HEATED Muslim, Mormon, Protestant-Calvinist, Catholic, TAG MELTDOWN DEBATES! WOW!!!

The of, the of, the the the, the, the dot to the.

Day.

Fo you gottle dottle bodn't brittle poopoo, Papa Papa.

This is the Elon my song. I love it. It's become my favorite song. This is that South South Africa mix. This that there's that Elon South Africa mix. Then it comes up with that emotional orchestral and then we get some drops and fat beats. Oh right, yet I'm joking. Actually this song is the worst. I can't stand that song. Oh that's the that's that Elon mix right there. Yeah, I muted on Twitter because I was listening to them hype beats from DJ Elon and the South Africa South

That the Jamaican accent rad Yeah what you're doing, thesis, you're ra sister.

Me go to pet turtle. It is ureases.

Me.

Grind up the turtle, make him into a powder on smoking men. Smoke the turtle. Everything you faking? Yeah, why are you gay?

This is the Island mix the South Africa Island mix me go to nice and sweating.

Now, why are you gay? You are gay? What's up?

What's up?

Open Forum debates what's happening to redeem zoomer Well. I suspect he is at the stage that many of us have gone through. Many of us got to the point where we started to wonder if Protestantism might itself just not be correct. So I think that's where he's at. He said today, I would like to announce I'm giving up Protestant apologetics. It's the biggest waste of time of my life. I haven't defended Protestanism one bit. I've only made people leave Protestanism. Seeing how bad I was at it,

Oh?

He says, Christ is the new Atom. So in other words, we should have a chrystological interpretation of the covenant with Adam. And by the way, there is a covenant with Adam. It's said to be a covenant in the minor prophets, my covenant with Adam in the nowaic covenant. You think, well, that's just a covenant of God's providence in nature, regularity in nature. Oh, but it's also chrystological. Doesn't the New Testament give that a crystall logical interpretation? The arc is

What that is?

What that is?

What that is?

Right?

Bryson's nonsense?

Uh?

Anyway, whoever else, Because he's the Messiah, he has the authority to say, these are the elements that are fulfilled. And remember, even with this is something everybody misses that doctor Branson brings up. I brought this up too. Even Jews understand that not every aspect of the law was for all of the gentiles. So Hebrew roots people and other would be objectors don't even understand the Jewish view of the law. I mean, you can't even keep the first of all, you can't keep all the walls anyway,

Like?

How am I supposed to keep land walls? Am I supposed to keep the Jubilee laws? This is crazy. Obviously, the intention for this religion to be universal, which is an intention the Messiah will come and the worship of the God of the Jews will be made universal. Okay, well, how could that happen if literally all aspects of the Mosaic law we're intended for the entire world. Obviously it's not and Jews don't even believe that. That's what I'm

Man, Jay, what's happened? Yes, sir, Yeah, I just caught the tail end here.

It's super interesting because I run into well you mentioned Bryson and a lot.

Of people in that movement as well.

I think one of the caveats they say is that, oh, you know, some of these laws are contingent upon their a temple. So that's the reason they don't apply because there is an a temple.

But you wait, once the temple comes back, you better get your goats ready because you're going to have to start doing some sacrifices.

Well again, like you know, you have all of these prophecies like among the nations, my name will be great, and my incense will be offered to my name among the gentiles. Right like the minor prophets, those are clearly Messianic prophecies that extend the altar and the incense and the priesthood outside of the limitations of physical Israel. How is that possible? Isaiah in two or three places mentions

Well, yeah, I don't I don't understand now the milk because at that point gets rationalized.

But but there, you know, there is a way that they rationalize it.

What you know one, So I've got it pretty in depth with this because I was shocked when I first heard you know this, you need to follow mosaic law stuff, and I'm like, there's no way, like the scriptures can support it. But then there, you know, they have enough of like acrobatics. And I mean in some sense, actually, I mean fair enough, when Christ said I don't want to destroy the law.

You know, I'm not going to abolish the law.

I mean, there is a lot of rhetorical force, and they have an interpreted interpretive framework where there is some merit to their lens from a Bible alone perspective, which obviously we rejected that the sol scripture concept. But looking into history, I'm like, well, it seems like the fathers actually debated this, and it wasn't until like Augustin and Jerome, when they had letters back and forth, they finally.

Agreed on the role of the Mosaic law.

Because in the pro mosaic side, Jesus followed the law. You had the early Apostles, the Disciples, the first generation of Christians seemingly followed the Mosaic law.

And so I mean, do you think that.

I mean, I don't mean to be contentious, but I don't think that's true at all. The idea that the Church had not settled this issue until the fourth century with Roman and Augustine, I think is pretty preposterous. I think that the Letter of Hebrews solved this issue. I think that within the Book of Acts itself, Paul had to struggle to really convince people, even like Peter, that

Well, do you might even though I agree with you that you know we're not found by the mosaic law? Can I offer a steel man here? Because I've gotten pretty I pushed back. I've quoted the Peter vision, I've quoted all this stuff, and can I give you a steel man of what?

They would say, Well, you can, absolutely, But I would point out that I did debate Bryson, so I'm familiar with some of their positions. They Oh, yeah, I did about a three hour debate with Bryson. You can look that up. But yeah, go ahead, I.

Gotta look at it.

Yeah, I mean the Peter's vision, right a rise, kill and eat rightly after that vision, you know, he says, well, the purpose is to you know, point to not separating yourself from.

The gentiles, which, of course is like, well.

Why would God use the means of having you eat the animals if he wasn't fine with it? But they're saying that the problem is that the Jews of the day took the priestly rules and they made them requirements.

For like being a true Jew or salvation.

Right, so like even with the circumcision, their reframe of back fifteen Council of jerusalemess to say not that circumcision is abolished, but that it's not required to become one of God's people.

But once you are God's people, you should follow the law.

And I know it sounds a little bit of like acrobatics, but but that'.

I mean if you took maybe that in isolation from acts, okay, maybe, but look, we have Paul's epistles many times over Colossians Timothy, for example, Paul says to Timothy, right, nothing in itself is unclean, but rather all meats are clean when they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. For Simothy four to five in Colostionans, he talks about how, look, circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. In fact, baptism is the

Yeah, well, I agree with you.

So I well, I mean what would they say to first Timothy four and five that foods are not unclean? In fact, foods aren't made clean by the work by praying.

Yeah, I'd have to review my notes on that, fair enough. I know.

A big pivot is they always backtrack to, well, you had the mission that you had these extra pharaistical laws and like the washing of hands, because even like in Mark was.

It Mark seven where there's about cleanliness and.

You know, yeah, I'd have to go back to specifically and the Timothy thing one reference I'll say though, it's a pretty powerful organization in this movement. It's called one one nine Ministries, and they have really strong rhetorical chops and frankly, I.

Mean they do have some scholarship stuff.

They they have the alternative interpretation on every challenging scripture.

So I'll go back, I'll see what they have to say about the first time.

Well, I mean, what's what I mean, the whole Book of Hebrews really is, you know, geared towards pointing out that now that the realities have come, to go back to the shadows which are types. Is absurd. So I mean, just just the whole purpose of two epistles in the New Testament are directed towards refuting the Judaizing heresy. So the fact that they would even attempt to like this is like, I mean, this is as silly as saying, you know, like the New Testament doesn't teach the deep Christ.

Want to talk about that. We are supposed to be that we need to bate Net, we need debate Deity. We're supposed to debate only his interpretation of Matthew five. And my point is that like, if your sect is true, you would at least.

Get the weightier matters of the law, like the deity of Christ, correct over these things. And what do they do, like every sect do they want to focus on these kinds of bodily washings and stupid stuff what Paul calls the beggarly elements of this world over the more important doctrines of the Trinity.

Well, right, But I think that that points to the limitations of like the Sola scripture of framework.

Anyway, because arguably, if all you have is a Bible.

You can't necessarily come to the conclusion of trinity and the deity of Christ with the Scripture alone, like you needed the authority of the Church, the Apostolic hand up.

I mean, I disagree with that totally, because Jesus holds the people in his generation liable for not believing in him and not believing that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity.

That's interesting, Yet, that sounds like what the religion of the Apostles book.

A lot of the old a lot of good.

Goat, right. It's actually the argument of justin against trifle.

The Jews, So justin against TREIFO. Okay, have you read.

John five through nine. I'm not trying to be a dickhead. I'm just saying, like, I'm not being rude to you a but when I hear Roman Catholics say this stuff to me, it's just sort of signifies, Like I mean, John five through nine is Jesus constantly arguing with the Pharisees that you're liable for not believing in me because the Old Testament all taught me and Abraham worshiped the Trinity. That do you believe that or not?

Right, Well, I suppose if you're a Pharisee back then, you know that there's a Messiah and maybe someone from the you know, one of the persons of the Trinity, but you weren't sure. You were trying to discern whether Jesus Christ there this guy was the Messiah versus some other.

Well, I understand that. But from this point on afterwards, right, Jesus says to them, you are now liable because you have.

Seen right, because yeah, you've seen it.

Didn't believe exactly at some at some point I would like to get of course, I wouldn't have expected you to have this prepared now, but at some point your opinion on the letter with Augustine and Jerome, because I know the mosaic while they were debating on it, like Jerome was confused because you're saying, why did Paul keep

Law in the first generation.

Augustin said, well, it's like having an honorable funeral.

You don't want to just.

Like desecrate the body. You want to give it a proper burial, honor the ancestors. Because if we just chopped the mosaic law in one generation, it would be like suggesting that God.

Who came up with nonsense in the Old Testament.

And so that's why there's like a slow transition, which again it's still kind of perplexing.

It's a mystery to me.

But well, I do agree with slow transition because but I see that slow transition happening within the first century. And one element that's often missed that is actually stressed in the Eastern Fathers is the destruction of the Temple. So seventy eight D is pretty consistent in you know, Saint John Christal sermons and so forth. Athletes just talks

That's really interesting. I have to read more on what they've said there. Okay, great, well, that was the Mosaic law.

I did have a question, since I'm here with you on the Catholic stuff, if I could ask, unless you've got.

A hoop on.

No, it's overformed, dude, sweet sweet, Well, okay, so I think you've made the claim before the argument of like, well, why have any of these ecumenical councils of all you.

Need is a pope right where it kind of suggests like there's.

A contradiction, right, Is that fair that the economical consoles in some sense falsify the concept of the papacy.

The way that Vatican One frames the papacy makes the first thousand years of Christianity seem absurd, a lot of trouble over nothing, when literally, if they believed in the Vatican One mindset of the papacy in the first thousand years, then literally everyone could have just written to the pope to have the issue settled. Fact Roman Catholic apologists, for example, often will appeal to the letters of Clement as proof that Clement, very many miles away from the problems in Corinth,

Argument, got it, Okay, So I guess it's two questions, right, because I'm wondering if what you think about these lines of thoughts?

So right, So why have councils.

If you just have the pope maybe one to one correspondence and the Pope just tells everyone here's how it's going to be.

Right, do you do you find in any merit in this?

We're like, well, what like if we make a council here, even if let's say hypothetically, if the.

Pope somehow had some quart of some sort of authority, it.

Gives opportunity for people to ask questions, understand how the teaching reconciles, so they can have the open debate. And it also forces all the leaders of the church to show themselves in written statement, whether.

They're in a quart or not.

So in some sense, you force the council and you can reveal who's the heretic and who's the orthodox.

Like do you think, well, I mean again, none of you, none of that. But in the post first millennium Western mindset, again, none of that's necessary because after the eleventh century, the pope confirms every bishop in the world. The Pope decides

Yeah, no, right to your point. And I suppose the difficult thing.

I mean, we can't even read each other's minds and here we are in the present, but to try to read the minds.

Of historical figures, of course there's going to be something.

Well, remember how difficult it is in the ancient world to bring all these bishops throughout the empire to one central city. I mean, that's a huge feat. It requires a long time, it requires a lot of money. When all we needed was just like a one letter sent to the Bishop of Rome and his you know, sealable approval. And by the way, couldn't the Bishop of Rome to tell us who's a heretic and who's not? By the way, I mean, that's the Vatican One powers that he has. Why can't why can't he do that?

Well, So that's interesting, and this is me thinking for the first time, I haven't thought about what you're saying here before. But I suppose, like okay, for example, like capital punishment at least in the Catholic position has has migrated, right, So why did the church flip flop? You could say, well, before there was no adequate means to deal with the psychopaths, you know, the dangerous people there were, there were no prisons, so you just had to kill them. But now that

Well on, there were prisons in the ancient world. The mosaic law mentions imprisoning somebody.

What do you mean, Uh, well, I.

Mean yeah, without getting too much into that point, I mean the concept I think that you couldn't really have a stable society with like mass you know.

Prisons at scale, like you just have to kind of to It's.

Because you're balancing the good of letting the person have an opportunity for redemption versus protecting society.

From the evil doer.

And you could argue that before you couldn't really contain the evil doers, so it's better to just you know, kill them.

Well, the problem with that, I understand that this is an attempt at explaining why this position might evolve. But the problem is that in traditional Catholic moral theology, and I think even I'm going from memory here, but even in the Council the Catechism of Trent, it argues that the basis for the death penalty is natural justice. So does I thought things in Rome Mecalay theology natural law? How's that going to change?

Right?

Well, fair enough?

And yeah, I guess I don't mean to get too much united into that. I'd have to circle back on that point, but I guess if there is a certain element of the fundamental nature of the times is somehow changed.

So you make an interesting point that, I mean.

Today you can communicate around the world in a millisecond. I mean, we're doing it right now, and so having a centralized structure and dissemination of information whatever, I mean, that's that's not much of a problem. But back then, like you couldn't really travel. I mean, it's really problematic.

So you're saying, but then that means you're admitting that the Clement argument is not an argument for Aboutican one.

Oh I'm not even aware, Like I'm not even making a claim. Y, I'm just literally explored.

I'm trying to like grapple with the consequence.

I understand. But if that's the case, then the Clement example is no longer an example for Vatican one papacy.

Yeah, no, I see what you're saying. But coolly, I gotta have to look more into the stuff that you brought up.

But you know it's also I mean, are you are you aware on this topic? Are you aware of the Chidy document and the Alexandria document.

I am not.

So these are on the Vatican website. You can go to Christianity dot christian Unity dot v A H and you can look up the Chi eighty document and the Alexandria document. Chady document says this is approved by the Vatican, approved by Francis. It says, appeals regarding disciplinary matters in the first some of the first millennium we're also made to Constantinople and other SE's. So appeals are not just

So okay, this is me not familiar with the specifics of what we pointed to, but just even what I know now, would the Catholic response be that, sure, like the Pope on different issues will seek that you know, appeal process that'll be more collaborative. But then there's specific times where the quote unquote. You know, the keys of infallibility are wielded, and that's like so rare, and I understand that might be a little unfalsifiable, like when was it infallible?

When was it not?

But you know, is it fair to say that the pope might might allow for certain issues to be more collaborative and worked out as opposed to other issues where the keys will be swung.

Let's say, Okay, maybe that's the case within Roman Catholicism, that you can make that argument. But I'm making a different argument, which is that there's a specific dogmatic contradiction that Vatican One says everybody in all times, in all places new from the earliest days that the Roman Sea had universal jurisdiction, indefectibility and infallibility. That's contrary too, this claim that saidmitted here that in the first millennium the

Got it? Okay? Right?

Well, I gotta yeah, I'll look into this. I do have to dive into the history. I will say that's been on my to do list. But I guess if I could ask one more question, because this is more of just like a psychological of you know, Barrier Stumbach block. But how would you succinctly capture the Orthodox view on sexuality?

I don't know, it just seemed it just doesn't seem as tight doctrinely when it comes to you know, matters of sex. Am I like, am I missing something? Like? How would you capture it?

So yeah, I would just say go to UBI Petris's channel and watch the Inner View with doctor David Bradshaw on sex, contraception, NFP Humana vite in Natural Law, and then UBI has a separate documentary that he made on marriage and divorce in the Orthodox view. But great questions, Appreciate that, great conversation. Really enjoyed that. Uh it's it's really good when we have a civil Roman Catholic who doesn't just immediately scream and lose his mind. So thank

Hell?

Hi yo?

So I have a question.

I was recently reading the Books of X and the Church. Your what I was reading the Book of X.

And the Church describing it is so different from the althod of Church. I mean it looks simpler, most simple issue.

Want I think, hold on, I think you're running on a lot of assumptions because it says there were many lights that were there when they gather. That's the candles. It talks about an altar in Hebrews thirteen, so Paul talks about the Church and the Book of Acts having an altar. So here's an altar, here's candles, there's robes, there's relics. They take relics from Paul's body and drive out spirits. I mean, these are all things that we find in the Orthodox Church. So how where are you

Well, when you read the book, I mean the description of the church is like, I mean, it's kind of different in a way.

I mean, if you read Paul's epistles, it's not different. Because Paul says that the apostolic succession that he gave to Timothy is based on the principles that you see in numbers eleven. So numbers eleven. Moses lays his hands and passes on the Holy Spirit. Paul says Timothy, I light hands on you, passes the Holy Spirit too, men after you. That's absolute succession. So that's also in the Book of Acts. You can't take acts in isolation. There's all the other passages.

But you talk about the relics of Paul.

Ax talks about the relics of Paul.

Does it really? Because, I mean, he's still alive.

So I don't know why we're talking about it in the book that you know, was written when it was still I'm living in this world.

I mean, a relic a holy man can heal people when he's alive. He doesn't have to be dead. What are you talking about?

Oh well, well, my my bad.

But when we talk about the saints, I mean, at the time of Paul and all the orders, I mean, there were the saints. So why doesn't anyone actually pray saints in this You know, in the early Scriptures they do.

The Book of Revelation, Paul John seasoned Heaven in chapters five through eight, and he talks to and presents the martyrs in heaven interceding for the Church on earth.

I mean, this is not like your interpresation of what the one should expect, what interpress interpretation?

Sorry, everybody has an interpretation, so that is that's a meaningless statement.

Mh. Well it's not convincing. I mean, I want to.

Tell you that's a fallacy. So the fact that it's not convincing doesn't mean it's not true. Yeah, I know, Well, but I mean, are there are there are the saints under the altar offering the prayers of the of the Church on earth or not?

I mean, I wouldn't be able to.

I don't know. I mean it's you don't believe me. I just that's what That's what John says the Book of Revelation. You're not familiar with that.

Well, he talks about the prayers, but it doesn't say yes it does.

Because you're you're using this to fit a narrative, I think, and that's actually wrong because.

Okay, what does it actually say? Since you I mean to say that I'm wrong. Pre suppose that you know what the text says, So you tell me what the text actually says.

If I remember he.

Talks about perfume and prayer of saints like being you know, spilled some way.

I don't know, mention that perfume. What are you talking about?

That's what I read. It's sometimes but still I think the way you.

Present well, you're saying that, but you're not telling me why. You're just saying that. You're saying, oh, that's your interpretation. Well, everybody has their interpretations. Everyone has an agenda. You think that the people are neutral on this's what are you talking about?

Well, I mean it should be should do agenda? Should you know, feed the narrative of a god? And that's your own.

And let me guess you have the agenda you have. You have the agenda of God. You're the God, you're the prophet.

I just I'm kind of figuring it out, you know, I'm sorry.

Okay, Well, the text says that they're underneath the altar in heaven offering the prayers of the saints on earth. That's what the text says. So you tell me, as a Protestant, whether I'm making up a narrative.

Yeah, but the prayers of the saint doesn't mean to be out prayer.

It's the saints on earth. It says our prayers are offered by the saints in heaven. Yes, it does say that. What are you talking about?

No, he just talks about the prayer off the saints, not the prayers.

They pray for the saints on earth for vengeance for them. Yes it does, they say, God, they intercede for the saints on earth for God to avenge their brothers on earth.

It says that, well, can you give me the text or rat it afta please?

Yep, let me pull it up. Thank you, they cried out with a loud voice. O Sovereign Lord, how long until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth.

Okay, which message is this? I'm just coming before after the part about the bread off the saying.

It's Revelation six nine through eleven.

I see, well, I have a look at it, because it's just really the whole thing.

Like it also looks church, because you can't really differentiate yourself from because of the Church.

And so now so now you've tapped down so totally changed the topic to differentiate from the Catholic Church. What does that have to do with this?

So what is that?

I mean, you're changing the subject because.

I'm trying to figure out what is the primitive Church?

Okay, and any any evidence that contradicts your Protestant idea of the early Church you're throwing out and saying, it's my interpretation. Do you have do you have an maybe you have? Do you have a Protestant agenda?

No at all. I'm really upen to you understand. Just wants, you know, to figure it out, that's all.

But part of understanding means being willing to give up our presuppositions, and the fact that you think you don't have any presubpositions is the root of the problem here. Everyone does.

I am actually, I mean, I'm not trying to force any idea upon you.

I'm just trying to well, I mean when I when I give you the text, you suddenly say you can't differentiate yourself from the Catholic Church. What does that have to do with this?

Because they can the same things. I want to know they can the same thing as you to be the primitive Church, because.

That's a fallacy. The fact that they claim the same thing as us has nothing to do with which one's true or false? Do you don't do you know what fallacies are?

Yeah? I know, but you too claim this hame thing. So how I was, No, we.

Don't what are you talking about? I mean, they claimed that the Roman bishop was the universal, infallible, in defectible head from the first days of the church.

We don't.

We don't claim that. I literally, I literally just argued for thirty minutes of the guy before you text showing that that's not the case.

Okay, By the way, can I give a couple more sure? Thank you? Uh Job.

Says, if there shall be an angel speaking for him, he shall mercy on him, and she shall say deliver him. They may not go down to corruption. So obviously we can petition angels. In the book of Tobit, when thou didst prayed with tears, I archangel Raphael.

Offered the prayer to the Lord. So there's prayers to angels.

Saint John, another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense that he should offer of the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of guard God.

So he clearly see that.

Prayers and petitions can be made to the angels. And that's all the scripture, right there and then offer it up to God. But if you want to know that the early primitive Church, we have Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Hilary of Boteers sat from the Syrian.

These are all the third fourth.

Centuries, Saint Anthonatius the Great, fourth century, Saint Basil the Gray. It's in the liturgy of Saint Basil, one of the earliest liturgies. Saint Cyril, Jerusalem, Saint Gregory the Theologian, all say the early Church, and it commands you to pray to saints. So you don't see this, don't pray to saints until what fifteen hundred years later. So if you're looking for the primitive Church, it's right there, and they pray the saints, both in scripture and all the earliest fathers.

I'm going to read you Revelation eight. When he opened the seventh Seal, there was silence in heaven. I saw the angels who said before God, and to them were given seven trumpet's. Another angel. How any golden censer came stood of the altar. He was given incense that he should offer it with the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. So this is an angel in the heavenly liturgy, offering the prayers of the saints before God.

Okay, I see what I just see. You know better than me. That's Ben the noble. And I'm really trying to because I felt like.

We can't really know what happened after the difficult death death.

So well, how do you know that we have We have a multitudes of writings of the post Apostolic fathers ignacious uh Clement, uh Cyprian. I mean you're an as polycarp. What do you mean we can't know?

I mean, yes, we have done. But like I said, they have an agenda.

Well that's your again, that's your presupposition. You're you're saying to have an agenda when it disagrees with your interpretation.

And why not just say the apostles have an agenda? So anything, I don't like that the apostles wrote it's an agenda, because what if they will close up to Jesus and they lived with him.

So of course, Alsoiousious was writing under the authority of apostles, in which they would have said you can't write that.

Yeah, on what basis do you cut off Ignatius.

Because he was not about of the droop.

I mean what.

He was not about off the drowp I'm talking about those part of the.

Jube, the group of the above Jesus.

Okay, what well, Paul says to Timothy that lay hands on men after you because the Holy Spirit is given. So did the Holy Spirit die when Paul told Timbery to start laying hands on men?

Yeah, but actually Poe met with the others and your saints I don't know who they all didn't.

Meant, what are you talking about? You have no idea.

He was taught by Christ from the Apostles? What are you? He's the first second century scene.

A lot of these were the ones that we're mentioning Polycarp Barnabys.

They're always they were all writing under the authority.

Of the Are you like a Seventh day Adventist or some kind of like assumption here that like after the Apostle, when when the Apostles died, then suddenly there's this apostas here like a job's witness. What you're you're coming from? Something like that? I can tell.

I'm just trying to use critical thinking because.

What's your background? Though, because it's not just critical thinking. It's some indoctrination from some dumb cult. What is it any Really, you're repeating what a lot of cults say. Where did you get this information? Yes, you are, Come on, be honest. No, I'm not okay, Well you got this information from somewhere. You didn't just sit down and read the Bible and suddenly decide that Ignacious was an apostle. No, I'm not.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that you did say that I can't retely trust them because they have an agenda.

I mean, it's again, how do you know that? Where did you come to the conclusion that they have an agenda? Where did you get this information?

Because they tend to go sam rude as Cazaric churge and I don't know.

I mean maybe the Orthodox the Catholic are correct. How do you know How do you know they're not correct?

I mean they maybe.

Oh, maybe you're talking to a demon. How do you know it's holy spirit?

Well that's I'm sure, okay, But anyways.

DU's got Beyonce on his profile. This guy's troll. He's probably trolling Ken Chin. What's up? Prema Scripture will call in dude, what are you talking about? Defining cold? Call in and I will define call for you. Ruh. We should have got it. Sounds like he's just repeating seven day having and stuff. What's up, man, I'm mute?

Oh Hellotle, Gary? Oh Hey, how you doing? Jack?

Good? What what's up?

Okay? Awesome? Just making sure I was all set up and good. Yeah.

So I said a question about the final authority any Orthodoxy would you be able to address up for me?

Sure?

Yeah, yes, I generally want to know what it is. Is it the equamentum, councils, is it the bishops?

Yes?

What is it?

And what is your position?

Yeah? You Reform Calvinists, okay.

Yeah, we would agree that the final authority at the end of the day is the Holy Spirit. So every Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant agrees that for the individual, the final authority is going to be the Holy Spirit revealing what's true or false. But where we disagree with the reform person and with the Roman Catholic is the means that the Holy Spirit uses. So we do not believe that it is primarily just you and the scriptures, and we do not believe that it is primarily just

Well, sure, so let's just go to you said the Holy spirits the ultimate authority. So you're saying that everything that's that would be given a scripture would essentially the Holy Spirit would guide us and give us a correct interpretation that the correct path.

To go down to, not just the scripture, not just the scripture, also the oral tradition.

And where's the ord tradition found.

It's found in the oral teaching, an interpretation hermenoneudicts of the traditional apostles, and it's found in places like the liturgy for example.

So like like, what what is the greatest thing I guess in the or tradition that you're you would refer to the.

Liturgy, so are you? But it doesn't everything that's in the liturgy. Echo would say the Bible. No, like what the what would be absent though, if you have.

Anything the liturgical service itself.

M hm. So without that's that.

That sort of or tradition you would say, that's missing something critical in worship.

Yeah, we're in the New Testament. Did the apostles give you a liturgical worship service?

Well, it sounds like it's not something that needs to.

Be particularly interesting. So in Leviticus Native and Vai who are put to death for misappropriating the implements of worship. But in the reform mindset, I thought you guys believed in the regular principal worship?

What would that be or would you find that as I.

Mean, you don't know your own traditions definition of the regulars.

I don't know by that term.

It's literally one of the one of the most famous terms in the history of reform theology. You've never heard of the regular prince of worship? No, no, I'm asking you if you Cashew well, I want you to in your reformed you are here to debate. You don't know this term from your tradition.

Oh yeah, I told you.

Okay, stop playing dumb and be honest.

No, I whatever it is in that that sort of category of the name you named it as.

Maybe do you think I made that up?

No, I'm not saying I'm not saying that. No.

Okay, So how reformed are you?

Like?

Is this new to you?

Or have you been this six caist what I've been of a six point Calvinist?

How long have you been reformed? That's what I asked?

Oh for three years? Not maybe about three or four of you.

Okay, And you don't know about the regular principal worship?

No, No, I mean I wouldn't.

Do you follow the Westminster Confession? Yes, okay, this is a pretty well known thing from the Westminster Confession? Do you follow the original west mister? Maybe you follow some edited version or something.

Well, I mean most of the people that I would prescribe to as good teachers and stuff like that, do I think the London Baptism Confession is what most churches that I would associate.

With would follow.

Okay, that's not the So you're a reform Baptist, not a Presbyterian, So that's not the original Westminster Confession?

Okay? Yeah, yeah, But but I mean.

And what is the sixth point of Calvinism?

I'm never heard of this stool Upso the sovereignty of God.

It's five points, what's the sixth?

I know this is what James White would say, is the extraditions to.

So you're trolling as a reform Protestant.

No I am A I am. I just don't get what you think I'd.

Controlling because you're you're you're deflecting and not being clear about what your position is. So you said you're reformed, and then you said six point Calvinism, but you've never heard the regular principal worship.

Even though this is like, let's not let's not get let's get stuck in that. I like to talk to you about final authorities.

If you would be really well, I mean, this is going to matter because like the point that I'm making is that if your tradition is going, if you want to be consistent with your tradition, and I'm sure you don't care because in you guys' position, you can disagree with the generation right before you, uh, then you would think that God, if you would think that God, who cares so much about his worship in the Book of Leviticus that he would kill people for doing it wrong,

Confused how you can take that out of context in the Old Testament implying that to.

Anything, because your entire tradition that you don't even know always has done that. So what was an example of the regulative principle of worship in the entire Reform tradition? That's the example.

You got.

You guys killed each other. You guys killed each other over this. You don't even know that.

Yeah, that's relevance to No, it's not.

No, it's not because you're part of a tradition that you can at whim disregard and say I don't care. It doesn't matter when the argument is about whether there's apostolic tradition that's liturgy or not. That's my point.

I'm saying that the God's word that He's given us is what we need to do, what we need to have in mind.

Okay, why didn't God? Because God cares so much about worship, and your own tradition has debated and killed each other over this, why didn't he provide a liturgy in the New Testament?

Yeah, the way he worships lay down to the fundamental No, it's not.

No, it's not Where is there where is the liturgy in the New Testament?

The concepts are there? What are you talking?

The concepts are there, the liturgy itself is not there.

So where does that come from? Where's your preset position that liturgy is even coming from?

Because God kills people over this principle, and he consistently kills people over this principle. Because Paul says that if you eat and drink unworthily, God will kill you, so it would seem pretty important, and it's something that God didn't put in the written texts.

So because you're saying God kills.

People, who do you have to restate my argument? And you can't hear the argument. You have to repeat everything else said.

I make sure I understood it right, So I just confuse how that.

It's trying. How everyone else can understand this argument, but you're confused over it? Why is that funny?

I thought that was a random point to bring up, But well, why do you have to.

Keep repeating everything I say? Do you have a low IQ or are you having a hard time?

I could what would that be relevant for the conversation of the Final Authority?

Because I'm trying to figure out why you have to repeat everything I.

Say, and make sure I understood it right to be scharitable.

Okay, so you're slow, I got it.

Yeah, that's the one way to put it. So anyway, So you want to say that the holy spirits of the final authority?

Correct?

I already said that.

Okay, So what does it have to do with anything else that the Orthodox brings into in terms of it's finalizing anything, any type of authority?

So what does that do?

So that's why I said the very beginning normative.

Authority, meaning that it's typically the case.

Do you know the difference between those things?

Oh? That's why I'm asking a clarifying question.

Oh you came to debate, and now you're playing like you're here to ask questions? So are you here to ask questions? You're here at debate?

That's part of the debate, is it not? Is it not a question?

It seems like if you wanted to debate, you would know the positions you're debating. But so are you here to learn or you hear to debate?

I mean I would love to learn, well, debating I have no problem with that.

What was the question?

So I'm asking you, based on what you previously said, that the Holy Spirit is a final authority. Right then, how does that come into play with all the other factors, like the oral tradition?

Right?

Deciphering what the oral tradition is? How would the Holy Spirit deciphered the correct oral tradition.

And all the other bishops, I mean, the same way, just the same way he deciphered it in preserving it from the time of Adam until Moses wrote it down.

Yeah, how would I objectively be able to affirm that? What? How would I objectively be able to confirm that?

I mean, isn't that your own position?

So you are you saying that the Holy Spirit makes me feel that this is correct? Like that's a position?

What did I say about anything that it was making you feel something? You don't believe that the Holy Spirit? Listen, you don't believe the Holy Spirit guided oral tradition from Adam to Moses.

No, no, I don't believe that.

Okay, then you're not reformed anymore. So what are you just changing your positions on the spot?

No, I don't think.

Okay, I'm sicky or at your laugh, your condescending laugh is getting on my nerves. What how do you not understand that you're not reformed?

That has nothing to do with or traditions.

Of course, yes it does. So how do you think that the message came from Adam until Moses wrote it down?

The entire point is when Moses, when God gave a certain point for him to write.

It down God and to be carried out.

So you're I'm sorry, I'm asking you how did they transmit it through those generations? You don't understand this question? Do I need to draw it on a board for you?

Yeah, that org tradition and the story is being transformed or what I'm saying, keep keeping going in them that has nothing to do well, I'm just saying that, are you.

Too stupid to even understand what I'm answering your question? You said, how is the Holy Spirit doing this the same way he did it from Adam to Moses? You just said you just said it's oral?

Did you not?

Did you not admit it's oral? So you're saying you have the same Why do you keep restating what I said?

This is?

This is like mind control or something. I'm trying to plug in the dots, right, I'm sure to make sure from the time of Adam to Moses you just said oral. So you admitted my point.

So I'm asking, he's that the same thing you think you have? Right from Adam?

You said, how does the Holy Spirit do it? I said, the same way he did it?

Then that's completely a different sort of.

Idea, you know, it's not. It's you're asking my position. I'm explaining it's literally no different than the way he preserved it.

Then, So children talking about their own history, about how God had been has been working in their culture.

It's completely different than having.

Done children talking about what are you even talking about? Children talking about God working? What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah, we're talking about like for like the in the context the concept of ancient Israel. Right, so God is literally working through this shertain type of people group and everything like that, and the stories.

Of you don't even know that your own tradition from Adam to Moses teaches that God preserved that tradition, that oral transmission. You don't even know that.

Oh, I know, I can read my Bible and find that out. That's fine with me.

Where does the Bible tell you that the oral tradition was preserved?

Again, it's it's no need.

Okay, you're literally a mentally unstable weirdo. Like, literally, what you're saying makes note you don't even understand what's being said. Where does your Bible tell you that?

Where does my Bible tell me what? Well?

You said? All I need to do is read the Bible to figure that out. Where does it.

Tell you that Jesus he's access standards to the phares he's asked, is it not?

Where does that tell you the Holy Spirit guided oral tradition from Adam to Moses. So now you do believe that I said no from the beginning, But then you just said that the Bible tells you that no.

The Bible tells me again, what I need to know about any sort of tradition or anything about God, any stories?

How do you think the tradition was preserved from Adam to Moses? The stories that you read about in the Torah? This is this is this is the stupidest conversation I've ever read. We're done. Como, h.

Hello, cayep yo. What's up? Jay? Yeah, I'm not gonna take up too much time. I got three questions. I could just rapid fire them. You can answer, and I'll come back and listen to it later.

All right, So first question is who or what movement spawned the idea of the one, true, Holy and Apostolic Church being on invisible.

Church, And on what basis did they come to that conclusion.

It's first found amongst the donuts, and then it's repeated by Calvinists.

Okay, cool.

Second, you'll often hear Protestants say things like I was guided about the Holy Spirit, or you're not a spirit feel Christian, et cetera.

So I'm sure it's safe to say that most.

Protestants think by believing in Jesus Christ in a mental sense and professing Jesus as like Lord and Savior verbally, is at that very moment you're giving the Holy Spirit.

So I'm wondering what is the traditional.

Orthodoxy on receiving the Holy Spirit or what must be done to inherit the Holy Spirit.

Well, it's not just being baptized and brought into the church in that way through catechisystem baptism, and then you have christ Mation, so they no Protestants have christ Mation. So that's one of the key elements that's missing.

Okay, cool, all right, next one, this is the Okay, this is probably the last one.

So I got a friend who recently rediscovered his Christian roots. He calls himself a Christian. He's a Catholic, but he still holds on to like sort of and sort of embraces some of Nietzsche and Carl Jung's.

Philosophy, specifically stuff like bracing the uber minch or the shade within and stuff like that.

I'm not really too well versed on Knetzsche and Carl Jung, but I got some of the books I bottom a while ago, just never read them.

So when I hear him say stuff like that, I think that sounds like.

Demonic and I wouldn't like, I would err on him not leaning into stuff like that.

But what's your thoughts?

Yeah, it's of course that's deemonica. It's like the uber minche was that have to deal with Christianity to the guy in the chat annoying to say the least, if you don't call in, you get booted. So this is not for you to come spam all your evangelical gibberish in the chat value machine. Yeah, I'm having to unwind from that like mind controlled madness of that previous goofball. I mean to not know what the regulative principal worship is tells me that that person does even know what

Hey man?

I want to thank you first of all for everything that you're doing.

I'm not coming to debate you do, just have a question.

I'm an Orthodox Christian three course dogs.

I'm not doing fic qu'es today, man, So please if it's an e fic you question, you can find it online. So what's your question?

It's all good then, I just wanted to ask you about like two things. The first one is the christology, you know, nature nature of Jesus, Jesus, and.

The second one would be as my own family.

And what was the question? What's the first question?

The first question is the nature of nature of Jesus right, like what.

Do you mean? What's How's that a question?

No?

So if you can't explain it it of how like the Greek Orthodox or the Orthodox viewpoint of how we believe like Jesus was right like the natures and everything.

If a tafic you question, then fine, that's.

I'm not trying to be rude. That's a basic I would say, go read uh Dogmatic Theology by Palmazanski and he will give you a basic introduction to the hypostatic union.

Thank you so much, forth, I gotcha, Sure, thank you.

No problem. I'm not trying to be rude, but we're not doing basic q and A today. This is for people who disagree, So debate Islam, Atheism, Catholics, and protests of Gnostic Mormon, JW, Hebrew roots whatever.

Uh.

Please do not ask me a bunch of basic Orthodox questions. So this is for people who disagree. Raise your hand if you disagree, Benny.

You what's up?

Okay?

So I want to Yeah, you're talking about that the Quran has the Trinity wrong?

Can you can you show that please? It's also a myss. Like the last time I came with the myth that.

The Quran talks about the same so uh that you believe in there's also a myth.

So I dismantled that.

You didn't dismantle it. You said a bunch of stupid ship and then you didn't have an answer. All right, Now you're not gonna say you're not gonna talk over me with those nonsense you get out of here. You do you really think you dismantled the last time you were in here? Yes, my claim was, and how did you You didn't even you couldn't even restate my argument? How do you think you dismantled it?

If there is it?

So you my plim my argument.

Can you restate my argument?

No, but you.

Beak did none through even though he couldn't even state what the argument is. Trust me, bro, he dismantled it. I gotta I'm getting a little two heated. Hey, Jamie, I need a I need a ginger chew. My my blood sugars, my beat us is getting off the charts. Could you bring me a ginger chew?

And uh?

And I don't need more coffee. I'm gonna got to I'm gonna get too heated with the idiots. Bring me one ginger you please? Thank you? Okay. Beecke is having a hard time connecting, so we'll go to Dallas.

Yep, Yeah, So I I actually read the Dudo canonical books, like I guess what was the last month?

Like?

From first isdras all the way to second Maccabee's I was just wondering.

What what is the.

Does the Greek Orthodox? So you guys reconcile? How do y'all reconcile the beginning of Judith?

Uh?

You're talking about when it mentions a king? That is that we're talking about that. I'm going from memory. I haven't looked at this a long time, is it?

So?

The Jews? The Jews typically will use the term of one king to reference to all of their enemies for all time, Like Amelek becomes a forever a reference to every enemy of Israel, even though Amelek was dead a long time ago.

Okay, So I've heard, I've heard, well, I research, like Catholics try to give me the answer, and they basically talk, but they basically said that, like the region of Assyria was like a huge region that included Babylon also.

So, I mean the Book of Revelation calls, you know, Israel at the time of Christ Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean the Jews do this often?

Okay, all right, Yeah, that's all I wanted to know.

That's okay. I mean it's a common objection. I don't I don't think it's a very strong objection. I mean the same higher critics will point to similar types of things in the canonical text. So who disagrees? So we got a bunch of people, fifteen people. I'm eating ginger cheese to calm down before you start fussing at me forgetting got to calm down. And actually people think he's so mean. The quote meanness actually is because of just low blood sugar at time like that. That's all it is.

That's it.

So I gotta have a ginger chew Greek Greek name. Man, I can't see what that says. The Chat is saying to be more mean, more meon or more mean? Go ahead, man, what's up? I'm you.

Hey jay, I'm a Catechuban. I had not here to debate.

You have a question.

So I have an acquaintance that goes to Catholic confession, cites Bible versus like a Protestant.

And yet it has the audacity to say that the Orthodox Church is.

Told the true Church. How does what sort of like what sort of rebuttal do you have for someone who does that?

Who says what you cut out. Hello, rebettal to what you cut out?

That's a connection?

You cut out? Man, I can't. I couldn't get that question. Try to come out and come back in bea want to try again. I got my ginger chew. I'll calm him down now, beak, I'm mute.

Yo. Hello Jay? What's up? You hear me?

Yes, sir?

Oh hey Jay?

So Roman Catholic here. I just had a couple of questions. So I watched your you know, reasons not be Roman Catholic video, and well, I thought it was persuasive. I saw a response that I think kind of just put you in shambles. It was by this guy named Michael Lofton. Have you ever heard of him?

Is that a joke?

Well?

No, I just think he pointed out how you were being really uncharitable, so you kind of have no.

Like, okay, you're joking uncharitable.

Well, I'm just wondering, you know, when are you gonna, you know, join the One True Church? You know, it's.

Do you have an argument or what's what's up?

Well? Yeah, I'm asking you, you know, so all.

Right, that's really funny. I honestly can't tell that I was joking me answerious, It could go either way. Alexander, I'm in shambles. From Michael Lufton.

Okay, quick question, would you ever debate Bartnerman?

I don't know. I'm not a textual scholar, so if I debated him, it would be more of a philosophical debate, and I doubt he would do a philosophical debate. So great, bro you great and cheese in the background. What's going on?

Rory?

Does not the brood? Then you are in shambles. Broad If is anybody present an argument, I've not heard one. Has anybody even given an argument yet? At least the romanicality at the beginning had a few questions and stay and at least at tend But nobody's given an argument yet.

Rory.

Getami mm hm h.

Just get a question A bit.

Like textual criticism on the New Testament. If you've got the actual and historical account of.

Jesus, what in your mind counts as a historical account? I mean, do the New Testament texts and the thousands of texts from the first few centuries count, because that's more textual attestation than any other text.

If they're anonymous side, they're.

Not anonymous the tradition of the Church is that they're written by other people, that they're said to be written.

By Butt, and scholarship disagrees with that.

So on what basis am I supposed follow on belie scholarship? Do you agree with them on the Quran?

I agree with them on the Korn.

Yeah, you don't think that unbelieving scholars debunk the Quran? Really? You don't have to like, yeah, come on, you think New Testament scholar excuse me, a liberal scholars do not debunk the Koran.

Why are we moving to the Korn?

Because it's illustrating a double standard?

Okay, okay, you don't want to address don't want to address the so.

You're admitting it's a double standard.

I'm just you said, okay, what you you were?

You appealed to unbelieving scholars, and I said, do you accept them on the Quran? So that's a double standard.

But you're admitting that it is anonymous.

No, I'm saying that you have a double standard.

What are they.

They're not anonymous by the tradition of the Church. I'm not a Protestant, I'm an Orthodox. We believe in tradition.

So how does that tradition bring you to thinking that was actually.

The same way that I know what the candone Scripture is by tradition. So you think you're arguing to get a Protestant or not.

I'm asking you to give me the evidence in.

The tradition of the church. Is the evidence? Yeah, because it's believed to be the tradition that may if you right, may if you you understand this is an argument I use against Protestants. You don't even know I use this argument.

Yeah, but Matthew didn't wrot Matthew.

You don't know that the tradition of the church is that he did. So that's a question that depends on your worldview.

Matthew is.

To Mark and that's what liberal scholars say. And you don't apply that standard consistently because you don't listen to liberal liberal scholars on the Quran. Do you so you have a double standard? Do you have a double standard?

Apostle?

Do you have a double standard or not? Do you why are you laughing? Do you have a double standard or not? Now, do you have a double standard or not? Explain why it's not a double standard. You can't so notice he can't answer this. Can you explain why it's not a double standard. So it's all trolls today again, which is which is fine. It's not all trills but largely trills. So notice the double standard right now, nour

Yeah, so not really an f A to you.

I'm I'm an ex senator contest, I'm mechanic human and it's a bit more of an a deeper question.

So anyway, I was, I was a Scotist when I was a senator contest. And there's a are you.

Familiar with the absolute primacy of Christ? That that's thesis within all the what it's called the absolute.

Primacy of Christ.

I don't know what that mean.

Okay, it's basically the.

Theory that if Adam hadn't sent Christ would have become incarnate anyways or that.

Yeah, that's the Eastern Father's teaching.

Okay, So is that Yeah, I've read that Maximus and a few others. So does that have the status of like your official teaching of the one.

That I was church is that at uh it's I mean, there's no dogma. I'm not aware of a dogma to states that it's just normative in the Orthodox Church to understand Adam is as a Chris the logical being.

Sure. Okay, awesome, thank you, I answered my question.

Yeah, great question, And you are correct that is a unique thing that the Franciscans had in contrast to the tumus that agrees with us in the East. Jimmy, I'm not answering faqes so yep.

Hey, So I'm a Meridia Cathick having trouble reconciling and accepting the idea that our sacraments are that different.

And if you could just touch on that and you a talking about each one individually.

But just in general, I don't know what you mean, I mean different in what sense?

Well, I was just.

Reading online a little bit about the differences in the two and that some sacraments are not accepted.

In the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox.

If one were to go to the other one and receive sacraments in those that they're not accepted.

In each other.

Sometimes, Yeah, it's a case by case basis. The local bishop applies the canons based on your situation and what what was your history?

Okay, so something like the Eucharist could not be I've read that, like I would not be able to go to an Orthodox church and take us.

No, you cannot. No, you have to abjure your heresies.

Okay, got it, all right? Thanks?

Yeah, No, I see I misunderstood the question. I see what you're asking. Now, I got you. I was thinking you mean in terms of vality. You're saying, like, could I go and partake it? The second I see you mean vertical?

You see.

I have calm them down. Now, I have my sugars, have my beat us. I have my beat us.

Choose. Well, you must not forget the eleventh Commandment. There, Jay, that'll shalt be nice.

I am being nice. What's up?

Man?

Uh?

So I have a I have a doctrinal question.

I'm a Protestant and one of the things that's a hang up for me because as I've been researching into Orthodoxy is preservation of the saints.

It's it's you know, as far as.

The other five points of Calvinism, I've kind of come to reject but I think that Roman.

Do you mean perseverance of the saints. I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, perseverance of the Saints. But I feel like Romans eight thirty eight is like pretty solid and understanding that nothing.

Can separate us from God.

And I think the reason why Paul goes into such great detail about describing all different things is to say, hey, well, there's not a single thing that can separate us from God. And one of my biggest hang ups with Orthodoxy is.

Is it doesn't There doesn't seem to be any assurance. So I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

Well.

First, I mean, even if hypothetic I adopted some Calvinists position, you're in no different individual existential position than I am. Because Calvinists admit that there's such a thing as self deception, where you could believe that you're want to be elect and believe that the Holy Spirit has given you the assurance, and you might be deluding yourself. So really, there's not

Well, I'm not saying that aposesey isn't a possibility.

I'm saying that someone who is truly a yeah.

But it begs the question. I know I've heard this a million times, So how do you know that you're the truly, the truly.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that anyone can know without a shadow of a doubt. I'm not.

Well, then it's then it's not assurance. Then it's not once saved always said, not assurance. Okay, So anyway, I appreciate the question. I'm not going to go for an hour back and forth on that. If you if you don't find the text about apost to seek convincing, then okay.

Uh.

Next up, cool video I'm mute. By the way, if you want to support the stream, you can do so via super chats. You can also support stream via my bitcoin wallet right there. Bitcoin is a free speech based mechanism of true currency, true money, authentic ethical money, based on math, and based on an international decentralized network. That's my wallet, all right. He can't connect, come out, come back in if you want to, Please do not come

You hear me?

Yeah?

So right now, I'm thinking of converting either to Catalysism or Orthodoxy. But I don't understand how the papacy doesn't work.

I think having the unity that they have is is good like unit?

What unity do you think they have? I mean, again, you're not familiar with the world of Catholicism if you think it's united.

But the Orthodox don't share the same belings about who can be rebaptized, contraception look average.

But the fact that there's debate and the like discussion over issues does not mean that there's no unity. Right. What I'm pointing out is that what you're looking for doesn't exist. There is no unity like you think in Rome. And by the way, even if you think there is, even if there was a superficial unity, if it's not based on truth, it doesn't matter.

Uh Yeah.

But aschism between the Moscow and Constantinople.

Yeah, but there's a gigantic schism within the Roman Gallic Church. So what are you talking about?

Yea, if I'm joining the Russian Church, is it like a separate one or is it the same?

Because no, they are.

They are out of communion in terms of not reading each other. In the Diptychs, the church has not yet excommunicated each other, so that is not officially a schism yet.

All right.

Yesterday I talked you to a Catholic priest and I told him that I didn't really like the crin pope, and he told me that he sees the pope like as a father.

Even if he does something wrong, you still need to respect to him.

Okay, but that has nothing to do with Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching. Okay, the pope cannot teach new dogmas or change the dogmas and he has that's the point. So again, you're coming at this with a very naive, simple I'm not dissing you, but I'm saying it's a very naive kind of simple view, like it's going to work this way. Well, I get to see him as a father, and then we'll get a new trad pope in the future. None of that is even close to what happened to Vatican two.

Yes?

I say that because so why would you want to join that you're joining in? You understand, you don't get to join Catholicism and not be in spiritual communion with Francis and his crew. Like there's no other there's not like a Catholicism that's not connected to that. You're spiritually in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Yeah, but he didn't bind the church to worship and the.

Mosques, right, No, that's not true. So this is all the propaganda that you've been told by Roman Catholics that you don't have to believe this stuff. Have you read Vatican two?

Okay?

Well, Vatican two says that you are bound to believe that Muslims and Catholics worshiped together the same God and have the faith of Abraham. Do you think that's that's correct?

I think not trially you, But I think it's meant it's Kulman that it's more a way to evangelize the other faiths.

Do you think he's not evangelizing when he goes in praise and moss towards Mecca and builds an Abrahamic faith center and tells people not to prossly How is he evangelizing when he says not to proselytize?

But did he make did he make a dougma or is.

It just he's expressing that this is what Vatican two tells you to do. Vatican two is telling you that they have the same God, they have the faith of Abraham, So why do we need to evangelize them? And by the way, you can't. You can't, the pope can't. You can't act contrary to the dogmas. If you're a pope, that's also an action of apostasy to go and pray and moss towards Mecca. So you're trying to say, oh,

So you're saying that if the pope is a heretic or he commits sins, that he's the whole system.

Roman Catholic theology does not say that the pope doesn't sin, but it says that he can't commit actions of apostas like that, because then Rome would defect. Rome cannot defect in Romancalatic theology. You defect from the faith by actions of apostasy, and you're gonna learn if you become a Catholic, and you're gonna make a huge mistake that Romancalaic theology has certain sins that automatically excommunicate you. One of those

That's true, another Christian but on the same topic.

Yeah, so.

So Abbot.

The first centuries, the priests told me that there was only three sees and that Constantinople was ather later, and that's why we have the patriarchate.

So it's not bublic, but it's not a tradition to have the pentarchy.

Like, no, that's that's stupid, that's stupid according to his own tradition, because Pope saying, Gregory the Great refers to the pentarchy. So no nobody believes the pentarchy is from the apostles. But in the ecumenical councils, the church eventually accepts the pentarchy, even the Western Church, and Gregory the Great talks about it. In fact, Gregory the Great says, the see of Peter is Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. You can go read the Alexandria. Look before you make this

Can you hear me? Now?

Yeah?

How does the Orthodox Church rectify the seventh anathema from emphasis one on the christology.

Of Christ having two wills? H uh huh?

So are you not familiar with any of our responses to this stuff? You think that we don't know what episode says?

No, I I this is my first time asking a question. I'm looking into or than.

H Are you there? Hello?

Do you have a Hello?

What's an anthematic? Did you say you're cutting out?

I'm sorry, I'm driving the seventh anathemoeah.

Yeah, mm hmm. It's the one specifically teaching on No. Two wills after the Where does this say?

No, I mean I'm looking at it. I don't say anything about no. Two wills? What are you talking about?

Well? I mean they have to be united wills, right, I mean I may be mistaken.

If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the word of God, this would be one this would be one energy or one will, let him be anathema?

Are you there?

I don't understand how this been the case. What you're talking about? What do you think our position is?

Well? I believe that the position is two wills right in Christ?

Okay, I'm looking at the seventh I'm looking at the seventh Anathema, and it says, if anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the word of God and that the glory of the only begotten Son, who is attributed to him as something not properly his, let him be anathema. I mean, so it's saying in the story and position, Yeah.

He's claiming that Christ has two wills.

No, that's not the story. That's not when the stories is arguing the Storias has a dual subject Christology. This is not saying there's only one will, and that is not saying there's only one will. Where does it say that?

He doesn't specifically say that. I was just kind of assuming that's what he meant by saying that the word doesn't energize the human.

Wait say that again? The word?

What that the word doesn't energize the the the flesh, the human.

No, it says, if anyone s else, say that Jesus man is only energized by the Word of God, so that would be one energy. And then it says, and then to say that the glory is attributed to him as not something properly his, in other words, one subject. There's only one subject in Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God. But this does not say that he has only This is saying that you cannot say there's only one divine energy.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I'm sorry. It's just really hard to hear what you're saying because of the background noise. But yeah, I mean, Nestorius doesn't. It's the debate with the Storius is not over two wills or two natures. The debate with the Sorius is dual subject christology. Dave, what's up?

Name?

Uh?

Dave? Right there? You gotta amute?

Yeah, automatically you too, I know. So. So I'm the Mormon on the channel and slid clicks.

So my claim is that you know Book Mormon's true than or the doxy.

Has kind of a problem, Well, how could the Book of Mormon be true when it's just like Islam when it says that the prior revelation is all corrupted unless it agrees with the Book of Mormon.

I think that's a common tact that people use. We don't say the prior revelation.

Is all corrupted every moment. Every Mormon I've ever talked to, many many of the missionaries say that the Bible's.

I think you would agree that that part of the Bible is not exactly as it was when it came.

Out, and now it is corrupted. You said, it's that's not it. That's not a thing you do, But now you're saying it is.

I said, it's not entirely corrupted like the Bible.

Okay, what's your criteria for knowing when it's not and what it is?

Joseph Smith made translations or corrections to it.

That's so exactly what I said, just like the Muslims, winter degrees with winter degrees when it agrees with the Book of Mormon is correct.

You if you actually looked at the details, there are like five of them.

That are doesn't matter. So again, because the whole point is that that thing's correct, matter because that thing's corrupted. And now, so basically you lied because the very thing I said is what you did.

Yeah, I'm just.

Saying if you look those if you look at a specific instance.

You would see you lied.

Yeah. Whatever.

Okay, So thanks for admitting you lie. Okay, how's you sure?

I'm sure that's a fun debate tactic for you.

It's not a debate tactic. You said that you don't make that argument, and then you did.

I don't make the argument that I said. No, I didn't make the argument that it's completely corrupted.

Don't make my.

Word now you're playing word games because the point I ask you, I know, I'm not. I asked you what. I asked you what I asked you what the criteria is, and you said, Joseph Smith, that's the whole argument, that's the argument. Yeah, the criteria for So you have a circular argument. Why would I follow a circular argument.

No, the claim I made your playing word game.

It's not a word game. It's a circular argument.

No, the claim I made had nothing to do with the changes in the Bible. The claim I made said, if the Book of Mormon is true, the Orthodoxy has a problem.

And I responded by saying that you have the same argument as the as the Muslims, and you basically you have made argument. Yes it is. I I've debated all the top Muslims in the world.

What do you mean, Yeah, so the Bible's wrong? Like a Muslim doesn't.

Say that, yes they do. What are you talking about? I have way more.

Muslim argue the Book Mormon is true. That's the stupides thing I've ever heard.

Dude.

Obviously I didn't say that. Are you this dumb?

No, I'm not just dumb. I'm just you're playing sure literally to do the same thing, right.

No, I said, you have the same argument as the Muslims to say that the prior revelation. Listen the prior Dude, you literally came on and said the very thing I said you would say. And then you said, you're not saying it. This is retarded.

Muslims would say like the Bible is no.

They don't even know that out. That's not what they say.

The Bible is right.

What's your criteria? And I said, what's the criteria for when you know that? And you said, Joseph Smith, that's a circle. Yeah, Joseph Smith, that's a circle like you can take, you can take, you can That is a circular argument.

It has nothing to do with the original argument, though. I mean, that's this you're you're.

You're this slow. Can you restate what my argument.

Is you're saying?

Can you say.

You were saying because I'm saying the Book of Mormon is true, that's somehow equated to what Muslims are arguing.

No, you're too stupid to even understand the comparison. That is not what I said.

Good, I'm not I'm not conflating the two.

You don't even understand my argument, do you?

Okay? Restated again?

So just like Muslims, I'm not saying you have the same argument that Muslims have that about the Quran and the Book of Mormon. Muslims don't care about the Book of Mormon. I'm saying you have the same argument that the principle that you used to know is the thing in question for Muslims, it's the Quran.

Let me finish, use I don't use the bookrue.

You literally just did you said when Joseph Smith translated, he fixed the errors. You said your criteria is Joseph Smith. That's a circular argument.

I use no, yes, to know which part of the Bible is true, I use several factors, not.

Just now you said Joseph Smith. So now it's changed.

No, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't say only Joseph Smith. Don't don't try and again, this is so.

In other words, it doesn't. So it's not so the position is a circle. So how is it not a circle?

How do you know the Bible is true? Right? We read the Bible, we ask God, and God tells us the Bible is true. That's how everybody knows.

No, that's a stupid argument. That's as dumb as saying that I feel good today, So God's telling me that I'm good because I feel.

If you want to go with the group of Christians that don't use that argument, they would say it's.

Because that's what your cult does. Your cult says that pray and you'll still have a burning in your bosom and you'll know that's God. That's a subjective to your version.

Then let's go into your version. Your version is, Hey, I read the.

Witness statements, and because so many of the match therefore the Bible's truth.

Did you hear me give an evidentialist historicist argument? I didn't give that argument.

What is your what is your claim?

Then?

How do you know the Bible's true?

The transcendental argument?

What does that mean? I have never heard that.

Without God's existence, specifically the trinitarian God of the Bible, I couldn't have a basis for knowledge at all. So all knowledge ultimately derives from my revealed worldview.

And that's not circular.

Well, it's recursive because all positions are ultimately recursive.

Right, But how does that not say anybody with worldview has an access to that same claim.

I have a worldview and reason of logic as well.

Yeah, but your position won't be able to give a basis for reasoning and logic. It might use reason free will, I.

Mean, we could go down that rabbit hole. Okay, So we believe that we have free will?

Okay?

So what how is that?

That's not a justification?

That's a justification for a non material world. No, it's not.

That's just an assertion.

How is that? Do you know?

The difference be with an assertion and justification?

What? Yes, I'm asserting it. The justification you can't claim you know. I guess you would say the justification is I think therefore I am.

Okay, So now Descartes is the basis for your world view.

How do you know you exist?

How do I know I exist? Well, again, I believe in the Christian worldview, which is my justification for why there's particularity, why there's universals, why there's logic, whether there's an external world.

Ditto same here.

But you don't have a Christian worldview. You're not a Christian, you're a.

Cult Well, yeah, whatever you want to call me. I believe in a worldview that allows for me to believe that I exist.

Well, that, but that's not your justification because you haven't given me a coherent account. Let me give an example where it's not coherent. You're telling me that the Bible is corrupted except when Joseph Smith fixes it. Well, the Bible teaches that there's no new prophets after the time of the Apostles, So you're you're automatically counseled out by the fact that you claim there's a prophet that's a misstatement.

Though you're you're making assertion that the Bible doesn't make uh no, it does.

It says that in the last days He's revealed this to us through his son Hebrews one, and it says that the times of the prophets he revealed things in a different way. So that text says there's no new prophets after the time of Christ. I mean that's there's no in this last days. He spoke to us through his son, Jesus said that John the Baptist was the last of the prophets. There are no new prophets. Yes he did, Jesus, Jesus, Yes he did. He said John was the last of the prophets.

No, yes he did.

What do you mean he did not say John was the last prophet? Yes he did.

What are you talking about? Jesus says, John is the last of the prophets, and since then the Kingdom of God has been preached. Nope, bro, So just saying nope, wrong is your argument.

You can't you can't produce that claim in the Bible. It doesn't exist, Bro.

John is the last of the prophets and since that time the kingdom has been preached.

Just you're pulling that out of a hat. That is not the scripture.

What you literally don't even know the scriptures. Of course it's in the scripture.

All the scripture doesn't exist. It said John is a great profit. But you never said John was the last prophet. You're you're making a lot of inferm.

You're an idiot. What are you talking about?

What's that?

I'm pulling it out. I'm pulling it up.

So let's go back to my original claim. Though.

That's the point now, now that I'm going to pull it up, you don't want to go you want to go back to the claim.

I just I don't know how long it'll take you to pull it up. Sorry, go ahead, Jay, pull it up.

The law and profits were until John said that time the Kingdom of Heaven has been preached and everyone presses into it. There are no more profits. You are in a cult. Oh, hold on, Luke, sixteen sixteen. There is no text.

If you want to make fun of me because you're losing the argument, that's fine.

I just produced the text you said doesn't exist. You produced the to it, you.

Added to or took away from the scripture.

You're I literally read you the text, you liar. I read you the text you're under I literally read you the text. Now I'm under condemnation. So because you added to it, added, I let I literally just read you the text.

You lie, and then you added, you added a whole sentence after it.

That was my explanation, dummy, Obviously.

No explanation needed. It's your that was your.

Then why are you talking? Why are you talking? No explanations needed because you added an explanation, you're making it. Oh but no, but so but you can give an explanation. So you're refuting your own dumb principle. I don't know what we're You just said explanations can't be given. Now you're giving explanations.

Yea.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time, the Kingdom of God has preached were until John. You're in a cult. No, no, no, no, we finally got a Mormon. Wow, who's up next? Jeff m.

Yep ye, Hey, Jay, I just had a few questions. One, I'm I'm an aspiring to be Orthodox, and.

I just I'm not doing f a q and catea chemic qui since man I said that like ten times. Not trying to be rid to you, but I'm not doing that. Cassius, Hello, yep, hello, Yeah.

So I got a problem.

I'm an Orthodox Christian and I got a problem with this Muslim scholar in Australia.

He lives near me, and I was wondering if you would be willing to debate him for because I don't know who, have no idea who this is? His name is was siem rosv.

I mean, is he a known person?

He's he has a large Muslim organization in Australia.

I don't know. Man, Maybe you can send me his links and I'll see if I want to debate him. Let's see. I gotta calm down. Things are getting getting hot and spicy, getting heated up in here. We didn't even get into the good Mormon stuff. It was getting too stupid. It was just gonna turn just ridiculous. By the way, there's like multiple passages that go through the cessation of the Office of problem. That's just one of the texts. We could go into the Zechari thirteen. We

My quality good? Yeah?

All right, yeah, I just realized like halfway through that you're actually a Christian. So I don't have anything to debate. But would you mind if I just like says or shit, No, this is about what I'm just gonna like talk about some ship to disprove.

A couple of religions for the chatters.

No, this is not like where you come and give a sermon. What's up? Let's see who's next. Ms Mark. By the way, I have a old video on the cessation of the office of the prophet in the and it's in the Old Testament sense like new revelations like Mohammad and Joseph Smith. It's on my clips channel. So if you come over here to for people who want the full Because this came up with that Muslim girl the other day. She was asking the same question, because what do you mean there's no new prophit uh, And

Like, why do you do that?

What?

What's that?

What?

How do you why do you know when to do that?

What is that? So? Why did you do that?

And like, in the in their mind, that's an argument. They're like, he owned he owned him. He's singing Arabic.

He owned him, we owned him.

Brought up.

Where is the No New Revelations? I can't remember if it's an older video or I think it's older. Yes, go back a little bit. I want to pull this up because it keeps coming up where people think that there's this ongoing office of the prophet, which like because if there's not the ongoing office of the prophet, then that cuts out a lot of these cults right in Islam. But I can't remember what I titled that video No New I should I tell that something simpler? So today

Okay, it's not any of those.

I just pulled it up. I thought when that Muslim girl called in, maybe I never made a clip. I don't know, no, because I remember it was fda Is on the call and we we're talking. Does anybody remember this clip?

No?

New, I don't know. Let's have the finest other time.

W K.

Please don't ask me Orthodox questions basic Orthodox questions.

Hey, so I have a question that's not really like basic simply.

I hear Andrew Wilson frequently, and I've asked my you know, priest about this, and a sentinarian and everything, and I'm getting different answers from everybody on the using of the Eucharis in a Roman Catholic church.

Like I hear that andrews says I could go down to a Catholic church and take communion there, but they can't do it with us.

And then I hear Roman Catholics say the same thing, just the reverse.

No, Roman Catholics cannot commune an Orthodox Church.

Okay, but could I go to like Sacred Heart and commune there? Yeah?

But what's what what's what's the point.

I'm just trying to get just an answer, whether it's you know, prohibited or not. No.

I mean, Robin Catholics are are all over the place, so yeah, I'm sure they'll let you. But the norm in the Orthodox Church is only baptized Orthodox can commune, and the priest says that in every liturgy. Yeah, so, I mean it's not it's not even controversial. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but like, that's not even controversial. And that is a very fac question. Elijah, Does anybody know where this video is that I'm talking about.

Matt, Hey, what's up?

And I'm sorry?

How do you reconcile the fact that how do you reconcile the fact that in the boiblet says and the Gospel will be preached to the whole world, will be preached to the whole world. And but the schism kind of.

Happened before was preaching to the whole world? I mean, surely the God he wants an orthodox coind.

Of a world be to be preaching the whole world before.

And Paul says the Gospels preaching every preaching and or having a Colossians, So what do you mean?

Yeah, but it's preached by a Catholic point of background.

Now, oh, so you think the entire first one thousand years of the church was Roman Catholic?

No, the layer of years war, the what the later years?

Okay, well, if the first thousand years weren't Roman Catholic, then the Roman Calolic churches in the historical church.

I know, but it was it was more of the preacher not done in the later years, say, like you know, the sixteen hundreds when they went to the Americas.

I don't understand the argument.

What are you saying, Sorry, I have another question.

You're saying that the entire world has been preached the Roman Catholic Gospels that you're saying.

I'm not saying that it has been, but I'm saying that I would take the majority of it has been, rather than the Orthodox to it like THEE would.

Well, but if the first thousand years of Christianity was Orthodox, that's not true, I know.

But the first thousand news of Christianity only brings you so far. So say, when was America discovered? The America's got the Catholic kind of introduction to Christianity.

No, No, the first Christianity here might have actually been orthodox.

Well, you have been taught with probably the Conquistators, which are primarily Roman Cathelic.

Well, there's evidence that there was actually Orthodoxy prior to that. Perhaps there's certain vikings that might have come, but it doesn't even matter because at first or whatever, Like I mean, it's a question of what's true. It's not a question of numbers. So this is an often Roman Catholic used argument that it's numbers that prove things. But I mean does that mean that arian is was true because Arianism was the dominant number in the fourth century.

I'm not saying it's more dominant.

But what of the saying He did say that though, because you said it's numbers.

No, But what I'm getting at is in the voyebo doesn't even say that Christianity will be preached to all the nations.

But what's the w Well yeah, but but I mean, the Romancality Church could go away and in the next thousand years Orthodoxy preach it to the rest of the world. So how is that going to be a proof for Roman Catholicism if there's I mean, that's just based on like things we don't know in the future.

Yeah, that's a good point. That's good point.

Ye here, what was your other question?

I heard this on the debate and I continue to get an answer for it.

Boy and eighties said this. He said, if God is a perfect being, and why does he even feel the need to create?

It wasn't not perfect himself.

It wasn't a need. It was an overflowing of divine goodness, which is what Saint maxim As another church father, says. So he wanted to express even more of his goodness by having other beings that could share in communion and goodness with him, and so he was sufficient in terms of the intertrinitarian life from all existence. Yes, this is for people who disagree. So please don't bring me a whole bunch of orthodox I f AQ questions. Don't I don't.

Eric?

What's up?

Eric?

Hdo thank you? I have a question regarding the Bible. There is a Jesus says that every said a man who can I'm cast out. You meant in the name of Jesus.

So I want I want to know.

Possible that we all we don't have to be about a dis denomination.

But no, because after that he says that this person will not forever be apart from us, but he will also be eventually with us. An Act eighteen and nineteen, when the apostles go out, they bring the disciples that had not heard about the Holy Spirit or had not been christmated under the episcopacy. But good question, Dave yep.

I'm sorry about I'm sorry about wasting your time last time I came on.

But a serious question.

I don't remember what we're talking about, what you're talking about.

I'm not orthodox, I said, I was aspiring to be. But my question wasn't about catechumud or whatever.

Okay.

The question was with regard to one of your accusations against Protestantism. Okay, how the damnation of the son logically concludes to Nestorianism?

Correct?

I was hoping you help me understand that a little bit.

Well, it's just a denial of the trinity. So the Son is a divine person, he's the second person of the Godhead. So how could he be damned by the Father when he shares the same will, the same nature and the Father and the Spirit and dwell him. To damn him would be to split the trinity. So it's actually worse than just an historian, it's actually arian mm hmm.

Okay. I I read Hermann Bavnick a little bit ago. I think, I think, oh, I'm so sorry.

And he addressed this particular objection, and I promise I'm gonna butcher this. But he said something in regard to the subsistence of the son.

Subsistence means per so the Sun is the subsistence.

So he said something with regard to like the subsistence of the son fully present on the cross.

With that.

Subsistence means person, that's the same thing as the son. So I don't know, this is just stating that he's the second person. How does that answer this question? I don't think he does.

That's just what I read. I wasn't sure if if it did or not.

I mean it actually it proves the point because the subject that's on the cross is the divine person of the Sun, the second subject in the triad, the trinity. Right, So when he says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? If that's damnation, then that's the son being damned by the father, and that's actually classical Reformation the elogy. Okay, all right, that's okay, good questions. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but tonight was a lot of Uh, we've had some sass so far. Kamala,

Oh?

Bro yo, it's a quick question. It's really nothing like crazy. Let me just pull it up. I affirm your words and stuff.

It's just you affirm my words. Uh huh, your troll? What do you want?

No?

I should I have a question. So you know, papias correct.

Papias, papayas, papayas. What are you talking about? I have words. Anybody who starts with this weird fake voice, I have fired your words. Dude, I already know you're trolling. Shiro. I affirm your words. Dude's name was Kamala. Come on, Shiro, I mean a hi Hi.

Can you hear me? Yes? So, I don't like this is not a debate thing, but I just want to ask.

I like not an agnostic, but I adopted exist of God, and I want to know what to guarantees that exist being in that presents and energy matter, Like why the guarantees God?

You know.

The transondent argument?

Can you give me? Yes?

You can go watch all the videos on it. Stan, what's up?

Jay? Hey?

I was one of the I'm on your side, but I was wondering if this is a good argument for if God begets God every other being they were only able to beget the same nature, so God can't be why would God beget a lesser nature?

Being? Right?

I agree?

Yeah, okay, that's all I want of them.

Yeah, I think that's a good point to make with you know, people that would say deny the deity of the sun or whatever, like if God's begetting then you know, if you had an arian who said that he's begetting a creature, well that doesn't make any sense to because to beget presupposes the same nature. Right, that's a good point, Hans, Right, go ahead.

Hey, Jay, I just wanted to say, first of all, thank you for putting this platform for all of us to force our opinions.

Just from a general perspective, do you believe that Jesus wanted to.

His intention was for the church to be united?

Yes?

Yes, Well I actually agree with you in terms of the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. But do you not see that the Orthodox is Christianity.

Emphasizes national churches and decentralized authority.

Yeah, I mean, and that's what you see in the ecumenical councils.

So yeah, and would you would you suggest or would you argue that this would weaken the church's influence.

Rather than I think.

It's I think it's I think it's natural because Jesus said, go out and preach the Gospel to the ethnois the nations. Those that's who he says in the Great Commission to go convert. When you go through the history of the Roman Empire, that's that's the nations that convert. When they come to the ecumenical councils, they're represented as national bishops. You even have the Autocephalish Church of Cyprus recognize that the Council of Ephesus. So this makes perfect sense.

Yeah. True, you could argue it's natural, but is it? Is it what Christ intended?

Yeah, because it's any I mean Christ guides the ecumenical councils absolutely.

Who's the one who's the voice of the Orthodox Church? Who's the who's the authority?

Christ and Holy Schort?

Okay, well, how do I how do I find out what Christ.

Wants in the Orthodox I I agree with you with the Pope, the Pope especially.

This, Well, then if you agree, then the then the then you can't ask me a Roman Catholic presupposition about our church. So you're basically saying, where's the person in the Orthodox Church? Is like the pope. There isn't one, but it's it's the institution itself is is Uh, it's decentralized.

Far greater that rather than having a decentralized.

Institution like Orthodox Christianity.

Well, that's not the Roman Catholic position because Vatican One does not say that the Romancallic Church is a vaster church. It puts everything on the guy in Rome.

I look anyway, I just I want to thank you and appreciate.

I appreciate. Yeah, good questions. Yeah, I'm not not trying to be combative. I'm just.

To me.

It seems like the questions presupposed, you know, like, well, where's your Roman Catholic papal figure in your joy? We don't want that, we don't need that. Hayes, what's up?

Yeah.

I think for Roman Catholics it's just like it's inconceivable. They have a hard time believing that God could be fully present in the local church, which is the Orthodox view. I mean, Catholicity for us is not one guy over in Rome or one place over in Rome, which doesn't even make sense in terms of the Roman Catholic idea of Catholicity. Catholicity is the fullness of the faith at every local church. So there's no super bishop in Rome.

Hey, j can you hear me?

I'm an author of Christian from the MOULDI station. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your work, and I have a rather quick question regarding Islam. What is his stand stands regarding the existence of Muhammad. Do you think he was a pagan, northy, heretical or he didn't exist at all?

Thank you.

I have not looked into this question that people have been posing lately about his total non existence, so I mean there could be something to that. So far, I've just been operating under the assumption that he was a pagan gnostic in Nestorian person. Gabriel, he's here to debate Christians.

Jibril, Hello, yep, hey, hello Jamon. I am Muslim and I have a questions. I know you make it this sinction between nature and personhood. But my question is that wouldn't you even if you distinguish the three persons you used to be polytheistic?

So says two, I mean, are the Asharis polytheistic or the Salafi polytistic?

Well, I just think that if you have three and you as you're describing.

Okay, well what about seven? What about ninety nine?

That's this?

Doesn't I don't know what this has to do with your justification for the your.

Position, because you have the same issue in Islam?

So what do you mean, No, we don't we believe in one God?

What about the Asharis and the Autharis and the Salafis and all the debates over the uncreated Kuran and the seven attributes and the real distinctions?

Okay, look I'm not here. Okay.

Oh yeah. So in other words, I don't want to deal with any problems in Islam. I only want to act like those problems in the Trinity.

I can no, I can argue against this, but you're not making like you're not. Okay, let me tell you.

Look, okay.

To this of forgive me. Okay, so you believe, but how does it look? Should I agree that there's debate between in Islam.

No, I'm not even pointing out that there's Look, there's debate a much Christians.

Sure.

The argument is not that there's a debate. The argument is that in your own position you have to account for unity and multiplicity in a law. And so you're just out of hands saying that my position is false because of any multiplicity in God. So why do you get a free pass on the shin and the right hand and all this stuff.

Okay, Well, because that's like morphic language.

That's not what we don't it says too, because even the Asharis who say that that's anthropomorphic language also believe that there's a real distinction between the attributes.

Do you do you have fun bullying?

Like I'm trying to bullying you. I literally brought up your aky to and you call that bullying. Don't play the victim. You came here to debate, and you gotta play victim. You guys are ridiculous. I have good contention, Okay, I can prove to you. The Bible's cut upt. Yeah, that script doesn't work when you come over here, dude, Jennifer plays a victim. I'm here to debate. He says his profile says here to debate Christians and Jews. He

Hey, can you hear me?

Yep?

Hey, So I am a Protestant. I hold to a pre millennial view, and I wanted to ask you because I know you don't about release in twenty verse three, where Satan is taking to the bottomless pit and sealed so that he should deceive the nations no more. If the millennium is not a future event, what does it mean that Satan is sealed that he can no longer deceive nations?

It's an ongoing, present reality because the millennium is identified as the kingdom, and the kingdom is what Jesus set up at his first advent. That's why this's not a literal thousand year millennium anymore than God only owns the cattle on one thousand hills and not the cattle on the thousand and one hill.

So I guess that would be assuming that the millennium is like the start of the kingdom. In my view, the kingdom started of course at the ascension, and then the millennium is just a physical representation of that already.

Yeah, that physical representation is the Church because it says that it says that the first resurrection is those who are brought into that. That first resurrection is what Jesus talks about in John five when he says that you're raised in the spirit, and then there's bodily resurrects. So the first resurrection is baptism, is what I'm trying to say.

Okay, okay, it makes sense.

Do you mean if I ask another question?

Sure?

So.

In the.

It's called the Christmas Victor model.

For Orthodox that's the closest approximation to what we would say to a Protestant minded person. But there's much more than that, because, for example, a Lutheran might be believing christas Victor, but he believes that Christ was damned by the Father or something that we don't believe any of that nonsense for us christas victory, for us christas Victor includes that he descended into Hades and is resurrected, and and it sins to restore all human nature in the

Okay, So I guess why would he have to take on human nature and experience death in order to defeat death?

Because death is an angel, it's a demon, and it's a kingdom known as Hades. And so when Adam decided to leave God, he sort of covenanted with Satan and became a member of Satan's kingdom. And so when he dies, he goes down into Hades, which the Bible describes in many, many passages throughout the Old Testament. Jesus then came, as the New Testament says, to have the keys of death and Hades to destroy that whole realm, in that whole kingdom.

Okay, And so would that it had to be the physical act of death in order to break the covenant and take the keys from that.

Well, it's when Adam sinned, it affected him spiritually and physically, so the restoration required something spiritual and physical, hence the incarnation.

Okay, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's all I got for a day at I've been looking into Orthodoxy.

Thanks to you so taking up absolutely, Thank you, Jennifer. Appreciate those questions. Those are good questions. Yeah. I remember working through primasm myself a long time ago. So I understand where you're at a baris.

Uh hello, hey, hey, I So I had a question. I don't want to misrepresent you anything, but.

Do you believe that like in the literal story about them an eve like in the garden, and then it's not like.

Not hypercal but.

Theoretical or metaphorical agorical. Yes, I believe it's literal.

Yes, thank you you. Oh, I see. How do you rectify things like.

Like Neanderthal evidence of us having not I'm not I don't.

Really want to.

I don't believe in evidence because multiple examples have been exposed to be notorious frauds.

Can you name a few?

Pelt down man, Nebraska man, right right?

Do you are you familiar with the genetic evidence that we have for Denis Evans, Neanderthals, and modern day populations mostly focused in Southeast Asia, South America and Europe exclusively.

How would genetic evidence prove uh, Neanderthals in Southeast Asia?

Well, Neanderthal, it would Neanderthals in in Western Europe?

But okay, would prove how a genetic How a genetic information which is like uh, you know, code and information for the human species or the animal species. How that proved? Cavemen?

Well, I don't necessarily use the term cave man, but it does. It does paint a picture that there is separation in genetics. I mean, we obviously today everybody looks the same.

We've we've a.

Lot of differents, a lot of different models could explain why people look different. How does that prove? Gotic cavemen?

Can you? Can you list a model that explains why people look different?

Yeah?

Creation?

Okay?

Well, I mean to start off, I mean I am a Christian, but I don't believe that science and and the creation stories have to be mutually exclusive. I believe that God the evolution can be guided by divine hand.

Okay, so you would be ultimately a heretic because of Roman's eight, which says that death in all forms enters in through the sin of Adam. So how is there millions of years of dead cavemen before Adam?

Well, see, that's my biggest she was that if let's say, hypothetically, if Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens, then what would that say about man or tas before them or an ad mixture?

Did they not have a soul?

Well, I mean, let me, let's just put it this way. Does Jesus talk in the Gospels as if Adam and Eve were historical people?

Yes, sir, there you go.

So what does that tell you?

Well, I mean, I I think that some things can be out of oracle and they don't necessarily like.

All right, So yeah, so Jesus apparently wasn't aware of the allegories. And you know better than Jesus. But you just you just said that he was not allegorizing because he said that they were historical people.

You just said that, yes, sir, But I think that I don't. I don't believe that it has to be. I think if I were to.

Tell a just be honest, Jesus, just be honest, Jesus is wrong. Is that your position?

No, sir, I don't believe he's wrong.

Well, but you just said, you just said that they're not historical people, and Jesus said they were.

Well, let's say, let's say hypothetically that Jesus was speaking allegorical but didn't include.

That or didn't tell people that that. He didn't really have a way of going about explaining.

Okay, and Denise Evans, do you think do you think Romans eight is hypothetical? And Paul says that death entered through Adam? All right, excuse me as aligorical.

No, but I also think that they could that could be true even with an evolutionary model.

If we So, if death enters through Adam, then how is it allegorically the case in the evolutionary theistic model.

Ends on what you would consider Adam.

I suppose.

But what I'm asking is in that in in Romans, Paul is clearly talking about Adam, the first Adam, the guy in Genesis who introduced his death. And then he says that Christ is the second atom. So is Christ's position as the second atom also an allegory? So now you're well that yes, so Christology goes down down the tube. Shane, what's up? Conkf be sure to call in. Hey, what's up?

Man's good to go? Cool.

So I've got an argument that I just heard from Jimmy Aikin a couple of weeks ago.

I didn't. I didn't know if you've heard it or not.

The same Jimmy Aikin who says that Arius and the Storious we're not heretics.

Maybe, but did you know he says that, No, I didn't. I'd have to check that out. What what did you say? He said?

He says, Arius and Thestorius we're not heretics.

Arius and the stories. I have to I have to look into that.

But no, this is in regards to the premiacy of Peter. So from my understanding, you know, the Orthodox Church of firms that there was a you know, a premisey to the Patriot Office. And Jimmy Aikin kind of makes an argument when it comes to defending the papacy that basically goes, you know, who is more likely to misunderstand the function of something, the person who possesses it or the people who did not.

And this is a dumb argument. Like so, in other words, we have to listen to you guys, even if you contradict or appear to contradict because you have the office. But that's the thing in question. So the question is not primacy of Peter, but what does it mean?

Right exactly? And that's what I mean.

His argument is basically, who's more likely to misunderstand what it means? You know, whoever possesses it or whoever doesn't.

But the thing in question is what is the meaning of what you possess? Not do you possess it? So this is trading on an ambiguity of terminology, right well, I.

Think even if you accept, you know, this like to take out the Vatican one understanding and I understand you can't do that to the full extent, but I just mean just for those so you can't do that at all?

What do you mean? Right well?

I'm saying, like, if we just assume this premiscy, like, let's say we accept the Orthodox view of you know what the premiacy of Peter is?

You know, I think you could apply.

It to that.

I mean, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But do you are you aware of the Chiad document, the Alexandria document. No, okay, how come? I'm not trying to be rude to you, like Roman Catholics have not read their own documents. I don't understanding because these documents say that the Orthodox are basically correct and that it evolved and that the Roman bishop didn't have your universal jurisdiction in the first millennium. That's a Chad paragraph nineteen.

Well, I mean that's where you know, doctrinal and development comes into play.

And I know, well, but the Vatican One, the Vatican One says that it was always the case. So how is it now a development?

Well, from my understanding, and you know, I don't have the text in front of me, and I'm definitely not an expert, but from my understanding, the Vatican One understanding is that there is you know, this development.

No, it's not.

It doesn't you know. It says that it was always understood from the earliest days that that Peter had this role. Does not say anything about development. Development is what Newman said To try to defend it to the people who said, what about all the counter examples in the first thousand years? Newman says that, yeah, it's the thing that it's a

Yeah.

And by the way, the I mean again eighty and Alexandria document from the Vatican admitted developed.

Right. But I'm sure there's a I'm sure there's a Catholic understanding.

You know.

The Catholic understanding is that I don't care what she Ate and Alexander say because they're not infallible and not binding because anytimes it's been a problem, it's not binding.

Right. But getting back to the question, or do you think you know it's just not a legitimate.

It's a it's trading on ambiguity. So the it's like using ambiguity in terms to get you to admit that, well, if there was a premiacy, therefore only Rome would have perfectly understood it. So it's a classic car salesman bait and switch pitch from the Roman Catholics. Uh, cost you, I'm not doing FAQs, but good question, appreciate it. So the Roman Catholics have been very civil tonight. I enjoy that's been enjoyable. They've been the most enjoyable tonight. The

Hello, OJ, how do you do?

What's up?

Man? What's up? I got a question about TAG.

Let's say that I just give up any idea about you know, order in the universe.

I don't need TAG to justify it. Therefore, and I just based my worldview on observation and statistics. You know, the statistics prevent against TAG.

Statistics would presuppose order, so that wouldn't make any sense.

Hm hmm. I see what you're saying. I figured you were going to say that.

But I feel like statistics, okay, they use numbers, but they're also.

Yeah, what's the argument.

I guess like, yeah, statistics requires numbers.

You can have numbers without order.

Yeah, I mean order in the universe is necessary to have these invariant, immaterial concepts or principles like the number seven, the number ten.

Ye.

I don't think. I don't saying it's without immaterial. I mean conceptual concepts might in the human mind.

Well, something conceptual by definition is abstract, is not material, So if you want to say that concepts are matter, that's even worse position.

No, No, I'm saying there may be immaterial things in an unordered, grandom universe.

Well, then you wouldn't be able to make sentences, because sentences require a universe where you can predicate and give meaning to objects. That there's a law of identity. How is the law of identity possible if there's no order in the universe.

Hmmm, yeah, good points.

Yeah, linguistic Linguistic philosophy, I'm saying presupposes the ability to predicate, on the basis of the law of identity, that you can pick out one object as distinct from other objects. John Helvin's words, Here we go.

Can you hear me?

Jay? Yep, my man, my man. Okay.

One of my friends recently has been turning towards Eastern Orthodoxy.

God bless his soul. Shout out to Chris, God bless him.

But he shot me a picture of the Catechumen it and sort of if there are any heresies that one holds, they need to be renounced, denounce whatever you may say about it. And I saw total depravity is up there, and I find myself to be in the reformed tradition, and I've been looking at total depravity a lot, so I wanted to hear from your perspective why it is that total depravity is a heresy and then sort of give you a little pushback if I can not too affirm necessary in my case, but I do want.

To hear what you have to say.

Well, it's heresy from the outset, because typically Calvinists or whoever, or when they try to explain this, they end up saying that nature is someone inherently evil. God's the creator of everything that exists, and he can't create evil. In fact, Scripture says he's not the author of evil. So are you a Manichean do you think that God creates evil things? Or are you a Christian? And that everything that he created in Genesis one is good?

Absolutely believe that everything that he created is good. I believe absolutely everything he created is good.

Okay, so then your nature, your nature can't be evil.

Yeah, I believe that your nature cannot be evil. However, the both of us would I think to come to some sort of agreement, Probably not in terms.

Of linguistics, but in terms of when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

God said that the day you eat it, you shall surely die.

Yeah, spiritual death. That doesn't mean that doesn't mean that their human nature.

I'm not going with I'm not trying to necessarily say hold a totally property view, but I'm just simply trying to investigate, how does etern orthodoxy under stay in that death and what does it do? What are the what are the ramifications?

Yeah, so, so it means the loss of divine life, the life of the Holy Spirit. So the uncreated grace of God is lost in Adam's fall, and Adam is reduced to a mortal state. So he's mortal, but his nature is still good, So he still has human will, he still has human nature, human energy, all of those things that we call faculties of human nature. And so when Christ assumes human nature, that's what he assumes in order to heal it, to resurrect it, to deify it.

All right, now, let me ask a weird question. But so if it's perhaps for any reason, I.

Don't I don't know how to I don't know how to phrase this because I've been I've been hetruggling recently with the fact that Calvin didn't hold to the l Most Calvinists in general do not hold. They don't sound like Calvin when he speaks about the atonement. Calvin's language is very universal because one cannot hold to a true perseverance, or one cannot hold that your salvation would.

Truly be secure if you do not believe that.

Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world. So Calvin holds that without any debate, and in fact he says with with with a lot of fervor, when you look at the predestination, what is it? The eternal predestination of God? I think that's the name of the book.

He says there when he's when he's debating with Georgia's that he says that there are some there are some people who say that, yes, Jesus died for the sins.

Let me rephrase that.

Look, I'm not trying. I'm not trying to. I'm not We don't have the time right now to go through all the Tulip. I've got multiple talks where I walk through all of Calvinism.

Uh.

You can go to the talk that I did with Cootel Church of the Eternal Logos and I go through all of Tulip. You can go to my clips channel and I have two talks going all the way through Tulip. I don't have the time right now to go through all of Tulip, but those talks will answer in detail, Uh, the issues that you have today. I appreciate the question. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but just can't do the whole calvin debate right now. Knocta, what's up? Knockta gonna, I'm mute, I'm mute.

I'm here. My apologies for that. Always looking for the microphone, the browser.

It's all good.

What's up, man, It's a nice being here.

I've been listening to you for a couple of months, to Sam watching a light you two. I'm born and raised Protestant. I'm leaving Porto Rico. So the knowledge or how the Gospel and the work got here to my knowledge was around the nineties sixteen or nineteen hundred and sixteen, when that I was a wave of.

The Word of God. And I'm sorry for my English, I'm not too well spoken on that.

But basically i've been or I was because I was out of the church for like eight nine years.

I came back looking for knowledge.

The true root of what is following Christ, and I've been closer to orthodoxy. Actually, I'm gonna ask a simple question. Basically, with everything that I went through, I sing things in Protestant churches, God working through it, I live freeing people of diseases, demons, and all that I've been seen in.

Life of people improved through this is i'd say, way of saying that Jesus Christ die for us. And basically the whole idea is the same.

We split up on incorrect me if I'm wrong, traditions and how from the bottom up it goes, but the idea is the same. So if I'm seeing all of that God working through people through my mom, if I'm gonna and everything of that, how can I put those two things together?

I mean, I appreciate the question. I mean there's no I mean, everybody could say that God is working through people and God is doing things for people. But obviously, since everyone can say that that can't be the thing that shows us which is the true church, because everybody will claim that or everybody will say that. So the only way to solve this is to actually go into the theological differences and historical differences. Journalist, you got an immute journalist, Connor, do you want to talk?

You have to?

I mute.

I dropped off cunt opinions. I feel like I'm setting myself up by going to cunt opinions for a troll, So I'm guilty if I get trolled. Go ahead, I mute. You have to ummute. Why are you raising your hand.

Speaking to Meg?

Yep, sort of literally just joined us to be like seven seconds ago.

Okay, what's on your mind?

I shoined it because it's is to be Aslam, Atheism, controlimus, take one, et cetera, et cetera.

Sure, what's on your man?

That's all I mean is.

I canolstate Christianity Prosonism. It's on the same religion. It says a lot of hatred between each of those religions.

And I'm just wondering if they anybody.

Sees the differences within these religions and how silly they are. It's Hadden of hatred that has caused between each of their religions.

So they're wrong because members of the religions hate each other.

No, not wrong, not wrong, not at all.

You said they're silly.

No, So I live anyway, it's coast to Scotland.

I'm not there. What you're saying? Yah rah ex ephens, exophens. I'm mute, m hm axophans. You have to unmute if you wanna talk. M David with a T. David, Hey, can you hear me?

Jack? Uh huh, Hey, how's it going?

So my question is, so I am Oriental Orthodox and I just want to get your opinion on the Oriental Church on the north of orthodox side, and why do you think the Calcidonian approach is true Orthodoxy given the historical context of the church, So when the council was happening, for example, historical fact.

I've done many streams with David Arhun on this. You go watch those streams. Do you want to get a precise thing? We're not gonna go to all the history. That's impossible. So what's given?

Not the history?

I just do you just said historical context?

What do you mean I'm saying the Orientals were not even invited to the Caltidonian Council.

So the Fifth Council is the council that's that's crucial here, cract for fifty one. No, the Fifth Council, that's the key council, that's the one where the tempted reconciliation with you guys is.

Okay, So you're saying the Orientals did not accept and they're not true Orthodox for that reason, some did?

Which ones all the ones that agreed to the Justinian reconciliation and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Because even today many of your guys admit that the Fifth Council teaches the correct view of the hypostasis and the subject of Christ. But the point of departure tends to be what are we going to do with the question of people like severuss. So most of you guys, as far as I'm aware, tend to say that we agree in the way that the Fifth Council presents kurelling Christology.

And do you think the physicists churches are not true Orthodox?

Well, like I'm saying, like we are not in communion, But you guys agree that the Fifth Council presents it correctly. So the issue becomes the people like severus. But no, we are not in communion, so we don't consider.

Your orthodox Okay, appreciate it.

Yeah, good questions. I mean I've got longer We've got longer streams with David Orhan and all that. If you want to go check those out, Uh exists exta Fins. You want to try again, it's open for him. If you want to call in uh, you can do so through the call in uh Twitter space right here. I'm gonna have to go T T and little girls room here in a minute. But I'm still I'm still here. I'm still staying. No, no exa Fins. We have to um you.

Hello, Hello, can you hear me?

So?

I have a quick question.

What's the proper response to the platonic youth for the lemma?

Is it like a first lemma?

Or is it?

Yeah, it's a false dilemment. We've covered that a lot in the old old live streams. I'm sorry, I just have the energy to go through all that. Do you want to try again and not sing at me? Do you want to make an argument? Or you gonna sing Arabic at me?

Hello?

Everybody? I tried to speak Arabic earlier. I'm just trying to bring up Palestine into the debat, but.

Has nothing to do with the topics.

I guess Arabic was it wasn't invented back.

Eric.

Yeah, you're cutting out man, people in the chat bitching. I make I make jokes. Dude, if you can't handle it, don't come on? Where do you make fun of his voice?

You mean?

Go ahead, just a question if you're there.

The attribute of God? Is it God in itself?

The Orthodox view their energies, So they're not his essence, they're his actions, but.

It is it is God?

Or is it God is fully present in his actions? Yes, so they're not different than God.

But that is That is the Orthodox perspective.

What about Islamic perspective on that?

They've got all kinds of schools about the relationship of all that to his attributes sit they have all kinds of schools and positions. So it depends on whether you're talking to AUTHORI a Shari Muturidi. They're all over the place. Sorry, you're you're cutting out, man, I can't you there's no uh, not a good signal here? Say that?

What's up?

I'm mute? You don't have to while you're raising your hand.

Yeah, okay, what I'm a own language figure.

So are you calling from a toilet? What's up?

Man?

No?

Oh no, this is my figure. Can you give me better? Or should I shut down?

Are you calling me from six feet under the grave? What's up?

Man?

I can't hear you?

Great? Great, the grave?

Yeah, they took this down from here.

What's on your mind?

Oh?

Can you get him better?

Now?

Yes, sir? What's on your mind?

All right?

All right?

What's on my mind? That's an injuring space.

I see Islam, Athis, Catholic, Protestantsagnostic, Mormons.

I don't see scientos.

Well, there's there's limits, there's limited spaces up there.

So okay, well I'm independent though I have no affiliation with the fucking church.

So I want you to take part in the discussion.

Some people are laughing. I like that.

As as an independent, as an India. Okay, if I can fat, if.

I can fit. As I understand.

The space is about, you know, cosmic stuff and the religions like that.

It is about all of this bullshet bro. Yes, what is on your mind? What does your buh?

Why are you talking like in Pakistani.

I am trying to talk to you to vibe with your brother.

Oh no, my is my accent so Pakistan?

Okay, bro, I don't you were from India, not Pakistan by.

India, right right?

Okay, I'm trying to do the American accent being a Greek.

And I am trying to talk to you in your own native tongue.

Yes, okay, they took the stones from here.

Well my tongue, My tongue is an ancient tongue.

My friend is a Greek tongue. It told the world.

But now I'm intervening here. Maybe maybe your listeners.

Are are you Greek or are you Pakistani or Indian?

Greek? Oh? Greek?

I'm Greek, full full bloody Greek.

Well will you sound a straight up Hindu over here?

Yeah?

Okay, Well I wanted to intervene and interject like a little bit of scientology or has got.

A patrolling there? No way, you're a Greek scientologist?

Come on, yes, yes I am.

I am.

Wait a minute, so all the religions are bullshit, but like space staatee and alien ship is real?

Come on, Oh, you.

You're trolling to get that is the most Indian Greek, dude, I've ever heard in my life. Noah, everyone hubberd doers did grouse from me?

Are you from Greece?

Brother?

They took their stones from here? Noah, I'm you?

Can you mean awesome? I just have a question. I was wondering because.

I've been getting into trying to study ecclesiology across the denominational lines.

A little bit would last little while.

How does the what is the Orthodox conception of the church, and how does that relate to its claim to being one?

Okay, so I said multiple times, I'm not doing f a q tonight. Tonight is debate. So what do you mean the Orthodox Church is to claim to be the one Church? Not trying to be rude, just saying its claim is that it's the one true church. It's not faq tonight. So if you're calling in to be faq, please don't do it. Valantine Claudi, you.

Hi, Jacob bless your brother's I'm going to lease the rth bus and I had to pay with a growman Catholic and you're very knowledge bog the boys think so. He said that in the first dozen years the church, nobody called the Church Orthodox.

It was always Catholic and the name comes after kiss. What's your argument against it?

The stupidest argument I've heard in about two years, because the name itself does not tell you that it's the papist church. I mean, that's so stupid. Like we call it the Orthodox Catholic Church. The idea that because the church fathers called it the Catholic Church, that that means papacy is literally like get some new friends. That's all I gotta say on no one, Dave, what's up? Dave? For having fun tonight open forum debate. Please don't ask

Hey, last question, when you did your debate with Trent Horne, and he asked the question of.

Was there any kind of y'all's debate on natural theology? When was there any ecumenical council that condemned.

Natural theology or the tomistic idea of natural theology?

And you, if I remember.

Correctly, you said the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

I said, my extension, the idea would be condemned. Obviously it's not going to condemn Thomas Aquinas since its centuries

Okay, all right, thank you.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Obviously, I wasn't saying. I'm not saying you're saying this, but some Roman calliy.

Oh he's so, he's so stupid.

He thinks that they condemned to Thomas Glory existed. No, bro, get out of here. We're trying to bring great Orthodox scientology. Come on, man, Richard Bruno, Jordano Bruno, what's up? Yep? Richard?

Oh as you do? Hey, I just have a question about evolution, and I know you don't even evolution.

And I saw this argument that you were having with this lady and she was talking about the archaeological evidence. But why didn't you accept that? I understand that she was like quoting some scholars that she didn't understand. She didn't she wasn't able to recall them. But why is it that that wasn't a good argument.

I don't even remember what you're referring to. But can you rephrase like what she was saying or kind of rehearse like what what it was? I mean, it's not a good argument, by the way, too. I mean my first thought was she was probably just citing scholars, and I'm like, why is that? Why am I supposed to just accept random scholars or academics. I'm very skeptical about academics and claims of any academics because I've been in

I see. Okay, yeah, I mean that's basically what it was. Yeah, that she would bring up scholars.

Okay, well, then I'll cite all the scholars who disagree, So now what.

That's a good point actually, Okay.

Wow, so scholars are like, you know that they can be. It's kind of like a courtroom if you think about a courtroom, and you know in the courtroom they'll bring in expert witnesses or expert testimony, and then the expert comes in and says, it is my expert opinion that Jeffrey Dahmer had to have conducted these murders because of the genetic evidence and because of his profile. And then the jury says, this is an expert, and he gives

Hello, yop, Sorry, that might be.

A ridiculous question, might not be worth your time.

But because it might seem a little eye but I've been trying to do a lot of research on what the Church fathers thought on the biblical canon, and something a lot of Protestants point to is Letter thirty nine or from Saint Affinatius, where interestingly enough is canon is closer to the Protestant with the.

Exception that's well, that's the New Testament, and he's got Old Testament books that are not the Protestant canon.

Yeah, well you just don't explain.

So he lists the Old Testament canon first, and then he lists the New Testament, and then interestingly enough, at the end he lists some of the Jutero canonical books. But what I find particularly strange is I don't know why he puts the Judo can in a separate section when he cites them all throughout his works.

I don't quite get that, because oftentimes it's been classed as second canon, so works that are not as important, and even the Orthodox Church like Roman Catholics and people, they love to cite the Catechism of Metropolitan Filaret because when he lists the canon, he lists what is the non deuterocanonical list, and then like two questions down he says, and we also hold to the dudocanonical books. So they've

If you don't mind?

On top of that, and as a protest of myself, I got to be honest with you, this ain't a fun thing to admit.

But another one they go to is sinks Thrill of Jerusalem.

But if they actually read the whole passage, he doesn't include Revelation.

I don't, yeah, exactly, because there's hotly disputed books that take a long time centuries for the church all over to except so obviously the church is not operating on solid scriptura for those centuries. James White admits that the Church wasn't operating on solo scripture in those centuries and his debate with Trent Horne, so thank you exactly. So therefore solo scriptura is not the ancient church's position.

Oh yeah, it's just one last thing.

Sorry, It's just that I was reading some Saint Augustin.

And my account might be off.

But in the City of God, I think he quotes the Dudo of Canon roughly forty eight comes and again, like you know, reform to Bros and Lutherans, they love aughust him, but they don't like his canon. And I just think that's kind of arbitrary, like how did you get original Sin right and the Trinity right?

But he got the canon wrong?

Well again, in the Protestant position, it's completely arbitrary as to why we're supposed to pick this or that church father's canon. And if you're a consistent Protestant or a Classical Reformation Protestant, all those people don't have the Gospel anyway because they taught salvation by works and they didn't believe been sola fe day. So why are we listening to all these heretics about where the cannon comes from? It's just all the whole position is stupid. But thank

Yeah? I disagree with.

Your stance on pride being a godly attribute.

What are you talking about?

What that? I say that?

The tone, the prideful tone in your voice.

Well, you sound pride right now.

Well I never.

Claimed I wasn't, but o, So pride's okay for you? Enough for me?

No, it's both. It's bad for both of us.

Okay, Well, then take the mode out of your own eye? What are you talking about?

Okay?

Are you trolling or I don't understand?

Well, you just sound a bit prideful, that's all.

Okay. Do you have an argument?

Be more humble?

Okay, that's really pious, man, raw race, you gotta mute.

Okay. Sorry. So I'm Orthodox and I have two questions.

I hope I'm not doing a questions man, I'm not doing that. Catholics cargus. Look where people who disagree.

Hey, I don't disagree, but I'm an Orthodox in choir.

And this guy asked me, is it seems kind of like a dumb question, but he said, if God is fully uncreated then and he's like transcendent, then how.

Does he interact with us if we are created? Essentially Maybe it's just a dumb question.

That's the purpose of the essence center the distinction. It's a good question. And if you read read letter two thirty four of Basil and he addresses that very question. Oh, let's uh, here'll tell us more about your humility. You have to unmute, Jayhawk. You have to unmute.

Uh. I you were cutting out so I didn't even hear what you said.

Sorry, well, you requested to come back, so please enlighten us about your virtue.

Oh I did. Oh my mistake. I didn't mean to request to come back.

Okay, casey, hey Jay, can you hear me?

It's an annoying question to ask.

Ask anyway, Okay, quick question, Thanks for having me on again.

Though, when can we say, uh that the Orientals were.

Officially out of communion?

And it's it's kind of just a question that connects to.

Tonight, right, So tonight I said, we're doing debate, so it's people who disagree, So please don't ask me the orthodox I f AQ questions. I'm not mad at you. I'm just saying it's for people who disagree. Cody clearest talent, Okay, here's my claim. If you believe the witness of the resurrection is enough to believe in the resurrection. I never argued that evidentialism, so it has nothing to do with your terrible Book of Mormon argument. DC would work at

Man? What's up? Jake? Can you hear me?

Huh? Do you have a disagreement or debate?

Yeah? I wanted to bring up, like the Mormon point of view and just I wanted to like get.

Some some thoughts from you, not saying that I want to like, actually, I'm not saying I believe that.

But I'm just saying, like, I just want to represent it for an argument.

Yeah, Mormon friends or something.

I have a history of being in Utah, so I like whenever I was out there, I kind of got brought in back into.

Christianity just from being interested in what Mormonism was.

Okay, but Mormonism isn't Christianity. Do you understand that or do you think it is.

I don't think that it's Christianity, knowing what I know now, but I used to think.

I used to think it was, like you know, because they kind of tricked you almost they put like Jesus Christ on really big bold letters.

Well, I mean that just shows that the terminology is what is not what mattered to what it means.

Yes, that's true. What do you think about. But what do you think about Joseph Smith and what he saw?

I mean, I think Joe Smith was a notorious con man. What do you mean?

Okay, I got you.

I mean he obviously cribbed all of the temple rituals from Freemasonry. Yeah, what do you What do you mean? Yeah, you didn't know that. I'm not being I'm not being a bothole. I'm saying like, had you not heard that before?

I've heard that before.

Do you think it's true or you haven't looked into it?

I'm not a Mormon. No, I don't believe that. I'm sorry, I know that that. Yeah, I agree with you, bro.

Okay, So I mean if he's cribbing the temple rituals from Freemasonry, I mean that's kind of from the outset, tells me that this is like not a legitimate religion.

Yeah exactly. But what do you think about all the prophets that came afterwards? I claimed to have visions from God?

Are you trolling? I mean, how would that prove? Why would that prove Moism?

No? No, Jay, am I bad. I'm not trying to troll.

I'm just bringing up point of views that Mormon people bring up to me, and I just want to hear what you have to say about that.

Well, I mean, I mean, there's a million conment in the world that claim to have visions from God. So how would that prove Mormonism?

I gotcha, And you just got to practice discern man.

I guess well, I mean, I think there's going to be obvious indicators and that it's not true. One of those would be Well, let's just go with the simple biblical argument, like there are no profits, as we argued to the Mormon earlier on. And if that's the case, as we saw Luke sixteen sixteen, the prophets were until John Oh, then there's no office of Old Testament prophet anymore, as Hebrews one says, he has spoken to us in

You're making that up. There is no text.

You're making that up.

It does not say that.

And then when we read it, you were added to the text. When I literally just read the text.

Gabriel, Gabriel Gabriel, h uh huh, question.

Uh of a Catholic theology.

So okay, the Catholics, I believe, when it comes to the nature of God, they see, they deny, they deny.

The essence uh energy, essence distinction. Okay, So when it comes to the Eucharist.

Therefore, if they think, when it comes to transubstantiation that that is God in his absolute essence, that all.

Bows my mind.

How do I respond to this, because to me, that would be the equivalent of saying that God as he is and his absoluteness outside of Kevin's basement.

I know they they do not say that it's the essence. They don't know what it is. And they'll say, uh, it's a well I take that back. They will agree with us that nobody knows what God's essence is and that we don't eat that. But then they say it is a created grace that you're partaking of, So you're eating a creature. So which is a contradiction because God isn't a creature. There's no uncreated God. I mean, there's no created God.

Okay.

Have you ever read the Catholic dogmatic theology of a Joseph Pole or try to pronounce I have not. Oh, okay, he's one of the only kind, like theoligin of seen.

Have the book on the Attributes of God. Now when it goes to say it and I don't put it with me, actually have it in my kindle. I can look it up.

But it's Uh, this is the point that confuses me because okay, so they for them to deny essence, energy's distinction and for the creative grace, I just I don't understand this creative grace stuff because I can't in them.

It's because they have a presupposition about divine simplicity and they can't admit that you're partaking of an energy. So and it's not the essence, so it has to be a created grace. And Aught says that dogmatically.

Okay, so that Lily, God would be the guy to see how they define created goods.

Yes, it's a created substance. It's going to be created accident in the soul. And by extension, the Council of Trent says that what you are given in baptism is the righteousness, not that God has, but that He makes you righteous with which is a creature. So God is creating a supernatural accident in the soul. That's the grace that you get. And presumably the uchris would be the same thing. That's dogmatic that's in Aught gives you about five propositions as to what grace.

Is, and the term accident is an Aristotelian.

Right, but it's specified in Aught. He gives multiple propositions. One of the propositions is that it is not God, it is not his uncreated life. It is a created thing in the soul, an accident in the soul. Okay, so this is how silly. Their position is correct?

Right?

So, and the major contention would be that by believing this, this interrupts a life of giosis.

Well it's not theosis, yeah, it's it's another creature, Kalama says. And when he's debating about this very point, he says, how can another If arianism is wrong because a creature can't save you, then created grace is wrong because it's just another creature trying to save you. Please make us humble, Bro, you're back. You have to mute. Why do you keep coming back? If you just want to talk about how humble you are?

Don't make stuff up.

I have a question, though, how am I making stuff up?

Did you say how holy?

I was humble? What humble?

Oh? You said holy? No?

But I have an honest question, and I'm asking, well, well before that, I got a two questions, but let me just ask this.