HOT DEBATE! Muslim Contradicts! Protestants Refuted, Sola Scriptura & Sacraments -Jay Dyer

You're a gobbling the demon a bull merchard.

You saw me?

I'm your dude? Is this your person on the web?

I need a gender jew.

I can't take and choice yourself?

You saw me on you dude? Is this.

It comes out of the dog the tree? Why do you pray eat the dead people? That's the traditions? A madden you heretic?

Wow, you dude? Is this your.

Person on the web?

I need a gender jew can't he's a little dear So boys, you dudemic justification.

Circular two.

It's not crafty, Jamie?

Did you make me? I express?

So?

Okay, we're gonna open it up. Let's keep it on topic. One plus one plus one equal three. Icons are idealatry Jay j But Jay?

Can I talk?

But it wasn't next cathod Rave God is real?

WI?

Does he allow evil? I?

Do you pray to dead people? Traditions of men? It's a no brainer. You're such a tyrannical rainer.

Is this your.

First time on the in or well?

I need a change, can't take it these loads your slow boys? Is this your first time on the wesh?

Did I need to changer? Joe?

Was that an uncreated foot?

Fart A mute dude, Stop repeating my name, dude, you goober's callin or I'll boot you. Where did we get the Bible from? Have you read the Cannons of Francia?

What are you Catholic?

Are you Prosians?

I'm not trying to be me, but do you have an actual argument?

There is only one church.

You are in a cult, You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer?

Quick question?

Do we have any diddyback venerators in the chat?

How is this your first time on being? Or well I need to change your shoe. Can't take it these loads? You're slow boys?

Are you?

Is this your first time on being? Or where I need a changer too?

If you're a wineman in front of the line.

I'm mute, dude, what.

Is your epistemic justification?

That argument is circular and you are refuted.

Is this your first time on me?

Or where I need to change your show?

Can't take it these loads? You're slow boys?

You?

Is this your first time on me? Or where I need to change your show?

If you're a lie moan front of.

A line on mute dude, Yeah, there's only one thing that can bring them law together.

That begins with you, but where it begins with you not give. I'm gonna say the word gives away, Begin the chance golf up.

Bankers get on the floor.

Thanks, give a pot.

Bankers give him pain. Baker, give name your name.

I want to see you ask the floor sees, get more hose, give pain, give my boots give.

I want to see the CEOs.

It ruin those slides in a arnderd and forty one.

And tell the monkeys you find off in that.

Tree what you're doing up there? Why you scared? Why you running from every bad? You ran from the true and from me?

Like the female monkeys mis doumbanatas between the trees hanging.

Down upside down. That's smile.

Side.

Tell the monkey what.

You do it to me?

T do a monkey, deal a macky.

Mm hmmm, oh.

Now Phil and James Brown, Kurt Franklin, do it to me?

Till it parkay whoa.

Oh, welcome everybody. It's a Saturday night. Why not do it? Why not open it up? Is there any there's one more song? There's a mk ultra version of the Matt Dylanukey song.

Monkey you climb up in that tree, what you're doing up there while you scared, while you.

Running from every debate, you and from Andrew and from me.

Adla monkey, what you're doing to me.

Down?

Nobody wants to come to debate. Everybody's running away as soon as they done got here.

Beer beer.

We'll keep the local starships, star colonies in line. Beer is a mind.

Killer, telling the monkey, all right, people are running away, what's this crap.

Crip?

Fifty five people in line and we've only got two people who want to come on and do the debates. He wont okay. One dude came back. He came back. We've got a couple of super chats and then I'm gonna open it up right way. Bulpez five dollars, bruh, give me a terms McKenna impression. Talking about tahi, Well, taw hid is when you can't talk about the unity of the being because it's essentially a hidden deity, hence the term taw hid h. Brossi, five dollars, make it

It's a year of love.

Huh.

I can't sing with my perfect hair metal inflection like I would like to because I still have a cold, but it's almost gone. Eric Ze two dollars. I like this dream. That means it's an algorithm push. That's what I like to hear. He knows the nature of the industry and the business. You know what I'm saying. He knows how to industry, how the industry work. Yes, you

I ain't doing nothing. I ain't do nothing what you think ID need? I ain't doing nothing. I don't know what the hell voice that was supposed to be. I was making a joke to Tristan that when he becomes a black gay performer that I've already figured out the caddy gossipy kind of RuPaul character name that it would be. And when Tristan becomes a caddy RuPaul gossipy black performer,

But he's like RuPaul. That's how he would laugh. So that's what that character was. I just realized, Bryce Shay five dollars if God real, Why yet Yakoub make white race a challenging question, a fair question, a question that any apologist worth his metal would struggle to answer. I can't even keep up. There's so many the superchats are just rolling in. I'm trying to get to them all. No, that's it, thank y'all, welcome everybody. We got my more

Uh?

I guess it's about his best, the best we're gonna get. Mister b twenty bucks Jay, when he learned that his channel got monetized, Jay, he remembered, this community full of acoustic spurgs? Is that standing for autism? And he has to read out all this garbage. I wouldn't characterize the beloved super chatters as garbage. All right now? Is it gonna start dropping down the streame stream Health? I mean as long as we as long as y'all can hear me. You don't need to see my face. Because I tried

Hi Jay, good, good to you, You having a good start to you. Thanks for taking my queriod's random Yeah vaccine. Yeah, I'll try not be too week this time.

But I got some new ways, got some new ways for yah.

Yeah right, Jack, Jesus, excuse really sorry the bless from you forever and here. I was just wondering if you've read anywhere about any discussion about Adam and Eve in the sense of when overall and potentially metaphysics, but things about that.

I had not I mean, are you referring to the soul?

Yeah, yeah, potentially, Like.

The way I said, it is definitely separate soul that Eve would have had, assuming that we all follow from Adam and Eve and that's how things would have been handed down to us thereafter. But you know, God breed life into Adam, and you know, perpetual life would have gone through that. But there was no specific sort of like mentioned as to when the soul comes to Eve, if it would have been inside Adam from the beginning or if as soon as she was created, because I.

Guess I could ask you could beg to say.

Like when does life actually begin even when it comes to you know about by bulls and things like that. So I'm just wondering if this, if it'd been any discussions on when she received her.

I don't know about Eve, but I mean, Saint Maximus teaches that the soul is created at the moment of conception. But thank you for that magic, Mike Orthodox and Man Stripper A country to come up in here?

Eh eh okay, hear, yeah? What's about a question about price up? And then I wanted to go where I disagree about salvation?

So I know you take the presuppositional approach in terms of apologetic methodology, but you like, you know, you rely on Presbyterian reform guys that has been to gourgy Boston.

So where do you disagree with them?

And pretty so, where did transcendental arguments come from?

I don't know. I'm just trying to learn about it.

So so who do you think was the first two positive transit arguments? You don't know? No, Okay, well they're in Aristotle.

Okay.

John Ascus refers to transit argument of the very beginning of founton Knowledge. Felis he uses transcendental argument. So there's nothing necessarily about transit augmentation that it makes it the property of the reformed. Furthermore, an argument stands on its own, and it doesn't really matter what group makes the argument, right, So do you know about the genetic fallacy?

Yeah?

Okay, what's the genetic fallacy? What's the genetic it's like when the particular group? Yeah? Right, So what does that have to do with whether it's true or not? Hello? Are you there?

Yo?

In priest oppositional apologetics like their storting part of their methodology kind of relies upon tulip and total depravity and how there's no like neutral route, neutral ground and things like that.

Well, there's plenty of philosophers who teach that the reality is not theory neutral. So are they all Calvinists? Uh no, Right, So there's nothing about theory neutrality. There's nothing about transit argumentation or any of that that necessitates Calvinism. And that's why I always argue that it's the.

So okay, okay, So how do you understand? So I need to talk about salvation and orthodoxy? So how do you understand I've heard your lectures to you any how, you say that faith alone, justification by faith alone isn't true because the person when they come to Jesus Christ, they don't go through metaphysical change in themselves.

Is that correct?

That's part of it?

Yeah?

Yeah, So how so let's say when that happens?

Right, So, like, and how do you know, like how much how many how much work do you have to do to be like metaphysically go through a change and be justified in God's eyes?

In your view, well, Christ's life is the paradigm model, and so there's always synergy between the human nature and the divine nature. And that's why, for example, all the early Church fathers and even the first generate baptism is a work. This necessary repentance is a work that's necessary. Jesus says that this is the work of God that you believe on Him whom he has sent. So faith in Christ is also we flesh it out like all

Sure, so let me just go back to the point you mentioned about the spiritual baptism, right, So when you read the Book of Acts and they get the tour this start of the book, they get the spirit. What is it the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They weren't physically baptized in water.

There's no mention of that.

So how does you have no idea what you're talking about if you're not read Acts too. I specifically started Acts two thirty people right after that, which is why I said, that's how we know they're talking about water baptism. Pentecost is not a spiritual baptism separate from something else that's the coming of the Holy Spirit and power. And when Peter preaches at Pentecost, what does he tell the people in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine.

Envy baptized?

Is that okay? And then what is what is he talking about?

There?

Is it?

You're telling me that's not water baptism, even though they literally baptize the people in water right after that?

Yeah, so I know I do get that that is water baptism for you.

Just said it's not water baptism though, No, No, I'm talking about earlier in the Acts chapter. I'm talking about the apostoms of Apostles himself, who water baptized the Apostles because.

Beat boots in weeks that's what Jesus promised, and Acts becue me and John fourteen fifty sixteen.

That they get water baptized.

Well, they didn't have to be baptized because they're the beginning of the foundation stones of the church and Jesus tells them to baptize.

Okay, fair point.

And also water baptism didn't occur with anybody in the Old Covenant, and they're all saved in the same way. That doesn't mean that after this point, that's not the means by which regeneration occurs.

Okay, fair point.

Yeah, But I have another question about salivation buf faith alone. Right, So, like what is the position of works in your and your understanding? Like, like, for example, I'm talking about just the centification, right, is scientification necessary for justification? But if you say in works to be to be justified, I mean, I know you're talking you say that, you know, like coming to repent.

The mistake is that you're you think of justification as a legal status and it's not. It's part of a that's part of the analogy. But in Romans four, when Paul cites Genesis fifteen, that's after Abraham has already been doing three chapters of good works. So Abraham should not have men justified quote unquote in Genesis fifteen. If you're reading of Romans for is correct see Romans for refutes the Calvinist interpretation. Do you understand what I mean by that argument?

Yeah? Yeah, I get that.

So like if you're so, how do you understand like to the Calvinistic Channe in Romans when he talks about you know you were justified and then he also just says that you know you were you were called justifies and then glorified. It's all like linked together, it is.

But what you're missing as a Calvinist is that that's written to an actual, visible group of people in Rome, as a group of the predestined? Did Paul write in Roman Ephicus?

I can't say it's it's both.

No, it can be both, because how can he call the entire visible group the elect and the predestined because they're not.

What it wouldn't apply to Christians today when he like and.

The general those have to do with today? Just when he writes to the actual church in Ephesus and he calls them the predestine, who's he calling the predestine in the church writing about the Calvinist view? No, I mean the predestined are not the visible church, that's the elect only.

From from your position.

I mean Calvinism fails in terms of Christology. That's the starting point, because Calvinism begins with the idea of the divine decree and soteriology, and so it has the wrong order of theology. It has to begin with the Trinity and Christology and the in case. That's why you guys don't have the essence interistinction, you don't have the real presence. You're missing all of these things because you begin your your theology with steriology.

So another question, how do you determine like when how to interpret in a legal in a legal understanding or not? Because you know you when when there are lots of salvation, salvation by faith a loan passages, you'll just say that it's here.

There are no faith a loan passages. There are passages that say faith not were of law. And in the concept he's talking about Jewish law. But if you look at Galatians, Paul says, the only faith that counts as the one that works through love. So Paul is saying the same thing as James. It's you guys that have invented the idea of a purely fictional legal standing. That is your salvation that's what doesn't exist in the ancient

So okay, So then how do you understand the legal and the forensic language that does use in.

Regardless based on what's actually there?

What's actually what do you mean like you're.

Actually made righteous? That's what it's called baptism or regeneration. The sacraments actually convey the grace.

Okay, So so like, let's say the pious works that you do, do they contribute to your salvation and scientification? Or is it just the sacraments that you do in the Orthodox Church? Like let's say, when you participate in the sacraments right of the Orthodox Church, are you you're participating in the uncreated energy right of the.

Correct So what about the.

Let's say, the sacraments that exist, like you know that are done in other church or yes? Or what so the uncreated grise only exists in the Orthodox Church, that's your.

Position, Yes, because it is the mystical body of Christ. So how come like these one Lord, one faith, one Baptist in one body. There's not twenty thousand, thirty thousand different ways.

Why do you So why would like a Protestant a Catholic need the uncredited grace.

Of That's this is something that anybody in any religion can say that they become a morally reformed person or they're better or I mean, I don't. That's all purely subjective. I know, I have no idea what you think spiritual growth is.

I mean, okay, sure, but I'm talking about spiritual growth as in like you know, sinding less and doing.

You know, being obedient to God. So now it's salvation by works. I thought you didn't believe in salvation my works.

No, But I mean I think we're we're as Christians were there to conform to the image of Christ. Right, So, like, I'm not saying that we're doing these things to be saved. This is just a byproduct of like, you know, our faith, like in our faith is genuine. That's what we want to do, the righteous things that God wants us to do. So what do you think about that?

Just one second?

Okay?

Like what what?

Why?

Would like you know, why what makes it necessary like the uncreated and urge of Jesus or of the Orthodox Church?

Because the creature can't save us a patient and divine life and immortality. But in moral reform. So ironically, what you're talking about is the proof of the faith is the very thing that you, as a Calvinist, supposedly shouldn't believe in. We're moving on, TJ. What's up, man? Try to change the bit rate. Maybe that'll help with whatever's going on.

Yeah, O Jay, So I recently left Printocostalism and I've just become a catechumen.

I just had a few questions, if that's okay.

So I came into Orthodoxy based purely mainly like intellectually and just through like reading history, and I'm lot and I just wanted to know how to navigate, you know, going from the vital reality and really taking part in the you know, right.

Well, that's so, that's that's right. So it's not Q and A. I'm not trying to be rude too, it's not you know, like catechumen days. So that's a question for you and your spiritual father, going deeper into your prayer life and all that, you should ask him. That ash not trying to be rude.

Uh hey, can you hear me?

Yeah?

Sweet?

So last when I was on we started talking about uh sol scriptura. Uh, I'm coming out of Protestantism and so I've had a couple of things to think about. And the question that you posed last time was how do I know as a like, sure, not as a Protestant anymore, but when I was a Protestant, how would

So the evidence is going to be based on the historical transmission, preservation, and self knowledge that the church in history has. That's the point. So it's missing the point to say, oh, well, I can go to the consensus of scholars. And by the way, there's tons of liberal scholars who probably don't believe that, So how is that going to help anybody figure out canonicity? Apistolic authorship is only one of the elements that would go into why

Sure, it's like you said before that like what is the grid to choose?

Also what scholar to follow?

So if you're a Protestant, since you don't have really apistemological kind of lens to point to, like, oh, well, I have an inbound source because you know, Sproul says the dumb axiom of fallible collection of infallible book. I have to sit there and claim, well, I guess it's just fallible means that get me my infallible books.

That doesn't make any sense.

No, no, no, I'm saying. The Protestant would have to sit there, and if they.

Were honest with themselves, they would say, okay, I received.

My books, my sixty six books.

The Protestant canon by fallible means, by the means of the scholars that I pick the history that I.

Pick, right, So it's a non sequit or to then say that if the Bible is based on that, then it can't be infallible.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, but yeah, it's just chaos. Okay, that's the question I had.

Thanks Man, good Hill, old Gunhild, Gunhild.

Are you there?

Let me.

You have to turn your mic on. Man, I don't like, I don't know where you guys as nobody used to a space.

And are Hey, Jake, I have a question.

I want so I want to be Orthodox, but I have questions about rebaptism and and just kind of rigorism in general rocre generally. Uh you know they I know, I know it's a pejorative to call it corrective baptism. But if I came from a Roman Catholic background and they want to do that, what are the consequences of that?

And do you find it?

Why would there be consequences? What do you mean why would you not just submit to what your elders are telling you? What do you mean?

Yeah? So I guess that's my question. So I should just do that.

Yeah, and this is yeah, and it's not it's not I'm not trying to be rude to you. It's just it's not catechumen, ethic unite. It's debate night. But yeah, just submit to your elders. Cornelius. What's up, Elder ten dollars. I learned a lot about orthodoxally the past few months lurking in your book recommendations. Thank you, thank you, man. I appreciate that.

Jay.

I've been remember hold on, I've been remember your website. Mister Anderson three dollars tried to watch the full video on history of the Left, and it brought me to the YouTube it says I need to be a member. Yeah. I realized that after I started making the YouTube lectures Members video that the people who are on the website

Have criticized the pope for kissing the Quran, I think for the second.

Yet I've gone way deeper than that. I think that's pretty good. I know, I know, I know, mild compared to a lot of the other criticisms.

I know, I know, I know.

But what I wanted to say. I saw a video on YouTube of Patriarch Carell who was in a children hospital. It's all on Russian, but he was in the children's hospital and said I translated into English. He said, he said, therefore, pray with all your heart and ask the Lord for help.

I know that both Christians and Muslims are here.

Each one addresses the same God, the Creator, and response to this we receive real divine help.

I don't have a problem saying that. I don't have a problem saying he can get things wrong. And do you think the Orthodox system of theology is the same as the Roman Catholic system.

So for clarification, I'm Serbian Orthodox, I'm not Catholic.

Okay, so what's the point.

Yes, I have a problem with with this.

Yeah, I just I just agreed that it's wrong.

So so you did you agree with him or do you?

Of course I don't agree with that. I just said he can be.

Wrong, Okay, Okay.

Don't you think it should be addressed by other patriarchs like.

Porphylia from Serbia?

Yeah, I don't know, I think him, but I would imagine it ought to.

Be m hmm. It's seven years old. I don't know if you believe me of what I called it.

I don't know that. I don't know Russian, but like either way, whether it's translated accurately or not, Like, yes, I'm sure there's a humanist tendencies like Hilary and Alfia. He had a humanist tendency, so I'm sure he said a lot of wrong things too, mm hmm.

Okay, yeah.

So the argument from you is that the patriarch doesn't isn't available like Catholic streame for the pope, and therefore if he says something wrong, it doesn't destroy Althodo.

Did I get Detroit? Yeah?

The whole church is not built on the faith of the guy in Rome m h. Whereas Vatican, Vatican One, nor any of them, but in One builds everything on what is happening with Francis.

Yes, yes, okay, mm hm m hm m.

That's said, thank you, sure, fair question, he roes. What's up. No, I don't accept that Islam is a Brahmic. I don't believe that at all. I mean, I made this argument hundreds of times. What's up? He's having hard time connecting?

Can you hear me?

I just wanted to ask. I was reading something Beluther that I don't know if it's true or not. They it's a patron that was connected or a member of the rules a Crucians.

As possible. I know that the second generation Lutherans like Johann Andre are believed to be some of the early founders of the Rosicrucian order, and Luther did have a lot of support from the German princes. That was part of the reason why he was successful. I don't think he could have been successful without that state support in terms of Germany and the Reformation. But later Lutherans were for sure into Roschritianism. But I would not be surprised that there wasn't a patron that was as well.

Okay, I just I was just wondering.

I know, I noticed he used a symbol like a ros Acrucion symbols as a kind of signatory on documents.

Well, that might have been his choice, though prior to the order of the rosy cross using it, it's not. I mean, you can't base the argument just on the symbol, because you know, there's a rose cross that I'm sure was used in Catholic churches prior to that, it would have been rosicrution necessarily. But I think when if you look up the character Johann andre it does specifically become a Rosicrucian symbol at that point. And Luther had other

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah?

Can you hear me?

Yeah? Yeah?

Hello?

Yeah? What's up?

Hello?

Yes, I can hear you can hear me? King anime? I heard diary is autistic. I don't think I am. I think seems like people with thetism have a hard time with comedy and they can't tell when people are joking, but probably everybody to a degree has those of the tism. What's up?

Man?

He got on you. You're raising your hand, I'm you.

Oh hello? Oh?

So yeah.

I asked some questions about the Sabbath.

So I heard, uh, I'm pretty.

Sure you know sab simonies.

I think that's just not He was on first and Fleet.

So the way he described the Sabbath I think was I didn't find it satisfaction because.

I mean, I don't know what. I don't know what he argued about the Sabbath. What's the question, So do you think.

Christians do have to keep the Sabbath the way it says in the Fourth Commandment.

The way that it's kept is the way that the New Testament the Apostles keep it, which is the first day of the week is the day of the Lord where the Church comes together and celebrates the liturgy. In the Orthodox Church the seventh Day, the seventh Day Sabbath is still kept on in the vesper's service. It's still honored on Saturday. But no, as Hebrews four says, the true Sabbath has been brought to us in the person

So would you consider that to be in a tipped at changing.

Godswel No, Because Jesus is the one that gave the law. He is God. He's the one that decides and determines how it's kept and how it's interpreted.

So but when he, like, when did he ever say that Jesus change his Sabbath.

Hebrews four explains that when Jesus came, he brought at his first advent the fulfillment and the meaning of the creation day Sabbath. Thus, the day of his resurrection is the Sabbath, according to Hebrews four. And that's why the Church in the Book of Acts and John in the Book of Revelations says, I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day. That's the day of his resurrection. In the Book of Acts, that's when the church meets to

And you know, because I was confused on like what people were saying about. They think because based.

On in Genesis when it said the evening in the morning, he didn't say that at the end of the seven days.

So people try to.

Say that that's their basically their argument for thinking that we're in Gode now, which I thought to be very confusing because I.

Don't really get that.

Have you not read have you read Hebrews?

I see the verse that Sam pointed out, So I'm pretty sure the verse you're referring to.

I just think all of chapter four is about the Sabbath being brought at Christ's first Advent. Okay, So all of these Jewish ceremonies, they symbolize the work and life of Christ and the reality that he brings at the first Advent.

Okay.

And what do you think about the theocracies?

Do you think Christians should try to establish a theocracy like in the United States now?

I think the goal is to convert people and then it will naturally tend towards a monarchy or an imperium or theocracy. So theocracy is the biblical form of government. That's why the Orthodox Church throughout two thousand years has always had monarchical or imperial forms of government. But it's not our first and foremost duty to set up a theocracy. So that's something that happens down the line as people convert when you have a majority Christian Orthodox society clone card.

I mean.

Moving on, Danny? Is it Danny?

Danny?

Donnie Akula. It's open for him. If you want to request to speak, I'll bring you on. It's open debate. We're looking for people who would like to debate. Pologia has a million subs. Okay, well I've never heard of Pologia. I have no idea who it is. Selmoxis spends fifty bucks. Can you walk us through the documents from Trello and

Or what something?

Man thank you guys for all the super chants. Appreciate it. You guys are being generous tonight, Donnie. I'm all right, whatever, don't I mute? Then Bible shelf?

Hi, can you hear me?

Uh huh?

So I just wanted to ask, I guess for like advice for someone who's a lost and it's.

Currently studying tag.

But I'm kind of just feeling like overwhelmed by all the objections and I would I attend church, but I guess I'm kind of like agnostic, and I just.

Feel like it requires such a high.

Level of philosophical knowledge and all the objections are like so complex that's kind of hard to know what's true. And I'm just in this like state of like not knowing or like uncertainty. But then I have Christians saying, oh, well, if you die upon disbelief for your you're probably gonna go to.

Help, so you know, I mean, I think the point is that you join the Orthodox Church and become a regular member, and you don't rest on the academic rational side of stuff. It's not that the rational academic stuff is wrong or bad, but it can't all rest on that. That's like a sign pointer to the church. Yah kub, what's up? Yah kub? His name is Jacob, but I'm calling him yah kub.

Yeah, what's up? What's up? Yep? Yeah, I followed you for a long time. I really like the content, and I've been reading. I've been reading more some Dogma.

I'm like six pages in and he's talking about the early Christian mysteries, and I just wanted to know what exactly you would say about the statements that he's giving.

So he will give like four hands, you.

Profane, or that giving the Christian mysteries is start putting a sword into the hands of a child, these kinds and things.

I mean, he has a whole chapter where he talks about that real Christianity is Neoplatonism, basically affirms originism. He says, that's what the Trinity really is. So no, we don't listen to Albert Pike and Neoplatonism for what Christianity is.

I mean, I mean, sorry, sorry, but he says, for example, Cyril, all right, he'll say the Lord explained in private his parables.

That does mean what ye what he says, He's just referring to the Gnostic claim that true Christianity is a hidden message. But if you read here in as in book three and four against Heresies, and as says that there's nothing hidden in Christianity. It's all public.

Hmm, yeah, I get that.

No, it's just been very, very crazy because you gave like thirteen thirteen quotes by different church fatherst it all said that they for example, you have Totullian saying that, yeah, okay, if it makes sense, makes sense.

So the saying why go ahead, What's what are the other quotes about?

So it's like thirteen.

First he starts off with Clements not initiated to Trollanto. Then he goes to Titullian, who's a heretic, as.

He said, Then Clement is a heretic too, but go ahead, the heretic too.

Then as I don't know how to say his name, sorry, I'm uh, he says, these mysteries the church now communicates to him who has passed through the introductory degree. They are not explained to the gentiles at all.

Yeah, this is just all nonsense. Like when you join the Orthodox Church, there's no secret inner gnostic teaching that the Orthodox Church passes on to the Gnostic inner elite. That's why the whole purpose of rols and dogma. Is that Albert probably is saying, you, you know what people call Christianity and the Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church, that's not real Christianity. That's for the profane. I have the real secrets. That's just a sleight of hand trick.

Oh yeah, absolutely, it's social pride.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm a Christian tioper.

So what's what's the quest?

I don't understand what I'm just I'm just confused because I'm trying to find out how to how to interpret these quotes.

But these early church fathers.

As for example, you will have Saint Basil. He's saying, this is what the initiated. I'm not permitted to contemplate at the mysteries.

Yeah, I mean this is part of the Orthodox tradition that you don't speak of the mysteries to those outside because they don't understand it, they're not going to believe it. And that's why in the Orthodox Church it is called mystagogy. It is a mystical teaching. But mysteries does not mean Albert Pike's ancient pagan mysteries. It means the mysteries of the Christian revelation, which are not always forever hidden. They are mysteries that are revealed to the initiated. That's why

Yes, yes, yeah, for sure. Yeah.

I didn't know about the mysteries not being talked about openly.

In that way.

Well, in the Early Church and the liturgy, for example, it says, you know, I will not when we do the communion prayer, we say I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemy. And the church says in the liturgy, let the catechumans depart, let no catechumens remain. That's because in the Early Church there was persecution and the Empire would send spies into the churches and lie about them and say, oh, they're actually engaging in human sacrifice.

Oh yeah, he mentions this too. Yeah.

He mentions that, Yeah, okay, but that doesn't prove Albert Pike's secret gnostic teaching of true Christianity. In the premac Lodges, you.

Want to hear something funny, right right right after he says this, he goes over the assasination of Charms o'haram and he says, literally he says it.

Then he says, the edaculation at his grave was repeated three times.

So what, I don't know what you're saying.

Theulation echaculation of who of the three of the three Masons that were trying to resurrect him.

I didn't know he said that. That's funny.

Yeah, No one talked about it.

Yeah, yeah, no, that's that's interesting. I've never found anybody until I read that chapter on what he thinks Christianity really is in terms of the trinity that he says, it's just neoplatonism. I've never heard anybody talk about that either.

Let's let me pull up the Appstot Cannons and it's eighty five.

Hello, yes, sir, Yeah, I just want to ask you.

So I used to be a Catholic, but I've since become an agnostic, So I want to ask you, what's the basis for creashu ex lehilo.

Well, the only basis is that it's divine revelation. And I mean, you could make some philosophical arguments about the need for the philosophy of time itself requiring a beginning, middle, and an end for meaning. That would be kind of a more roundabout transcendental argument, because if everything is just say eternal return, or if everything is pure it just caustant cyclical return, then it would be very difficult to have differentiation, succession, change, et cetera. Everything would be an

Okay, so I would have posit if I would have posit that there's literally creation itself, but there was now beginning and new end.

So that's what I just said. So, if everything is at any if everything is an eternal return, what's the basis for beginning, middle, and end, which is how all human communication, sentence structure language works. If you don't have beginning, middle, and end, how do you have communication?

Yeah, so it's what you're alluding to.

I suppose it's it's divinely audience.

It's it just came into being.

Or did you hear anything of what I said? So you're not going to answer anything that I said. You're going to go back to stating what the problem is?

Okay, what what? What did you say? Can you refrase it?

So I took you to say that if there's not x nilo, then everything is just eternal, right, the created order or this world, it's all just eternal, right, So there's not beginning, there's not beginning, middle.

And end.

Everything is just an eternal return or an oral burrows ever eating itself right yep? Okay, Well, if there's not beginning, middle, and end, then sentences aren't possible because sentences and language universally in the human domain require beginning, middle, and end. So that suggests to me that the way that humans are constituted and experienced time is as a beginning, middle, and end. But that would be illusory if there's no

But why would it be impossible because.

Of what I just said. Did you not hear anything I said, Yeah, I did.

But before the sentence they were silence, right, and before silence there was a sentence preceding that.

So before and after then that's not eternal return, that's time. What you said is eternally.

Yeah, e tanty in time.

So I know it's a bit of a paradox, but the continues.

Oh so you're allowed to have well, you're allowed paradoxes by creation. Next, Neilo is crazy. All right, you're not You're not even listening, so we're moving on. Uh, let's see Ben m.

Okay, Okay, hello, yep, hey Jay, you're going to question about Orthodox Church history.

Okay, in the history.

Do you know in the history when.

In the history of the Orthodox Church was the advent of choosing saint names among laity?

I don't.

I'm assuming that was probably the result of people having names that like diverged from biblical names, and I wonder if that would be constitute an evolution on the practice of the church tradition.

Well, in the old estimate you have people being given new names. For example, Abram becomes Abraham. Can you mute for a second one. Yep, all right, so Sarah Sarah, I becomes Sarah. So the basis is in the mind of I'm sure the early Christians, the Bible and divine revelation and the history of the Hebrews. I don't think it was just willy nearly done. There's plenty of saints in the early Church who have pagan names who become saints.

Okay, gotcha, thanks, Yeah, it's actually.

A really good question. Also, people should keep in mind that when we look at the first, second, third, fourth century of the Church, there's a lot of fighting that we have, but there's also a lot of things we don't know, and so a lot of things are in a sense shrouded and silence in certain areas. You know, there's places where Christianity went and we don't know what happened to Christianity in that region. There's churches and nations

And so.

The Catholic priests, I mean I over the years talked a lot of Catholic priests Novasorto priests, SSPX priest said of a conscious priests, and I mean you could probably the questions that they couldn't answer are all the ones that you see me posing to the Roman Catholics all the time. Jojo one night and you ran from a baby? Yes, yes, I ran because there was a baby in the background. Totally m l k z d k.

Oh.

Here we go.

Go ahead, Hey, Jay, thank you for the species that you're hosting. My question is I'm an Orthodox Christian myself.

And are you or are you Oriental Orthox.

I'm an Oriental Orthodox.

Christ You're not Orthodox in the sense that we are Eastern Orthodox.

I have not, yeah, but I have really benefited both from.

Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Oriental Orthodox theologians over the years, my favorite being doctor Jini.

Constantino on Ancient Phiz Radio. But my question is.

I have a difficulty understanding the difference between in terms of dogmatic differences our understanding of Jesus Christ between amongst Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

So we're doing a whole series on this. Got to my channel Oriental Ordoxy your futa. We've done two installments, we plan to do about ten mm. Have you watched those?

No idea?

Okay, so go watch those because they're about three hours each. Clead us, Do you want to try again? No way, I already went to you, mynnuel or re l.

Hello, yep, So I wanted to ask you, like, I guess two questions, one about tag and one about Islam.

Is that fine?

Okay?

So I guess my My question.

About TAG is I understand that there are preconditions that like knowledge and logic, but I don't really understand, like how why is there necessity to ground those things? Can we just say like they just exists because of the impossibility of the country.

Or something like that.

Now, if you read the Manion paper explains why that doesn't achieve grounding. So just because it doesn't appear that there's any other way to exp playing things without that or to make sense of the world, that doesn't lead to the justification that it is the case because maybe it just appears to us or maybe it's just part of our mental schema that that's how the world is, But that doesn't tell us that the world actually is that way. So, in other words, it's not enough to

Okay, Okay, yeah, that makes sense. And is it I just I would say, uh, is it?

Is it like this sort of thing where it's like, oh, well, I'm seeing this thing and then necessary for grounding, and I see this other puzzle piece and they fit right?

Is it like this?

Is it like two puzzle pieces, like they just fit together?

Like?

No, it's all the transcendental categories that are necessary for the possibility predication. They all require and necessitate and presuppose one another. So, you know, to have knowledge presupposes a knowwheer uh. To have knowledge presupposes time, determination, beginning, middle, and end. To have knowledge presupposes an external world presupposes laws of logic and meaningful sentences like and those things don't stand alone. They all require each other.

Yeah, yeah, no, But my question is like how do you get from like these preconditions and grounding them to like an Eastern for the conception of God.

I mean I've done this a million times, like because the only the Christian theistic system posits the metaphysics that are required for those things to be grounded, all right, and divine conceptualism is a big part of that. And you can go check out my videos on that. Uh, Eli Jojo, you ran from a baby four ninety nine, you were destroyed by Google, got got priso exactly. I couldn't take it. Uh, it was really just the loud noise.

Hey, do you hear me?

I had a question on the veneration of saying, I get this, asked a lot from my family because they're still Protestants and I'm just now converting to wordsidoxy, how do you respond to when Protestants say, hey, the Bible has.

Specifically mentioned the veneration of saints.

You know, therefore it could be a bad, bad thing that you're doing.

I mean, they're venerated and honored when they're in heaven and Revelation five through nine, the bones of Elisha raised people from the dead, so they're obviously honored by God because they're endued with the power to resurrect people. Cloths are taken from Paul's body in the Book of Acts to heal people and cast out demons, so God has indued those physical objects and the body of Paul with a divine power, which in the Book of Thessalonians he says is the dunamus, or the energy or power of

So he said the words soul.

What is what is soul defined as.

Like s O L E or s O U L?

Is there a difference?

Are you joking?

No, I'm not joking at all.

Is there a difference?

No, there's no difference between the words soul s O L E and the word soul s O U L. There's literally no difference. Steven, what's up? And as sstro of five bucks? Do your best Matthew McConaughey impression. Well, actually, Matthew McConaughey, doesn't he fancy himself some kind of evangelical Let's see what would Matthew McConaughey when he reads the first Timothy three. Let's let's see how you would read it. Nah, these things, these things I write to you, though I

Church, living God, pillar and ground of truth.

That's first Timothy theory. How's that I'm still a little uh sinus, See, so my impressions are not exactly right.

Uh?

If I've got some sinusy things going on, Stephen, you want I mute?

What's up? I don't understand the people who come on and they never unmute, Like, what what was the purpose?

Are you there? Stephen?

You have to turn your mic on if you're gonna come speak on a microphone. Elon sees, Kyle, my ologies is drawing me crazy to they too on top of the trees are on the juniper trees are on attack. They're an attack. Elon sees something. What's up?

I'm mute, hey, Jamie, Jamie, and he an espresso. I'm mute, dude, Jamie, I'm singing that song.

Could you met me? An expresso? Not an espresso, an X expresso? Thank you, dog. You don't want to talk, You just want to sit there. What's up?

Man?

Elon wanna try again? Elon sees Kyle, here we go.

Can you hear me?

Took a while to show up?

Sorry, Hey, I just want to pick your brain on the topic of a humanism, because I hear you talking about it now and then, and it seems to be like a negative thing that we should, at least in your view, that we shouldn't be doing as Orthodox Christians.

Christians.

Yeah, it's a compromising obviously of the ancient tradition and the doctrine of the Body of Christ, ecclesiology, all of those things are compromised, you know. I mean they can say you can't go and pray in the synagogues and the and the temples of the heretics.

Yeah, and I agree with that, but I kind of view that as I guess you could count as a humanism. But I thought humanism was more defined as regards to other groups of Christians like Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox getting together on certain things.

And obviously we've no it has.

To do with violating the canonical boundaries of the Church through public liturgical actions, ceremonies, et cetera. That's how it's defined. So you know, can there be some pro life thing where Catholics and Orthodox work together, Sure, that's not a cumenism. Communism is specifically about public divine worship. I mean it could also be like you write a book where you say something like, oh, we all have the same faith, we're all one church. I mean, it's not just liturgically,

Right and what abound in regards to praying together like outside of church.

Well, you can pray and they can join with you, but we're not supposed to join in the services of others. Then that's the canonical strictures that I mentioned. But thank you for that. Anybody disagree, you go to the have the line Wesley cards two dollars. Yeah, the words are the same. Hence old food so o l e food. That would be like when you eat the sole of your shoe. Because of course there's no difference between the word soul s O l e and the word soul s o U l. What's the difference, Wesley?

Yes, how do you do?

Wesley?

Curry?

Okay, what's up? Do you've got curry Broda? You've got good foods there? You make a d what curry?

This says?

Look like a seven eleven? I look on six days ago.

I prayed to Jesus Christ. I only pray to Jesus Christ, and no other name do I pray. I pray to Jesus who appear to you all and told you to.

Tell the vision. Tell the vision. You shall not need the market.

My career was that six days ago we give everybody on earth bread.

Now those of you that sad, so we got only.

Are going to goodbye Schizo, goodbye skitso right, enjoy Shukri Shukri. I'm mute. I'm mute, dude.

Mm hmm maybe mm hmmm.

Uh the connection is a little bit bad.

But I have a question, Okay, are besides Christology other problematic differences between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?

And does the Oriental as our church have valid priesthood.

I don't know what valid is an ambiguous term because we don't think that it even matters. The ritual could be done right, they might be received by vesting, but the grace of the rights doesn't return until they return to Orthodoxy. So uh yeah, I mean there, We're doing a whole series. Go watch the series that we're doing on this. This is not Oriental Q and a Night. We've done two lectures that are multi hours long about or into Orthodoxy, and we're going to do seven more.

Hello, Yeah, Okay, So I had this question.

I couldn't really get an astron on Google.

But in the Old Testament, when God heartened Pharaoh's heart, I'm not sure exactly how to understand that, probably because it's it sounds like the.

Other passage explains how he hearted it. It says he hardened it by allowing Pharaoh to hearten his own heart. So the two passages together give you the clue as to how it occurs. And you have the same thing with David taking the census. One passage says God moved David to take a census, which was a great sin, and the other passage and the other historical book says that Satan moved David to take a census. So, just like with Pharaoh, the way that God allowed. That was

Hey, what's up, Jay, I'm back again. Remind me of what we're talking about.

I forgot it was about rebaptism. You kind of unlocked me because of the way I'm just not used to.

I guess what youcked me? Mental?

Does that mean?

Sunlock is like, let's say you hit like a goat with like I don't know, a ball, you know.

How like goats faint?

Goats faint?

Have you ever seen like YouTube.

Videos of goats fainting? They like get stun locked and they just like tip over? No, okay, well that's a term.

I mean. Also, I'm gonna go subscribe to the goat fainting channels when we get off it here, But go ahead.

Well, so I just I basically I wanted to because I don't know. I am a cate of human but but right, I'm not fully orthodox yet, I guess you know.

I hope that's valid.

I have a video on this if you could just type into YouTube the question of rebaptism.

So is that.

Okay, it's not it's not ethic. I'm not to be mean, it's just it's not ethic.

You nine, well, no, I guess I understand that too, but I mean I so basically it's kind of question of what is the lesser of two evils? If that makes sense, And because everywhere there's problems.

With you know, I don't understand what you're talking. What's the lesser between what?

Well, so if there are inconsistencies slightly in all the churches, right.

The Orthodox position is on economia or on economia, is that it's up to the local bishops to decide how and when and whether baptism is necessary, whether there's a profession renunciation of errors, cherstmation, it's a local decision. There does not have to be a one size fits all rule. And that's a difference from Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism assumes that there's a one size fits all rule. But even Roman Catholics have conditional baptism, so they do the exact

Uh?

Well, what's the cannon on?

Uh?

You know?

Can I go to the movies? Or like, it's not what we're doing tonight. It says that the top Debate night, Steven.

Can you hear me?

Okay?

Good?

Yeah, I was on earlier.

I think I'm a problem with my mic on my laptop ever since we got this new microphone.

I'm not I'm not a technician when it when it comes to laptops.

Yeah.

Yeah, But before I go to my question, first, I want to say Jay, I thought.

He did a really good Matthew mcconnoughey, thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No.

So my question is about.

The cannon.

You're cutting out, man, can't harry you? Uh you you've cut out man. Let's see that guy. There was one guy that clipped a maybe it's just baptisms not rebuilt. There's a guy that clipped it and it was a different channel. It wasn't my channel.

Riptured.

You're ear cutting out man. I don't know, Kenny.

I can't hear you at all.

That's you're in bro, all right, it's open for him. I'm looking for people who disagree. That means not f a questions, not catechumen question night. If you disagree, you go to the head of the line. What did that guy title that video? The thing that's annoying is that you you basically have to have like the perfect title or it doesn't come up.

It was.

Let's try it orthodox baptism. I don't know why that's the only thing that comes up. This might be old now this maybe this is it, and this isn't it. I don't know why it doesn't come up.

Maybe this is it. No, that's not it. Well, I thought, maybe we get some Protestants coming in tonight, but I don't really, we're not getting much of that. We just got a couple kind of lunatic people. What was the name of that video? Orthodox? Let's see valid?

Maybe it was.

Valid? Is always what confuses people. I don't know. I don't even have the energy to look for it. Awakened. There was a guy that was making clips and he clipped a really good, like twenty minute discussion on baptism and rebaptism, and I thought, you know, finally we have like the video where I don't have to repeat this

Hey?

You do you hear me?

Huh?

Yeah? I am cradle and probably not.

Asking a debate question, so I hope you don't mind. But I just had a question with regards to Catholic apologetics. Okay, as it relates to Oriental orthodoxy, which you could shut me down if you're going to detail it in your channel, But because I was curious. Sometimes I hear them throw around it seems like a lazy argument, but I don't

I don't understand what what's say it again?

Yeah, I'm sure that I'm sorry.

Essentially, like, you know, our epistemology is very similar to theirs, if that's the right word, Like the way we come to decisions through councils.

Right, there's no pope declaring things.

Ours is similar to the Roman Catholic to the Orientals. Oh I thought you said caloign nevermind.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

But the Catholics say that ours is similar to the Orientals, and that because of that, you know, we don't have the unifying leader to deduce between the two, right, that we have no grounding to say that we're right in their room.

And I'm just curious from.

Like authoritative standpoint, like, how would.

You respond to that?

Well, I don't think that the papacy does the work, but they think it does. So there, I suppose a solution to this problem is really a problem that everybody has. So, I mean, has Francis solved the problems in the church with his past fifteen years of just attend thirteen years of decisions? Has this has this worked?

Yeah?

That's that's typically where I go, which is why I decide as on that.

I mean, if that's the case, Like how was the how were the problem solved in the first three and twenty years before? Right before?

Uh?

And and I mean, does it even make sense to even cite Nicea if your Roman Catholic should be like, why didn't the pope just decide the issues at Nicea? Like because remember they'll cite Clements Ella Clements deciding issues. So he's the first autocrat universal pope example that we have post apostles. And it's like, okay, if that's how it works, then why is there a need for any problems to be squelched by an ecumenical council? Councils are

So all of that he lets us two councils, isn't it.

Well? I mean, why is he being nice when he could be it could be a lot more efficient and like sensible and pragmatic I thought that's what they're all about, right, like the oh yeah, another if you remember this what a bar actually says. He's like, well, the pope had that power book, he did in no ways use it. Oh so in other words, he failed at what he was supposed to do throughout the first thousand years. That's what you're saying, right.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. I think that's very eloquently for.

To thank you.

Yeah yeah, I just think that this that whole thing is a thing that evolved and let's a young potawan. What's up, dude? Dollars are getting to me? Thor is dead. Five dollars God logic tactic. Interpret Protestant proof texts, draw them in and then say we just reading Maine. I could try that tactic, just read the text and be like, oh, we're just reading dog little Blue. Two dollars. You got a soul patch so o l E underneath your lip exactly except I shaved it. Viga less guys, spread the

Hey Jay, I'm a Protestant bro.

So, okay, what's up?

Who's talking right now?

I'm talking to you. I was impersonating you.

Oh hey, bro, So I have a question.

So I have a Protestant background, and you know, I got a Catholic church right next to me, and so I'm going to try and hit an Orthodox church.

Allow.

I want to thank you for the recommendations of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy. I'm also listening to the Apstock Fathers great things.

But I wanted to ask you.

You know, since you are Orthodox, what is the teaching as it relates to the household, especially the father and or a husband.

And like Protestant.

Background, there's always this like working as a team, help your wife grow in Christ. Is that the same for Orthodox for Orthodoxy or is it more of a leadership driven role In Orthodoxy?

I would say it should be a leadership driven role. I don't see this idea of egalitarianism. I mean, you can have a position of authority and work as a team. There's nothing about team that necessitates there being egalitarianism per se. You can have a team leader. I mean, so the terminology is kind of vague, but I mean I would I would say the religion is one patriarchal got it.

That was the answer I wanted.

Man, Thank you so much.

Yeah, I mean you're gonna find libs everywhere, though, So you're gonna you can find an Orthodox church where some woman will tell you that we're working to bring priests women priests to the church and get rid of the patriarch. I'm sure you can find some. It's always going to be some fat woman too, that's saying that. I'm sure you can find it. Ninety some fat feminists. I'm sure. Just go to ancient faith radio. The women that you

Uh.

No om Shinrico proponents, No Evangelical Calvinists, no Reformed Baptists. Know how many cults?

Can we go through all of them?

Again?

No Mendians no Druze, no Hashamites, no Hasha Shim, no Shiah, no Hebrew roots.

Let's see we.

Got red patriot. Oh my gosh, Marxist Leninists, this will be good. Hello, what's up?

I'm a Christian Communist.

It doesn't exist, is the I.

Don't think any church on earth right now is is as concerned as they should be with the prohibited uh practice of usury. I think all of the churches practice usury in their own their own organizations and uh as we know in the Lord's prayer.

How to Orthodox churchs practice usury in their organizations? What does that mean?

Well, I mean there's a lot of things to be concerned with with usury and the Orthodox Church.

Your churches are just not as committed to the Christian spirit, you know.

And so your answer to that question was to restate the original thing in question.

You know, Yeah, it's it's it's a and then you also canonize like people like.

The again again full of full of usurers.

Dynasty is no ideal.

So you're not going to answer. So, and there is no such thing as a Christian communists. You just made up your own thing.

You you can you can dismiss me on.

You're not going to answer the questions, is why I'm moving on.

Uh.

And your argument was to restake your position twice and then again three times in a row, so that doesn't constitute an argument. I asked you specifically for what the argument was that Orthodox organizations are participating in usury. You restated the thing in question, and then you said the Ramanovs included usurers. The Orthodox position of sainthood can include people who did not necessarily live exemplar relives, but for example, confessed at their death and became martyrs. So that doesn't

Anyone who's a Mormon, anyone who is a uh, let's see Joseph either dude.

We already went to.

Yeah, yeah, what's up?

Jay's my question?

He is like, you're a smart dude, And how how can you still believe in a younger? Like I hold Michael Jones position. I don't want to like get into like the logistics, but like, how do you still hold a younger?

How do you not hold to it given the fact that it's built on so many lies?

Like what about.

So what about piltdown Man, Nebraska Man. You know they're ford their their frauds.

Wait, what are you what is that?

What are you talking about? You don't even know exactly, I don't know. I don't pilt down Man, Nebraska Man. They're famous frauds. And that's your example. You're supposed to nut. Your go to is this famous freaking laughable frauds. Cavemen. The Geico caveman is what you go to. Literally, like one of the most famous examples of this is like the most famous hosts pilt Down Man. And by the way, Nebraskaman's exact same. And why is the why is Taylor de Sharden popping up at all these By the way,

J how are you?

What's up?

Nothing much?

So I come from a Muslim background, and I just requently watched your debate with Dake brinkintella. So I'm not as philosophical or I'm not as.

Smart and philosophy as you guys are.

So I had to struggle, you know, understanding the terms and everything of the debate. But I understand your point of that we count God by division and not by identity, and I just wanted to understand why.

Is that that we don't count by identity.

I didn't say that. I said that we count in different ways, different things in different ways, And I said that the ancient world counted by division. That that was uh, that was uncontroversial because you can look at al Gazali, you can look at Aristotle, you can look through medieval Earth manuals like that's how they counted. It's why the

No, I understand the concept of counting by division, and I don't think that is inherently logical, you know what I mean, Like if we split a ply into three parts.

It's still one pie.

You know what I'm trying to say.

But the point was that both Christians and Muslims would require counting both by division and by identity, depending upon what they were picking out in their respective deities. So when a Muslim picks out the singular divine essence, Algazali would say that God is indivisible. But when you're picking out specific divine attributes, you would need to identify them and pick them out in a different way.

We still recognize that there are multiple attributes. We don't say that there are one attribute.

We count attributes by identity as well, because.

There I just said, you count the identity the attributes by identity.

So in what way do we count in the Islamic conception, In what way do they count God?

My point was that you also would require the same form of counting in both ways, as I understand, and that was against the position of Jake, who was that the only way to count is identity, which is a more of a modern idea.

No, I understand your point now, but I'm trying to say, in what sense in the Islamic conception do they count by a divisibility.

When, for example, yeah, when you're if you're talking about the unity or tall heed Uh. For example, algaz Ali speaks of God as one and indivisible. He literally has an entire section about counting allah Uh and in his unity via division because the ancient world counted that way. You don't get to counting by identity until you get into more of a philosophical medieval conception where you have things that are not divitible that can still be counted.

I understand, Yeah, I understand.

So what's the question about a lot attributes or does that answer it?

Oh?

No, no, no, you addressed it. I'm just going to do more research on my own.

You know.

I'm going to say, you and Jake make really compelling points. I think you guys are probably the smartest out of all the apologetics on YouTube.

So what compelling point did Jake make?

Well?

I didn't really see how we count what do you call it?

Why it would make sense to count God by division and not by identity when we see that?

Did you not hear anything that I said? So you're not listening to what I said.

No, no, I heard what you said.

When did I say that we don't count God by identity? Also, I didn't say that I said that. For example, I said both positions would utilize both things because different ways of counting are picking out different types of things. So, for example, when we say that God is one and indivisible in the creed, that's a reference to the divine essence. But when we start picking out specifics like the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, those are properties that are being picked out that are identities, of.

Course, and that's why you claim that there are three persons but not there are three God, because they are three identities.

But that's what I'm trying to say is that if there.

Are three different identities and each three of them are individually.

Fully God, then why would there not be three Gods?

Because the term God is intended first of all to pick out the person of the Father, and so there's God by identity, and then there's God by predication. So you're the argument that you're making there assumes that the word God only picks out one thing. But in divine revelation, for example, the word God picks out multiple things, such as divine persons, divine energies, the divine essence, divine human people that are called gods or divinities, and then angels

I see, I see it.

So do you what I would ask is then what I would then ask would be if God has this nuanced definition when we make this, when you make the statement from the.

Ubanari, you have the same position. You have the same metaphysical scheme at work.

Oh yeah, for sure. I'm just trying to understand this.

So, so when we say that the Father is God, you're.

Saying that it's both predication and identity.

With the Father. The Father is God because he's fought, he is source, are found, cause, et cetera. Yes, and the Son and the Spirit participate in divinity by predication, right, so they receive their divinity from the Father. But properly speaking, in monarchical trinitarianism, the word God is a reference to the person of the Father.

Okay, so only the Father can be used God in an identical form, but for the Son and the Holy Spirit, it would have to be in a predicative for is that im I understanding that?

Because that yeah, because they receive U. I mean, it's not wrong to call the Son God because he has the divine nature, but it's for us first and foremost. God picks out the person of the Father, but it can also will be used to pick out the divine nature, divine operations, and it can also be used to pick out human and angelic and demonic entities. The demons are called gods, for example. So then if I were to can I give you an example?

Okay, sorry, I just want to ask one quick question. So if I were to say the Son is God, then I'm not really saying that he is God.

In the identical sense. I'm saying that he is divine.

He possesses God's essence, but he's not actually God in the identical.

Sense, not in the sense of being the Father, because the Father is properly speaking, the cause, the fount, the source, et cetera. And that's why Jesus says the Father is greater. That's the orthodox understanding of monarchical trinitarianism.

I see, I see, But then see That's when I start to see what Justin Martyr was talking about in his dialogue with Trifle, because you just denied the individ the identity of God with Jesus Christ to him. I think a majority of Orthodox Christians would say, no, Jesus Christ or the One is God by identity, like it's not just a mere predication.

That's just assuming again, that argument is assuming equalitarianism and that the word God only has a reference to the divine nature. And that's the very thing that we just pointed out is not monarchical trinitarianism.

No, My grife is really that when.

We're using saying the Son is God or Jesus Christ is God, we're not actually saying that he is an identical sense, where it's more like saying it's more kin to saying God or Jesus Christ is divine.

He is the divine Son who possesses the divine nature.

Many Christians find that problematic though, to deny.

The I mean, I'm a defender of Orthodox Christian Christianity, which is the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council on monarchical trinitarianism. So I don't care what Roman Catholics think don't care what Protestants think. We're not interested in a popularity contest. And by the way, the Muslim view is exact same. It's just not with persons, it's with attributes. Do you believe that Allah's attributes are God?

No?

No, No, he possesses attributes.

Okay, So the attributes are not God by identity? No, So they don't self exist, No, they depend.

They're not dependent.

Well, if they don't self exist, then they are in then they are. So self existence means that they are independent, So they can't be dependent.

I see.

So if they're dependent on God, what would be the implications of that position?

Then the word God cannot just refer to Allah in one sense. It also has to pick out other things. Then you have to have other ways of counting and distinguishing in a law.

So because the attributes are dependent on a law, that means that the attributes would have to be considered God as well.

I mean, I'm asking you the position. Are they God by identity? Are they God by participation? They depend ourselves.

I don't think they're gonna attributes for God in any sense. I think they're just attributes.

So Allah's word is not Allah of course not.

No, it's Alla's word.

Are they uncreated or created?

Uh?

I would say Allah's word is created.

All his words created, so the attributes of all are created. That's that's let's.

See what you're positioning now, Yeah, it's it's really philosophically perplexing.

You see.

Well, I mean you've had centuries of your own people debating this, right, I mean I got a book right here where Uh, of course, where a bunch of your own people are calling you guys, uh anthropomorphic heretics critique of the Palmerian creed. So I mean, do you agree with Jake's position that Allah has an uncreated foot?

Uh?

Yeah, we could just pause it that we don't know the hounds or the wind.

I mean you can say that, but what is a foot that's nothing like a foot?

Well then you're you're positing that we must know the hows and whyness of God?

But I is the foot?

Okay, I don't care how you frame it however you want.

Is the foot uncreated or creator? You said all I has created attributes, which is heresy by the way, in your position.

Well, I'm fallible, you know, I'm trying to say, I'm still in the learning.

Okay, do you guys kill each other over that? Or is that cool? Unfallible? Just say I'm fallible. It's like I can commit shirt, but I'm fallible. Didn't you guys kill each other mut the Mutazila didn't? Were there battles over this?

Of course there were battles over okay?

So do we know? I thought this was simple position, like all is one? Right? Are the attributes created or uncreated?

Well, I don't know why the attributes would.

Even be in an argument because we're not positing that the attributes are separate individual person in So.

You, in other words, you don't want me to bring them into the argument because it shows that you have the exact same metaphysical problem that you're putting on. I just don't understand how the argument is because it shows the stupidity of the position to say that Allah has an uncreated foot and then you just said that Alla has created attributes.

But you see, this is what this is how I'm this is how I'm understanding.

So the trinitarian con Now you're going to my position. I want to know about is there an uncreated foot or a creative foot? Is all his foot? I'm creator created? Which one is it.

Ultra? I'm not sure.

But the thing is, I'm not so you don't have a so so you don't have a school. There's no akida for you. You can just make it up as you go or what?

All?

Sure, I don't need to commit myself to a certain nakita on this stream.

You don't try to ask questions?

All right?

So that's this honest that what I'm point was, Troy, see, I don't have to commit to any now you do if you're gonna, uh teach Islam, you're supposed to be part of some school. There's no make it up as you go. And you heard him say that Allah has created attributes, the speech of Allah is created. That's pretty much. I think every mon someone believes that's heresy. I don't. I don't think there's any OFLSS left that think that.

Troy and you, okay, can you hear me?

Yep?

So I'm an ex gnostic coming intoward the dogs.

He and I just have a pretty much a question for something I'm.

Confused about, which is how is lady wisdom and proverbs understood and orthodox?

Is she identified with Christ?

The logos that feminine yes the Paul in the New Testament identifies Christ as the wisdom of God. So it's a personification of God's wisdom. But that wisdom is the second person of the Godhead. There's no feminine person in the Trinity. There's no not that's a gnostic idea. In fact, I was just reading Carl Young who says that he's a gnostic because of the Trinity banished the Goddess from the Godhead.

So uh.

But it's also a reference to the Church. The Church is the feminine, the house of God that's built on seven pillars, that offers bread and wine, as the text discussed. That's a prediction of the Eucharist, the divine liturgy. There's also a reference to probably marry the Theatocos.

That's actually fantastic, Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

Yeah, great questions. I'm glad that somebody brought nobody's ever brought that up. That's that's actually a really good question. Jubba Glitchy Rhythm five dollars Jay, explain why Protestants. Can you explain to the provinces why we're not all saints? They love discrediting saints with the verse from Corinthians.

Well, we're all.

Saints in potentia, or we're all called out, but not everybody is at the level of Saint Paul or a Saint Basil. So that's to me that seems like it should be a no brainer. What's up, man, Jebbo?

He all right, I have a question about icons. There's this argument against icons that I don't know how they answer. Okay, So it's the argument is that God's essence is inaccessible and beyond human comprehension. Even in Christ's hyposcetic union, his divine nature remains unseen and ineffable. So San Gregory wrote about this about God's invisible in nature being beyond human reach.

And so that's why the Seventh e Commitical Council says that it's not the divine essence that is depicted in the icons, just the divine hypostasis of the sun, not the usia. It's the person. And the reason that we can interact with the divine person is through the energies of the persons. So the energies are in hypostatic, and as the Seventh Ecmenical Council says, you can read on the Holy Icons by saying Theodore. In that book, he

Okay, thank you, Yeah, good question.

And again on the Holy Icons by s Theodore, this tude explicitly answers that very question. Everybody should read that one if they're interested in iconography. Anybody else disagree, anybody have any challenges. We still got twelve hundred people over here. Let me check to see if I missed a super chat over here on stream labs clead us here. I want to find your video. I'll send you fifty dollars if you find me the link. I mean that's come up a lot. I mean it's not like the video

Let's try sacraments, see what we do with that.

I don't know. I don't understand the Roman Catholic mindset that they think this is like a like a defeater for Orthodoxy. It's like they have an expectation that the or Roman the Orthodoxy will operate like Roman Catholicism, and so there's there's like a jurisdictional differentiation. They think that's a defeater. The assumption is that there there's like a one size fits all. It's like, I just don't I don't understand the I don't think it's the Orthodox clips guy.

This?

Is it? Like this is something that would need to be settled because there's a lot.

Of or is this it? I think this is it debunking the donatus accusation. It may be that one. Let's see Protestantism, Tomism. I think it's this one. Like this because this Anglican dude that we had this debate with. If you want, you can go listen to the whole Anglican debate, which is about a month ago. If you used to go look at the live streams, you'll find the debate I had with the Anglican dude. They got

Man?

Smiley Todd?

What's up?

Hey? Uh?

Before I say something, have your thought naming your thing like the dire situation?

Nothing like that.

Have your thought naming your thing like the.

Dire situation, like you know, the I R.

E situation or dire straits second of off uh and Yahwehism, you know, the proto religion before God I showed himself to the ancient Judaeans excess.

I don't believe that.

Yeah, but like a shira?

Do you think ishira is like a typology of the vehicles, like an early concept in the subconscious, or like an early version of what humans would consider the Holy ghost, like a primordial concept before we understood.

There was one God. No, and I don't believe any of that. So, squirrel in Oz.

Are you there?

I'm mute, squirrel in Oz there, am.

How are you going?

What's on your mind?

Yeah?

Check it out.

So I was raised a Protestant and actually kind of cost go of all things and observed it. I'm an inquirer into Orthodox and I was going through prayer book and there is particular prayer in our morning prayers where it led towards the Theotokos and some of it I she just can't get.

My head around to where it doesn't seem.

Like you're just worshiping the theotoco and asking the Theotokos perfect us.

Okay, well, she's praying for us, and I understand that objection. I did a video that you should watch on the Mary is the Arc of the Covenant, So I'd go say, watch that forty minute video and that will help, I think, to explain the biblical case for the Marian doctrines. But it's not faq knight, So look for people who disagree. So if you have a disagreement, if you're a Catholic, a Protestant, dispensation, so it's not catechumen knight like for people who disagree like the Muslim guy. It was a

Right.

There's always some eighteen year old catechumen who converts and he reads the cantons and says that because it tells you you can't go to the shows. If you go to the movies, you're damned. It's not talking about the movie theater.

It's talking about the ancient pagan festivals that would require you to worship the deities to go to the quote shows vol Ven Louve.

You're not saved by faith alone. The Bible never says you're saved by faith alone. It says saved by faith apart from the works of the Jewish law. You added the faith alone part. In fact, you are not saved by faith alone. Paul says that you're saved by faith that works in love. A working faith keeping the commandments of love is what saves you.

Are you there? Do you want to talk or not? Okay, we're back to Cornelius.

Hello, Yeah, thank you, and excuse my bad English.

So I don't know if it's up to debate, and I.

Don't know if we even disagree, so I'd have to elaborate. I'm also the Christian and disagree with the philosophical foundation of libertarianism.

Yet I don't disagree with the.

Conclusions, especially the economic conclusions like ownership of the body and of your own body, and therefore.

I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that. Vin Low, what's up?

Yeah, what do you think is the.

Most distinct way of.

Of like getting out of the what's it called Coptic Church? Like, what's the strongest argument to why it's a false heresy?

Maybe the two Letters of cyrilta sixth Census, which admits that he has a human nature after the resurrection.

H Yeah, because I feel like a lot of Coptic apologetics is that we have the same funny hats as you do, so we're equally true, if not more so. It's more obsessed with the aesthetics of it than the actual theology of it.

Well, it's funny because they're they're basically losing their iconographic tradition. So if they're going to be obsessed with aesthetics, they should have maintained the iconographic tradition. But a lot of those churches have a giant TV screen. You got a Armenian Orthodox church so called, and you'll find giant TV screens within in the sanctuary, in the service. So it's hard to take that very seriously when you've got big TV, like it's like a sports bar in there with a

So high.

Yep.

I just wanted to say, do you think that the ethan Orthodox in the Oriental Orthodox are closer to.

Reunification.

I don't know. I mean maybe because I.

Do believe that both churches have.

Affirmed the same Christology no in the nineties, I believe, if I'm not mistaken.

I mean, all of these ecumenical gatherings where we all get together and pretend we're saying the same thing, they don't really accomplish much. I don't really keep up with that kind of stuff. Maybe they're moving in the right direction towards us, or it's all just kind of everybody holding hands and singing combine and pretending that we have the same theology. I don't know. I want to make sure I didn't miss the super chatus as I missed his earlier Big Chuck. I think, didn't you say the

But I mean, bro, you're throwing down dollars super chats, which dollar's not even worth.

A dollar anymore. Dollar's worth like sixty cents, So basically you're throwing a sixty cents super chat. But I appreciate it better than a no sense super chat. There's still eighty people here. No one has a disagreement. We had one feisty Muslim who said all I has created attributes and then he walked it back. I was like, oops, eighty people, no one disagrees. I'm gonna assume everybody has everything correct. Nobody. Father Deacon missed out on this one.

So I I was baptized Russian Orthodox as an infant.

Uh.

Spent most of my life in Protestant churches for some like complicated family reasons.

And I've been in a.

MacArthur ask church in Tallahassee the past handful of years. But I'm heavily exploring Orthodoxy and your uh, you know work and advocacy has been very impactful on that, along with some of the you know ad on accounts like Orthodox Luigi and you know others on here. But I wanted to ask, and I know you've got to talk

I mean, again, I can't judge an individual person in terms of their ultimate destiny. But what we can say is what we're told to say by the Church, which is that outside the Church, you're outside the ark. And you're not just outside the arc, you're also in a situation professing heterodox ideas. There's no Christology outside the Orthodox Church. That's the Orthodox Christology. There's no uncreated grace in Protestants pseudo sacraments. In fact, Protestants aren't even called a church

Uh.

The ingredients are not toxic. It's all super pure, super stringent on their criteria for what ingredients they use. Over at Chalk, I was just talking to Seaton yesterday. We were getting into some of these products, and I think that he's very happy with what we're doing over here.