Speaker 1: You're a gobbling the demon a bull merchard.
Speaker 2: You saw me?
Speaker 1: I'm your dude? Is this your person on the web?
Speaker 2: I need a gender jew.
Speaker 1: I can't take and choice yourself?
Speaker 2: You saw me on you dude? Is this.
Speaker 1: It comes out of the dog the tree? Why do
you pray eat the dead people? That's the traditions? A
madden you heretic?
Speaker 2: Wow, you dude? Is this your.
Speaker 1: Person on the web?
Speaker 3: I need a gender jew can't he's a little dear
So boys, you dudemic justification.
Speaker 4: Circular two.
Speaker 5: It's not crafty, Jamie?
Speaker 1: Did you make me? I express?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 1: Okay, we're gonna open it up. Let's keep it on topic.
One plus one plus one equal three. Icons are idealatry
Jay j But Jay?
Speaker 2: Can I talk?
Speaker 7: But it wasn't next cathod Rave God is real?
Speaker 8: WI?
Speaker 9: Does he allow evil? I?
Speaker 1: Do you pray to dead people? Traditions of men? It's
a no brainer. You're such a tyrannical rainer.
Speaker 10: Is this your.
Speaker 8: First time on the in or well?
Speaker 1: I need a change, can't take it these loads your
slow boys? Is this your first time on the wesh?
Speaker 2: Did I need to changer? Joe?
Speaker 8: Was that an uncreated foot?
Speaker 7: Fart A mute dude, Stop repeating my name, dude, you
goober's callin or I'll boot you. Where did we get
the Bible from? Have you read the Cannons of Francia?
Speaker 3: What are you Catholic?
Speaker 5: Are you Prosians?
Speaker 7: I'm not trying to be me, but do you have
an actual argument?
Speaker 2: There is only one church.
Speaker 7: You are in a cult, You're a goblin, a demon,
a boomer?
Speaker 5: Quick question?
Speaker 7: Do we have any diddyback venerators in the chat?
Speaker 1: How is this your first time on being? Or well
I need to change your shoe. Can't take it these loads?
You're slow boys?
Speaker 9: Are you?
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on being? Or where I
need a changer too?
Speaker 11: If you're a wineman in front of the line.
Speaker 1: I'm mute, dude, what.
Speaker 2: Is your epistemic justification?
Speaker 12: That argument is circular and you are refuted.
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on me?
Speaker 9: Or where I need to change your show?
Speaker 1: Can't take it these loads? You're slow boys?
Speaker 8: You?
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on me? Or where I
need to change your show?
Speaker 2: If you're a lie moan front of.
Speaker 9: A line on mute dude, Yeah, there's only one thing
that can bring them law together.
Speaker 5: That begins with you, but where it begins with you
not give. I'm gonna say the word gives away, Begin
the chance golf up.
Speaker 13: Bankers get on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thanks, give a pot.
Speaker 2: Bankers give him pain. Baker, give name your name.
Speaker 13: I want to see you ask the floor sees, get
more hose, give pain, give my boots give.
Speaker 2: I want to see the CEOs.
Speaker 5: It ruin those slides in a arnderd and forty one.
Speaker 1: And tell the monkeys you find off in that.
Speaker 13: Tree what you're doing up there? Why you scared? Why
you running from every bad? You ran from the true
and from me?
Speaker 3: Like the female monkeys mis doumbanatas between the trees hanging.
Speaker 1: Down upside down. That's smile.
Speaker 14: Side.
Speaker 5: Tell the monkey what.
Speaker 4: You do it to me?
Speaker 13: T do a monkey, deal a macky.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm, oh.
Speaker 5: Now Phil and James Brown, Kurt Franklin, do it to me?
Speaker 13: Till it parkay whoa.
Speaker 5: Oh, welcome everybody. It's a Saturday night. Why not do it?
Why not open it up? Is there any there's one
more song? There's a mk ultra version of the Matt
Dylanukey song.
Speaker 15: Monkey you climb up in that tree, what you're doing
up there while you scared, while you.
Speaker 1: Running from every debate, you and from Andrew and from me.
Speaker 15: Adla monkey, what you're doing to me.
Speaker 1: Down?
Speaker 5: Nobody wants to come to debate. Everybody's running away as
soon as they done got here.
Speaker 2: Beer beer.
Speaker 5: We'll keep the local starships, star colonies in line. Beer
is a mind.
Speaker 11: Killer, telling the monkey, all right, people are running away,
what's this crap.
Speaker 1: Crip?
Speaker 5: Fifty five people in line and we've only got two
people who want to come on and do the debates.
He wont okay. One dude came back. He came back.
We've got a couple of super chats and then I'm
gonna open it up right way. Bulpez five dollars, bruh,
give me a terms McKenna impression. Talking about tahi, Well,
taw hid is when you can't talk about the unity
of the being because it's essentially a hidden deity, hence
the term taw hid h. Brossi, five dollars, make it
fiat clap, make that fiat clap, Zammoxist, five dollars. It's
the year of love.
Speaker 1: It's a year of love.
Speaker 4: Huh.
Speaker 5: I can't sing with my perfect hair metal inflection like
I would like to because I still have a cold,
but it's almost gone. Eric Ze two dollars. I like
this dream. That means it's an algorithm push. That's what
I like to hear. He knows the nature of the
industry and the business. You know what I'm saying. He
knows how to industry, how the industry work. Yes, you
can still super chat with stream laves. Mister B see
me see me, Holy Holy said, we got some perves
up in the chat already, Holy says, let me see
them toes? Oh, oh all you get today? You get some.
I'll show you my toes. But there they're only going
to be They're modest toes because they're covered. Get it,
they're covered because I got sock some modest toes. We
got a bunch of people online. I'm wanna go to
all these people piling mister B ten dollars. I saw redditor.
He said that Matt deal Honey really want the debate. Well,
I guess that's it. I guess it's over. If a
person on Reddit said, then Matt del Honey won, I
guess that's the it's over. He won. This rhetitor said
that even though MAT's arguments weren't very good. He was right,
so he won the debate. Yeah, there we go. That
sounds about like what I would expect from that vibe,
from that vibe from that Reddit community. H Brosie five dollars.
Some of the cringe cores songs are flat out hard
like bankers. That stuff is objectively project pat certified. I
like that techno remix that sal did of bankers. That's
pretty hardcore, dude. What is your episomic justification for quantum skimmity?
Toilet says, it's JA, It's DJ for five dollars. I
can't talk today. I don't even know what's going on.
Torren loves Jesus. Let's go, Jay. I'm glad you got
monet eyes, not monetized monent eyes. Thank you. I enjoy
being monent eyed. Voice of reasons face in the thumbnail
got me laughing. You wrong for that.
Speaker 16: I ain't doing nothing. I ain't do nothing what you
think ID need? I ain't doing nothing. I don't know
what the hell voice that was supposed to be. I
was making a joke to Tristan that when he becomes
a black gay performer that I've already figured out the
caddy gossipy kind of RuPaul character name that it would be.
And when Tristan becomes a caddy RuPaul gossipy black performer,
his name is gonna be Invinity. It's a combination of
envy and infinity because Tristan has infinite envy, so he's Invinity.
Speaker 5: But he's like RuPaul. That's how he would laugh. So
that's what that character was. I just realized, Bryce Shay
five dollars if God real, Why yet Yakoub make white
race a challenging question, a fair question, a question that
any apologist worth his metal would struggle to answer. I
can't even keep up. There's so many the superchats are
just rolling in. I'm trying to get to them all. No,
that's it, thank y'all, welcome everybody. We got my more
super chests rolling in. John Kel says for twenty us
made I FIEI Klap. Everybody likes the techno version of
that song, but it's sh it's beating out my original
nineteen ninety three, like a euro dance version of it.
So I was gonna go to it, but maybe not.
We'll never get anywhere if I keep playing music all day.
But thank y'all, welcome. Everybody got five hundred chad Nerds
in the chat. You can sign up, by the way,
become a chad Nerd member on YouTube memberships. We've only
been monetized for like nine or ten days and we
already got almost two hundred members. That's crazy. Do is
our stream health okay? What's going on? It seems like
it says it's okay? Is it skipping because I tried
to fix the uh?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: I guess it's about his best, the best we're gonna get.
Mister b twenty bucks Jay, when he learned that his
channel got monetized, Jay, he remembered, this community full of
acoustic spurgs? Is that standing for autism? And he has
to read out all this garbage. I wouldn't characterize the
beloved super chatters as garbage. All right now? Is it
gonna start dropping down the streame stream Health? I mean
as long as we as long as y'all can hear me.
You don't need to see my face. Because I tried
to up the bit rate. I thought that might help.
I don't know if it's gonna work or not. Somebody said,
I work for Verizon, Call me and I'll help you.
How are you gonna help, dude, it's not a Verizon problem.
You think I haven't had then Comcast or whoever it
is out here like ten times and you just can't.
I mean, there's no I don't know what the answer is.
If you try to live stream, it doesn't have a
consistent bit rate. It goes down and then it pops up,
and then it drops back up, drops some meccap, drop
some mecca and that's all it's ever been here. And
I've I've had them out here I don't know how
many times, and the workers don't even know what it is.
So I can lower the bit rate and it still
does all the same stuff. So David Flood want gifted
out member ships demas gifting it out. Elder Leon elder
lyon Leon hed he stringer, got some new ways, Hey
he's stranger, got some new gimmicks. Got a bit of
press up for you. Skipped frames for in two minutes,
John Kel, do another goal? Do we already meet that goal? Okay,
start another goal? How about I almost set this. I
almost set this like super high magenta goal for three hours.
That was a ten super chest for over fifty dollars.
When I make like a thousand dollars on the stream.
You're gonna get your next impression. I'm trying to get
the started. We get somebody super chats rolling in, which
is fine with me. Do another goal, okay, don John Kell,
thank you so much. Jr. Hasbro five books. I'm looking
forward to Esoteric Colly with part three. Are you gonna
mention raising Kine especially directors cut. Yes, there's gonna be
a diploment section and we're gonna be talking about raising Kine.
We're gonna talk about the fury. We'll talk about what's
that one with the due that kind of goes mind
control crazy over prawn. We took notes on I forget
the name of it, discord what's up? Shout out? Open
up the task manager and check the performance. You don't
about the task manager in YouTube studio, it just says
stream health poor. The task manager in stream labs will
just say skip frames detected forty six percent last two minutes.
So it's always the same. John Kell, fifty bucks, thank
you so much. Appreciate that. What percentage is the computer
running it? I don't think it's a computer problem. Computer's
running at like twenty thirty percent. It says see I
can see the stream rate and it drops to three thousand,
and it goes up to six thousand, and it'll stay
at about six thousand and then it'll drop to three
thousand and come back. And it's always done that ever
since I've lived here, and it doesn't matter how many
times people come out here. There is no known solution.
So I mean, it'll go up to twelve thousand kilobites
a second, then I'll say your string quality is good
seven thousand, and then boom, it drops the three and
then it comes back. So nobody knows what's up. We
got over a thousand people, everybody, uh has piled up
in it. Let's get Let's get it started. Let's get
it started. Let's get it started. Antonios benderos.
Speaker 17: Hi Jay, good, good to you, You having a good
start to you. Thanks for taking my queriod's random Yeah vaccine. Yeah,
I'll try not be too week this time.
Speaker 16: But I got some new ways, got some new ways
for yah.
Speaker 18: Yeah right, Jack, Jesus, excuse really sorry the bless from
you forever and here. I was just wondering if you've
read anywhere about any discussion about Adam and Eve in
the sense of when overall and potentially metaphysics, but things
about that.
Speaker 5: I had not I mean, are you referring to the soul?
Speaker 19: Yeah, yeah, potentially, Like.
Speaker 18: The way I said, it is definitely separate soul that
Eve would have had, assuming that we all follow from
Adam and Eve and that's how things would have been
handed down to us thereafter. But you know, God breed
life into Adam, and you know, perpetual life would have
gone through that. But there was no specific sort of
like mentioned as to when the soul comes to Eve,
if it would have been inside Adam from the beginning
or if as soon as she was created, because I.
Speaker 8: Guess I could ask you could beg to say.
Speaker 18: Like when does life actually begin even when it comes
to you know about by bulls and things like that.
So I'm just wondering if this, if it'd been any
discussions on when she received her.
Speaker 5: I don't know about Eve, but I mean, Saint Maximus
teaches that the soul is created at the moment of conception.
But thank you for that magic, Mike Orthodox and Man
Stripper A country to come up in here?
Speaker 2: Eh eh okay, hear, yeah? What's about a question about
price up? And then I wanted to go where I
disagree about salvation?
Speaker 20: So I know you take the presuppositional approach in terms
of apologetic methodology, but you like, you know, you rely
on Presbyterian reform guys that has been to gourgy Boston.
Speaker 2: So where do you disagree with them?
Speaker 5: And pretty so, where did transcendental arguments come from?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm just trying to learn about it.
Speaker 5: So so who do you think was the first two
positive transit arguments? You don't know? No, Okay, well they're
in Aristotle.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 5: John Ascus refers to transit argument of the very beginning
of founton Knowledge. Felis he uses transcendental argument. So there's
nothing necessarily about transit augmentation that it makes it the
property of the reformed. Furthermore, an argument stands on its own,
and it doesn't really matter what group makes the argument, right,
So do you know about the genetic fallacy?
Speaker 20: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Okay, what's the genetic fallacy? What's the genetic it's like
when the particular group? Yeah? Right, So what does that
have to do with whether it's true or not? Hello?
Are you there?
Speaker 8: Yo?
Speaker 20: In priest oppositional apologetics like their storting part of their
methodology kind of relies upon tulip and total depravity and
how there's no like neutral route, neutral ground and things
like that.
Speaker 5: Well, there's plenty of philosophers who teach that the reality
is not theory neutral. So are they all Calvinists? Uh no, Right,
So there's nothing about theory neutrality. There's nothing about transit
argumentation or any of that that necessitates Calvinism. And that's
why I always argue that it's the.
Speaker 20: So okay, okay, So how do you understand? So I
need to talk about salvation and orthodoxy? So how do
you understand I've heard your lectures to you any how,
you say that faith alone, justification by faith alone isn't
true because the person when they come to Jesus Christ,
they don't go through metaphysical change in themselves.
Speaker 12: Is that correct?
Speaker 5: That's part of it?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So how so let's say when that happens?
Speaker 20: Right, So, like, and how do you know, like how
much how many how much work do you have to
do to be like metaphysically go through a change and
be justified in God's eyes?
Speaker 5: In your view, well, Christ's life is the paradigm model,
and so there's always synergy between the human nature and
the divine nature. And that's why, for example, all the
early Church fathers and even the first generate baptism is
a work. This necessary repentance is a work that's necessary.
Jesus says that this is the work of God that
you believe on Him whom he has sent. So faith
in Christ is also we flesh it out like all
of these works are necessary to be saying. Peter says,
an act to repent and be baptized for the remission
of sins. And we know he's talking about water baptism
because they immediately do water baptism, so it's not a
secret Calvinist regeneration baptism. It's actual water baptism. Titus three
calls it the washing of regeneration. So all of those
things are the beginning point of salvation. Salvation is a pross,
one time thing. It's your whole life, and it's the
escton ultimately.
Speaker 20: Sure, so let me just go back to the point
you mentioned about the spiritual baptism, right, So when you
read the Book of Acts and they get the tour
this start of the book, they get the spirit. What
is it the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They weren't
physically baptized in water.
Speaker 2: There's no mention of that.
Speaker 5: So how does you have no idea what you're talking
about if you're not read Acts too. I specifically started
Acts two thirty people right after that, which is why
I said, that's how we know they're talking about water baptism.
Pentecost is not a spiritual baptism separate from something else
that's the coming of the Holy Spirit and power. And
when Peter preaches at Pentecost, what does he tell the
people in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine.
Speaker 2: Envy baptized?
Speaker 5: Is that okay? And then what is what is he
talking about?
Speaker 19: There?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 5: You're telling me that's not water baptism, even though they
literally baptize the people in water right after that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I know I do get that that is
water baptism for you.
Speaker 20: Just said it's not water baptism though, No, No, I'm
talking about earlier in the Acts chapter. I'm talking about
the apostoms of Apostles himself, who water baptized the Apostles because.
Speaker 5: Beat boots in weeks that's what Jesus promised, and Acts
becue me and John fourteen fifty sixteen.
Speaker 2: That they get water baptized.
Speaker 5: Well, they didn't have to be baptized because they're the
beginning of the foundation stones of the church and Jesus
tells them to baptize.
Speaker 19: Okay, fair point.
Speaker 5: And also water baptism didn't occur with anybody in the
Old Covenant, and they're all saved in the same way.
That doesn't mean that after this point, that's not the
means by which regeneration occurs.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair point.
Speaker 20: Yeah, But I have another question about salivation buf faith alone. Right, So,
like what is the position of works in your and
your understanding? Like, like, for example, I'm talking about just
the centification, right, is scientification necessary for justification? But if
you say in works to be to be justified, I mean,
I know you're talking you say that, you know, like
coming to repent.
Speaker 5: The mistake is that you're you think of justification as
a legal status and it's not. It's part of a
that's part of the analogy. But in Romans four, when
Paul cites Genesis fifteen, that's after Abraham has already been
doing three chapters of good works. So Abraham should not
have men justified quote unquote in Genesis fifteen. If you're
reading of Romans for is correct see Romans for refutes
the Calvinist interpretation. Do you understand what I mean by
that argument?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I get that.
Speaker 20: So like if you're so, how do you understand like
to the Calvinistic Channe in Romans when he talks about
you know you were justified and then he also just
says that you know you were you were called justifies
and then glorified. It's all like linked together, it is.
Speaker 5: But what you're missing as a Calvinist is that that's
written to an actual, visible group of people in Rome,
as a group of the predestined? Did Paul write in
Roman Ephicus?
Speaker 2: I can't say it's it's both.
Speaker 5: No, it can be both, because how can he call
the entire visible group the elect and the predestined because
they're not.
Speaker 2: What it wouldn't apply to Christians today when he like and.
Speaker 5: The general those have to do with today? Just when
he writes to the actual church in Ephesus and he
calls them the predestine, who's he calling the predestine in
the church writing about the Calvinist view? No, I mean
the predestined are not the visible church, that's the elect only.
Speaker 2: From from your position.
Speaker 5: I mean Calvinism fails in terms of Christology. That's the
starting point, because Calvinism begins with the idea of the
divine decree and soteriology, and so it has the wrong
order of theology. It has to begin with the Trinity
and Christology and the in case. That's why you guys
don't have the essence interistinction, you don't have the real presence.
You're missing all of these things because you begin your
your theology with steriology.
Speaker 20: So another question, how do you determine like when how
to interpret in a legal in a legal understanding or not?
Because you know you when when there are lots of salvation,
salvation by faith a loan passages, you'll just say that
it's here.
Speaker 5: There are no faith a loan passages. There are passages
that say faith not were of law. And in the
concept he's talking about Jewish law. But if you look
at Galatians, Paul says, the only faith that counts as
the one that works through love. So Paul is saying
the same thing as James. It's you guys that have
invented the idea of a purely fictional legal standing. That
is your salvation that's what doesn't exist in the ancient
or medieval world. And if you read modern even the
conservative Protestant Reformation theologians, whether in the Anglican or in
the Lutheran tradition, like Anglicans like Alstro McGrath or Lutherans
like Haiko Oberman, they all point out how there were
no nominalists in the ancient and medieval world until Aukham
in other words, to call you righteous when you're in
fact wicked and you're covered in these you know, imputational
rags of righteouness, the cover or the hum of the rags,
the righteous of Christ that covers your filthy rags and
all this stuff that's only possible with nominalism. And nobody
in the ancient medieval world was anomalist. So how do
you get God being able to declare people in a
legal status that they don't actually possess in reality?
Speaker 20: So okay, So then how do you understand the legal
and the forensic language that does use in.
Speaker 5: Regardless based on what's actually there?
Speaker 12: What's actually what do you mean like you're.
Speaker 5: Actually made righteous? That's what it's called baptism or regeneration.
The sacraments actually convey the grace.
Speaker 20: Okay, So so like, let's say the pious works that
you do, do they contribute to your salvation and scientification?
Or is it just the sacraments that you do in
the Orthodox Church? Like let's say, when you participate in
the sacraments right of the Orthodox Church, are you you're
participating in the uncreated energy right of the.
Speaker 2: Correct So what about the.
Speaker 20: Let's say, the sacraments that exist, like you know that
are done in other church or yes? Or what so
the uncreated grise only exists in the Orthodox Church, that's your.
Speaker 5: Position, Yes, because it is the mystical body of Christ.
So how come like these one Lord, one faith, one
Baptist in one body. There's not twenty thousand, thirty thousand
different ways.
Speaker 20: Why do you So why would like a Protestant a
Catholic need the uncredited grace.
Speaker 5: Of That's this is something that anybody in any religion
can say that they become a morally reformed person or
they're better or I mean, I don't. That's all purely subjective.
I know, I have no idea what you think spiritual
growth is.
Speaker 20: I mean, okay, sure, but I'm talking about spiritual growth
as in like you know, sinding less and doing.
Speaker 5: You know, being obedient to God. So now it's salvation
by works. I thought you didn't believe in salvation my works.
Speaker 20: No, But I mean I think we're we're as Christians
were there to conform to the image of Christ. Right, So, like,
I'm not saying that we're doing these things to be saved.
This is just a byproduct of like, you know, our faith,
like in our faith is genuine. That's what we want
to do, the righteous things that God wants us to do.
So what do you think about that?
Speaker 5: Just one second?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 9: Like what what?
Speaker 2: Why?
Speaker 20: Would like you know, why what makes it necessary like
the uncreated and urge of Jesus or of the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 5: Because the creature can't save us a patient and divine
life and immortality. But in moral reform. So ironically, what
you're talking about is the proof of the faith is
the very thing that you, as a Calvinist, supposedly shouldn't
believe in. We're moving on, TJ. What's up, man? Try
to change the bit rate. Maybe that'll help with whatever's
going on.
Speaker 21: Yeah, O Jay, So I recently left Printocostalism and I've
just become a catechumen.
Speaker 2: I just had a few questions, if that's okay.
Speaker 21: So I came into Orthodoxy based purely mainly like intellectually
and just through like reading history, and I'm lot and
I just wanted to know how to navigate, you know,
going from the vital reality and really taking part in
the you know, right.
Speaker 5: Well, that's so, that's that's right. So it's not Q
and A. I'm not trying to be rude too, it's
not you know, like catechumen days. So that's a question
for you and your spiritual father, going deeper into your
prayer life and all that, you should ask him. That
ash not trying to be rude.
Speaker 7: Uh hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Sweet?
Speaker 22: So last when I was on we started talking about
uh sol scriptura. Uh, I'm coming out of Protestantism and
so I've had a couple of things to think about.
And the question that you posed last time was how
do I know as a like, sure, not as a
Protestant anymore, but when I was a Protestant, how would
I know that? Matthew wrote Matthew, and I would I
was thinking last night, I was like, well, can a
Protestants say that by the evidence of scholarly opinion that
we can see that Matthew wrote Mathew, which I guess
those scholars were just they would have to defer to
the church anyway.
Speaker 5: So the evidence is going to be based on the
historical transmission, preservation, and self knowledge that the church in
history has. That's the point. So it's missing the point
to say, oh, well, I can go to the consensus
of scholars. And by the way, there's tons of liberal
scholars who probably don't believe that, So how is that
going to help anybody figure out canonicity? Apistolic authorship is
only one of the elements that would go into why
Matthew's Gospel be included. There'd be other things too, like
was this gospel read in the Apostolic sees, was it
read in the majority of the sees throughout the empire?
Was it read in electionaries which are liturgical readings and
daily readings in the churches. All of these would be
elements as to how and why the Church would or
would not have included various books within the Bible. And
the point is that there's no fallible means to base
the Bible on without ending up with a fallible collection,
and thus the Bible becoming fallible. So every president who
wants an inerrant infallible Bible is just continuing to spin
the hamster wheel, missing the point that the argument is
not just oh, you need a church to tell you
the canon. The argument is that you cannot actually get
the autograph of the ones that Paul wrote, the ones
that Matthew wrote, without assuming that the church within history,
after the death of the Apostles for centuries accurately preserved
copied the Bible.
Speaker 2: Sure, it's like you said before that like what is
the grid to choose?
Speaker 12: Also what scholar to follow?
Speaker 22: So if you're a Protestant, since you don't have really
apistemological kind of lens to point to, like, oh, well,
I have an inbound source because you know, Sproul says
the dumb axiom of fallible collection of infallible book. I
have to sit there and claim, well, I guess it's
just fallible means that get me my infallible books.
Speaker 5: That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I'm saying. The Protestant would have to
sit there, and if they.
Speaker 12: Were honest with themselves, they would say, okay, I received.
Speaker 2: My books, my sixty six books.
Speaker 22: The Protestant canon by fallible means, by the means of
the scholars that I pick the history that I.
Speaker 5: Pick, right, So it's a non sequit or to then
say that if the Bible is based on that, then
it can't be infallible.
Speaker 12: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, it's just chaos. Okay, that's the question
I had.
Speaker 4: Thanks Man, good Hill, old Gunhild, Gunhild.
Speaker 9: Are you there?
Speaker 2: Let me.
Speaker 5: You have to turn your mic on. Man, I don't like,
I don't know where you guys as nobody used to
a space.
Speaker 2: And are Hey, Jake, I have a question.
Speaker 23: I want so I want to be Orthodox, but I
have questions about rebaptism and and just kind of rigorism
in general rocre generally. Uh you know they I know,
I know it's a pejorative to call it corrective baptism.
But if I came from a Roman Catholic background and
they want to do that, what are the consequences of that?
Speaker 2: And do you find it?
Speaker 5: Why would there be consequences? What do you mean why
would you not just submit to what your elders are
telling you? What do you mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So I guess that's my question. So I should
just do that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and this is yeah, and it's not it's not
I'm not trying to be rude to you. It's just
it's not catechumen, ethic unite. It's debate night. But yeah,
just submit to your elders. Cornelius. What's up, Elder ten dollars.
I learned a lot about orthodoxally the past few months
lurking in your book recommendations. Thank you, thank you, man.
I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Jay.
Speaker 5: I've been remember hold on, I've been remember your website.
Mister Anderson three dollars tried to watch the full video
on history of the Left, and it brought me to
the YouTube it says I need to be a member. Yeah.
I realized that after I started making the YouTube lectures
Members video that the people who are on the website
are not going to get that. You still have all
the audio, and I've only done it to five videos,
so you're not I mean, it's just me talking anyway,
so you might as well just listen to the audio.
But I'm gonna have to figure out how to do that.
I guess I'm about to have to make a copy.
Anytime I move a video from YouTube private to members
I'll have to make a copy for drought boxing and
for the website. What's up, man, Yes, sir, you.
Speaker 24: Have criticized the pope for kissing the Quran, I think
for the second.
Speaker 5: Yet I've gone way deeper than that. I think that's
pretty good. I know, I know, I know, mild compared
to a lot of the other criticisms.
Speaker 20: I know, I know, I know.
Speaker 24: But what I wanted to say. I saw a video
on YouTube of Patriarch Carell who was in a children hospital.
It's all on Russian, but he was in the children's
hospital and said I translated into English. He said, he said, therefore,
pray with all your heart and ask the Lord for help.
Speaker 2: I know that both Christians and Muslims are here.
Speaker 24: Each one addresses the same God, the Creator, and response
to this we receive real divine help.
Speaker 5: I don't have a problem saying that. I don't have
a problem saying he can get things wrong. And do
you think the Orthodox system of theology is the same
as the Roman Catholic system.
Speaker 24: So for clarification, I'm Serbian Orthodox, I'm not Catholic.
Speaker 5: Okay, so what's the point.
Speaker 2: Yes, I have a problem with with this.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just I just agreed that it's wrong.
Speaker 8: So so you did you agree with him or do you?
Speaker 5: Of course I don't agree with that. I just said
he can be.
Speaker 2: Wrong, Okay, Okay.
Speaker 24: Don't you think it should be addressed by other patriarchs like.
Speaker 2: Porphylia from Serbia?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't know, I think him, but I would
imagine it ought to.
Speaker 2: Be m hmm. It's seven years old. I don't know
if you believe me of what I called it.
Speaker 5: I don't know that. I don't know Russian, but like
either way, whether it's translated accurately or not, Like, yes,
I'm sure there's a humanist tendencies like Hilary and Alfia.
He had a humanist tendency, so I'm sure he said
a lot of wrong things too, mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah.
Speaker 24: So the argument from you is that the patriarch doesn't
isn't available like Catholic streame for the pope, and therefore
if he says something wrong, it doesn't destroy Althodo.
Speaker 2: Did I get Detroit? Yeah?
Speaker 5: The whole church is not built on the faith of
the guy in Rome m h. Whereas Vatican, Vatican One,
nor any of them, but in One builds everything on
what is happening with Francis.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, okay, mm hm m hm m.
Speaker 5: That's said, thank you, sure, fair question, he roes. What's up. No,
I don't accept that Islam is a Brahmic. I don't
believe that at all. I mean, I made this argument
hundreds of times. What's up? He's having hard time connecting?
Speaker 12: Can you hear me?
Speaker 25: I just wanted to ask. I was reading something Beluther
that I don't know if it's true or not. They
it's a patron that was connected or a member of
the rules a Crucians.
Speaker 5: As possible. I know that the second generation Lutherans like
Johann Andre are believed to be some of the early
founders of the Rosicrucian order, and Luther did have a
lot of support from the German princes. That was part
of the reason why he was successful. I don't think
he could have been successful without that state support in
terms of Germany and the Reformation. But later Lutherans were
for sure into Roschritianism. But I would not be surprised
that there wasn't a patron that was as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, I just I was just wondering.
Speaker 25: I know, I noticed he used a symbol like a
ros Acrucion symbols as a kind of signatory on documents.
Speaker 5: Well, that might have been his choice, though prior to
the order of the rosy cross using it, it's not.
I mean, you can't base the argument just on the symbol,
because you know, there's a rose cross that I'm sure
was used in Catholic churches prior to that, it would
have been rosicrution necessarily. But I think when if you
look up the character Johann andre it does specifically become
a Rosicrucian symbol at that point. And Luther had other
esoteric influences. He was influenced by the Theologia Germanica, which
is a kind of a Neoplatonic type text. Luther was
influenced by nominalism as well as Neoplatonism, so there's a
lot of possibilities there. But the book to read on
this is Dame Francis yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment, where she
goes into quite a bit of detail about Johann andre As,
the potential author of the Rosicrucian Manifesto. Time to Crusade
is a stream doing decent. Okay, now, maybe it's better
this way. What's up, man, I'm you Union Jose Biden.
Five dollars. You said Maximus taught the soul has created
an inception. I heard John Damascus teaches that we're generated
from Adam and all the fathers, and all of humanity
from our fathers and all humanities created within our atom.
Our souls are generated, not created. No, that's not true.
I mean there is. Maybe John Damascus was a Traducian,
but the same Maximus Confessor is not a Traducian. So
I'm not aware of the Orthodox Church holding to introductionism.
But I mean, I could be wrong, and I don't
recall off the top of my head John mask is
saying that. But Maximus is very clear in the ambiguity
that the soul is created at conception Elias by two dollars?
Will you cover the released MLK files now? Probably not
a freem.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 26: Can you hear me?
Speaker 27: Yeah?
Speaker 28: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 5: Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 5: Yes, I can hear you can hear me? King anime?
I heard diary is autistic. I don't think I am.
I think seems like people with thetism have a hard
time with comedy and they can't tell when people are joking,
but probably everybody to a degree has those of the tism.
What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 5: He got on you. You're raising your hand, I'm you.
Speaker 2: Oh hello? Oh?
Speaker 29: So yeah.
Speaker 8: I asked some questions about the Sabbath.
Speaker 2: So I heard, uh, I'm pretty.
Speaker 8: Sure you know sab simonies.
Speaker 2: I think that's just not He was on first and Fleet.
Speaker 30: So the way he described the Sabbath I think was
I didn't find it satisfaction because.
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't know what. I don't know what
he argued about the Sabbath. What's the question, So do
you think.
Speaker 8: Christians do have to keep the Sabbath the way it
says in the Fourth Commandment.
Speaker 5: The way that it's kept is the way that the
New Testament the Apostles keep it, which is the first
day of the week is the day of the Lord
where the Church comes together and celebrates the liturgy. In
the Orthodox Church the seventh Day, the seventh Day Sabbath
is still kept on in the vesper's service. It's still
honored on Saturday. But no, as Hebrews four says, the
true Sabbath has been brought to us in the person
of Christ. So there's a superiority now to the true Sabbath,
which is the Christian liturgical service.
Speaker 8: So would you consider that to be in a tipped
at changing.
Speaker 5: Godswel No, Because Jesus is the one that gave the law.
He is God. He's the one that decides and determines
how it's kept and how it's interpreted.
Speaker 8: So but when he, like, when did he ever say
that Jesus change his Sabbath.
Speaker 5: Hebrews four explains that when Jesus came, he brought at
his first advent the fulfillment and the meaning of the
creation day Sabbath. Thus, the day of his resurrection is
the Sabbath, according to Hebrews four. And that's why the
Church in the Book of Acts and John in the
Book of Revelations says, I was in the spirit on
the Lord's Day. That's the day of his resurrection. In
the Book of Acts, that's when the church meets to
have the Divine Liturgy, the Church service. That's why it's Sunday, okay.
Speaker 8: And you know, because I was confused on like what
people were saying about. They think because based.
Speaker 30: On in Genesis when it said the evening in the morning,
he didn't say that at the end of the seven days.
Speaker 8: So people try to.
Speaker 30: Say that that's their basically their argument for thinking that
we're in Gode now, which I thought to be very
confusing because I.
Speaker 2: Don't really get that.
Speaker 5: Have you not read have you read Hebrews?
Speaker 30: I see the verse that Sam pointed out, So I'm
pretty sure the verse you're referring to.
Speaker 5: I just think all of chapter four is about the
Sabbath being brought at Christ's first Advent. Okay, So all
of these Jewish ceremonies, they symbolize the work and life
of Christ and the reality that he brings at the
first Advent.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: And what do you think about the theocracies?
Speaker 30: Do you think Christians should try to establish a theocracy
like in the United States now?
Speaker 5: I think the goal is to convert people and then
it will naturally tend towards a monarchy or an imperium
or theocracy. So theocracy is the biblical form of government.
That's why the Orthodox Church throughout two thousand years has
always had monarchical or imperial forms of government. But it's
not our first and foremost duty to set up a theocracy.
So that's something that happens down the line as people
convert when you have a majority Christian Orthodox society clone card.
All right, he dropped off Vesper vesper Lend, vesper Lend.
When you're gonna debate paul Ogia, all of these people
can come into the chat like, I'm not chasing down
people with like a thousand subscribers and all these gurgus,
you guys, if they won't come to debate, then no,
I'm not gonna chase down. I have no idea who
Paulogia is. If they if they want to come debate,
here's the link when you go and debate Arian Heretics
six y nine four three two on YouTube. He's got
feather subscribers, he's token smack. That's what the link is for.
Dog Vesper what's up? You get to turn your mic on?
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 5: Moving on, Danny? Is it Danny?
Speaker 2: Danny?
Speaker 5: Donnie Akula. It's open for him. If you want to
request to speak, I'll bring you on. It's open debate.
We're looking for people who would like to debate. Pologia
has a million subs. Okay, well I've never heard of Pologia.
I have no idea who it is. Selmoxis spends fifty bucks.
Can you walk us through the documents from Trello and
the Seventh Council affirmed in terms of canon. Okay, so
Canon eighty five of the Apostolic Canons is mentioned, it's
the Councils of Carthage that Trollo says specifically for the canon,
Canon eighty five is relevant because it's a very early
attestation in the Apostolic Canons to the Deutero canon being
part of the Bible. And so if you have the
or the oars Augomatic theology Palmazonski, you don't even need
me to walk you through it. Maybe I should make
a video on it, because I mean he talks about
it within the first like thirty pages. And so there's
a whole note on the Epistolic Canons and Canon thirty five.
But Canon thirty five doesn't mention everything that's in our canon.
And that's because the Seventh Acumunical Council winner to firms Trello.
Trello specifically says, we are going with the Carthaginian canon,
which includes all the dudercononical texts. I'm mute, Danny, or
you want do you want to talk?
Speaker 4: Or what something?
Speaker 5: Man thank you guys for all the super chants. Appreciate it.
You guys are being generous tonight, Donnie. I'm all right, whatever,
don't I mute? Then Bible shelf?
Speaker 2: Hi, can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Uh huh?
Speaker 31: So I just wanted to ask, I guess for like
advice for someone who's a lost and it's.
Speaker 12: Currently studying tag.
Speaker 31: But I'm kind of just feeling like overwhelmed by all
the objections and I would I attend church, but I
guess I'm kind of like agnostic, and I just.
Speaker 12: Feel like it requires such a high.
Speaker 31: Level of philosophical knowledge and all the objections are like
so complex that's kind of hard to know what's true.
And I'm just in this like state of like not
knowing or like uncertainty. But then I have Christians saying, oh, well,
if you die upon disbelief for your you're probably gonna
go to.
Speaker 5: Help, so you know, I mean, I think the point
is that you join the Orthodox Church and become a
regular member, and you don't rest on the academic rational
side of stuff. It's not that the rational academic stuff
is wrong or bad, but it can't all rest on that.
That's like a sign pointer to the church. Yah kub,
what's up? Yah kub? His name is Jacob, but I'm
calling him yah kub.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's up? What's up? Yep? Yeah, I followed you
for a long time. I really like the content, and
I've been reading. I've been reading more some Dogma.
Speaker 14: I'm like six pages in and he's talking about the
early Christian mysteries, and I just wanted to know what
exactly you would say about the statements that he's giving.
Speaker 2: So he will give like four hands, you.
Speaker 14: Profane, or that giving the Christian mysteries is start putting
a sword into the hands of a child, these kinds
and things.
Speaker 5: I mean, he has a whole chapter where he talks
about that real Christianity is Neoplatonism, basically affirms originism. He says,
that's what the Trinity really is. So no, we don't
listen to Albert Pike and Neoplatonism for what Christianity is.
Speaker 14: I mean, I mean, sorry, sorry, but he says, for example, Cyril,
all right, he'll say the Lord explained in private his parables.
Speaker 5: That does mean what ye what he says, He's just
referring to the Gnostic claim that true Christianity is a
hidden message. But if you read here in as in
book three and four against Heresies, and as says that
there's nothing hidden in Christianity. It's all public.
Speaker 2: Hmm, yeah, I get that.
Speaker 14: No, it's just been very, very crazy because you gave
like thirteen thirteen quotes by different church fatherst it all
said that they for example, you have Totullian saying that, yeah, okay,
if it makes sense, makes sense.
Speaker 5: So the saying why go ahead, What's what are the
other quotes about?
Speaker 2: So it's like thirteen.
Speaker 14: First he starts off with Clements not initiated to Trollanto.
Then he goes to Titullian, who's a heretic, as.
Speaker 5: He said, Then Clement is a heretic too, but go ahead,
the heretic too.
Speaker 14: Then as I don't know how to say his name, sorry,
I'm uh, he says, these mysteries the church now communicates
to him who has passed through the introductory degree. They
are not explained to the gentiles at all.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is just all nonsense. Like when you join
the Orthodox Church, there's no secret inner gnostic teaching that
the Orthodox Church passes on to the Gnostic inner elite.
That's why the whole purpose of rols and dogma. Is
that Albert probably is saying, you, you know what people
call Christianity and the Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church,
that's not real Christianity. That's for the profane. I have
the real secrets. That's just a sleight of hand trick.
Speaker 27: Oh yeah, absolutely, it's social pride.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you. I'm a Christian tioper.
Speaker 5: So what's what's the quest?
Speaker 14: I don't understand what I'm just I'm just confused because
I'm trying to find out how to how to interpret
these quotes.
Speaker 2: But these early church fathers.
Speaker 14: As for example, you will have Saint Basil. He's saying,
this is what the initiated. I'm not permitted to contemplate
at the mysteries.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean this is part of the Orthodox tradition
that you don't speak of the mysteries to those outside
because they don't understand it, they're not going to believe it.
And that's why in the Orthodox Church it is called mystagogy.
It is a mystical teaching. But mysteries does not mean
Albert Pike's ancient pagan mysteries. It means the mysteries of
the Christian revelation, which are not always forever hidden. They
are mysteries that are revealed to the initiated. That's why
baptism is called the right of initiation in Christianity. Let
me give you another example. When you're baptized, you're called
illumined or enlightened. That doesn't mean you're an enlightenment member
of the Illuminati because you're baptized.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yeah, for sure. Yeah.
Speaker 14: I didn't know about the mysteries not being talked about openly.
Speaker 2: In that way.
Speaker 5: Well, in the Early Church and the liturgy, for example,
it says, you know, I will not when we do
the communion prayer, we say I will not speak of
thy mysteries to thine enemy. And the church says in
the liturgy, let the catechumans depart, let no catechumens remain.
That's because in the Early Church there was persecution and
the Empire would send spies into the churches and lie
about them and say, oh, they're actually engaging in human sacrifice.
And if you spoke about the mysteries outside the church,
you could potentially have the church uh busted up because
they're in the catacombs.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, he mentions this too. Yeah.
Speaker 5: He mentions that, Yeah, okay, but that doesn't prove Albert
Pike's secret gnostic teaching of true Christianity. In the premac Lodges, you.
Speaker 14: Want to hear something funny, right right right after he
says this, he goes over the assasination of Charms o'haram
and he says, literally he says it.
Speaker 27: Then he says, the edaculation at his grave was repeated
three times.
Speaker 5: So what, I don't know what you're saying.
Speaker 14: Theulation echaculation of who of the three of the three
Masons that were trying to resurrect him.
Speaker 5: I didn't know he said that. That's funny.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No one talked about it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, no, that's that's interesting. I've never found anybody
until I read that chapter on what he thinks Christianity
really is in terms of the trinity that he says,
it's just neoplatonism. I've never heard anybody talk about that either.
Speaker 4: Let's let me pull up the Appstot Cannons and it's
eighty five.
Speaker 2: Hello, yes, sir, Yeah, I just want to ask you.
Speaker 32: So I used to be a Catholic, but I've since
become an agnostic, So I want to ask you, what's
the basis for creashu ex lehilo.
Speaker 5: Well, the only basis is that it's divine revelation. And
I mean, you could make some philosophical arguments about the
need for the philosophy of time itself requiring a beginning, middle,
and an end for meaning. That would be kind of
a more roundabout transcendental argument, because if everything is just
say eternal return, or if everything is pure it just
caustant cyclical return, then it would be very difficult to
have differentiation, succession, change, et cetera. Everything would be an
eternal in eternal stasis. So those are some things that
could point to the need philosophically for a beginning, but
not necessarily x neilo. Xnilo is a doctrine that's based
on divine revelation.
Speaker 32: Okay, so I would have posit if I would have
posit that there's literally creation itself, but there was now
beginning and new end.
Speaker 5: So that's what I just said. So, if everything is
at any if everything is an eternal return, what's the
basis for beginning, middle, and end, which is how all
human communication, sentence structure language works. If you don't have beginning, middle,
and end, how do you have communication?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's what you're alluding to.
Speaker 27: I suppose it's it's divinely audience.
Speaker 32: It's it just came into being.
Speaker 5: Or did you hear anything of what I said? So
you're not going to answer anything that I said. You're
going to go back to stating what the problem is?
Speaker 2: Okay, what what? What did you say? Can you refrase it?
Speaker 5: So I took you to say that if there's not
x nilo, then everything is just eternal, right, the created
order or this world, it's all just eternal, right, So
there's not beginning, there's not beginning, middle.
Speaker 26: And end.
Speaker 5: Everything is just an eternal return or an oral burrows
ever eating itself right yep? Okay, Well, if there's not beginning, middle,
and end, then sentences aren't possible because sentences and language
universally in the human domain require beginning, middle, and end.
So that suggests to me that the way that humans
are constituted and experienced time is as a beginning, middle,
and end. But that would be illusory if there's no
such thing as beginning, middle, and end. So you're collapsing
time into eternity, and that would make knowledge and communication impossible.
Speaker 2: But why would it be impossible because.
Speaker 5: Of what I just said. Did you not hear anything
I said, Yeah, I did.
Speaker 32: But before the sentence they were silence, right, and before
silence there was a sentence preceding that.
Speaker 5: So before and after then that's not eternal return, that's time.
What you said is eternally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, e tanty in time.
Speaker 32: So I know it's a bit of a paradox, but
the continues.
Speaker 5: Oh so you're allowed to have well, you're allowed paradoxes
by creation. Next, Neilo is crazy. All right, you're not
You're not even listening, so we're moving on. Uh, let's
see Ben m.
Speaker 33: Okay, Okay, hello, yep, hey Jay, you're going to question
about Orthodox Church history.
Speaker 5: Okay, in the history.
Speaker 12: Do you know in the history when.
Speaker 34: In the history of the Orthodox Church was the advent
of choosing saint names among laity?
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 34: I'm assuming that was probably the result of people having
names that like diverged from biblical names, and I wonder
if that would be constitute an evolution on the practice
of the church tradition.
Speaker 5: Well, in the old estimate you have people being given
new names. For example, Abram becomes Abraham. Can you mute
for a second one. Yep, all right, so Sarah Sarah,
I becomes Sarah. So the basis is in the mind
of I'm sure the early Christians, the Bible and divine
revelation and the history of the Hebrews. I don't think
it was just willy nearly done. There's plenty of saints
in the early Church who have pagan names who become saints.
So I don't think there was any idea that if
you had a pagan name you had to change it
necessarily because you were a Christian. It had to do
with the idea of patron saints and saints interceding, which
is very early in the tradition of the Church. But
just because the tradition emerges as universal eventually, that doesn't
that doesn't prove doctrinal development, because we don't have a
problem with little tea traditions happening over time. And obviously
it's quite natural that if there's going to be a
saint who dies in the fifth, sixth, seventh century, they're
not going to be saints in the first, second, or
third century because they don't exist yet. That's not development
of doctrine. That's the application of the basics of dogma
to specific situations. So, for example, canon law, if you
see up on the screen, this is the Apostolic canons,
and these are ideas and rules about church law that
have some kind of flexibility over time. But that flexibility
over time does not translate into doctrinal development. It's just
simply the Church using the static, unchanging principles of theology
and applying them to the needs of the time or
in specific locations.
Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha, thanks, Yeah, it's actually.
Speaker 5: A really good question. Also, people should keep in mind
that when we look at the first, second, third, fourth
century of the Church, there's a lot of fighting that
we have, but there's also a lot of things we
don't know, and so a lot of things are in
a sense shrouded and silence in certain areas. You know,
there's places where Christianity went and we don't know what
happened to Christianity in that region. There's churches and nations
even that don't exist anymore. So a lot of these
things we can't just go like look up and see.
You know, there's a lot when it comes to like
ancient textual analysis or ancient archaeology at you know, Christian
sites or catacombs. There's a level of guesswork that scholars
engage in because we don't know everything. Now, that doesn't
mean we know nothing. I'm just saying that there's a
lot we don't know. There's a lot we do know,
but also a lot that we don't know. Jacob. Now, guys,
we're looking for people that disagree. I don't mind taking
all the FAQs and all this stuff, but I look
for people that disagree. If you do, you go to
the headline what's up, Jacob, George Apocalypse Rising twenty bucks.
Happy to see you still debating on the smooth Brains.
Keep it up, Jay. Also, I believe Bankers on the
Dance Floor is your greatest work. Hey, you're in the minority.
There are not many people seem to really. I think
that's a classic cringe core work. I wish it would
have gotten more exposure. It seems like people would have
really liked that one. But Dyersburg, Tennessee vols fan three
dollars thank you for exposing Bertrand Russell. In the recent
segment on Lord Voldemore, the mainstream media does not ever
mention the dark side and portrays him as this pacist intellectual. Yeah,
that's the cover that he had. He had the cover
of being this democratic, pacifist intellectual, but he's a con
seething hatred for humanity exactly intrinsic, in distinctive. Ten dollars
brought U you have shop mind? I need a haircut.
I actually almost got a haircut today, but we just
didn't have time. And I'm eager to get a haircut.
That's why I keep wearing hats, because I'm going my
haircut yet. So as soon as I have time, I
promise you I'll get a haircut. Y'all keep sending them
super chats, I'll have money to go to head on
over to superclips or supercuts or fantastic SAMs or whatever
it is. Inquiry or five dollars? What are the questions
that you're Protestant or Catholic priests weren't able to answer?
I think I mentioned previously this question about the Protestants.
I read a lot of Augustine, I wrote a lot
of Cyprian. I was taking classes from Protestant professors. They
couldn't answer my questions. From City of God, I read
the entire City of God. Of course, the Protestant professors
had never read it. So I had all this quote
mine from the City of God. And then I read
the anti Pelagian Antidonatus works and they couldn't answer any
of those either. They had never read those works.
Speaker 12: And so.
Speaker 5: The Catholic priests, I mean I over the years talked
a lot of Catholic priests Novasorto priests, SSPX priest said
of a conscious priests, and I mean you could probably
the questions that they couldn't answer are all the ones
that you see me posing to the Roman Catholics all
the time. Jojo one night and you ran from a baby? Yes, yes,
I ran because there was a baby in the background.
Totally m l k z d k.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 5: Here we go.
Speaker 35: Go ahead, Hey, Jay, thank you for the species that
you're hosting. My question is I'm an Orthodox Christian myself.
Speaker 5: And are you or are you Oriental Orthox.
Speaker 2: I'm an Oriental Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Christ You're not Orthodox in the sense that we are
Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 2: I have not, yeah, but I have really benefited both from.
Speaker 35: Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Oriental Orthodox theologians over the years,
my favorite being doctor Jini.
Speaker 2: Constantino on Ancient Phiz Radio. But my question is.
Speaker 35: I have a difficulty understanding the difference between in terms
of dogmatic differences our understanding of Jesus Christ between amongst
Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Speaker 5: So we're doing a whole series on this. Got to
my channel Oriental Ordoxy your futa. We've done two installments,
we plan to do about ten mm. Have you watched those?
Speaker 2: No idea?
Speaker 5: Okay, so go watch those because they're about three hours each.
Clead us, Do you want to try again? No way,
I already went to you, mynnuel or re l.
Speaker 36: Hello, yep, So I wanted to ask you, like, I
guess two questions, one about tag and one about Islam.
Speaker 12: Is that fine?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 8: So I guess my My question.
Speaker 29: About TAG is I understand that there are preconditions that
like knowledge and logic, but I don't really understand, like
how why is there necessity to ground those things? Can
we just say like they just exists because of the
impossibility of the country.
Speaker 2: Or something like that.
Speaker 5: Now, if you read the Manion paper explains why that
doesn't achieve grounding. So just because it doesn't appear that
there's any other way to exp playing things without that
or to make sense of the world, that doesn't lead
to the justification that it is the case because maybe
it just appears to us or maybe it's just part
of our mental schema that that's how the world is,
But that doesn't tell us that the world actually is
that way. So, in other words, it's not enough to
get to justification just to say by possibility. Contrary, you
need you need a positive worldview that goes along with that.
And that's the point of the Manion paper is that
only Christian theism posits and explains the basis for all
of these things, transcetional categories, metaphysical categories, causation, telos tellos.
So when you say why does it need to be grounded?
I mean that's a fundamental misunderstanding of like, well, if
it doesn't have to be grounded, then nobody has to
ground anything. Okay, I mean if you don't have to
ground it, that's like in the Matt Dill Hunty debate, like, Okay,
then I don't then I don't have God exists, I
don't have to ground it.
Speaker 27: Okay, Okay, yeah, that makes sense. And is it I
just I would say, uh, is it?
Speaker 29: Is it like this sort of thing where it's like, oh, well,
I'm seeing this thing and then necessary for grounding, and
I see this other puzzle piece and they fit right?
Speaker 2: Is it like this?
Speaker 27: Is it like two puzzle pieces, like they just fit together?
Speaker 8: Like?
Speaker 5: No, it's all the transcendental categories that are necessary for
the possibility predication. They all require and necessitate and presuppose
one another. So, you know, to have knowledge presupposes a
knowwheer uh. To have knowledge presupposes time, determination, beginning, middle,
and end. To have knowledge presupposes an external world presupposes
laws of logic and meaningful sentences like and those things
don't stand alone. They all require each other.
Speaker 29: Yeah, yeah, no, But my question is like how do
you get from like these preconditions and grounding them to
like an Eastern for the conception of God.
Speaker 5: I mean I've done this a million times, like because
the only the Christian theistic system posits the metaphysics that
are required for those things to be grounded, all right,
and divine conceptualism is a big part of that. And
you can go check out my videos on that. Uh,
Eli Jojo, you ran from a baby four ninety nine,
you were destroyed by Google, got got priso exactly. I
couldn't take it. Uh, it was really just the loud noise.
I'm not anti baby, It's just I couldn't hear what
the guy what I was saying because the baby cap squelching.
I just saw a membership. James David Flood became a member.
Shout out, what's up, James David Flood, Eli you want
I'm mute?
Speaker 2: Hey, do you hear me?
Speaker 37: I had a question on the veneration of saying, I
get this, asked a lot from my family because they're
still Protestants and I'm just now converting to wordsidoxy, how
do you respond to when Protestants say, hey, the Bible has.
Speaker 2: Specifically mentioned the veneration of saints.
Speaker 12: You know, therefore it could be a bad, bad thing
that you're doing.
Speaker 5: I mean, they're venerated and honored when they're in heaven
and Revelation five through nine, the bones of Elisha raised
people from the dead, so they're obviously honored by God
because they're endued with the power to resurrect people. Cloths
are taken from Paul's body in the Book of Acts
to heal people and cast out demons, so God has
indued those physical objects and the body of Paul with
a divine power, which in the Book of Thessalonians he
says is the dunamus, or the energy or power of
God within him. So God honors his saints and his people.
God honored the Virgin Mary by entering into her womb
and denifying her and calling her queen of heaven and
relation twelve. So God honors the saints. Why wouldn't we
honor those that God honors? Gosh, I appreciate you, man, sure, yeah.
Just go look up all those texts and then show
those to your Protestant friends. Does anyone disagree? I mean,
I'm not mad at you, guys, just like I see
a bunch of Orthodox people who are cate of humans
and people with questions, and those are people who disagree.
If you want to come on to me. If you disagree,
just please make arguments. Hey, ha tayo. Two pounds jaydagree Jamie, Hey,
Jamie doubles press all time for Jay. According to JV
Free two dollars word Gabe k ten bucks Jay, as
you see martyrs in two thousand and eight, have not
seen that. I'll have to check that out. Grip D.
You want I mute? What's up?
Speaker 12: So he said the words soul.
Speaker 21: What is what is soul defined as.
Speaker 5: Like s O L E or s O U L?
Speaker 12: Is there a difference?
Speaker 5: Are you joking?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not joking at all.
Speaker 12: Is there a difference?
Speaker 5: No, there's no difference between the words soul s O
L E and the word soul s O U L.
There's literally no difference. Steven, what's up? And as sstro
of five bucks? Do your best Matthew McConaughey impression. Well, actually,
Matthew McConaughey, doesn't he fancy himself some kind of evangelical
Let's see what would Matthew McConaughey when he reads the
first Timothy three. Let's let's see how you would read it. Nah,
these things, these things I write to you, though I
come to you shortly, if I am delayed. I write
so that you may know how you ought to conduct
yourself in the House of God, which is.
Speaker 4: Church, living God, pillar and ground of truth.
Speaker 5: That's first Timothy theory. How's that I'm still a little
uh sinus, See, so my impressions are not exactly right.
Speaker 9: Uh?
Speaker 4: If I've got some sinusy things going on, Stephen, you
want I mute?
Speaker 5: What's up? I don't understand the people who come on
and they never unmute, Like, what what was the purpose?
Speaker 4: Are you there? Stephen?
Speaker 5: You have to turn your mic on if you're gonna
come speak on a microphone. Elon sees, Kyle, my ologies
is drawing me crazy to they too on top of
the trees are on the juniper trees are on attack.
They're an attack. Elon sees something. What's up?
Speaker 38: I'm mute, hey, Jamie, Jamie, and he an espresso. I'm mute, dude, Jamie,
I'm singing that song.
Speaker 5: Could you met me? An expresso? Not an espresso, an
X expresso? Thank you, dog. You don't want to talk,
You just want to sit there. What's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 5: Elon wanna try again? Elon sees Kyle, here we go.
Speaker 4: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Took a while to show up?
Speaker 39: Sorry, Hey, I just want to pick your brain on
the topic of a humanism, because I hear you talking
about it now and then, and it seems to be
like a negative thing that we should, at least in
your view, that we shouldn't be doing as Orthodox Christians.
Speaker 2: Christians.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a compromising obviously of the ancient tradition and
the doctrine of the Body of Christ, ecclesiology, all of
those things are compromised, you know. I mean they can
say you can't go and pray in the synagogues and
the and the temples of the heretics.
Speaker 39: Yeah, and I agree with that, but I kind of
view that as I guess you could count as a humanism.
But I thought humanism was more defined as regards to
other groups of Christians like Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox getting together
on certain things.
Speaker 2: And obviously we've no it has.
Speaker 5: To do with violating the canonical boundaries of the Church
through public liturgical actions, ceremonies, et cetera. That's how it's defined.
So you know, can there be some pro life thing
where Catholics and Orthodox work together, Sure, that's not a cumenism.
Communism is specifically about public divine worship. I mean it
could also be like you write a book where you
say something like, oh, we all have the same faith,
we're all one church. I mean, it's not just liturgically,
because it's also theologically. If you were to deny something,
you know, in terms of the profession of faith, that
would also count.
Speaker 39: Right and what abound in regards to praying together like
outside of church.
Speaker 5: Well, you can pray and they can join with you,
but we're not supposed to join in the services of others.
Then that's the canonical strictures that I mentioned. But thank
you for that. Anybody disagree, you go to the have
the line Wesley cards two dollars. Yeah, the words are
the same. Hence old food so o l e food.
That would be like when you eat the sole of
your shoe. Because of course there's no difference between the
word soul s O l e and the word soul
s o U l. What's the difference, Wesley?
Speaker 36: Yes, how do you do?
Speaker 8: Wesley?
Speaker 2: Curry?
Speaker 5: Okay, what's up? Do you've got curry Broda? You've got
good foods there? You make a d what curry?
Speaker 32: This says?
Speaker 2: Look like a seven eleven? I look on six days ago.
Speaker 40: I prayed to Jesus Christ. I only pray to Jesus Christ,
and no other name do I pray. I pray to
Jesus who appear to you all and told you to.
Speaker 2: Tell the vision. Tell the vision. You shall not need
the market.
Speaker 40: My career was that six days ago we give everybody
on earth bread.
Speaker 2: Now those of you that sad, so we got only.
Speaker 5: Are going to goodbye Schizo, goodbye skitso right, enjoy Shukri Shukri.
I'm mute. I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm maybe mm hmmm.
Speaker 19: Uh the connection is a little bit bad.
Speaker 10: But I have a question, Okay, are besides Christology other
problematic differences between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?
Speaker 2: And does the Oriental as our church have valid priesthood.
Speaker 5: I don't know what valid is an ambiguous term because
we don't think that it even matters. The ritual could
be done right, they might be received by vesting, but
the grace of the rights doesn't return until they return
to Orthodoxy. So uh yeah, I mean there, We're doing
a whole series. Go watch the series that we're doing
on this. This is not Oriental Q and a Night.
We've done two lectures that are multi hours long about
or into Orthodoxy, and we're going to do seven more.
It's just gonna take time. If you have a question,
you can come on request to speak, but I'm looking
for people who disagree who would like to come up.
If you're a Protestant, if you're a Roman Catholic, if
you're a premillennial, dispensationalist, if you're a Muslim, if you're
a Gnostic, if you're a Mormon, if you're an atheist,
if you're a Hebrew Roots supporter of any kind, You're
welcome to request to speak, and I'll bring you up.
You can ask your questions or you can make an argument.
You can speak for as long as you'd like, if
you'd like to debate within reason. Oxios.
Speaker 2: Hello, Yeah, Okay, So I had this question.
Speaker 27: I couldn't really get an astron on Google.
Speaker 28: But in the Old Testament, when God heartened Pharaoh's heart,
I'm not sure exactly how to understand that, probably because
it's it sounds like the.
Speaker 5: Other passage explains how he hearted it. It says he
hardened it by allowing Pharaoh to hearten his own heart.
So the two passages together give you the clue as
to how it occurs. And you have the same thing
with David taking the census. One passage says God moved
David to take a census, which was a great sin,
and the other passage and the other historical book says
that Satan moved David to take a census. So, just
like with Pharaoh, the way that God allowed. That was
allowing Satan to attempt David in that way. So that's
how that happens. It's a boat and cleat us again.
Speaker 2: Hey, what's up, Jay, I'm back again. Remind me of
what we're talking about.
Speaker 23: I forgot it was about rebaptism. You kind of unlocked
me because of the way I'm just not used to.
Speaker 2: I guess what youcked me? Mental?
Speaker 5: Does that mean?
Speaker 23: Sunlock is like, let's say you hit like a goat
with like I don't know, a ball, you know.
Speaker 2: How like goats faint?
Speaker 4: Goats faint?
Speaker 2: Have you ever seen like YouTube.
Speaker 23: Videos of goats fainting? They like get stun locked and
they just like tip over? No, okay, well that's a term.
Speaker 5: I mean. Also, I'm gonna go subscribe to the goat
fainting channels when we get off it here, But go ahead.
Speaker 23: Well, so I just I basically I wanted to because
I don't know. I am a cate of human but
but right, I'm not fully orthodox yet, I guess you know.
Speaker 2: I hope that's valid.
Speaker 5: I have a video on this if you could just
type into YouTube the question of rebaptism.
Speaker 12: So is that.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's not it's not ethic. I'm not to be mean,
it's just it's not ethic.
Speaker 23: You nine, well, no, I guess I understand that too,
but I mean I so basically it's kind of question
of what is the lesser of two evils? If that
makes sense, And because everywhere there's problems.
Speaker 5: With you know, I don't understand what you're talking. What's
the lesser between what?
Speaker 23: Well, so if there are inconsistencies slightly in all the churches, right.
Speaker 5: The Orthodox position is on economia or on economia, is
that it's up to the local bishops to decide how
and when and whether baptism is necessary, whether there's a
profession renunciation of errors, cherstmation, it's a local decision. There
does not have to be a one size fits all rule.
And that's a difference from Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism assumes
that there's a one size fits all rule. But even
Roman Catholics have conditional baptism, so they do the exact
same thing. So again I don't even understand what. Go
watch the video that I've made on this topic. It's
just type in rebaptism. JDR. Not being mean to you,
it's just it's not faq, Knight, it's not catech human
question nite. I'm looking for people who disagree. We got
one hundred and five people in here, and most of
the time the questions like that that come, or the
never ending Oriental Orthodox questions. That's why we're doing this
ongoing series so that I don't have to repeat the
same answers every time we do this live stream. I'm
not being mean. It's not really imagine you, guys, if
you had repeated something that's been asked to you literally
hundreds of times. That's the reason that I seem dismissive
is not because I don't like you, or I hate people,
or I he's mean. It's that we make videos and
podcasts on these topics so that I don't have to
keep doing that so I can tell you, hey, guess
what this FAQ question. We've already got a whole talk
on it. And a lot of people are freaking lazy, man.
They won't go and find the videos. I understand it's
not all laziness, because sometimes the videos are buried in
the YouTube algorithm, but a lot of these questions they're
pretty easy to like get, they're easy to find, so
if it's me saying like tonight is debate night. That
means it's not what do I do for fasting? What's
the proper spirit prayer rule?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 5: Well, what's the cannon on?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 19: You know?
Speaker 5: Can I go to the movies? Or like, it's not
what we're doing tonight. It says that the top Debate night, Steven.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 9: Good?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I was on earlier.
Speaker 41: I think I'm a problem with my mic on my
laptop ever since we got this new microphone.
Speaker 29: I'm not I'm not a technician when it when it
comes to laptops.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Yeah, But before I go to my question, first, I
want to say Jay, I thought.
Speaker 2: He did a really good Matthew mcconnoughey, thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 2: So my question is about.
Speaker 18: The cannon.
Speaker 5: You're cutting out, man, can't harry you? Uh you you've
cut out man. Let's see that guy. There was one
guy that clipped a maybe it's just baptisms not rebuilt.
There's a guy that clipped it and it was a
different channel. It wasn't my channel.
Speaker 8: Riptured.
Speaker 5: You're ear cutting out man. I don't know, Kenny.
Speaker 12: I can't hear you at all.
Speaker 5: That's you're in bro, all right, it's open for him.
I'm looking for people who disagree. That means not f
a questions, not catechumen question night. If you disagree, you
go to the head of the line. What did that
guy title that video? The thing that's annoying is that
you you basically have to have like the perfect title
or it doesn't come up.
Speaker 14: It was.
Speaker 42: Let's try it orthodox baptism. I don't know why that's
the only thing that comes up. This might be old
now this maybe this is it, and this isn't it.
I don't know why it doesn't come up.
Speaker 5: Maybe this is it. No, that's not it. Well, I thought,
maybe we get some Protestants coming in tonight, but I
don't really, we're not getting much of that. We just
got a couple kind of lunatic people. What was the
name of that video? Orthodox? Let's see valid?
Speaker 4: Maybe it was.
Speaker 5: Valid? Is always what confuses people. I don't know. I
don't even have the energy to look for it. Awakened.
There was a guy that was making clips and he
clipped a really good, like twenty minute discussion on baptism
and rebaptism, and I thought, you know, finally we have
like the video where I don't have to repeat this
tell me? Do you a lot of stream? And I'm
so tired of PSA like, I mean, I mean, I've
explained and are you the PSA thing probably like at
least a few hundred times in the last five years.
I hate this or saved like, Oh, I can't stand
these questions. Man, I'm yeah, man, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 12: You do you hear me?
Speaker 26: Huh?
Speaker 12: Yeah? I am cradle and probably not.
Speaker 43: Asking a debate question, so I hope you don't mind.
But I just had a question with regards to Catholic apologetics. Okay,
as it relates to Oriental orthodoxy, which you could shut
me down if you're going to detail it in your channel,
But because I was curious. Sometimes I hear them throw
around it seems like a lazy argument, but I don't
have a good response to it. That they're kind of concilier,
you know, universal good by the Holy Spirit approach is
essentially ours, and that we have no grounds to disparage
them compared to ours, and since they have the Pope,
they can you know, And I'm just curious how you'd
basically respond to that if I praise that clearly.
Speaker 5: I don't understand what what's say it again?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm sure that I'm sorry.
Speaker 43: Essentially, like, you know, our epistemology is very similar to theirs,
if that's the right word, Like the way we come
to decisions through councils.
Speaker 12: Right, there's no pope declaring things.
Speaker 5: Ours is similar to the Roman Catholic to the Orientals.
Oh I thought you said caloign nevermind.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm sorry.
Speaker 43: But the Catholics say that ours is similar to the Orientals,
and that because of that, you know, we don't have
the unifying leader to deduce between the two, right, that
we have no grounding to say that we're right in
their room.
Speaker 12: And I'm just curious from.
Speaker 43: Like authoritative standpoint, like, how would.
Speaker 12: You respond to that?
Speaker 5: Well, I don't think that the papacy does the work,
but they think it does. So there, I suppose a
solution to this problem is really a problem that everybody has. So,
I mean, has Francis solved the problems in the church
with his past fifteen years of just attend thirteen years
of decisions? Has this has this worked?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 12: That's that's typically where I go, which is why I
decide as on that.
Speaker 5: I mean, if that's the case, Like how was the
how were the problem solved in the first three and
twenty years before? Right before?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 5: And and I mean, does it even make sense to
even cite Nicea if your Roman Catholic should be like,
why didn't the pope just decide the issues at Nicea?
Like because remember they'll cite Clements Ella Clements deciding issues.
So he's the first autocrat universal pope example that we
have post apostles. And it's like, okay, if that's how
it works, then why is there a need for any
problems to be squelched by an ecumenical council? Councils are
a huge ordeal. They're called by emperors. Money is put
into it from the imperial treasury. People are brought from,
you know, hundreds of miles away. It takes forever. It's
a huge ordeal in the ancient world. And according to them,
the problems are just solved by the pope's decisions, according
to batic and one.
Speaker 12: So all of that he lets us two councils, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Well? I mean, why is he being nice when he
could be it could be a lot more efficient and
like sensible and pragmatic I thought that's what they're all about, right,
like the oh yeah, another if you remember this what
a bar actually says. He's like, well, the pope had
that power book, he did in no ways use it.
Oh so in other words, he failed at what he
was supposed to do throughout the first thousand years. That's
what you're saying, right.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's ridiculous. I think that's very eloquently for.
Speaker 2: To thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah yeah, I just think that this that whole thing
is a thing that evolved and let's a young potawan.
What's up, dude? Dollars are getting to me? Thor is dead.
Five dollars God logic tactic. Interpret Protestant proof texts, draw
them in and then say we just reading Maine. I
could try that tactic, just read the text and be like, oh,
we're just reading dog little Blue. Two dollars. You got
a soul patch so o l E underneath your lip
exactly except I shaved it. Viga less guys, spread the
love for Jade daigre. What does that mean? Is that
like the Daugasteini version of dire, I don't know what
that means? Young whatever boom or unmute.
Speaker 12: Hey Jay, I'm a Protestant bro.
Speaker 5: So, okay, what's up?
Speaker 2: Who's talking right now?
Speaker 5: I'm talking to you. I was impersonating you.
Speaker 12: Oh hey, bro, So I have a question.
Speaker 41: So I have a Protestant background, and you know, I
got a Catholic church right next to me, and so
I'm going to try and hit an Orthodox church.
Speaker 2: Allow.
Speaker 41: I want to thank you for the recommendations of Saint
Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy. I'm also listening
to the Apstock Fathers great things.
Speaker 12: But I wanted to ask you.
Speaker 41: You know, since you are Orthodox, what is the teaching
as it relates to the household, especially the father and
or a husband.
Speaker 2: And like Protestant.
Speaker 41: Background, there's always this like working as a team, help
your wife grow in Christ. Is that the same for
Orthodox for Orthodoxy or is it more of a leadership
driven role In Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: I would say it should be a leadership driven role.
I don't see this idea of egalitarianism. I mean, you
can have a position of authority and work as a team.
There's nothing about team that necessitates there being egalitarianism per se.
You can have a team leader. I mean, so the
terminology is kind of vague, but I mean I would
I would say the religion is one patriarchal got it.
Speaker 12: That was the answer I wanted.
Speaker 2: Man, Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean you're gonna find libs everywhere, though, So
you're gonna you can find an Orthodox church where some
woman will tell you that we're working to bring priests
women priests to the church and get rid of the patriarch.
I'm sure you can find some. It's always going to
be some fat woman too, that's saying that. I'm sure
you can find it. Ninety some fat feminists. I'm sure.
Just go to ancient faith radio. The women that you
find on there, that's they're going to be pushing that probably. Uh,
it's open for him. Anybody want to come to debate.
We've got still got ninety people in here. We've only
been going for hour forty five. No Protestants that disagree,
No Roman Catholics that disagree, No Gnostics, no Mormons. No,
I'm just almost starting naming all the cults.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 5: No om Shinrico proponents, No Evangelical Calvinists, no Reformed Baptists.
Know how many cults?
Speaker 4: Can we go through all of them?
Speaker 5: Again?
Speaker 4: No Mendians no Druze, no Hashamites, no Hasha Shim, no Shiah,
no Hebrew roots.
Speaker 2: Let's see we.
Speaker 5: Got red patriot. Oh my gosh, Marxist Leninists, this will
be good. Hello, what's up?
Speaker 2: I'm a Christian Communist.
Speaker 5: It doesn't exist, is the I.
Speaker 44: Don't think any church on earth right now is is
as concerned as they should be with the prohibited uh
practice of usury. I think all of the churches practice
usury in their own their own organizations and uh as
we know in the Lord's prayer.
Speaker 5: How to Orthodox churchs practice usury in their organizations? What
does that mean?
Speaker 23: Well, I mean there's a lot of things to be
concerned with with usury and the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 44: Your churches are just not as committed to the Christian spirit,
you know.
Speaker 5: And so your answer to that question was to restate
the original thing in question.
Speaker 44: You know, Yeah, it's it's it's a and then you
also canonize like people like.
Speaker 5: The again again full of full of usurers.
Speaker 2: Dynasty is no ideal.
Speaker 5: So you're not going to answer. So, and there is
no such thing as a Christian communists. You just made
up your own thing.
Speaker 2: You you can you can dismiss me on.
Speaker 5: You're not going to answer the questions, is why I'm
moving on.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: And your argument was to restake your position twice and
then again three times in a row, so that doesn't
constitute an argument. I asked you specifically for what the
argument was that Orthodox organizations are participating in usury. You
restated the thing in question, and then you said the
Ramanovs included usurers. The Orthodox position of sainthood can include
people who did not necessarily live exemplar relives, but for example,
confessed at their death and became martyrs. So that doesn't
even negate the Ramanovs. And I'm not even sure that
the Romanovs were a bunch of users. I mean, I
don't even know, except I accept that assertion. You need
to demonstrate that from the outset. But you weren't going
to answer any questions. You just wanted to gap and
make up your own. There's also thing as a Christian
Communist Marxist doesn't exist. It's a made up thing. Does
anyone have an argument? Anyone disagree? I'm not taking q
and as I'm looking for people who disagree, any dispensation.
It's any pre millennials, any sola fide so scripture.
Speaker 4: Anyone who's a Mormon, anyone who is a uh, let's
see Joseph either dude.
Speaker 5: We already went to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, what's up?
Speaker 12: Jay's my question?
Speaker 45: He is like, you're a smart dude, And how how
can you still believe in a younger? Like I hold
Michael Jones position. I don't want to like get into
like the logistics, but like, how do you still hold
a younger?
Speaker 5: How do you not hold to it given the fact
that it's built on so many lies?
Speaker 2: Like what about.
Speaker 5: So what about piltdown Man, Nebraska Man. You know they're
ford their their frauds.
Speaker 2: Wait, what are you what is that?
Speaker 5: What are you talking about? You don't even know exactly,
I don't know. I don't pilt down Man, Nebraska Man.
They're famous frauds. And that's your example. You're supposed to nut.
Your go to is this famous freaking laughable frauds. Cavemen.
The Geico caveman is what you go to. Literally, like
one of the most famous examples of this is like
the most famous hosts pilt Down Man. And by the way,
Nebraskaman's exact same. And why is the why is Taylor
de Sharden popping up at all these By the way,
anybody else looking for people who disagree? We look for
the Muslims, the Mormons, the Atheists, the Dispensations, the Protestants,
the Roman Catholics, of the Gnostics. I don't. I just
simply am way more of a skeptic on scientism claims
than what's his name aspiring philosophy would be a sparing
philosophy defaults to a lot of this scientist domain, and
I don't. I think a lot of that stuff is fraudulent.
Oh my gosh, sure we go, Hey.
Speaker 26: J how are you?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 2: Nothing much?
Speaker 33: So I come from a Muslim background, and I just
requently watched your debate with Dake brinkintella. So I'm not
as philosophical or I'm not as.
Speaker 19: Smart and philosophy as you guys are.
Speaker 33: So I had to struggle, you know, understanding the terms
and everything of the debate. But I understand your point
of that we count God by division and not by identity,
and I just wanted to understand why.
Speaker 2: Is that that we don't count by identity.
Speaker 5: I didn't say that. I said that we count in
different ways, different things in different ways, And I said
that the ancient world counted by division. That that was uh,
that was uncontroversial because you can look at al Gazali,
you can look at Aristotle, you can look through medieval
Earth manuals like that's how they counted. It's why the
Nicene Creed says that God is won and indivisible. And
when you read, for example, Maximus the Confessor, he talks
about the monad is first, and then we have from
the monad the diad, and it's a splitting of the
monad into a diad and then into a triad. So
that's literally dividing, counting by division.
Speaker 33: No, I understand the concept of counting by division, and
I don't think that is inherently logical, you know what
I mean, Like if we split a ply into three parts.
Speaker 19: It's still one pie.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 5: But the point was that both Christians and Muslims would
require counting both by division and by identity, depending upon
what they were picking out in their respective deities. So
when a Muslim picks out the singular divine essence, Algazali
would say that God is indivisible. But when you're picking
out specific divine attributes, you would need to identify them
and pick them out in a different way.
Speaker 33: We still recognize that there are multiple attributes. We don't
say that there are one attribute.
Speaker 19: We count attributes by identity as well, because.
Speaker 5: There I just said, you count the identity the attributes
by identity.
Speaker 33: So in what way do we count in the Islamic conception,
In what way do they count God?
Speaker 5: My point was that you also would require the same
form of counting in both ways, as I understand, and
that was against the position of Jake, who was that
the only way to count is identity, which is a
more of a modern idea.
Speaker 33: No, I understand your point now, but I'm trying to say,
in what sense in the Islamic conception do they count
by a divisibility.
Speaker 5: When, for example, yeah, when you're if you're talking about
the unity or tall heed Uh. For example, algaz Ali
speaks of God as one and indivisible. He literally has
an entire section about counting allah Uh and in his
unity via division because the ancient world counted that way.
You don't get to counting by identity until you get
into more of a philosophical medieval conception where you have
things that are not divitible that can still be counted.
So for example, abstract objects, logical laws, sets, it makes
no sense to count those types of things by division,
and so they're counted by identity.
Speaker 2: I understand, Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 5: So what's the question about a lot attributes or does
that answer it?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 19: No, no, no, you addressed it. I'm just going to
do more research on my own.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 33: I'm going to say, you and Jake make really compelling points.
I think you guys are probably the smartest out of
all the apologetics on YouTube.
Speaker 5: So what compelling point did Jake make?
Speaker 14: Well?
Speaker 19: I didn't really see how we count what do you
call it?
Speaker 33: Why it would make sense to count God by division
and not by identity when we see that?
Speaker 5: Did you not hear anything that I said? So you're
not listening to what I said.
Speaker 2: No, no, I heard what you said.
Speaker 5: When did I say that we don't count God by identity? Also,
I didn't say that I said that. For example, I
said both positions would utilize both things because different ways
of counting are picking out different types of things. So,
for example, when we say that God is one and
indivisible in the creed, that's a reference to the divine essence.
But when we start picking out specifics like the Father,
the Son, the Holy Spirit, those are properties that are
being picked out that are identities, of.
Speaker 33: Course, and that's why you claim that there are three
persons but not there are three God, because they are
three identities.
Speaker 19: But that's what I'm trying to say is that if there.
Speaker 33: Are three different identities and each three of them are individually.
Speaker 19: Fully God, then why would there not be three Gods?
Speaker 5: Because the term God is intended first of all to
pick out the person of the Father, and so there's
God by identity, and then there's God by predication. So
you're the argument that you're making there assumes that the
word God only picks out one thing. But in divine revelation,
for example, the word God picks out multiple things, such
as divine persons, divine energies, the divine essence, divine human
people that are called gods or divinities, and then angels
that are called gods or divinities or demons. The word
God good is a broad term that can be used
to pick out all of those things. And so the
entire Muslim argument is premised on a word concept fallacy
that the word God only picks out or has a
reference to one thing, and that's the mistake. And I'm
pointing out that even in your own system, it doesn't
work that way, which is why we ask Jake the
questions about whether all his attributes are self existent, because
it would be the same problem applied to the attributes
that you're making to us.
Speaker 19: I see, I see it.
Speaker 33: So do you what I would ask is then what
I would then ask would be if God has this
nuanced definition when we make this, when you make the
statement from the.
Speaker 5: Ubanari, you have the same position. You have the same
metaphysical scheme at work.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, for sure. I'm just trying to understand this.
Speaker 19: So, so when we say that the Father is God, you're.
Speaker 33: Saying that it's both predication and identity.
Speaker 5: With the Father. The Father is God because he's fought,
he is source, are found, cause, et cetera. Yes, and
the Son and the Spirit participate in divinity by predication, right,
so they receive their divinity from the Father. But properly speaking,
in monarchical trinitarianism, the word God is a reference to
the person of the Father.
Speaker 33: Okay, so only the Father can be used God in
an identical form, but for the Son and the Holy Spirit,
it would have to be in a predicative for is
that im I understanding that?
Speaker 5: Because that yeah, because they receive U. I mean, it's
not wrong to call the Son God because he has
the divine nature, but it's for us first and foremost.
God picks out the person of the Father, but it
can also will be used to pick out the divine nature,
divine operations, and it can also be used to pick
out human and angelic and demonic entities. The demons are
called gods, for example. So then if I were to
can I give you an example?
Speaker 33: Okay, sorry, I just want to ask one quick question.
So if I were to say the Son is God,
then I'm not really saying that he is God.
Speaker 2: In the identical sense. I'm saying that he is divine.
Speaker 33: He possesses God's essence, but he's not actually God in
the identical.
Speaker 5: Sense, not in the sense of being the Father, because
the Father is properly speaking, the cause, the fount, the source,
et cetera. And that's why Jesus says the Father is greater.
That's the orthodox understanding of monarchical trinitarianism.
Speaker 33: I see, I see, But then see That's when I
start to see what Justin Martyr was talking about in
his dialogue with Trifle, because you just denied the individ
the identity of God with Jesus Christ to him. I
think a majority of Orthodox Christians would say, no, Jesus
Christ or the One is God by identity, like it's
not just a mere predication.
Speaker 5: That's just assuming again, that argument is assuming equalitarianism and
that the word God only has a reference to the
divine nature. And that's the very thing that we just
pointed out is not monarchical trinitarianism.
Speaker 2: No, My grife is really that when.
Speaker 33: We're using saying the Son is God or Jesus Christ
is God, we're not actually saying that he is an
identical sense, where it's more like saying it's more kin
to saying God or Jesus Christ is divine.
Speaker 5: He is the divine Son who possesses the divine nature.
Speaker 33: Many Christians find that problematic though, to deny.
Speaker 5: The I mean, I'm a defender of Orthodox Christian Christianity,
which is the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council on
monarchical trinitarianism. So I don't care what Roman Catholics think
don't care what Protestants think. We're not interested in a
popularity contest. And by the way, the Muslim view is
exact same. It's just not with persons, it's with attributes.
Do you believe that Allah's attributes are God?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 19: No, No, he possesses attributes.
Speaker 5: Okay, So the attributes are not God by identity? No,
So they don't self exist, No, they depend.
Speaker 19: They're not dependent.
Speaker 5: Well, if they don't self exist, then they are in
then they are. So self existence means that they are independent,
So they can't be dependent.
Speaker 19: I see.
Speaker 33: So if they're dependent on God, what would be the
implications of that position?
Speaker 5: Then the word God cannot just refer to Allah in
one sense. It also has to pick out other things.
Then you have to have other ways of counting and
distinguishing in a law.
Speaker 33: So because the attributes are dependent on a law, that
means that the attributes would have to be considered God
as well.
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm asking you the position. Are they God
by identity? Are they God by participation? They depend ourselves.
Speaker 19: I don't think they're gonna attributes for God in any sense.
I think they're just attributes.
Speaker 5: So Allah's word is not Allah of course not.
Speaker 19: No, it's Alla's word.
Speaker 5: Are they uncreated or created?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 33: I would say Allah's word is created.
Speaker 5: All his words created, so the attributes of all are created.
That's that's let's.
Speaker 33: See what you're positioning now, Yeah, it's it's really philosophically perplexing.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean you've had centuries of your own people
debating this, right, I mean I got a book right
here where Uh, of course, where a bunch of your
own people are calling you guys, uh anthropomorphic heretics critique
of the Palmerian creed. So I mean, do you agree
with Jake's position that Allah has an uncreated foot?
Speaker 9: Uh?
Speaker 19: Yeah, we could just pause it that we don't know
the hounds or the wind.
Speaker 5: I mean you can say that, but what is a
foot that's nothing like a foot?
Speaker 33: Well then you're you're positing that we must know the
hows and whyness of God?
Speaker 5: But I is the foot?
Speaker 4: Okay, I don't care how you frame it however you want.
Speaker 5: Is the foot uncreated or creator? You said all I
has created attributes, which is heresy by the way, in
your position.
Speaker 33: Well, I'm fallible, you know, I'm trying to say, I'm
still in the learning.
Speaker 5: Okay, do you guys kill each other over that? Or
is that cool? Unfallible? Just say I'm fallible. It's like
I can commit shirt, but I'm fallible. Didn't you guys
kill each other mut the Mutazila didn't? Were there battles
over this?
Speaker 2: Of course there were battles over okay?
Speaker 5: So do we know? I thought this was simple position,
like all is one? Right? Are the attributes created or uncreated?
Speaker 12: Well, I don't know why the attributes would.
Speaker 33: Even be in an argument because we're not positing that
the attributes are separate individual person in So.
Speaker 5: You, in other words, you don't want me to bring
them into the argument because it shows that you have
the exact same metaphysical problem that you're putting on. I
just don't understand how the argument is because it shows
the stupidity of the position to say that Allah has
an uncreated foot and then you just said that Alla
has created attributes.
Speaker 33: But you see, this is what this is how I'm
this is how I'm understanding.
Speaker 5: So the trinitarian con Now you're going to my position.
I want to know about is there an uncreated foot
or a creative foot? Is all his foot? I'm creator created?
Which one is it.
Speaker 19: Ultra? I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: But the thing is, I'm not so you don't have
a so so you don't have a school. There's no
akida for you. You can just make it up as
you go or what?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 33: Sure, I don't need to commit myself to a certain
nakita on this stream.
Speaker 5: You don't try to ask questions?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 5: So that's this honest that what I'm point was, Troy, see,
I don't have to commit to any now you do
if you're gonna, uh teach Islam, you're supposed to be
part of some school. There's no make it up as
you go. And you heard him say that Allah has
created attributes, the speech of Allah is created. That's pretty much.
I think every mon someone believes that's heresy. I don't.
I don't think there's any OFLSS left that think that.
Speaker 2: Troy and you, okay, can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yep?
Speaker 8: So I'm an ex gnostic coming intoward the dogs.
Speaker 2: He and I just have a pretty much a question
for something I'm.
Speaker 10: Confused about, which is how is lady wisdom and proverbs
understood and orthodox?
Speaker 2: Is she identified with Christ?
Speaker 5: The logos that feminine yes the Paul in the New
Testament identifies Christ as the wisdom of God. So it's
a personification of God's wisdom. But that wisdom is the
second person of the Godhead. There's no feminine person in
the Trinity. There's no not that's a gnostic idea. In fact,
I was just reading Carl Young who says that he's
a gnostic because of the Trinity banished the Goddess from
the Godhead.
Speaker 12: So uh.
Speaker 5: But it's also a reference to the Church. The Church
is the feminine, the house of God that's built on
seven pillars, that offers bread and wine, as the text discussed.
That's a prediction of the Eucharist, the divine liturgy. There's
also a reference to probably marry the Theatocos.
Speaker 2: That's actually fantastic, Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, great questions. I'm glad that somebody brought nobody's ever
brought that up. That's that's actually a really good question.
Jubba Glitchy Rhythm five dollars Jay, explain why Protestants. Can
you explain to the provinces why we're not all saints?
They love discrediting saints with the verse from Corinthians.
Speaker 9: Well, we're all.
Speaker 5: Saints in potentia, or we're all called out, but not
everybody is at the level of Saint Paul or a
Saint Basil. So that's to me that seems like it
should be a no brainer. What's up, man, Jebbo?
Speaker 6: He all right, I have a question about icons. There's
this argument against icons that I don't know how they answer. Okay,
So it's the argument is that God's essence is inaccessible
and beyond human comprehension. Even in Christ's hyposcetic union, his
divine nature remains unseen and ineffable. So San Gregory wrote
about this about God's invisible in nature being beyond human reach.
Thus representing Christ's divine essence through icons contradicts the belief
that God's divinity is entirely invisible, right.
Speaker 5: And so that's why the Seventh e Commitical Council says
that it's not the divine essence that is depicted in
the icons, just the divine hypostasis of the sun, not
the usia. It's the person. And the reason that we
can interact with the divine person is through the energies
of the persons. So the energies are in hypostatic, and
as the Seventh Ecmenical Council says, you can read on
the Holy Icons by saying Theodore. In that book, he
says that what's circumscribed is the divine hypostasis. The divine
essence is uncircumscribable. So you have to have the distinction
between nature and person and between essence and energy to
have iconography.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you, Yeah, good question.
Speaker 5: And again on the Holy Icons by s Theodore, this
tude explicitly answers that very question. Everybody should read that
one if they're interested in iconography. Anybody else disagree, anybody
have any challenges. We still got twelve hundred people over here.
Let me check to see if I missed a super
chat over here on stream labs clead us here. I
want to find your video. I'll send you fifty dollars
if you find me the link. I mean that's come
up a lot. I mean it's not like the video
that questions never come up. I just don't remember off
the top of my head where we've done so many
live streams and that question has come up so many times.
I have to think of how that guy that made
the clip worded it. Batt let's try valid baptism. I
don't know why this comes up. It's not about that,
it's just not going to come up. See that they
changed the algorithm all the time, and then stuff that
used to come up doesn't come up. Maybe the clips
channel guy like took his clips channel down. I don't know,
maybe it's not there anymore. I just don't even understand,
and like why is it even an issue, like just
do what your bishop says, Like why are you like
it's the practice of ro Corps to baptize everyone that
comes to ro cords and that's because jurisdictions are decentralized
and they can make those decisions as they choose. I
just don't understand why this is a hang up for you.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just not understood.
Like to me, this is like not even like this
is like the what Paul calls milk. It's time to
move on to the meat. I'm not dissing you. I
just don't understand the hang up or what the problem is.
Speaker 4: Let's try sacraments, see what we do with that.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't understand the Roman Catholic mindset
that they think this is like a like a defeater
for Orthodoxy. It's like they have an expectation that the
or Roman the Orthodoxy will operate like Roman Catholicism, and
so there's there's like a jurisdictional differentiation. They think that's
a defeater. The assumption is that there there's like a
one size fits all. It's like, I just don't I
don't understand the I don't think it's the Orthodox clips guy.
But let me see if he clipped it. Ah, here
it is?
Speaker 26: This?
Speaker 2: Is it? Like this is something that would need to
be settled because there's a lot.
Speaker 5: Of or is this it? I think this is it
debunking the donatus accusation. It may be that one. Let's
see Protestantism, Tomism. I think it's this one. Like this
because this Anglican dude that we had this debate with.
If you want, you can go listen to the whole
Anglican debate, which is about a month ago. If you
used to go look at the live streams, you'll find
the debate I had with the Anglican dude. They got
pretty heated. I think that's the video. And I'm not
just picking that because you said you get fit th Bucks.
But I mean he's got this listed as uh rebaptism
in the church. I actually think there was another. I
think that one addresses it, but I actually think there
was another one, a different clips channel anyway, Stu, what
they tell you?
Speaker 30: Man?
Speaker 5: Smiley Todd?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey? Uh?
Speaker 28: Before I say something, have your thought naming your thing
like the dire situation?
Speaker 9: Nothing like that.
Speaker 8: Have your thought naming your thing like the.
Speaker 12: Dire situation, like you know, the I R.
Speaker 28: E situation or dire straits second of off uh and Yahwehism,
you know, the proto religion before God I showed himself
to the ancient Judaeans excess.
Speaker 5: I don't believe that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but like a shira?
Speaker 28: Do you think ishira is like a typology of the vehicles,
like an early concept in the subconscious, or like an
early version of what humans would consider the Holy ghost,
like a primordial concept before we understood.
Speaker 5: There was one God. No, and I don't believe any
of that. So, squirrel in Oz.
Speaker 4: Are you there?
Speaker 5: I'm mute, squirrel in Oz there, am.
Speaker 26: How are you going?
Speaker 5: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Check it out.
Speaker 26: So I was raised a Protestant and actually kind of
cost go of all things and observed it. I'm an
inquirer into Orthodox and I was going through prayer book
and there is particular prayer in our morning prayers where
it led towards the Theotokos and some of it I
she just can't get.
Speaker 8: My head around to where it doesn't seem.
Speaker 26: Like you're just worshiping the theotoco and asking the Theotokos
perfect us.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, she's praying for us, and I understand that objection.
I did a video that you should watch on the
Mary is the Arc of the Covenant, So I'd go say,
watch that forty minute video and that will help, I think,
to explain the biblical case for the Marian doctrines. But
it's not faq knight, So look for people who disagree.
So if you have a disagreement, if you're a Catholic,
a Protestant, dispensation, so it's not catechumen knight like for
people who disagree like the Muslim guy. It was a
great Muslim interaction. Grubs McGee ten dollars. Do you see
the controversy about Seraphim Holland I did not. His clip
says works are necessary for salvation. It triggers the Protestants.
I didn't. I'm not familiar with that clip, but I
mean it's funny because like people, the probably this is
gets so tripped up on word concept fallacies, and there's
absolutely a sense in which, yeah, works aren't necessary for salvation.
I mean, that's literally what James says. And when you
look at when Paul says in Galatians five that the
faith that counts is the one that worketh through love,
that's Paul saying that a working faith is the only
one that saves you. Therefore, works are necessary. Cletus says
for fifty dollars, thank you. My issue, to be clear,
is that if it's a contradiction with the theology and
problem of rebaptism without addressing post baptismal sins aka, what
if God asked me about my sins prior to corrective
baptism and he considers my first baptism valid. I mean,
You're becoming Orthodox, so God's led you to Orthodoxy. God's
not the being counter trying to trick you up on
the Roman Catholic baptism being valid and then now you're
I mean, it just doesn't you need to be immersed
in the Orthodox mindset and stop thinking in a Roman
Catholic mindset. And so it's not rebaptism, it's just baptism.
So it's not corrective baptism. It's literally just baptism because
there's only one baptism. And I don't understand what you
say contradiction with theology with Roman Catholic theology, because the
Orthodox position is not that there has to be a
one size fits all. The six Ecumenical Council, for example,
says in certain cases people need to be rebaptized or
quote just baptized because they were baptized into the Eunomian position, right,
which is a single immersion that presupposes an anti Trinitarian theology.
And then they talk about other situations where people can
be received through profession of rejection of the heresies. So
if it's a schism and everything was done correctly, but
they might have been just in schism, and so the
impediment to receiving the grace is removed by the profession
of error or rejecting the error, there's no need to
do the ritual over again, right. So that's why, for example,
the Novationists and the Canons of Nicea are received without
being rebaptized or revested. It's a case by case basis.
There's not a one size fits all. That's what I'm
trying to tell you. It's like you have a presupposition
of a Roman Catholic mindset that unless Orthodoxy has a
single way for every jurisdiction and every bishop to do this,
then it's a quote contradiction. Economia means that there's flexibility
with the interpretation and application of the canons. It's not
possible to keep all the canons. They're insane, many of them.
They're impossible. They're about places that no longer exist. They're
for their time and for the place going. Clergy can't
ride horses in ancient canons. That was because in the
Middle Ages there's nobility, and clergy are not state members
of the state. They're clergy, so they can't ride on horses,
which is a sign of nobility. So idiots read the
canons and they think to precate ride a horse because
the ancient canon said it. Now both the ancient canon
said you can't go pray in the synagogue. Yeah, because
the principle there is not bound by time and space.
This is an eternal principle. About true worship the Ten Commandments,
and so you can't go and pray with the Protestants
and the Roman Catholics in their churches and celebrate the
Mass and the novs Orto because they don't have the
Orthodox faith. So it's a violation of the moral principle
that the canon expresses. That moral principle doesn't change. It
never becomes the case that, oh, we can go and
pray in the mosques. Now it's cool because the pope
says so, and he does it. Okay, that doesn't fluctuate.
The principle stays the same. Right, it's the spirit of
the law, not the letter of the law that matters.
So what was the spirit of the law that clergy
can't ride on a horse? Is that clergy are supposed
to be distinct from the civil state, because the Canons
of Chalcedon, by the way, which refutes the papacy, say
that no clergy can be a member of the state.
And by the eleventh century the Gregorian reforms, the papacy
becomes a world emperor with armies. That violates the ancient
canons of Chalcedon. How do I know that that's a
canon that isn't time bound and fluctuating and based on
the times, because the principle is forever there that the
state is not the church. That's not something that evolves
and fluctuates over time. There are two distinct entities. That's
the meaning of the Byzantine doubleheaded eagle. And what does
Jesus say about the law? Right? What does Paul say?
It's the spirit of the law, it's not the letter
of the law. And what does every idiot and spurg do.
They go by the letter of the law and they
think that it's all like an eternal timeless Like if
you go to the shows, you're an idolator.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: There's always some eighteen year old catechumen who converts and
he reads the cantons and says that because it tells
you you can't go to the shows. If you go
to the movies, you're damned. It's not talking about the
movie theater.
Speaker 4: It's talking about the ancient pagan festivals that would require
you to worship the deities to go to the quote
shows vol Ven Louve.
Speaker 5: You're not saved by faith alone. The Bible never says
you're saved by faith alone. It says saved by faith
apart from the works of the Jewish law. You added
the faith alone part. In fact, you are not saved
by faith alone. Paul says that you're saved by faith
that works in love. A working faith keeping the commandments
of love is what saves you.
Speaker 4: Are you there? Do you want to talk or not? Okay,
we're back to Cornelius.
Speaker 8: Hello, Yeah, thank you, and excuse my bad English.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if it's up to debate, and I.
Speaker 24: Don't know if we even disagree, so I'd have to elaborate.
I'm also the Christian and disagree with the philosophical foundation
of libertarianism.
Speaker 8: Yet I don't disagree with the.
Speaker 24: Conclusions, especially the economic conclusions like ownership of the body
and of your own body, and therefore.
Speaker 5: I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that.
Vin Low, what's up?
Speaker 42: Yeah, what do you think is the.
Speaker 2: Most distinct way of.
Speaker 28: Of like getting out of the what's it called Coptic Church? Like,
what's the strongest argument to why it's a false heresy?
Speaker 5: Maybe the two Letters of cyrilta sixth Census, which admits
that he has a human nature after the resurrection.
Speaker 28: H Yeah, because I feel like a lot of Coptic
apologetics is that we have the same funny hats as
you do, so we're equally true, if not more so.
It's more obsessed with the aesthetics of it than the
actual theology of it.
Speaker 5: Well, it's funny because they're they're basically losing their iconographic tradition.
So if they're going to be obsessed with aesthetics, they
should have maintained the iconographic tradition. But a lot of
those churches have a giant TV screen. You got a
Armenian Orthodox church so called, and you'll find giant TV
screens within in the sanctuary, in the service. So it's
hard to take that very seriously when you've got big TV,
like it's like a sports bar in there with a
bunch of TV screens. I remember when Rouche was leaving
Armenian Orthodoxy, he said he couldn't believe that there's all
these giant TV screens in there in the surface. So
I mean, yeah, you kind of have to look at
the theology. You can't solve it by like, you know,
who's got the more cool aesthetic, And of course Coptics
don't have a cool aesthetic, So sorry, I don't see
anybody else, so there's no more questions. I don't see
anymore super chats. Maybe we'll call it a night, Big Chunk,
Why did God make the world? Why didn't God make
the world smaller in size so then everyone could hear
the gospel? That's really funny, dude, Van five dollars funds
towards your plane ticket to Nashville so that you can
host an IRL event or do you stand up at Zany's.
I don't think Zanies is gonna invite me anytime soon,
but people thought my crowd work at the Horror Convention
was pretty funny. I wish that I'd done some crowd
work with the Horror Convention people. I could have really
ripped on them. They might have thrown me out, though,
because I don't I don't know if. I don't know
if they could take I just don't know how the
bunch of horror weirdos are going to take my jokes.
But it would be fun to do an event in Nashville. Again.
Appreciate that vein so hybe, she's.
Speaker 11: So high.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 10: I just wanted to say, do you think that the
ethan Orthodox in the Oriental Orthodox are closer to.
Speaker 2: Reunification.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I mean maybe because I.
Speaker 2: Do believe that both churches have.
Speaker 10: Affirmed the same Christology no in the nineties, I believe,
if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 5: I mean, all of these ecumenical gatherings where we all
get together and pretend we're saying the same thing, they
don't really accomplish much. I don't really keep up with
that kind of stuff. Maybe they're moving in the right
direction towards us, or it's all just kind of everybody
holding hands and singing combine and pretending that we have
the same theology. I don't know. I want to make
sure I didn't miss the super chatus as I missed
his earlier Big Chuck. I think, didn't you say the
same joke earlier? Because I did see that joke. Maybe
I just didn't read the joke because it was so bad.
I guess I just missed it.
Speaker 4: But I mean, bro, you're throwing down dollars super chats,
which dollar's not even worth.
Speaker 5: A dollar anymore. Dollar's worth like sixty cents, So basically
you're throwing a sixty cents super chat. But I appreciate
it better than a no sense super chat. There's still
eighty people here. No one has a disagreement. We had
one feisty Muslim who said all I has created attributes
and then he walked it back. I was like, oops,
eighty people, no one disagrees. I'm gonna assume everybody has
everything correct. Nobody. Father Deacon missed out on this one.
He missed. What was that one guy saying that he
spoke to Jesus and that Jesus was going to give
everyone bread. That dude, that dude was. That dude was
tripping me out. Tallahose Patriot, Hey, jam in my car
right now. Are you able to hear me? Yes, sir, awesome? Yeah.
Speaker 46: So I I was baptized Russian Orthodox as an infant.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 46: Spent most of my life in Protestant churches for some
like complicated family reasons.
Speaker 2: And I've been in a.
Speaker 46: MacArthur ask church in Tallahassee the past handful of years.
But I'm heavily exploring Orthodoxy and your uh, you know
work and advocacy has been very impactful on that, along
with some of the you know ad on accounts like
Orthodox Luigi and you know others on here. But I
wanted to ask, and I know you've got to talk
about this like before. I mean, probably a lot of
times that you could you asked us a bunch, But
I feel like one thing I've kind of wrestled with
as to like if I was to go, like I guess,
go full Orthodox or come back into the church or
however you want to work that, you know, like how
I would then view you know, Protestant Christians, reform Christian
et cetera. Because I feel like I've read conflicting on that.
You know, like I've read some Orthodox Church to say, well,
you know, I'm not going to say that they're not saved,
but they're not in the fullness of biblical truth. But
then I know there's some Orthodox hardcore with soteiology, So like,
what would you say about that?
Speaker 5: I mean, again, I can't judge an individual person in
terms of their ultimate destiny. But what we can say
is what we're told to say by the Church, which
is that outside the Church, you're outside the ark. And
you're not just outside the arc, you're also in a
situation professing heterodox ideas. There's no Christology outside the Orthodox Church.
That's the Orthodox Christology. There's no uncreated grace in Protestants
pseudo sacraments. In fact, Protestants aren't even called a church
in the Canons. They're called a parachurch because they don't
even have apisotic succession. So you don't even have what's
necessary to have a quote church, because the church built
on the foundation stones of the apostles. As Ephesian says,
that means the succession of the bishops in the church.
So while there may be sincere people in Protestanism, and
the Holy Spirit is definitely working in people's hearts to
bring them to Orthodoxy, we're not in any position to say, well,
the sufficient means of grace are in Protestantism. If anyone
was saved in quote Protestantism, it's in spite of Protestantism,
and it's because they're united to the mystical body of
the Church, which is the Orthodox Church. It's not because
of anything to do with quote Protestantism, because it's the
Church is the arc. So and again, when we look
at the distinctives of Protestantism, what do we find in
the first thousand years of Christianity that have the distinctives
of Protestantism. All the heretical sects, the Montanists, the Massallians,
the Econoclasts, the Pallagians. I mean, all of these different
positions that many, many Protestant groups hold. We find that.
I'm not talking about John MacArthur. I know John MacArthur
wouldn't be a Pelagian. I'm just saying that, you know,
we look at these different groups. There are Pellagian Protestant groups,
there's Unitarian Protestant groups, there's anti Trinitarian Protestant groups, there's
you know, you name it. Those are all the ancient heresies.
So it's like saying, there's nice people in the ancient heresies.
So like, is it okay if they just stay in
the ancient heresies? No, I'm not. I know you're not
saying that. I'm just saying, like, I can't sit here
and tell individual people you're going to hell, you're going
to hell, you're going to hell, you're going to help.
That's not what we're told to do. Paul says, what
do I have to do with judging those that are without?
We judge those that are within, but we tell them
to come in, and whether they do or don't is
they're up to them. Yo yo, yo, five dollars, I
watch your Holy Mountain review today? Can you recommend other
titles to watch? I don't recommend you watch Holy Mountain
that the movie is gross and blasphemous because it's such
an important, so called, you know, a cult film. We
watched it a few years ago and it's kind of
a The ending was kind of anti clembactict. It did
have a couple of interesting insights into like the cooming
smart cities if you remember that section in the in
the video, and the sex bots is hinted at. So
there's some pretty wild, sort of predictive stuff in there,
kind of like Metropolis from Fritz Lang. But I mean,
if you're looking for weird occult movies that have predictive elements,
I just did a talk on this called Satanic Cinema,
and I listed a ton of movies that would be
kind of in that vein of having predictive elements, and
first one that comes to mind will being Metropolis. But
I don't recommend any of the any job Erowski's films
are just gross and blasphemous. All right, Well, I don't
see anybody else, so thank you guys. It was a
lot of fun tonight, just getting ready for church tomorrow. Everybody.
Hopefully you can make it out to church and everybody
have a good night. Oh by the way, head on
over to Chalk dot com. I can't, I can't forget
our beloved show sponsor right here. Head over to the website.
You can get signed copies of the books, and you'll
notice the link to Chalk dot com right here. Head
on over here and get fifty forty four percent off
this performance stack by using the promo code Jay four
four Life jay four four l I f E and
you'll get forty four percent off that performance stack that
includes the Action two point zero, that super super super
powerful Chad Mode pre work out be careful with that
is so powerful, and the tong Catilee again also very powerful.
So take these in moderation. If I took two Tonkats
one day and I was like, my heart was like fluttering,
I was up all night. So if you want to
get sleep, don't take a bunch of either Chad Mode
or Toncat late at night.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 5: The ingredients are not toxic. It's all super pure, super
stringent on their criteria for what ingredients they use. Over
at Chalk, I was just talking to Seaton yesterday. We
were getting into some of these products, and I think
that he's very happy with what we're doing over here.
Long time sponsor. I think we're going on almost maybe
five years now, four or five years and a great company,
great product, super super awesome based dudes over there, so
support good companies like Chalk dot Com by getting those
products at a discount. Jay four for la f he
used that promo code. You can cancel it any time,
by the way, and it's not just for dudes. There's
also a female vitality sack here and you don't have
to buy the packs. You can buy the individual products
if you want the shie Legit great for your mood regulation.
If you're one of the ladies for Focus Irishmalle. It
is also great for that. A lot of minerals that
are missing in our typical American diet. You can find
that things like Oshawa Ganda. You can find that UH
seven Wonders is great for that. Chalk Daily is great
for that. Head on over to Chalk dot com and
use that promo code j A y four four l
I f E j A y four four