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