsessive compulsion. Matthew eleven twenty eight is holding
me by a thread. I respect you deeply. How has
Jesus transformed your life? I'd love to hear from you.
I mean in a lot of ways. I mean, my
whole life has been totally changed, you know from I
don't I think, and as you get older and as
you live your life, you don't think about Christianity. I'm
not saying you're doing this, but you don't really think
of it as like one thing or one big event.
I mean, there may be a Pauline event in your
life where you have the scales you know, fall off
or whatever. But I think as you get older, you
just see it as something that you, you know, kind
of gradually takes over your life, you know what I mean.
I think that's the point is to grow in it.
Come to me, all you labor here heavy laden, and
I will give you rest. Yeah, I've definitely seen that
to be true. Orthozowski two dollars again, one John two
twenty three. Yes, we just we mentioned it earlier. I
don't see how that's not a kill shot. I think
Jesus and the Pharisees and one John two are pretty
much the kill shots. Because you notice when I brought
them up, they turned their eyes. They wouldn't even look
at the screen. And to me, that says more than
if they had at least tried to give some kind
of sophistical answer. But they turned away because if you
deny the son, you don't have the father. Muslims deny
the son, therefore they don't have the father, Therefore they.
Speaker 2: Don't When they asked me question, Mike, well, I'm not
going to answer that.
Speaker 1: If I said anything like remotely like or acted in
any way remotely like the way they acted, the all
Roman Catholics would be going crazy. It would be the
end of the world. They would be like, he's done,
his career is over, he's you know, Saint trif On
five dollars, jay I just joined. Did you see that
they're having a therapy. Yeah, we said. The Orbo mental
breakdown is because you asked william debate. Williams are running
for six years and Orbs are deceiving people on the camera.
The Gatholics can cry together coptic brow three dollars. Great work,
Father Antonius. You held down the rest of the debate.
Certified soy boys that admitted that communion and the liturgy
is not an empirical experience of God. Well they're Thomas,
so God isn't in time and space? Is how silly?
This says the grace and the things that are in
time and space in the Thomas system are creatures. The
soy deflected to transubstantiation. Strong Man Soyman admits Roman Catholic
God is an Orthodox God. Yeah, it's not. Tun one
hundred and fifty dollars well, thank you, Jacob. You is
a huge super chat. Try upping your persuasiveness in your
augmentation to the room acalacs by smacking a bunch of
apples and then smash them into your mouth with your
boxing gloves. Also, I need to let some flies room
loose in the room because of it head flies landing
on his head. I just noticed later on as people
were talking about laughing about it. Also, I'm a website member,
I can't get access to the member's stuff. All you
gotta do is come over here to the website. It's
probably so simple that it's boomer level stuff. Literally, everything
when you're logged in is just on the member content
page right here. So when you're logged in, you go here,
you scroll down and it's all on one page, and
you click the links to the audios or whatever. So
it's all one page. And want to remind you guys
too if you want to go ahead and get pre orders.
Esote collag With three will be out in the next
few weeks. Don't have an exact date yet, but it
will be in July, so sometime next month. All of
our products are here, but sign copies of every book.
Esoteric Hollywood three the completion to the trilogy. Nine almost
ten years of Esoter Hollywood, so this will probably be
the end of the trilogy. If I get a wild
hair down the road, I might write about movies again.
We'll see what I feel like going. But this is, probably,
at least for the nearer future, the conclusion to the trilogy.
So if you want to get your signed copies, go
ahead and click the link in the show description and
head on over there and get your name in for
so Soteric Hollywood three. But remember it is still a
few weeks out, so don't message me complaining in the
next few weeks. Where's my books? Also, if you order
parts one, two and three, or anything together with three,
it will not be shipped until three comes out, So
don't order one in two and three and then be like,
where's one in two? It's all going to come together.
I cannot go through hundreds of orders and sift out
individually doing separate orders for the people that want their
part twos. That you'll just have to get it all.
It's just way too much, just a nightmare the way
we can do that. So you'll just have to wait
a little bit longer. But thank you. T FONK and
hopefully that helps you if you just log in, everything
is literally just under this tab. This as member content.
Let's see if you guys also have going to donate
as well to FDA, so the super chess will also
help FDA. And I apologize for not having the website
to updated in a couple of days. We've just been
so covered up with a debate, so I should get
this all updated very quickly, and we will soon return
to finishing the geopolitical text by Blumenthal Management of Savagery.
That's going to be complete very soon, and that will
be our next geopolitical discussion. And I forget what we're
doing after that, but it's going to be funny the way.
So follow me also on AC if you don't follow
me there. But yes, all books from the website are signed, guys,
you don't have to request it. They're automatically going to
come sign. That's the whole reason to get into the website,
and not some Jeff bezos heils from nine x ten dollars.
Are you actually losing sleep over any of those losing sleep?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: But after the debate, I had had so much coffee,
you know, was so ramped up exactly what happened. Yeah,
just like father Deacon, Like we were both having coffee.
Speaker 2: I typically don't drink unlike Jay, who would drink coffee
until like, oh, I drink it all day long. Yeah.
I typically won't drink coffee past like three, but I
think I drank some coffee till like five.
Speaker 4: And uh, you know, you're just.
Speaker 2: You're intellectually charged and you're thinking through arguments and you're
on the caffeine that like immediately after the debate, like
you try to go to bed, like your mind doesn't
shut off.
Speaker 1: Yeah, your mind doesn't shut off. My mind didn't shut
off until about four in the morning. So and I
had a lot of espress. So yeah, exactly, I mean
for real, Uh, Hailstrom says, just keep doing what you're doing, homeboy.
A good chunk of why myself and many others will
be converting to Orthodoxy. My family's baptism is July sixth,
Well many years man, that's awesome. It's raining steak five dollars. Remember,
like I said to you guys, like we had a tradecat,
just show up today at liturgy. He's like, yeah, I'm
done with the trade cat.
Speaker 2: So we had two Mormons show up that converts really
Mormonism into Orthodoxy day from Mino.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, so like recent converts that they've been Orthodox
for a while.
Speaker 2: No, like within the last year. Yeah, and they were
talking you know, I didn't interject, like when they were
talking to Father Russell, but like they were talking about
all the stuff they left Mormonism over the stuff that
we were actually talking about.
Speaker 1: And yeah, this is a bunch of nonsense people saying
that debates don't do anything, and nobody gets convinced by debates.
I meet people every day that get convinced by debates.
So that's just simply not true. Some people don't like debates,
and that's fine, you don't have to. But many, many,
many people do like debates. It's raining stake five dollars.
The largest Christian nomination is this far gone to of
the Roman Catholics. It's truly scary if you think about it.
It is this is the power of the ecumenist movement,
and it's the unfortunate nature of this sort of Masonic
a humanist, perennialist idea. The current state of things make sense.
Thus with this, it's really all theology and philosophy at
the beginning of it and end of it, isn't it. Yeah,
Ultimately it's our paradigms and our commitments, you know, Harry
Sarpanos five dollars. The Theophanies nail all this. Thank you
Jay for exposing these heretics. Yeah. I think ultimately, if
we get into these biblical texts, that's the end of it.
I mean, look at number twelve, right, and then Yahweh
came down in the pillar of the cloud and stood
at the door of the tabernacle, hm suko two dollars.
Did you see Lofton's response to the Pope's letter? I know,
I haven't. I don't even know what the Pope's letter is.
What's I haven't kept up with Leo. I have no
idea what what's going on with Leo?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: What's Leo's letter? And I don't watch Michael Lofton, so
I don't know. I haven't looked at a Michael Lofton
video probably five years, So I've no idea what even
talks about Pope leo letter? What's his letter about? An
emotional letter to.
Speaker 4: Is this.
Speaker 1: New or old to Jews? Is this it? Two days ago?
Leo's letter to all priests for Tell me now, I
want to know what the letter is. Which letter? There's
a bunch of things coming up. I don't know which
one it is.
Speaker 4: Me.
Speaker 1: Look, o J what's your opinion? What is your opinion?
Ten dollars on be In? I think he's got mental problems.
I would stay away, don oc two to six. Two dollars. Careful, Jay,
Superman's gonna get you up. Howdy. Five dollars give me
a tld R on schismatic Orthodox. It's not even worth
your time, man, It's just like twenty people on the internet.
It's not It's not even worth it. Greg the Brion
ten dollars, Thank you, gentlemen for this great stream. We
got some more callers here. Somebody tell me what the
law the LEO letter is now. I want to know
what this is. I'm not gonna sit here and read
all of pots.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna bounce, man, Why.
Speaker 1: Are you bouncing?
Speaker 9: Now?
Speaker 1: We are bout it. It's probably gonna get crazy. Now,
you gotta go. If you gotta go, you gotta go.
It's fine. We'll see dude. Just do one or two more.
I'll send you some money. Samurai, what's up?
Speaker 4: Let's do a couple more.
Speaker 1: Okay, Samurai, what's up? I'm you.
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: We lost him, tag Ormond. We're looking for people, by
the way, who disagree, So I'm gonna go. You get
to the front of line if you disagree. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: I still want to know what the letter is?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 1: These people, tad, I'm me it.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: All right? Moving on? It's all the same people that
always call in. I'm looking guys. I looking for people
who disagree. So raise your end. If you disagree, I'll
go to you. Zoom Kant, I'm trying to go to you.
Go ahead, and I'm you hey, man, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 9: First of all, thank you for taking my call. So
I'm still kind of halfway in when it comes to
like Catholicism. But before we get into it, I would
just like to clear up an analogy because I think
this is a very dangerous analogy and if it was
very hopeful when it comes to my debate background when
it comes to these things.
Speaker 2: Because you have to study it.
Speaker 9: First of all, you disagree with the cal L. Clark
Kenton Superman analogy.
Speaker 1: Correct or No? Yeah? For multiple reasons.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think I'm gonna try and what do you call?
Speaker 2: This?
Speaker 9: Package up everything to a more comprehensive way, because what
they were doing, even though I slowly go into the
Catholic site, is very problematic, right, and I think it's
very ubiquitous to every Catholic who watch that and why
they voted for you as the winner. Right, So, as possible,
I'd like to provide this very short clearing of the analogy.
Speaker 2: Would that be okay?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 9: Because the problem is they presented a false twin fallacy.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 9: The problem here is that they say Clark Kent is
kal El. Superman is Kalel the Muslim see Superman and
we see Clark Kent.
Speaker 2: I think if you actually will, if they presented that
to you, you instantly can't come up with a rebuttal.
Speaker 9: But I think you should have agreed with them and
slammed them from the very beginning there, because what they're
presenting is they're presenting this analogy even though what they're
presenting in reality is a false twin dichotomy. Because if
you actually ask Clark Kent, hey, Clark Kent, do you
believe that killing your enemies is actually will actually solve
the problem Clark Kent would say, no, I don't believe
in killing my enemies. And if you ask Superman, hey, Superman,
do you believe in killing your enemies, and that it
would actually solve the problem. Superman would then say, no,
I don't believe in killing my enemies because when you
what you unders need to understand here is God. God
has two identifiers, external identifiers being there.
Speaker 2: He is the God of Moses.
Speaker 9: He is the God of Abraham, and he has internal identifiers,
identifiers that indicate that it is him, even though you
don't know it's the God of Moses. That is Jesus
telling love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you,
do good to those who do evil, to right. So
that's the internal and the external. What they're presenting is
a false twin dichotomy. I know it's a false twin fallacy,
wherein they say you have a twin here, Twin A
is the good person, Twin B is the twin of
twin A. Twin B looks like twin A. But here's
the problem. If you date twin B, if you make
a child with twin B, even though you love twin A,
you're still making a child with Twin B. If you
ask Twin B if his principles are the same as
Twin A, it will not be the same. They completely
externalize the identifier of God by removing the internal identifier
of God, which completely.
Speaker 6: Doesn'mates every single principle that the.
Speaker 9: Catholic Roman Catholic stands for.
Speaker 2: Do you see what I'm saying?
Speaker 1: Can you be more specific on what you mean by
an internal identifier because you use like Jesus talking about
loving your enemies and I'm trying to understand what you
mean there.
Speaker 9: So basically what the Church teaches is what I'm trying
to say, the values and principle that the Church teaches,
which completely goes against the doctrine of Islam.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that in identifying who the God is,
you can't divorce it from the ethics of the God.
Is everything is?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Yes, what the God teaches you to do with the God?
Speaker 1: Yes? In fact, yeah, I was I would. I was
agreeing with that same idea when I was saying that
it's more like a set theory where what you believe
about the deity is like a set of numbers. I'm
just making an analogy here. So let's say I have
a set with ten numbers in it. If I remove
one of those numbers, even though a lot of the
other numbers are similar, it's still a different set. So
it's mutually exclusive. So you're correct if you say that
I worship love and adore the God of Abraham, but
I believe that the God of Abraham tells me to
kill my enemies, and he creates evil as an actual
ontological thing.
Speaker 2: And he's deceive and.
Speaker 1: He deceives, he's the best of deceivers. Then clearly that
is not the same reference as Abraham's got in reality.
Speaker 2: You know what the other problem is too, is that
when you construct a fictional story, you put yourself in
an omnission mood.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's a great point, and that's the thing in
question is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like we're on the other side, right, and
we're trying to determine we don't know, right, We can't
actually see that. So there, they've already begged the question.
Assume what they wanted to prove that the same deity.
They can just be wrong, but it's question, right, So
what do they do? Well, let me create a fictional
narrative about a man named Superman, which this case actually works.
It's like, how ridiculous is that?
Speaker 1: Again? I think that my Bill Cosby analogy is the
one that's accurate saying the way the Bible is presenting
the false gods. Go ahead, what's up? Man Cyrus? All right?
He can't, he can't connect, But thank you for the
dick and I agree that was That's exactly what we
were getting at. Tracts. What's up? Tracts? And then Dylan,
go ahead, Dylan, I'm you, h Dylan, do you want
to talk? Owen Owen, I'm you.
Speaker 10: Hey, Guys, I have a disagreement. Okay, I'm presenting it
on the behalf of someone who's not willing to come
on the show.
Speaker 2: A friend of mine.
Speaker 10: I'm an Orthodox catechumen, and I have a friend who
made the bold claim which I disagree with.
Speaker 2: He made the bold.
Speaker 10: Claim that epistem propositional knowing is not relevant and can
be discarded within the Orthodox framework. And I wanted to
know what's the best way to tackle that proposition?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, why would Saint Gregory Palamus write the
Apodictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit using apidictic logic of
Aristotle to argue against the Phillyoquey, if conceptual knowledge was
to be discarded. I mean, all of the dogmas in
the Orthodox Councils are listed and explained conceptually. So the
idea that concepts are bad is silly. They're just not
the highest of what we are aiming for and shooting
for as Orthodox Christians. We want direct experience to participation
in God, not just knowing about God, but knowing.
Speaker 2: About proper order. It doesn't mean that second and third
things are bad, right, So people cam nuances and so
they're just like, oh, the most important thing is it's
this or nothing right, So it's just intellectual and spiritual laziness. Also,
I want to bring up too, because I saw this
so many minute criticism me that oh, well, the father
deacon Nys was used in twentieth century analytic philosophy to
answer his people and stuff like that. Don't forget that
Saint Gregory, the theologian, Saint Gregory Nazis received the same criticism, yeah,
and that he was like, oh, that he was talking
to philosophers and using their language and he was learned
in philosophy. He was receiving the same criticism, and he
responded back when speaking to philosophers speak in a way
that you can win you know, speak philosophies basically philosopher over.
So there's no canons to say I can't use twentieth
century analytic philosophy to speak to analytic philosophers that they
might win them over to the truth. And so there's
something similar with that too, like obviously with this, you know,
and the gospel reading today was literally from Matthews, seek
first the Kingdom of God. So it's about priorities, like
we don't put intellectualization philosophy first, but like, don't be
so immature in childlike to be like, well, you know,
it's either this or nothing. It's like it has the place.
This is the third and fourth place, and you speak
to people in a language they they can understand, right,
and everybody is saying Demetro's Standale says that you know,
every philosopher might get something wrong and so far as
they hit the truth right.
Speaker 4: So I just feel like it's spiritual.
Speaker 2: And intellectual laziness to be like, well, there's no it's
I'm either or like you've got to disregard this.
Speaker 1: And also it's also it's it's important, it's party signaling.
It's insecurity, and it's also christologically wrong because Jesus didn't
reject having a rational mind. In fact, he assumed a
rational human mind, and every rational human mind has concepts.
So the idea of tossing out conceptual knowledge because it's
not the highest knowledge is just kind of silly. Han,
what's up, I'm your.
Speaker 5: Hi Jay?
Speaker 2: Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 11: I've really been enjoying listening to your analysis of Yahweh
and Abraham. So I wanted to kind of go a
little further into that and try to try to understand
the trinity from your perspective, and uh that the trinity
is basically defined as three persons in one being or
one one God. I want to understand what is your
definition of person? And this is leading to something. What
is your definition of person?
Speaker 1: An orthodox Christian theology? A person is a subject or
an agent?
Speaker 2: A subject or an agent? Okay?
Speaker 4: Does does a person have their.
Speaker 2: Subject or agent has in essence? It has properties? So
even grammatically speaking, like all predicates belong to a subject.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 11: So in your theology, does a person have their own mind?
Speaker 2: A person has a mind. Yes, a person has a mind.
Speaker 11: So are there anything Are there any persons that do
not have their own mind? No, no, okay, is a
business legally a person?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 1: Well, legally they might be treated as but they are
not ontologically a person.
Speaker 11: Okay, they're they're legally a person, but not ontologically a person, okay.
Is so I guess that the question is then, is
how many divine minds are in the trinity?
Speaker 2: One one?
Speaker 11: Now, if there are three persons and a person has
their own mind, how does that work with being one
mind in the trinity?
Speaker 1: Because that one mind exists in a different mode between
the persons. So each person has that one mind uniquely
in the mode of being the son, of being the Father,
and being the spirit, just like the will of God
is one that exists in the mode of the three
persons that have it. So properties of nature like mind
and will are common, but exist in a unique mode.
Speaker 2: And also, I would say too, unlike us, our persons
are contingent upon and determined by Like we don't have
a personhood apart from our material instantiation of our essence
of humanity. So that's why we have separate minds. So
in philosophy, and although we can share a common essence,
the principle of individuation is separation is a material instantiation.
But because the trinity exists prior to that, obviously the
second person's incarnation, right, mind is a property of the nature,
the essence of God, and exists in a unique mode
each person. They can all share one mind without actually
being distinct like us.
Speaker 4: Does it make sense?
Speaker 13: Do you realize what you're doing is equivocating?
Speaker 11: No, because if if there's three persons in the trinity,
a person has their own mind, then there's three minds.
Speaker 13: In the trinity.
Speaker 4: I just said, do not equate.
Speaker 2: I give the principle that separates equivocation between created person's
immateial and stantiations.
Speaker 4: Versus persons in the trinity.
Speaker 2: So you can't use the objection of equivocation with me.
I literally knew you were going to go that way
and block that by actually bringing up that point. So like, no,
the principle of individuation is matter, right, So not personhood,
I said, with our personhoods, because our essence or individuated
and matter, it separates, but that persons whould exist transcendent
in the trinity to matter. So no, you can't use
that objection. I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: Okay, So see I want to make this point because
this is distinctly what separates your theology of the Trinity
with the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter day Saints.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's uh, let's talk about that, because.
Speaker 11: We give each of these persons their own mind. Okay, no,
but no, where.
Speaker 1: I want to But but this, none, none of this
matters because for you, God is a man who's a
creature who evolved to become God. So this is preposterous.
You're with and again, does your does your church teach
that God the Father is a man with a body
who evolved to become God.
Speaker 13: This is about mine.
Speaker 1: So you're not going to talk about are.
Speaker 2: You familiar with it? You're ignoring that.
Speaker 1: He's not going to answer it. If you don't answer questions,
then you get dude.
Speaker 2: Matter versus prior to matter, and your whole theology is
based on matter man becoming God. So you're never going
to win this argument. Congratulations.
Speaker 1: I already booted him because he won't answer the question.
Tracks that travel I was kicked out of the Twitter space.
I didn't kick you out. I want to talk about
the seventy weeks of Daniel prophecy. I mean, I'm a
preterist in that text, so it was fulfilled at the
first advent, as the text clearly says banana team for
three dollars. Jay, I wasn't saying it was Leo's letter.
I was saying, Michael Luften did a response to you,
the papal bull that you brought up in the debate.
He says, it's not magisterial. I mean, they always say
it's not magisterial, So I mean, but that begs the question,
doesn't it. What is the criteria to know when it
isn't isn't magisterial and they don't know. They can't tell you,
soap drinker, So raise your red if you disagree, I'm
going to people who disagree. And if you won't answer
questions that are erect questions like that. Notice we answered
his direct questions, every one of them. As soon as
I asked him about God the Father being a man
with a body who evolved and who is a creature,
he ignored it twice. So so yeah, so what's up?
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you for letting me on. I'm just here because.
Speaker 14: Sadly after or you actually said that we shouldn't be
listening to Sam anymore because he is like like he's
you know, Iffy, And there is something that he said
that I thought was really.
Speaker 2: I think that was very important. He said that, like,
so if you if somebody does like something.
Speaker 15: Bad to you, you don't have to.
Speaker 2: Forgive them unless they ask for forgiveness.
Speaker 6: Is that true?
Speaker 2: Because this is no can I skip and j So
this is what my Montanica therapy workshop was with Father Turbo.
What forgiveness is. So forgiveness isn't no not you're sorry.
It doesn't do anything to the person, so the person
doesn't have to actually be sorry. Forgiveness is a release
from the captivity of the memory of the past. So
what forgiveness really does, just like any release from sin,
is released you from captivity. So it doesn't mean don't
you know, ignore or forget don't remember.
Speaker 4: You remember it, but you're not.
Speaker 2: Held captive by that. You release yourself right, because it's
all about theosis, right and acquiring the virtues. So whether
somebody actually wants they're sorry, what's forgiveness? You can forgive
somebody because forgiveness is about actually your ontological in terms
of your state of your character and virtues, releasing you
from what would hold you captive from progressing suits that
you say, I released myself from the memory of that.
I still remember it, but I'm not being held captive
by it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could forgive people even if they don't add
ask for uh, you know, forgiveness, because you want to
do that. That's going to be in the best interest
for you, not just for your salvation, but also as
far as you can stand so you're not imprisoned to
you know, resentment and hatred. So you forgive them so
that you can be free. But that doesn't mean that
you let people walk all over you. You do not
have to keep interacting with somebody who is abusing their boundaries.
Speaker 2: You can cut somebody off. You're just no longer held
captive by this. Every sin is holding you captive, right,
So that's why the unforgivable sin is unforgived, like the
unwillingness to to repent us and forgiveness and all of
this wrapped up its captivity is what it is. It's like,
you will you can't progress to become like God if
you're held captive by So we forgive others even as
God forgives us, and if we don't, will be held
captive and judged by the same standard, because that's who
we are. So it's not that God sentences us. It's
literally just an ontological declaration that like, you're held captive,
and you're not like me, because I'm free from captivity
and then released myself from from a hold captive of anything,
whether distractions, any sins or passions. And that's what forgives.
That's why we forgive.
Speaker 1: Brax and bull at five dollars a day. Explaining to
Ezekil thirty seven, it's brought up by dispensationalists. Yeah, I mean,
there's nothing about this that is literally about like modern Palestine, nation,
state of Israel. This is talking about the Theophany. By
the way, it's the presence of the Holy Spirit here
in the Old Testaments, I know it is the third
person here. It's a triadic passage. We have the Father
here or Yahweh here, and we have his spirit coming
upon the valley of the dry bones, and the prophecy
that these will all be resurrected. So in the teaching
of the church fathers, this is usually applied to different things.
It's an application to baptism and being raised spiritually from
the dead. It is also a prophecy of Pentecost and
the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecosts upon those who will
be empowered to go forth. I will put my spirit
in you, and you will live. And it is also
a prediction of the end of the world, the final
day resurrection, when we will all be resurrected to glory
and vindicated in the Kingdom. And thus that one kingdom
is the Church of God. So dispensationalists will make all
this apply to some nonsense. We're in the nation state
of Israel right now. When the promise of a singular
united kingdom, the two sticks here that will not be parted.
They will never be divided into two kingdoms. And God
says I will be the king, their king, and they
will be my people. David, my servant, will reign over them.
That's Jesus. Jesus is the David servant that will be
the prince of this kingdom. The Tabernacle that is forever
with us. All of this is interpreted in the Book
of Acts to be the first Advent and to be Pentecost.
Is it always get this mixed up because it's talking
about the Tabernacle of David, which is Acts fifteen sixty.
Excuse me, so when Peter starts preaching about the same
promises and the same expectation of this uniting of the
kingdom as chatologically, it's not the end of the world. Ultimately,
it is the first Advent, when Jesus brought the end
of days, brought the rebuilding of the Tabernacle, which is
the resurrection of Jesus's own body. Jesus's physical body is
the Tabernacle of David that's restored. The Church is the Kingdom,
which is the true union, which will never be divided.
That's what Ezekil thirty seven is about. It's the first Advent,
and it's Pentecost, but it does look forward to a
bodily resurrection in the eschatological final Kingdom, where Jesus is
in all and through all. As Paul says in Corinthians,
I raise your id. You disagree, and I'll go to you.
I want to go to people that disagree first. And
by the way, if you're like the Mormon dude, and
we answer all your questions and then you ignore our
questions twice, you'll get rid of anybody disagree. Raziam. We
got twelve people on line what's up, Ragiam. Dylan disagrees.
What's up, Dylan, I'm your.
Speaker 2: Hello, Yeah, how's it going.
Speaker 16: I I sent that chat in earlier.
Speaker 2: Oh c b aa whatever laser turtle there.
Speaker 16: But yeah, my my way to faith has been unorthodox
and kind of that sense of the word, but from
like a material logical standpoint in terms of being saved
and salvation and everything. You know, I found a kind
of theological dead end.
Speaker 4: In uh a A.
Speaker 17: I'm not sure to what except you're familiar with that,
but it's kind of a non religious path to God, which.
Speaker 1: Yes, we did a one podcast and I'm familiar with
the basics.
Speaker 17: Yeah, and you know, but there's there's kind of a
dead end to it. And the more I've kind of
researched and read.
Speaker 2: Into some of the.
Speaker 17: Early kind of church and that all that sort of stuff,
being that it can be borderline gnosticism and it's not
long term fulfilling and I'm just like constantly searching grasps.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I mean I would say, check out an
orthodox church. I appreciate you coming on. That's not really
a disagreement though, so I'm looking for who disagree, Yeah,
just check out a look at Orthodox Church, Trey, Matthew First, Praezer,
Caleb Slinger to any of all disagree, raise your hand,
We'll go to you. Nobody disagrees, mister White, do you disagree?
Trey disagrees?
Speaker 9: What's up?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Hey man? What's up?
Speaker 1: One at a time? Mister White? First? Go ahead, mister White.
Speaker 4: Oh hi, hello? Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 1: All right? Moving on wasting our time in the beginning tray,
what's up?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yah? Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 15: I'm just inquiring into both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: I saw the debate.
Speaker 2: I guess I'm going to try and see if.
Speaker 15: I can kind of, in my own mind just kind
of steal me in the Catholic position. I've been listening,
you know, to what you've been saying. So hope we
don't bring up something that you've kind of been, you know, listening.
Speaker 4: While I'm on a walk.
Speaker 15: Okay, But wouldn't wouldn't the position it would kind of
relate back into what was that kind of baptism with desire,
wouldn't it? Like I understand that like they could be
relating to like I love Clark Kent and then like
you're saying, I love Clark Kent too, but you think
Clark Kent is the actual Superman.
Speaker 1: But then I know this analogy doesn't This analogy doesn't
work because Islam is not I wasn't I.
Speaker 15: Wasn't gonna repeat their analogy. I was gonna I have
a different one. So what I just said it backwards. Sorry.
What I was saying is that we're both saying that
we love Superman. You think Clark Kent is Superman, but
I think this random baby is Superman. So our reference
is actually different, even though we think it is the same.
But would that not be covered under the baptism of
desire kind of kind of thought?
Speaker 1: How is the baptism of desire which is based around
invincible ignorance or right?
Speaker 4: That's what I mean?
Speaker 2: Like, like, if you are choosing the good.
Speaker 1: Again, the Muslim possession is not ignorance. It is predicated
on an explicit rejection of the Trinity and the deed
of Christ. Mm hmmm, So it's not the invincible ignorance position.
Speaker 15: Okay, Okay, And so you because I grew up Protestant,
and so you grew in a Protestant, did you have
the similar experience where like you kind of just didn't
even know what orthodoxy was.
Speaker 4: You know, and so how could you know?
Speaker 1: What do you mean?
Speaker 4: You know what I mean?
Speaker 15: Well, because you know there's the whole thing of ecclesium.
You know, there's no salvation outside the church, and so
but what if you just don't know it even exst
But I.
Speaker 1: Mean that, But that's different from pointing to the dogmatic contradiction.
So I might agree with a Roman Catholic that there's
such a thing as baptism and desire, and their Eastern
church fathers talk about that, and they talk about baptism
of blood, et cetera. But that's different from saying, okay,
but Muslims, Christians, and Jews therefore worship the same God.
You can't get from invincible ignorance and baptism and desire too,
we all worship the same God when Islam is predicated
on specifically rejecting it. So it's no longer about they've rejected,
the desire's gone, Like they're saying, I don't desire that God.
That's Islam. And that's the false equivalence that Muslims that
Roman Catholics are saying, is like, well, what's wrong with
about desire, And I mean, I'm not making fun of you,
but like many of them have made the same kind
of line of argument. It's like that would work if
you wanted to make if you if you restricted your
argument to invincibly ignorant pagans, maybe you can make an
argument there if you're for the Roman Catholic position. But
this is a Muslim, which is a religion predicated on
explicitly rejecting the Trinity.
Speaker 18: Jake, I was just so wondering about what it seems like,
like why do you like like brush off the true
Orthodoxy people? I Protestants just like to use that as
a talking point. It would seem good for you to
properly address and the people address.
Speaker 1: It's been addressed by David uh Ahon years ago. And
I don't have to redo all the stuff that David addressed.
Speaker 2: We could do it really years ago. Like Orthodoxy includes
uh uh sy right, Like you can't. Well they said
that they.
Speaker 1: Have, Well they said that, but their synod was basically
two people in Europe, so one of him was dead.
What's up, Singer.
Speaker 2: They're not recognized by any legitimate Orthodox right, so you
can't whatever problems are going to the church. You can't
skuz him and be like, well, and again it's a
very Western problem to make everything abstract and be like, well, see,
I have the true faith and propositional form, and I'll
split out from the incarnational community of the Orthodox Church.
And it's yeah, which.
Speaker 1: Is exactly Kyle ten dollars. Why does Romanthosism do this
to people? Cameron seem reasonable before he was Roman Catholic.
Now he's defending all this nonsense. Well, I mean, you
guys are overlooking the possibility that some people were just grifters.
Sam went from saying that Muslims worship demons to saying
that now Muslim's worse of the true God. Well, I
mean he's buying into May's the way He's got a
defend it, right, and again, maybe all they're all grifters.
Who knows? Michelo j Five dollars Do I have to read?
That's what they're Collagwood one to read three? No, uh,
Mercado five. They they're independent books. They're just different films
and different structures of which films are analyzed by themes.
Mercado five dollars. Thank you for helping an ignorant Protestant
find the true faith. Is an absurd amount of infighting
that you get from these papists or ship fight. Yeah,
they're it's it's unfortunate. I actually feel sorry for the
Roman Colo's had to remind myself of this today at
church is like, you know, I remembered what it's like
being a miserable trad cat and that's where all these
people are. Suko ten dollars.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 1: The YouTube autocracked is crazy. I was trying to say,
Michael Lofton made a response to your claims about the
Pope and the first Crusade. I'm not I don't really
care what Lofton does. Honestly, Guys like like I was saying,
I'm always going to be doing open for him. So
anybody who wants to call in if their Catholic, can
do that. But there's no more public Roman Catholics that
are worth debating. Somebody said we need debate Matditics. I've
been asking Jerry to debate for like seven or eight years,
and he always puts it off. I might still do
the Tim Gordon one, because I've already said I would
do it if we find a big platform that will
not be obviously, I'll never go on Cameron's channel again.
So if we find a big platform, I'll do the
formal debate with him. But I mean, I mean, there's
just no These were supposed to be the two top
tier philosopher professor Roman Catholics, and so then everybody else
is like, yoga, what about this other guy? Well, why
would I go a tier down? Those are supposed to
be the top tier.
Speaker 2: So and that's what Cameron did. He brought what he
thought was gonna be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Cameron thought he was bring in the top tier.
And I mean so like, it's just like when the
Muslim the Muslims did this. You didn't debate the real Muslim,
the real apologists. You're scared of Shaik so and so,
who you've never heard of, by the way, you're scared
of the hidden Hi Mom. You won't debate him. It's
like the no true emom fallacy, Like you can't you
haven't debated the real Muslim. It's and then when you
debate all the Muslims, it's like there's nobody else to debate.
I tried to get Muhammed a job to do it,
and he wouldn't do it. So I wasn't I didn't
have enough clout sos. Same in the Roman Catholic world,
there's not anyone else there. There's nobody else left. People
are saying Ruslan, No, in the Roman Catholic world, there's
no more Roman Catholic public apologists. That's why I'm saying
I don't need to debate any public Roman Catholics anymore
because there aren't any. They're done, like, there's not another
one to do. Voice of reasons not going to do it.
And we saw their top two be basically childish crashouts,
so we're done. Like that's the final boss defeated. Dude,
I don't have to play Zelda all over again. Already beginning,
I'm being silly, But let's talk. Got ten dollars Pope
Leo the fourteenth and Jelous address June twenty June ninth,
twenty twenty five. We can speak of acumenism of blood
that is unseen and profound, a unity amongst Christian Church
is not yet full and visible. Yeah, I mean that's
just standard ecumenism. Laser Turtle production two dollars. I was
away from your desk, Dylan in the Twitter chat. Okay, well,
if you're disagreeing, you'll go to the front not Alan
rogers five dollars on a scale of acumenism one that
zero to ten, would you place the idea of salvation
quote outside the church? Well, the phrase is ambiguous because
do you mean just out of the visible confines?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: I mean yes, in the sense that God might join
people to the mystical body in ways that are extra normative,
which we don't see or have access to, Hence things
like baptism of desire or baptism of blood, this kind
of a thing. But that doesn't mean that we then
necessarily affirm all the Protestants and Roman Catholics have gracious sacraments.
We would not say that. Howdy, five dollars, can you
gray the Brian? Thank you for this stream, gentlemen. Ten dollars.
Is Rodriguez jam orthodox? I know you're looking for. Really disagree.
I disagree on the Theophany and Genesis eighteen.
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh, heykaank you yeah, thanks so much.
Speaker 2: Man to here, everybody to bless you guys.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, now that I got to a super chet,
Israel is going so I don't see Israel Rodriguez anymore.
So sorry, I just saw your super chet, but you're
already going Joe Mama one two three A question, what
do you think critics of tag like Malpass get wrong
about the argument that'd be a better one for FDA
because he's kept up with reading Malpass and I haven't,
So he's seen more of Malpass's like recent critiques, So
I don't know what he's been arguing in the last
couple of years about it. So not Alan, No, we
did that, demon Clatt two dollars? Why did you block me?
Why are you salty? I called you a pussy. Stop
acting like a pussy. That's why I blocked you. I
didn't block Apostate Profit because I'm a pussy because I
wanted to do the debate. I blocked him because he
kept commenting and getting on my nerves. And you're just
wasting your money because any more super chats like I
just won't I'll just refund them. It's like I'm calling
you a pussy. Why do you not want to talk
to me?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Why do you think Matthew Logan, Matthew, I'm you guys.
Speaker 4: Do a hit?
Speaker 1: I can share? Uh, where are we at over here?
I don't understand, Like do you not want to talk.
People call in and they just sit there or doesn't
it doesn't connect. I don't know, Slinger. I'm mut.
Speaker 2: Hello, can you hear me? Okay? I had a question.
Speaker 19: I'm inquiring about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and I heard you
say before that at the beginning, basically everyone's in the
same boat trying to figure out But it's just the
means you could use to try and get to the truth, right, Basically,
that's kind of what you said.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe I said
something like this one time.
Speaker 19: Basically, when you're trying to figure out what's true at
the beginning, all three people are in the same boat.
Oh yeah, at the end of the day, you have
to use you know, you have.
Speaker 1: To Yeah, you're you're relying on the Holy Spirit to
be you know, convinced as an individual. Yeah, I got
you know, Okay.
Speaker 19: I wanted to give you my reasons why I'm considering
Orthodoxy to be true, and if you think they're good
reasons or not, or if it's it's like just not
good reasons.
Speaker 13: One of them is kind of the exclusivity of it.
Speaker 19: How like everyone will say your guys' is sacraments are valid,
but you guys, you guys.
Speaker 2: Say no one else's are.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like, I actually think you're onto something here,
because if we want to compare this attitude to the
Church's attitude in the first millennium and how they spoke
about itself, only the Orthodox continue that attitude. So I
think you're on the right track of looking for markers
and indicators of the true Church, one of which would
be consistency of confession and ideology about itself.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 19: And just to give you my background, I grew up Pentecostal, huh.
Speaker 13: And the whole.
Speaker 19: Thing was it was all just about like singing warship songs.
Speaker 1: Emotionally something, Yeah, that's the Holy Spirit, right, emotions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and your.
Speaker 19: Whole thing where knowledge, you know, the Holy Spirit to
use knowledge and research and all these other things.
Speaker 13: Just looking at the exclusivity.
Speaker 19: And then another thing is this, let me know if
you think this is a bad reason to consider it
when you just consider that everyone says your guys's sacraments
is okay, No one says you guys are heretics.
Speaker 13: I kind of got over the icons.
Speaker 19: Because I actually went to an Orthodox church with my friend.
Speaker 13: I went twice and.
Speaker 19: I see an icon on the wall, and it was
people venerating the cross. I believe in the early three hundreds.
Do you know what I'm talking about? So the whole
idea what I heard when I first started asking questions, Well,
well they didn't venerate icons to like the year eight hundred,
but that pushed it forward like five hundred years basically.
And I want to know if you think this is
a good argument. From what I understand, the councils happened
to refute people who are disagreeing with something important.
Speaker 1: Correct, and something that's usually been clearly done already for
a long time.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 13: So another the thing I the logic.
Speaker 19: I used to get over the icons. I want you
to know if you think this is a good logic
or not. Constantinople. I've read the first three councils.
Speaker 2: I'm waiting to read the rest.
Speaker 13: Good Constantinople is to confirm.
Speaker 19: The deity of the Holy Spirit, and that's in three
eighty one, right.
Speaker 1: Correct, Well that's part of the council. Yeah, I mean
it condemns a pollinarianism. It uh adds to the nice
and creed, So it does many things, because.
Speaker 19: Okay, but my point is everyone knew the Holy Spirit
was God for three hundred and fifty years, but it
wasn't one hundred percent confirmed until someone disagreed with it.
Speaker 2: Correct, you get what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Counsels meet to usually address heresies that are growing,
right right.
Speaker 19: So then that kind of made me realize, well, maybe
icons were a thing the whole time, but like no
one cared to beat them until.
Speaker 1: Well, there were some early there were earlier disputes and
people who disagreed about imagery throughout the centuries, but it
doesn't seem to become a major issue until the time
of the Seventh Council due to, for whatever reasons, originist
influence amongst a lot of monastics. So this for some reason,
and this is Mayandorf covers this in his book, This
got a lot of them the monks thinking that on
the basis of Neoplatonic ideas, all of these images should
be done away with except for the Eucharists. Or what
if for whatever reason they thought the Eucharist was like
the one that should remain. But I would say check
out the documentary on an orthodoxy Hata on Old Testament
Christian worship being the same, and then that will also
help with that whole dispute Israel. Oh, by the way,
before you get on Israel, I want to add that
I think that you could make an argument along the
same lines as that guy that if the Seventh Ecumenical
Council has an anathema service, and that's kind of the
expectation that the church will continue this anathema service, there's
literally only one church in the world that still does
the anathema service, and that's Orthodox. That's kind of another way,
kind of like iconography and the decree of the Seventh Council.
In icons like Rome doesn't follow this anymore. They don't
really They give verbal credence to the Seventh Council, they
don't actually follow it other than just giving lip service
to images. But there's a lot more in the Seventh
Council of just lip service to images. So when you
read the Seventh Council and when you read the Synauticon,
which is the eight forty three reaffirmation of the Seventh Council,
like this service is normative for identifying the true church,
you could argue and if no other churches do it,
then there's no other church that is the same church
of the eighth and ninth, seventheth and ninth century church.
Do you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 2: No, I don't take shit.
Speaker 1: I got no love for the free beast.
Speaker 2: If you want to play tough, I want to hate
this and I don't never slow up. No, I don't
take shit. I got no love for the bapist.
Speaker 13: If you want to play tough.
Speaker 20: And want to hate this, I know we're showing up
the biggest statement.
Speaker 2: I don't never stole up. No, I don't take shit.
I got no love for the bapist.
Speaker 20: If you want to play tough and want to hate this.
Speaker 2: Athough, we're showing up the bigges statement.
Speaker 20: Everything I do so instinctive and so passionate. Every word
I'm moved so descriptive, like in natistive. I got a
vandetta against people who've gotten it being negative when you
should be getting after it. I got facts over facts
over traxs, and that's being so speaking fast. I can roast,
I can guess think I'm okaying least, but I don't
know if that can erase all the now.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The reason I'll play that is not that I'm arguing,
because I know people are gonna say this, They're gonna
misinterpret the argument. The argument is not that you have
to perform this service perfectly to prove that you're the
true church. My argument is rather that I know, I'm
aware that local bishops can add to this. For example,
Metropolitan serve from a preas includes Zionists and Jehovah's witnesses
in the Anathemas. So it's not that the service has
to be done in some sort of magic formula where
you read it perfectly. I'm saying that the service itself
is normative for the church identifying the heresies and reminding
everyone every year what the heresies are. And it's a
giant list. If you read some of the larger, longer
lists of the Sonoticon Service, the Anathema Service, then this
is an easy identifier for what the Church of the
first millennium is. And no one else does this. What's
up Israel?
Speaker 2: That? What's going on? Man?
Speaker 1: You want to talk about Genesis eighteen?
Speaker 21: Yeah, I mean I don't claim to have like certainty
as to what it says, but I back before Shamoon
lost his marbles, I mean he was arguing Theophanes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 21: I started learning about the Theophanes.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean I've heard him times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he was pretty good at.
Speaker 21: It, I mean, you know, And and I had wrote, Ah,
I was taking notes on one of the talks that
he was doing on it, and I kind of like
made an article where you know, he was basically arguing
or refuting the position that, oh, well, it's not multiple
divine persons that are present there, it's just a Hebrew idiom.
But you know, there's some examples of Hebrew idioms that
you have where like Solomon is referring to himself, but
it's it's different. And you know, if you go to
let me see him trying to so obviously, you know,
you have the three men appear right, at least one
of them is God, at least one of them is
the Lord.
Speaker 2: But then it gets interesting when.
Speaker 21: In twenty to twenty one it says, then the Lord said,
because the outcry against Sodom and Gomora is great and
their sin is very grave, I will go down to
see whether they have done altogether to the outcry, according
to the outcry that has come to me, and if not,
I will know. So the Lord is speaking, and then
he says, I will go down, and then in twenty
two it says, so the men turned from there and
went towards Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but so, but that's before Abraham does this intercessory move.
So the plan in twenty one is that Jesus and
the two ael this is my reading, Jesus and the
two angels are going to go do it. And Jesus
is like, I'm off to destroy them and Abraham in
an intercessory way. And then we see this in Genesis elsewhere,
you know, where he prays and he says, you know,
if there be a few righteous, right, well you let
the you know. Right after this is when he starts
bargaining with Jesus for their lives. So I think that
that's prior to Abraham stepping forward. If Abraham had not
stepped forward, Jesus would have gone with the two men
to do it. And this is like when you see
if you read the book of Amos, Amos does intercessory
prayers for Israel because God is going to destroy it,
and God says to Amos, had you not interceded, I
would have destroyed them.
Speaker 2: Okay, I think I see what you're saying.
Speaker 21: So you're saying that words says, and the Lord went
his way when he finished.
Speaker 2: Speaking with Abraham.
Speaker 21: You're saying that that that includes the intercessory prayer, which
first not just so in thirty three where it says
and the Lord went his way when he finished speaking
with Abraham.
Speaker 1: Well, in nineteen one, it doesn't sound like the Lord
went with them.
Speaker 21: Because there's a I'm trying to find the part here,
because there's a part where it says like the Lord
rained fire and sulfur or whatever from the Lord out
of heaven.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: And then there's another verse.
Speaker 21: I think I'll pull it up over here, and I
think it's Isaiah is a thirteen year I think it's
thirteen where it says he says, look, I am rousing
against you the meads, who do not regard silver or
have need of gold. They will crush young men's arrows,
and they will surely show no mercy to your children.
Speaker 2: Their eyes will not refrain even at your children.
Speaker 21: And Babylon, which is called which is called esteem because
of the King of the Chaldeans, will be as when
God over through Sodomigamora.
Speaker 2: So you have like this and again like correct me.
Speaker 21: If I'm sort of missing the initial point you were
making about the conversation because I'm trying to grasp that,
like the timeline.
Speaker 2: Because you have well the Lord reigning.
Speaker 1: Sorry, go ahead, which verse you're reading from in isaiahare.
Speaker 2: Isaiah thirteen seventeen to nineteen.
Speaker 1: I'll sort of the meads up against them who will
not regard silver, Babylon, the glory of the canyons. I
will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Speaker 21: So it's like one person referring to another, kind of
like in Isaiah forty eight where he says, you know,
you know, the one speaking is identifying himself as you know,
the first and the last, and then he says at
the at the end of that little section, he says,
and now the Lord has sent me in his spirit.
So it's sort of that sort of that that that
language where you know, you know, the Lord said to
my lord kind of language where you have the Lord
referring to the Lord doing something else and they're both
participating in that action where the Lord.
Speaker 1: Rainfire, I say Lord in Genesis eighteen, though I think
the strongest argument here is in Genesis eighteen. It's specifically
twenty two. That tells us that only one of them
is Yahweh, because they're all going to walk away. And
then Abraham stands before one of them, who's Yeahweh?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 21: And I recognize that the one standing before them is
Do you think that that sort of negates the language
of the Lord, rain fire from the Lord out of heaven?
Speaker 6: Like it?
Speaker 2: Because you do have some Hebrew idioms that use something,
but it doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, it doesn't like when we go to Genesis nineteen.
I understand what you're saying there. But like in Genesis nineteen,
the two angels that go to Sodom, they're not identified here,
at least in the way Lot treats them. Lot does
not treat them or act the way that Abraham acts
to Yahweh.
Speaker 2: That's a good point.
Speaker 1: So a Lot treats them in a reverent way, and
he calls them lords, but he does not call them Yahweh.
So let's see what and remember a Lot is a
righteous man according to here was eleven. So let's see
what the word is here in Genesis nineteen, because that
might help here in two.
Speaker 2: Let's see what I can put it into the exegetical
up here.
Speaker 1: Genesis nineteen two. It says, behold now my adon, which
is like, I don't I lord's owners, masters, super attendants, kings.
So lords is just a generic term for a master,
which could be divine, it could be human. Well, but
what I'm saying is that he doesn't treat them the
way that Abraham treats Yahweh in the previous chapter.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I mean yeah, I think you make a
valid point.
Speaker 1: Also the Orthodox view, Like I'm not aware of any
acceptance or position that there's an angelic representation or excuse me,
that there's ever an angelic energetic manifestation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, me either. That's why I was sort of iffy
on it, because like I knew the lang.
Speaker 21: Which sort of you know, an argument could be made
for it, but I didn't know of the I know
that there's also theological implications in these things you could
like not just like interpreting it however you want, Like
that has to be submitted to that right, And I
wasn't familiar with the patrictic understanding of it, So.
Speaker 1: I just yeah, if you look at the way they
in the Moscow Icon Council, which is just kind of
repeated that all the theology is in the laws Ky
alspens Key book. In volume two of that, there's a chapter.
There's two chapters on the Moscow Icon Synods, and when
they talk about this issue, they argue that and they
actually get really really deep into all these theophanies, like
super deep. A lot of time is spent on the
Ancient of Days and Daniel seven, but they also get
into all of these as well. And I don't recall
and I know that's not an infallible council, but it's
you know, it's still got a lot of wisdom that
we can draw from, even if it's not infallible. They
tend to just say that you can only do the
spirit as One interesting question I have is like, oh
wait a minute, I just realized something. You can only
do the energetic manifestations of Father or Spirit the way
they're presented in the New Testament. I just realized that
because it's only tongues of fire and dove. And that's
interesting because in the Old Testament there's reference to the
glory Cloud as the as the spirit. But it's interesting
that the that the Moscow Synod is is saying that
you ought not say depict the energetic manification of the
Holy Spirit as cloud. I don't think they. I think
they say that it's only well but the reason they yeah,
well they're actually you could like you could argue that,
like there's icons that show clouds, you know what I mean.
Speaker 21: But yeah, who was I was just reading somebody that
was saying that the cloud represented like the apathetic nature
of are understanding, Oh yeah.
Speaker 1: That could be. Yeah, well, the thing I'm saying what
I'm saying there about the one of the reasonings that
that synod has is that it refers back to see
it two, and it says that you cannot use in
the churches or in the icons any of the symbols
that were proper to the Old Testament. So for example
that it says, don't do Jesus as a lamb, which
is interesting because the Roman Callouy Church violates that. But
and the reasoning is that it's not proper to it's
not proper to depict Christ in iconography as a lamb
anymore because he's now incarnate, so it would be like Judaea.
It'd be like going back to the Judaic thing. And
that's the reasoning. Also, I would have guessed why you
shouldn't do Holy Spirit as glory cloud. But I'm just speculating.
Speaker 21: Yeah, that's interesting. There was also one more thing, just
something that I mentioned in terms of Catholics being deceptive
with their language. And it's interesting in the context of
Islam because a while back years ago, Shimoon did a live.
Speaker 2: Stream where he sort of just brought somebody on and
let them speak. His name is Lloyd de.
Speaker 21: Jong or something like that, but he was lecturing on
gnosticism and hermeticism.
Speaker 4: Yea, yeah, it was.
Speaker 2: Really good because he's he's pulling from the.
Speaker 21: Forty thousand dollars Encyclopedia of Islam, and he is in
terms of the gnostic aspect of it.
Speaker 2: There's four levels of knowledge.
Speaker 21: And the first one, which is called ibarra or if
tita in mysticism. And mind you, they don't claim mysticism
in their religion, and yet they're Encyclopedia is giving a
mystical uh, a definitionally mystic definition for these things.
Speaker 2: And it says the.
Speaker 21: Literal language, which is unsuitable for esoteric topics, right, the
coded language.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the type of stuff that doctor Khalil argues.
He says, yeah, this is exactly why we're shiah.
Speaker 21: Yeah, and it's also why the emms and the teachers
don't tell people these things, sort of like how most
Catholics don't know that they worship the same God as Muslims.
Because unless you actually go into the debate and you
start parsing out what your belief actually is and need
to defend it, then this stuff comes up.
Speaker 2: But this stuff is settled at the.
Speaker 21: Bottom when the waters are still and everything's cool until
you have to dig all of that up and then
you realize, well, that's it's intentional because when you go
to the second level of knowledge, called eshara, it says
a gesture, sign, indication, and rhetoric acquired the technical meaning
of illusion and then allusion to refer to implied or
indirect reference. And in Latin, which is also interesting, it's
add luterae.
Speaker 2: Which means to play with words.
Speaker 21: And in mysticism it's the esoteric language of the inexpressible
mystical experience, symbolic expression, a silent gesture or sign.
Speaker 2: So it's funny, isn't it like that?
Speaker 1: That sounds like that sounds like words, that sounds like
Sufi stuff where you can just allegorize and turn it
into anything.
Speaker 21: Yeah, because when you're the teacher and you get to
disperse this information in a way that simply gets people
on your side, you're going to play with words. And
it's funny because in this whole thing, it's like, well,
we'll do Catholics and Muslims worship the same god. Evidently
so and it's not our god.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 21: I mean you have this deceitful system and these deceitful
teachers who are literally just like, as long as you
get people away from the truth, of course you can
twist the words.
Speaker 2: What do you actually mean by that?
Speaker 1: So I just thought that's great. What was the fourth
tier of the knowledge?
Speaker 21: So there's two more, actually, and the second one is
pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: It's called Latifa.
Speaker 1: Who are you talking about? What you talking about? Latifa?
Hold up, man Hola, why are you telling my Lati?
Speaker 22: She ain't here, she's getting all up In mysticism, the
subtle organ a theory of levels developed from the time
of najim Aldin Kubra Mystics of his school.
Speaker 21: What's interesting about this third level is that it's actually
linked to the word lilat, which you know how in
Greek like the wisdom is the sofio, well, the the count.
The Islamic counterpart to that is Lilac, which is sacred knowledge.
Speaker 2: Now what do you think that translates to in Hebrew?
Speaker 21: In Hebrew law, Yeah, well Lilac in Hebrew is literally lilith.
Speaker 1: Oh I thought you meant what his tradition translations.
Speaker 2: Oh no, so the word translated into Hebrew. Yeah.
Speaker 21: And you know, in Isaiah thirty three there's mentioned to
this demonic figure, which is interesting because like the Bible
describes these demonic figures as you know, uh, demons who
seek out waterless places, dry and waterless places spiritually and physically.
Speaker 2: Also, and it's interesting because Mohammed was.
Speaker 21: In a dry, waterless place in a cave with a
demon who.
Speaker 2: Basically physically assaulted.
Speaker 21: Him, and Lilith in this whole demonology thing, like you
get into the Kabala and all this weird uh Judaic mysticism.
Speaker 2: She's a succubist, Yeah, who tries to him having this.
Speaker 21: Encounter with a demon that perfectly fits that description. And
then you have that basically sort of uh implicitly in
in their mystical uh teaching. And then the fourth level
of knowledge and I'll finished up with this.
Speaker 2: The is called hakika haikika chu.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it.
Speaker 21: Says reality, essence, truth, and rhetoric. Now in mysticism, and
this is interesting. And missism is the profound reality to
which only experience of union with God opens the way.
So in their understanding, that would be what Muhammad attained to.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and I have more notes though, but that's
the basic for four levels of it.
Speaker 1: State Akika again, uh.
Speaker 21: Hakika reality, essence, truth and rhetoric and exegesis. Al Hakika
is the basic meaning of a word or expression and
is distinguished from madijas and philosophy has an ontological and
logical meaning. The ontological meaning is best translated by nature
or essence, essential reality. The logical meaning is the truth,
with the truth which the exact conception of the thing
establishes in the intelligence or in the intellect?
Speaker 1: Is this in this honest question? So is this like
a dictionary that's only describing the Sufi stuff or is
this broader than Sufi?
Speaker 21: Let me see, so I have the exact it says
it's the forty thousand dollars Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Islam
New Edition. I couldn't tell you, maybe because they don't
want people reading this stuff. I mean, I'm not paying
I mean you could probably Internet archive find that thing.
Speaker 1: Here's one that's like five thousand dollars. Is that you
think it's the same one?
Speaker 21: It could be. I mean he said it was forty.
I know, I found some really expensive ones. I don't
know if I have the exact one he's looking for.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: Well, when I type in Hakika, what you get is
just like the wicked Wikipedia shit is like four stages
of knowledge or truth and Islam in Sufism, it says,
what were the four again?
Speaker 2: First one is Ebara?
Speaker 1: Okay, this one? So this is different. Nevermind, it's different.
I know it ain't eric Obara. Hey, it might be
maybe Erica bar Yeah, exactly. Well, thank you, all right,
thank you, Thank you, Israel. Appreciate that. I'm getting pretty tired.
A really good call there from Israel. It's a really
great points. Appreciate that and raise some good objections on
Genesis eighteen and nineteen. I still think the evidence is
on the side of it being the Lord and two angels.
So guys, if you want to support the stream, you
can also head over to chalk dot com, seach o
q dot com the best in supplementation on the Internet,
and that is the show sponsor, chalk dot com. Let's see,
somebody asks a question about you just pro j forty
Is you already get forty percent off? Somebody had a
theophany question, where did it go? Mister Anderson three dollars?
What is the orthodox y of the shikaina? Well, that's
what I'm saying, Like, it's an energetic manifestation the fire
in the cloud. We know the divine fire is you know,
Paul says, our God is a consuming fire. So that's
an energetic manifestation of the divine energy, divine power, the
divine light. The cloud is fascinating because it's also a theophany.
We know at Mount Sinai there's the darkness of the
cloud right, which, as the caller pointed out, definitely has
a reference to apapaticism. But there's also you know this,
you have this theophany and Lemiticus nine where it's called
the glory cloud and it comes down and appears to
all the people and then the fire comes out from
before yahweh in the cloud. And we also know this
is part of like God's chariot. It's an angel chariot
that he rides, and the angels are also present in
the Theophanes two, and it's primarily though the sun, but
there does appear to be references to that call the
cloud the spirit. So what could be happening is just
simply that the cloud is an energetic manifestation of the spirit,
because in the New Testament Orthodox theology, the tongues of
fire are at pentecosts or energetic manifestations proper to the spirit.
The dove is an energetic manifestation proper to the spirit.
But there's as I think about it, there's nothing that's
precluding the cloud also being an Old Testament energetic manifestation
of the spirit. But it's just something that we're not
depicting in the icons, since after the New Testament is
not proper to depict the Old Testament representations anymore in iconography.
But I was looking, but I was looking at the
icon of Elijah, which my priest gave us a print
version of a nice icon of Elijah. But that's an
Old Testament icon, but it has pretty sure it has fire.
Let's see if we can find it. But maybe that's
proper to Old Testament figures to depict them. This is
a really good question. I don't actually this might go
beyond what I know. Cloud and Orthodox icons, so we
do see the Virgin at times on a cloud. I
want to say that that Ezekiel icon as cloud too.
Let's see, here's angels on clouds. In Orthodox iconography, clouds
often symbolize divinits your divine presence. You see that often
with the thea tokos. Let's see. Let's see if I
can find that Elijah icon. It's a pretty uh interesting
older Russian icon. It looks like this kind of this
isn't it the one that I have? But it looks
kind of like this, So there is cloud and fire.
That probably is That probably is a theophenic because if
you remember, doesn't the Holy Spirit play a crucial role
in the ministry of Elijah and the giving of the
double anointing, the double portion of the Spirit to Elisha.
So I would venture to say that that probably is
an indicator of the spirit, because we know in many
of the Theophanes, doesn't Paul say baptized in the cloud
and then the sea, as he mentioned that baptized in
the cloud in the sea. That would be the glory cloud.
That would be the spirit. The spirit hovers over Mary,
the glory cloud hovers over the temple, over the ark,
the spirit is over Mary. So it seems like it
would have to be. Let's see, I've got a list
of a bunch of spirit related Theophanes here. Oh, there's
a bunch. But yeah, Paul, Paul says, baptizing the cloud
in the sea, right, Yah. First, Granians tend to they
were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
That's the glory cloud right in the beginning.
Speaker 15: Hellope, yeah, yeah, Hey, so thanks for having me back
on again. I had a question about in terms of
I know you all typically when you debate with Roman
Catholics and stuff and talk about the papacy and these
different things. Something I was thinking about the other day
and I just kept thinking about because I remember Martin
Luther was thinking about back in the day mortal sin
and how that relates to different things, and just I
want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly, because
it sounds like a total contradiction in the Catholic way
of thinking. If you have adulteries of mortal sin and
you commit a mortal sin, you don't confess that, you
go to Hell, and you're not supposed to be in
communion with people that don't have your dogma.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 15: But I saw something that said the Eastern churches do
economia and allow for divorce and remarriage in case of adultery.
But if you get divorced from remarriage for adultery, you
commit adultery, which is immortal sins.
Speaker 1: Oh, I didn't know that. That would be a pretty
killer I just caught that. I didn't. Yeah, that would
let's say that's true.
Speaker 15: Let's see, Uh, it's cannon fifty eight or eighty five, maybe.
Speaker 2: One of them.
Speaker 15: I don't remember. Let me see the photos. Is this
was earlier today?
Speaker 1: I've never known about that. That's actually a really interesting question. Yeah,
because I mean the this, I mean, I'm just using AI,
which could obviously be wrong.
Speaker 4: That's what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it says Eastern ride churches do not permit this.
Speaker 4: You have to ask the question the right way, right, because.
Speaker 15: They say that, and then you ask it a slightly
different way and they're like, oh wait, yeah, they do
it for economia, and the Latin Church doesn't say that
it's uh.
Speaker 4: They say like, well, no it's not.
Speaker 15: It's not really adultery, so it's not really immortal sin.
Because I say so, it's basically.
Speaker 4: What they say. Hmmm, yeah, this is what I've been.
Speaker 15: This is what I've been really kind of like I
was even at earlier today, like how you're saying they
were they're denying the Theophanes.
Speaker 1: Now, yes, many of them are.
Speaker 15: So I was just at and I can I don't know,
maybe I can tell you, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, all the Thomas will, all the Thomas will
the only Roman Catholics who are going to be better
than the theology and admit Theophanes are the ones that
are like, you know, just don't care about Tomism.
Speaker 15: But if you don't even need that, dude, I took pictures.
I went to like I told you, I'm going between
the two of them.
Speaker 2: I was at an.
Speaker 15: Adoration chapel today. Their Bible study, their Bible, their study
Bible in the adoration chapel says so it says it's Jesus.
Speaker 1: Well I would I would just I would just say again,
many of them are better than their official theology. Okay, anyway,
but thank you for those questions you get suck. What's up?
Speaker 21: Man?
Speaker 12: So yeah, I was just thinking, even what this honor
as Christianity is doing, maybe it's best to like try
to talk with David Wooden AP because they're gonna be
reviewing a debate. I think it would be like nice
because for the Christian Muslim community, like the Christian versus
Muslim community, like this is a pretty big deal. So
getting up and like defending yourself there would be.
Speaker 1: But I think you mean to David wood In AP.
Speaker 2: Yeah, David would AP.
Speaker 12: And then there's gonna be there's gonna be this one
other Calvinist guy coming up on the stream as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, if they asked me, I'm not gonna like
invite myself to their stream. But I mean, I don't
know I say it, but it's a good idea. I'll
think about it. Let me we'll see anybody who disagrees.
Is the last chance if you disagree. I'm not sure
that's a good question. How will David would an AP interpret?
I mean, I wouldn't be inclined to think that they
know Islam enough to recognize that it's just foolish to
call it the same God. I mean I would think
all right, guys, remember head remember to chalk dot com.
Use promo code Jay forty four life to get forty
four percent off, or use the promo code jy forty
you get forty percent off. You just want to test
it out. Check out the ton Kata Lee, check out
the chad Mode. Those are my favorites. Let's make sure
I didn't miss a super chat here Aracota twenty dollars.
It seems like Catholics. It seems the idea that Catholics
won is just on Twitter. I don't even know. I mean,
they might be proclaiming on Twitter, but like thousands of
the comments under YouTube, some people on Reddit. Yeah, I
don't know who cares what redd It says read Orthodox
are gay and Acumenists exactly. Good job you made all
these Catholics spurg out like leftists. Yeah, I mean, ultimately,
it's just a win for us in the law. Run
Jason Killer, why'd you block me? I don't know which
one you are? I said, get a job because of
your Trump skit you did freedom of speech. I don't
know what that means. It sounded like boomer shit to me,
like get a job, not in a ironic boomer an
intentional sense jo say eleeron God bless you, Thank you man.
By the way, speaking of Boomers, the new episode of
Sam Hyde is up and it is Boomers and I
did contribute to it and we got more awesome episodes
ready to pop, lock and drop it in the next
few weeks. Are listed them here on my page two.
By the way, on the front page of the YouTube channel,
you can watch the Boomers episode right Jan and Sam
actually brought a boomer on, which is pretty wild, so
you can actually see what a boomer is if you
didn't If you didn't know Codys one dollar. God can't
deny himself, he cannot. The truth can never be in
opposition to truth. Proposition to Vatican two says that Muslim's
the door, the one guy living in subsisten himself. Proposition
three Islam's Koran denies the Trinity in Christ di entity.
Either Vatican the Vatican is wrong or Vatican two contradicts.
Either Vatican one is wrong or Vatican two country dicks. Yeah, exactly.
There's a lot of different ways to lay this out.
Thank you, guys. I'm about cooked for tonight because I'm tired.
A lot of fun though, thank you for the super
chats everybody tonight, and I'll send some of this to FDA.
So check out Sam hid Show subscribe at md dot
tv if you want to support our comedy work. What
else is there going on? Anything else