All right, so we have open for him if anybody would like to bring questions or Q and a father, Deacon and I and the other mods are here, So is anybody in the chat, any challengers, any questions, any topics, bring it forward.
We're here.
I even have my white boy white board right here, got my white board.
Yeah.
I had a quick question someone mentioning your last stream about God it being pure act in the incarnation, how that.
It's an issue, it's problematic. And you said that.
Something along the lines of how if he's always actualizing everything, and he's actualizing one hypostace, he's wise and he actualizing the other two?
Right?
So could a Roman Catholic counter that by saying that he can't actualize the other two because it's logically impossible.
Now, the argument is not that he's actualizing other persons. The argument is that a being that is pure act has to have something other than himself or itself to actualize. That's what in Aristotle the word means. So Aristotle believes that the first cause is a first actualizer. He's pure energy,
pure action, so there's always something other than himself. Now, the reason that we don't apply that argument necessarily you could make an argument about generating of the sun, right, because if God is pure act, then what is the distinction between generating and spirating? There would be a real distinction in the trinity, right.
But this is just to speak of.
God in essence, definitionally God via a substance as pure act. And the problem is that in Aristotelian philosophy, pure act means that he's eternally pure act. He's always pure act. To act means to actualize. He's not actualizing himself, so Aristotle said, he's always actualizing the other, something other than himself. So the argument is not about other persons. It could be,
but it's not about that. It's about creation. Aristotle believes that there's an eternal prima materia prime matter, that the first actualizer is eternally actualizing.
Does that make sense, yes, because if that's what he is, by definition, he is gonna necessity of actualizing something.
From all eternity.
Correct.
Yeah, So there's never a time when he wasn't actualizing creation and then he changed to become the actualizer of creation. That would mean if that happened, that would mean he has potential and in Roman cality theology, in terms of especially termism, but generally speaking in Roman caality theology, God has absolutely no potentia, no active or passive potential in
any sense at all period. That's why Basil says in hexham On two that Ariostotl's argument is stupid because if God is an eternal actualizer as a first principle, then he must have a second principle that.
He always actualizes.
So there's a necessary relationship between the actualizer and what he actualizes, between God and cretient creation that's an eternal creation. This is not my argument, it is Basil's argument.
In hex summer On.
Two, he says Aristotle is stupid because he has a diad. So that's why it's two persons is because the material world that the first actualizer is eternal actualizing, is itself another eternal principle. So Basil says, well, that's basically a two headed God.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, that makes sense.
But I thought that the idea of him being pure act causes problems for the incarnation.
I thought someone it does, because how does one hypostasis enter into a mode of being that the other two do not?
Yeah, and that's where I was going to ask could counter that by saying that the other two can't enter into a motive, be because it's logically impossible or something.
Why would it be logically impossible for the Father and the Spirit to do it but not the son. I mean, I don't understand how that's even a coherent argument. It just sounds like that. That sounds like an ad hoc rescue. The problem is with the doctrine of simplicity and then with the doctrine of pure act. They're defining God in essence as pure act. Same Aximus does not find define God in his essence as pure act. He defines God as pure act in contrast to creatures, but in essence
we do not know what he is. So they collapse the two distinctions. They collapse economia into theology proper.
Do you understand?
Yes?
And yes, you could take the look the pure act simplicity argument will apply to any level of distinctions in God if you wanted to, right, So, in other words, we could apply it to the distinction between generating aspirating. Is that a real distinction?
Sure?
Okay, then is it something that's in the essence? How is God pure act? If there's two different things going on in God?
Right, and then their other doctrine of absolute device simplicity probably doesn't even allow for distinction.
What do you mean there other doctrine?
Well, if God is absolutely simple, how can you have distinctions with himself?
Right? Right?
So, in other words, modal collapse argument does point out problems in any attempt to make distinctions in God that are only virtual, nominal, or conceptual. Okay, the distinction between generating inspirating is not virtual, it's not nominal.
It's not conceptual.
It is, but it's it's you can conceptually distinguish because it really distinguished. This is the whole paper cat epinoia that Bradshaw has. So can we make a conceptual distinction between generating inspirating in our minds?
Yes? How can we do that?
Basil says, because it's a real distinction. What your mind is predicating is predicating on the basis of what's really distinct. Because there is a real distinction between generating inspirating, you can really distinguish those things in your mind. And some distinctions are purely conceptual. Right, The distinction between a bachelor and unmarried man is a conceptual distinction. There's not a real distinction and reality between those two things, right, but
in our mind we can distinguish them linguistically. But there is a real distinction between the son and the spirit, because there's a real distinction between generating and spirating. Okay, So is that an action of the essence or an action of the persons? Well, it's an action of the person of the Father. That's why you have to begin your trinitary theology not with the essence of God, but with the person of the Father. And that's what the
Cappadocians do. So the Rummachotholic just simply don't accept constantinople One and the Cappadocian teaching. And they think they do. They can say all day long that they do, but in fact they don't. I'm almost done with this whole PhD thesis on that very topic, right, basil Cesareegravanessa in the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. The whole book, the whole PhD thesis is about the fact that the Cappadocian doctrine of divine simplicity and distinctions in the trinity is different
from the Augustinian, Latin and Sealmian Thomistic West. Well, yeah, I mean, why is this even controversial?
How many?
I mean, we had medieval councils called the Palamite councils that already told us this one thousand years ago, so we shouldn't.
Even have to debate this ears ago. Anyway. I'm sorry, go ahead, Oh I know that was it?
Thank you?
All right?
Uh?
Anybody else in discord? Anybody else next up?
Is it cool if I ask Father Deacon a question on this interpretation of scripture real quick?
Or is that not?
Okay? Father Deacon in I'm inquire, by the way, So this is just a question.
In Mark nine through eleven, it says after the Christ is baptized, it says a voice came down from heaven. And I was just wondering if Jesus was the word. I know that the Father was talking to him because this has the spirit also descended upon him like a dove. So if Christ is the word, how was the Father talking to him?
If that makes sense?
So this is mark.
Mark one nine through eleven. It's right after the Christ is baptized or when he's being baptized.
Well, plan, I actually say, as far as I understood it, it was the.
Father.
You actually they speaks just because price is the word. I don't think that it's God the Father from speaking, so it's Mark.
One nine through eleven.
That was just kind of my question was the So the Father can speak, it's not only Christ who can speak from the heavens.
Divine actions, so it will be from the Father through the Son in the Spirit, and that's that's also maybe why all of us are present, right.
So one thing that is important to remember is that not every reference to an action is identical to a hypostasis. So sometimes the scriptures speak of different actions or that will refer to different persons of the Trinity under different energies or actions or attributes. For example, in Ezekiel, we saw the Son being referred to as the glory of God. Now, the person of the Son is not identical to the glory of God, because the glory of God is something
shared between Father, Son, and Spirit. But the Son has a unique way or role or mode that he manifests the glory of God. And this is the doctrine of energetic manifestation or energetic procession. So every energy of God is common to all three persons. However, the persons have a unique mode or tropos by which they manifest that energy. So, for example, in creating, creating of the world is a unique trinitarian action. However, each person in the trinity has
a unique role in actualizing that action. So the Father is the origin of creation, the Son is the archae or principle through which creation comes to be, and the Spirit is the perfector the mover.
Of the created order.
And like we have this word perry caesis.
Literally just it's like a inner dance, but it's as the sharing.
Of these actions of properties within the trinity.
Okay, so they all have the same will, they just have different modes of enacting their will.
Correct, Okay, thanks guys.
So just like in redemption, right, redemption is a trinitarian work or action, but the persons have unique roles in the process or action of redeemings. So, for example, the father's role is not to become incarnate. The Father's role is to send the son.
Right.
Jesus always refers to this, especially in the Gospel John Right, the Father sent me blah blah blah. The son's role is to take on human nature right to become incarnate. And then the spirit's role is to save, sanctify deify, et cetera.
Okay, that makes perfect sense, thank you.
Yeah.
So remember that role or mode is very very important both to triadology and Christology.
That's not modalism.
Modalism is a triadological heresy that unite or that identifies all the persons. But tropos or mode is crucial to trinitarian and crystological formulations because all mode is is talking about how a thing is. So remember that person answers the question of who, Nature answers the question of what, and mode answers the question of how a thing is.
So the mode of.
The trinity is different in theology proper versus economia. This is why we don't we don't read economia back into Trinitarian theology proper.
And all the modes just go back to right.
It was created by the Father through the Son, or I forget the saying I'm new to the whole right.
So this comes from Saint Basil. Basil's dictum is from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. And that's a liturgical refrain that gets adopted and becomes kind of the norm for Trinitarian formulations all the way up into Saint Gregory Palomas in the Middle Ages, so basically nothing in Trinitarian theology. After the Second Ecumenical Council, everything's pretty much settled.
For the East.
There's a little bit of debate in early Byzantium about Trinitarian formulations about the offering of the Sun in the liturgy thy know and of thy own. There's actually an
early Businessine debate about that what that means. But aside from that up into the Trinitarian theology doesn't get debated again or stated again until the Palamite Synods and the Palomite Synods clarify further post constantinople Ie what the meaning of the plane of hyposthetic origins is distinct from the plane of energetic procession, distinct from the plane of economia. So crucial to understanding Orthodox Trinitarian theology is these three
planes PLA n E. Of Trinitarian existence or reality. This is from Saint Gregor Palmos. The first plane is where we begin our Trinitarian theology. Hypostatic origin, the person of the Father as the sole cause, and the person of the Father is the sole cause of the generating of the Sun and the inspirating of the spirit. That's the only way that we consistently through then a relation of origins right, and relation to persons distinguish the trinitarian the
hypostaces of the Trinity. The second plane of Trinitarian theology, which is not really present in Roman Cauviity theology, is energetic manifestation. We have a crucial doctrine of the energies that is necessary one hundred percent to our trinitarian theology. This is one of the reasons why the Tomos and the Palmite Synods of the Middle Ages reject philioque is because we do not collapse the things that we're saying
about energetic manifestation into hyposthetic origin. And the Roman Catholics do that, and that's why they believe in philli oqui. They don't have this level of distinction that we possess where we distinguish the eternal energetic procession or manifestation of the actions of God or the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son in the spirit. Right, that's distinct from hyposthetic origin, and it's distinct. It's related to economic procession,
but it's distinct from the economia. Then we have economic procession. A third level right of the role of the Sun in creation and the role of the Holy Spirit in creation and economia, trinity in time and space and history and redemption.
You can't read that back into.
Trinity proper, meaning the first two layers, the first two planes. Palamas uses the phrase planes of existence in the trinity. It's not saying that there's different trinities. It's just making distinctions in the trinity.
But it's a super stupid augment that economia needs to perfectly reflect theology, because otherwise it wouldn't be no economy and theology and inter thing. You said, like, it's actually straight from here and there. So that's from the second century.
Yeah, a good point.
That was the idea of the.
Spirit, you know, being perfected and stuff. This is this is very early.
Yeah, I should add it. I wouldn't want to give the impression that Basil invented it. Basil just made it basically part of the liturgy.
So so, and then the philioquay just undercuts all three planes that power must present it.
That's why we know that the philioquay.
Is well, it doesn't undercut all of the three planes, because most Roman Catholics at least make a distinction between theology proper and economia. But they don't understand or typically see why we make a distinction between hyposthetic origin and energetic manifest So they will say, look, Philly oak Way when when Basil or when John Damascus when they talk or Athanacious when they talk about the manifestation of the spirit through the sun, that's no different than Philly Okuay,
it all means the same thing. No, it doesn't, because Roman Catholic theology does not have a clear energies doctrine.
We do.
You can see this in Athanacious. This is why I tell people ad nauseum to read the Fluorofsky paper on Athenacious and Creation, because Fluorofsky shows that Athanasius teaches the us and synergistinction. And one way he does that is to distinguish between things that God does in the intratrinitarian life right, like generating a son or manifesting his glory, and those are distinct from the actions that relate to the created order, like providence or creating right. God is
not eternally provident. He's eternally provident in the sense of having the potentiality or the power, but he's not internally actualizing providence. This is again we go back to the motial collapse problem. Right, if God is pure act, then it is he eternally purely actualizing providence. Oh okay, well then there's an eternal creation over which is provident. But no Roman Catholk actually professes that, right, so again it's
not it's a little more nuanced than then. They're collapsing all of the three planes of existence in the trendy into one. But they're confusing the first and second plane, and they don't see why there's a problem or why you need an energy's doctrine. And they simply depart from the first seven councils because the seven councils hinge multiple arguments on the essenceenter distinction. So their theology, their trinitarian theology, is all jacked up.
That's the point.
Perfect, Thank you so much man. Yes, sir, we do have a Muslim who said they asked to go so whon.
He had two quick questions he wanted to ask if we have time for that.
Okay, we'll do the Muslim and then we'll do a reform stoic who's ready here to expose this all a s KGB.
So go ahead, and mister.
Muslim, that's fight Douglas, a Muslim named President Douglas.
My question is, real quick, just can you come to the conclusion that God, a God exists without using the Bible.
That's one of my questions.
In one sense, we would say that there is an inner intuitive sense that all men have, according to Romans one, in their heart of hearts or their news, that there is a God and that we have offended against him and that we're guilty because we have the law of God on our heart. So that's what I think Paul is saying in Romans one. But if you mean through rational deduction of looking at the natural world, do we do this natural theology exercise to getting back to a
first cause? Some people might do that, but whether they can give an account for that is a different question, and I don't think they can.
Okay, thank you.
My second question is can you gain salvation without full knowledge of the Trinity in this day and age?
Well, we don't believe that. Quote.
Full knowledge of the Trinity is a purely rational exercise, So it's not like you've got to go get a thhd to be saved. Because you know, we believe that there's infants who are going to be saved, right, And this is partly why we baptize infants, and we don't think that everybody who is in the church has to attain, you know, a high level of intellectual capacity to be saved. I mean, you can have slow boys that get saved. I'm sure there will be plenty of slow boys who
are saved and plenty of theologians who are damned. So there is, at least from God's perspective, I mean, and God knows this, you know, some degree of knowledge that is applicable to to whom much is given much is required, is what the way I would put it. So when Jesus has asked this question of the Gospels, he kind of says, to the degree that you have been gifted, that is the degree to which you will have. You know, you will be judged on the basis of that requirement. Does that make sense?
Yeah?
Okay, the mike, here we go.
My MIC's broken.
Our discord has the amazing power to completely obliterate every microphone. Have you noticed that literally nobody's microphone works in our discord And it's purely a touch.
Uh oh, here you're here, let's gold.
Let's get it. Jay, I'm a big fan.
By the way, first of all, oh yeah, I bet you are sure.
And second of all, I never said anything about KGB.
I just said CIA bro. Yeah, that was You're trying to group me in with other people. I'm a I'm a lone wolf.
That was my joke.
You ever heard of a tripid corp Lance Cantrell? I exposed them on my channel.
Man, he was.
Dressed up like a Maleman in my neighborhood.
Isn't that nuts?
Right? Are you a troll? Are you? Are you a troll? Are you here to debate.
You?
Remember, I don't know I have no idea who you're talking I don't know who you are.
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you're talking about.
You you can have the Well, even so the Israeli debated, correct, you do remember that?
Right? Yeah?
Oh okay, Well I exposed him as a.
I don't care who you've exposed. Do you have a topic to that, dude?
Nobody cares about your channel and your ex Nobody cares about your channel and your expos is.
Do you have an argument?
Well, that's not an argument.
Do you have an argument?
Let's talk about CIA handlers Jay?
My argument is that you have CIA handlers.
And where is the proof? Where's the proof of that?
Talk about people giving like a little bit of information and not really giving anything relevant to right now, that's exactly what your.
Channel does, Jake, Because so how is that a proof that? How is that a proof that's Jedy?
Well, well here's a proof. You do not have to be orthodox to get saved. That's for sure. You just got to accept Jesus Christ is your Lord and savior.
This guy is a set or a troll.
This guy's not even let's just this guy's a troll.
Just delete this guy. So total was about John.
Three sixteen Christian Jay.
Let's get he's laughing because he knows that what he's saying is disingenuous. Is he can't even make an argument the total waste of time.
So there you go. That's the quality.
The quality of our opponents is so low tier that all.
He can do is like, I don't even know what that was? Fed speak?
What was Did anybody hear what church he was in?
He's probably not even in a church, dude, that's probably not even total.
No, he said in my DMS he said he's invisible church.
So just a total clown.
Anyway, let's move on. Anybody have any good actual arguments or positions that they want to.
Put for.
We got a couple of super chats. Bantu says, I just have a question.
You know how you said there was a debate over.
Uh huh?
Could you say what the position was settled on?
What that means?
I brought it up with Seraphim. It's like the end of the second chapter in Mind or.
So.
It's kind of a confusing thing. I'll get the book here in a second, but do you guys want to take over? I'm going to run to the little boys room.
Maybe we should just explain to people what that is.
There's a part of the liturgy where the priests or the deacon the holds up the chalice and plate holy plate.
It says, thine own of.
We offer to the Are you guys familiar with that part?
Unbelpable and formal?
Yeah, what's the I'm not familiar about? Like what the I have the mind or book, but what the debate is over?
Lewis you know?
No, But I've always found it kind of like you could interpret that in so many different ways, Like it could just be about the elements, but it could also be about Christ. Like so the son being the father's own being offered to the father.
That's probably what.
They settled on.
But it's yeah, it's kind of like, it's kind of ambiguous. So I wanted to know what the.
Few elements as far as the bread.
And wine or like, I got it right here.
So yeah, as in like it's God's creation that we're offering back to him kind of thing.
Like that's that's the other thought I had.
Means, it's the offering of the other son. So let me here, here's the debate, and you'll see how it applies to refuting the Protestant purely juridical notion. So it's pages thirty nine and forty of the mind or book. So let me read this. It gets a little confusing, so let's see if we can parse this out.
He says.
The very Kurellian conclusion of the Council against Eustrasias led to further christological debates, which this time concerned the meaning of the eucharistic sacrifice. The deacon so Tykos Pantugenos, the patriarch elect of Antioch, affirmed that the sacrifice could not be offered to the Holy Trinity, for this would imply that the one Christ performs two opposing actions, the human
action of offering the divine action of receiving. And this would mean an historian separation and personalization of two natures.
Okay, so we got that point that far right interesting.
And then it goes on to say Nicholas, the Bishop of Methone in Peloponnese, was a major Byzantine theologian of the twelfth century, and he responded to Staticos with an elaboration on the notion of hypostasis, based on Leontius of Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor. The hypostatic union is precisely what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the act of offering, while maintaining that God by nature and
therefore receiving the sacrifice. To so Tyrkos. Nicholas opposed the conclusion of the prayer of the Cherubicon, whose author, as modern research shows, is another other than Cyril of Alexander himself. But what is part of both Byzantine liturgies and attributed to Basil on Christistom is the words, For it is thou who offerest and who art offered, who receivest and
art thyself received. Nicholas, whose views were endorsed by the Council of eleven fifty six to fifty seven, shows that neither the Eucharist nor the work of Christ in general can be reduced to a purely juridical notion of sacrificed conceived as an exchange. God does not have to receive anything from us. We do not go to him to make an offering. Rather, he condescends towards us, assumes our nature not as a condition of reconciliation, but in order to meet us openly in the flesh.
Thus you can see how.
This refutes the Protestant doctrine of the juridical, purely juridical.
Transaction. Does that make sense?
It's quite complicated.
I must say you're right, And then it goes on to say the very technical christological discussions of the twelfth century reconsider all the major issues which have been debated in the fifth and seven The Byzantine Church remained fundamentally faithful to what Father Fluorosky calls asymmetrical Christology, the union of God and man in Christ, the hypos, the hyposthetic source of all life is divine, the mankind is not
diminished diminished, but in fact becomes fully human. The notion of asymmetrical Christology is thus expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is a unique act in which no single action of Christ is represented in isolation or reduced to any purely human concepts, such as a purely juridical He's saying
exchange or satisfaction. Christ, as the Sonoticon says every Sunday, Orthodoxy, reconciles us to himself by means of the whole mystery of the economy, by himself in himself, and thus reconciles us to his God and Father, and of course to the most holy, life giving Spirit. So, in other words, there's no sense at all in which there's a human subject that is offering something to the Son.
Or to the Trinity. That's the key here.
In other words, this dispute is a further reaffirmation of asymmetrical Christology, that Christ is a divine hypostasis, and there's no human subject that is part of this transaction and change.
In offering.
The humanity is the humanity of the divine person of the Word that he offers to the Father you see, Does that make sense?
Stood sided with the first Antiochian deacon. It's not referring to offering to the whole trinity.
Is that right?
Let me rephrase, let me restate that part. It's a deacon, Deacon Sotykos, who affirmed the sacrifice could not be offered to the Trinity, for this would imply that the one Christ performs too opposing actions, a human action of offering and a divine action of.
Receiving, and this would be an Nestorian. Uh.
But the response is that the hyposthetic union is precisely what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the action of offering. So it's that he entered into the mode of humanity. It's not a human person offering, it's the divine Son offering the humanity.
Does that make sense?
So, in other words, he is the offerer and the receiver. Yeah, that's that's why it cites the Sonoticon of saying that he proclaims that Christ reconciles us to himself by means of the whole mystery of the economia, by himself in himself, to his God and our Father and to the Spirit.
Oh yeah, because this is a hypostatonin him in the unique mode exactly.
This is where mode becomes crucial. But if you look at it, this is the point I was making to to sorry from Hamilton in our discussion, which is that even the liturgy, if you were to follow it out, the theology of the liturgy, you would see that it refutes the Protestant reductionist notion of making it a juridical theoretical bank account transaction. It's impossible with correct Trinitarian theology to have that view. That's the point here.
Perfect, Thanks, yes, sir, go ahead, who's next?
It's me?
Okay, yeah, I almost seem by there. Well, I interacted mainly with Orienteds on this coord so then like I might get a different answer from you. But would you say that being on cause is a property of the essence or if other.
Ady, it's a hyposthetic property. The Father is uncaused.
I think this is a better position than what I've heard from Orientals.
Yeah, well, Oriental theology is jacked up.
So yeah, because of imply contradiction, design cannot be both uncaused and caused.
You have forgotten, correct, he is not auto theos right, he is of the Father and the original nice scene creed and nice scene teaching is that he is divine because he has begotten.
Yeah.
Also another question, do you affirm that God has one act?
No, the only time that that's us it's used by Saint Maximus and it's used by John Damascus. And Maximus is very clear in the two in the Tuner chapters that the only time that we say God is quote pure act is in contrast to creatures in himself in his essence in the Innertrinitarian life, God is not pure act.
He's clear as day.
The first five pages of the two innerd chapters says this, and John Damascus is not saying anything different. And again, I did a whole talk in Montana on the absurdities of saying that God is pure act in himself.
Okay, can you which video in particular? Because I want to watch.
It the lecture in Montana.
Okay, I'm going to So it's anyway, it's available for purchase through Jays.
So you can watch the first half. It's Oh, that's right, that's right.
Uh.
It's called Roman Catholicism, Islam and Greek philosophical presuppositions Montana lecture Jay Dyer So it's like, I don't know, five or six videos back.
Thank you for gest pumps.
Sure my pleasure. Thank you. Hello discords.
Hello, Hello, is there anybody in there?
Just not have you?
Hey?
Ja uh huh.
My name is Odin Benitez, and I just this isn't a challenge or anything. I just want to thank you for really kind of bringing me to Orthodoxy.
I'm in the in the process of doing it. I was.
I'm a supervising sound editor in Hollywood, and I've been working in the industry for thirty years.
I may have some insights.
And uh, you know into Hollywood and.
And you know their ideology.
Oh cool.
Yeah, It's like, I mean, the whole you know, everybody kind of grows up with this.
It's it's a huge echo chamber. But I'm sort of like you. I I was.
Baptized Catholic, I went to a Baptist high school, I went to college, became a liberal Christian, got introduced to Gnosticism, was really fascinated by that, by the Gospel of Thomas, and read a bunch of books until I realized it was Satanism basically, and I kind of went back then to Roman Catholicism just because I did a lot of investigation on the historical Jesus, and I thought that that that the.
Catholic scholars were the best of at that point.
But I wasn't really introduced to any of the Eastern fathers. And it's really odd because I did a lot of studying of Byzantium, because I wrote a script about the fall of Constantinople. Cool and yeah, and I you know, I read like four different contemporary accounts, and I read all the John.
Julius Norwich books.
The interesting thing is, though, that I never was really exposed to any of the theology.
You know, even I think even even Norwich.
Just said something along the lines about I don't he didn't really understand what the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is, something about the energies of Christ and uh, you know, and so I I so for me, this is really illuminating because I'm somewhat of an amateur scholar about Byzantem. I even wrote two chapters in military history book about some battles that.
That occurred with the Byzantine.
At Party, which yeah, so I it's so for me, this is sort of like it's almost like providence.
You know I've been I've studied so much of the Byzantine history, never really understanding the theology. And it's so I'm making my way through Byzantine theology in that book and also some Father Seraphone books read Nihilism, which is just it was like it's a short book, but it took me forever to get through because each sentence is a thought provoking.
But I just wanted to thank you, and and you.
Know, I've found a church out here and I'm in the process of you know, once I get through this business and theology, you want to contact the priest.
And I've been to Vespers already.
Awesome. Yeah, that's great to hear. I know that.
We are in the process right now of converting Hugh Jackman Mel Gibson.
I'm joking. I'm just joking.
Yeah, I mean what my my my cousin actually drove with He was Mel Gibson's driver, and you know, before the whole thing, his idea about the resurrection that he and Mel were partying and Mel.
Got kind of close to him and said, you know, I've got this idea about making a movie about the resurrection. I think that's the next film.
Cool I'm looking forward to that.
I think that's going to be.
He's a what as a pre Vatican or as a Vatican one Catholic.
I think, uh, well, he's a side of a contest.
Yeah right right.
So yeah, and they're they're they're the the we are the original set of a contest is Orthodox. So maybe eventually we can convert mel Gibson. So pray for the converted mel Gibson. But yeah, I think that the Resurrection movie does sound like a good idea.
I was bummed to here so him and.
Mark Wahlberg doing a movie about a Roman Catholic priest in my town, and I was like, this is my chance, because you know, my castick just gets me into anything.
I just introduced myself.
Then I found out they're filming.
They're not filming them on Tana. They're not going to be up, so I know I could have got them.
Well, you know, I still have another contact and in just to my cousin, there's another coworker who actually works for his assistant, so you know there is a chance to tell them I'm looking for him.
I will.
Anybody else.
We got full room here, open chat.
Yeah, Jay, how's it going, bro? I'm gonna. Oh, it's.
You had that tone of like you have that tone of you that you have that tone of like I love you, but I hate you.
Right like I'm about to destroy you.
Dah right, I'm gonna I'm gonna roast you.
I love you and I love your content, but like, let me explain why you're the worst human being on the planet right now.
It's like, you know, you could win debates, Jay if you could figure out your boomer tech and.
Unmute your mic.
Anyways, Uh, this actually this question.
Is from uh Jao.
He says, how would you refute postmodernist thinkers like Umberto Echo and dared A and their theories of semiotics theories of semiotics against metaphysics.
I did a whole video on Echo, and Echo has a whole essay where he basically argues that the.
Goal of.
The true leftist, and he's speaking in a general sense of like classical what he sees as the history of all leftism. He says it's not a battle of liberals against.
A fascist regime.
He says that the real battle and goal of the leftist is against truth, which is fascism in essence. So any notion that there's truth, Echo says, is fascism, and he says that's the real battle of the liberal is against truth itself. Can't make this up. That's it's a famous essay. It's like the Earth Fascist or something like
that by Echo. I highly recommend reading that essay because it really gives you an insight into the mindset of a person who was a committed, rabid Thomist who at some point in college or when it was grad school, he realized that Thomism doesn't work. Thomism is a broken, dead end system, and instead of going towards Orthodoxy or something like that, Echo said, now I'm going to be like the uber liberal. I'm going to go the demon Satanic route, like literal Satanism. I mean, I think Echo
was probably a totally into Luciferian say. I mean, I've read most of his books, so I'm not saying this out of speculation. I mean, he fills his books with Gnostic Satanic, Luciferian esoteric themes, especially if you read fucos Pendulum. He's basically defending the idea of, you know, a Satanic elite more or less, and ultimately, of course he's critiquing
all of these things. He says too, like, oh, you know, the idea of any kind of elite is absurd, So he kind of adopts this nihilistic, absurdist view that whether you're a Christian who believes in truth or whether you're the sort of luciferian gnostic, cobblist elitist, it's all absurdity, it's all nihilism, it's all just nothing.
So you could read his books in that.
Way as if it's like cosmic nihilism. Maybe he's like that final stage of Father surfrom.
Rose's book on nihilism.
But regardless, Echo is a great example of the mature spiritually, like I'm saying, darkly matured, like self conscious evil.
That is like our battle is against.
Truth itself, any notion that there's such a thing as truth is the real battle of the liberal. So you get that rare honesty in Umberto Eco's famous essay. So when we understand that that's the real motivation of a dairy da, of a fucuot, of a echo of the deconstructionists, now we understand that that's that's really what's going on here, and quite obviously it's self refuting. I mean, why are we we're writing books using words and meaning to say books and words have no meaning.
It's just fundamentally stupid.
And they're okay with that, right, So postmodernists are okay with accepting nonsense, contradictions. There's no grand narratives, okay, but that's a grand narrative, okay.
And if we're if we're.
Accepting contradictions and nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness, then you can't make arguments that nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness is true. So you've done your job as an apologist. And at a certain point there's nothing that you can do with people like that, Like you can't if people are self consciously, wilfully wanting that level of evil, all you can do.
Is pray for their repentance.
I mean, there's like that's self conscious evil, right. So I hope that answers the qui about echo.
Anybody else?
Hey, Jay, you have a question when Philosky talks about separated brethren who who? And I wonder what you think about that and what what does that mean with relation to you know, heterodoxs or people outside the church.
Right, So sometimes that word is used, I don't think it's necessarily always wrong. I mean, because you can have people who don't know all the issues, right, I mean, who aren't hardened in their heresy. They're not formal heretics, right. So I do agree that there is a patristic idea of somebody who is not a formal heretic, but is a material heretic, a heretic in potentia, you could say. And that's because heresy is usually defined as not a sin of just merely being.
Wrong, but a sin of obstinacy.
So a heretic is not somebody just just wrong because we're all wrong, right, So are we all heretics, because I'm sure everybody's got some point in their theology wrong.
Right.
So, but the sin of heresy and the sin of schism are sins of obstinacy.
Will and knowledge.
So you're knowingly obstinately persisting in the error in the heresy. There's not a you know, always a clear cut like black and white in terms of every individual when a person's obstinately a heretic. So what we do from our vantage point is we don't try to go, you know, person by person.
Making specific judgments.
We just do a judgment call on the group as a whole, and there's nothing wrong with that, because we're not condemning everybody as if we know their inner state or their heart. But what we do know is that at least before the end of a person's life, they have to be Orthodox. They have to believe and be united to the Orthodox faith. So if God somehow makes up for that, if God gives them a special means of the point of.
Death or something like that, we don't know.
But our job, our duty is just like infants who die without baptism or outside the church, do.
We know that they go to hell?
Know, we simply commend them to God, and we don't know their total in fate. But our job is to tell them and call them to Orthodoxy. So at the time when the phrase separated brethren was used at Florence, that's used by Saint Mark of Emphasis at the beginning
of the council. There's a great an article over at Orthodox Ethos that points out that by the end of the council, Saint Mark of Ephesis realize that they're not separated brethren, they're Heterodox, And you get the exact same expression in Saint Gregor Paloma's He says that the Latins are heterodox, they listen to Satan. They're wrong, they're heresy,
they're in heresy. But that doesn't mean that we have to go by every single person one by one and say you're an amn heretic, you're an Amneritic, you're an aamn heretic. We don't have to do that because it's not our job to judge every individual person. It's rather a collective public judgment that we make about what they profess to believe, which is in error in his heresy, and if and and God.
Will deal with them on an individual level. We don't have to do that.
That's why Paul says, what have we to do with judging those who are without? We judge those within. So it's much more pertinent to us to assess in the Orthodox.
Church who is and isn't Orthodox. We don't have We're not.
It's not we don't have to worry about what does brother Billyba believe, what does Michael often believe?
What does? So there, they're heterodox and God will deal with them. We don't have to.
But it's it's but it's important to point out that ecumeniusts misuse the phrase separated brethren, because after the Council, Saint Mark of Ephesus says, they are not anymore separated brethren. They are obstinate Latins and they're stupid and their in heresy.
Okay, So like whoever, So God deals with each person according to.
What they've been given.
And so if they haven't had the full revelation and the full truth, like God will, you know, lead them into truth in all possible means.
And we don't have to worry about that.
That's what I would say.
But we do have the duty, right, But it's just like like evangelism, right, like we have the duty to tell people that you have to, you know, come into the church, repent and believe, baptize all the nations.
Right, and Jesus says the Great Commission.
Now we're not told like what happens to people that die that never hear the Gospel. We don't know, I mean, we're not told that what we know is what we're told to do.
That's all we know. I don't know.
And one thing that is I think orthodoxy helps you accept as you get older, is that there's a reason.
Why God doesn't tell us everything.
So I'm perfectly fine with like, I don't know what happens to the guy who dies in you know, the Pagan island who never heard the gospel. Well, I mean unless God has a special means by which he joins that person to the church at the point of death or something like that. I mean, then we don't know. We're not told. But what we are told is that we have to preach and tell them to come into the kingdom.
Okay, great, thank you?
Sure anybody there? Hello? Are you in there?
It's not if you can hear me.
It's like the wall up in the discord bro.
I have a question, yes, sir.
So it's a question about like veganism, Like so I just want to make it I'm not a vegan like eat mate and stuff, but to have a question about it, just like you know about arguments against vegans. Okay, so I know, like there's a lot of examples in throughout the Bible that eating meat is fine and.
Stuff, the lamb slain and stuff, like there's plenty of examples, but like, was it I don't know if you know the answer to this, but what is it the case that a pre full state like the dentic state eating animals or meat was seen. Is it just like the post for uh.
So there's a lot of people misunderstand this. Actually you're correct in eating nobody ate meat that we know of exactly. There's some debate over what the you know, making skins means, but regardless, humans don't eat meat until Noah. So it's at Noah that God says you may now eat meat. So presumably we don't know what the wicked were up to. They might have been engaging in cannibalism for all we know, that might have been part of the reason why there was a flood.
That's a lot of speculation.
But for God's people, they're not told until Noah Genesis eight nine, right, that now you may eat meat. So
that's an allowance after the flood. And then if you read Acts fifteen, when the gentiles are brought into the church, what happens is that the apostles have their council and Acts fifteen they say, okay, we're not going to require of gentile converts anything more than was required in the Covenant of Noah, because if Noah, who was obviously by knows a gentile, if he could be made righteous at that time, then we are not going to require anything
more than was required of Noah for entering the covenant, so to speak. So all Acts fifteen is is a restatement of the noea covenant which says, don't eat strangled meat, cook your food right, just basic principles like that. So yes, meat eating is allowable, not just because of Noah but also in the New Testament. And then we get Paul saying to Timothy that false teachers will come along and they'll try to erect a fake morality, in a fake ethical code, by which they say that it's wrong to
marry and it's wrong to eat flesh. So Gnostics Ebionites right, And within a few centuries the early church fathers, the first of which is Saint Hipolitis. He has a treatise on heresies and he mentions the Brahmins. He says, the Brahmins taught a doctrine of vegetarianism and not meeting eat, and so they would ethically enforce that it's morally wrong
to eat meat. They are condemned. They're not just condemned there, they're condemned again in totality in some of the early councils, but also in Saint Johnamascus's book on Heresies, where he lists three or four heretical sects, the Ebionites, the Pythagoreans, in one or two other groups, the Tatianites, Gnostics, Marcianites, different groups that would enforce vegetarianism. And it's unanimously distantly condemned by the church fathers across the board. And a
lot of people don't know this too. Remember, everybody, Veganism is an ethical position.
It is not a diet based position.
So when the vegans are telling you that you have to be vegan, it's not about your diet.
In fact, they know that.
It is not advantageous most of the time for humans to eat that goober's stupid diet, and they tell you that it doesn't matter. Yes, it may be bad for your health, but you have a duty ethically to accept bad for your health things because veganism is an ethical position, not a dietary position. Yes, sir, hey jes.
Okay, I'm want to ask.
So again, Tristan.
The attitude is that the food should be cooked. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to eat sushi. It's a it's I think the attitude of why the food is to be cooked is because of the ancient world's attitude towards what might make you sick. So yes, I'm sure that plenty of people eat rare food or eat sushi. I don't think that Acts fifteen is implying that it's always wrong to eat sushi.
But blood if you look at the prescription, for example, of the Council of Gangra which you mentioned against these people, it's more about blood. And there's this thing, you know, blood putting blood saucers on many parts of orthox food would not be permitted.
And it's this link.
If you know, Saint James is a very is a president of the Consult FACTI feel, and is a very sussdotal figure. So it might also be referring to the ideas that since you know, we are becoming divine in a sense by consuming divine blood, as a recognition of for consumption of divine blood, we would give exclusivity of a blood conception to.
Christ to give blood.
Yeah, that's an interesting was.
Mentioned specifically, like like when they talk about like cooked foo is always about blood, right.
So Tristan, I'm not trying to counter signal you, but I would disagree that I think that the implication is that it is supposed to be cooked, because there is in levitical law the prohibiting of eating raw flesh. So yes, it's true that Acts fifteen doesn't specifically say you must cook the meat, but it's already presupposed in the way they're approaching the question. So and again, it's not a legalistic thing that you can never have something like sushi.
I don't think.
I don't think it's that big of a deal, but like Snack said, it has oftentimes been understood in that way, so quick call.
I was just wondering, what is some of the base terminology, like in general for that you need to know for Christology and Trinitarian theology.
Uh, well, there's a good book by Vladimir Lowsky called Dogmatic Theology, and he has basically a pretty u useful glossary at the back of the book where he defines kind of the basic ideas of hypostasis and nature and energies and.
This kind of stuff.
So that would be a good kind of rough book, but the basics would be I think David has some videos to David real Medwhite on the basic terms that you want to know. But uh, you know person, nature, energy, will, tropos mode right in hyposthetize. Those are all key words that we want to know.
Okay, thanks, sure.
Jay.
I had a quick one with something that came up on Twitter. It's about saying Basil. I just want you to comment real quick, because now the Reformed, in their terrible arguments against this, are now trying to claim several same Basil's letters we have, like letter three sixty or forgeries.
I don't know at the top of my head what the three sixty is. Now some of Basil's letters have been fought to be Gregora Nissa, Like letter thirty eight is on nature in person is now believed to be Gregora Nissa. But I don't like what is What exactly does that? I mean, who cares what a reform person thinks? And what is letter number three hundred sixty. I don't know if the top my head what it is.
Are you there excuse me?
Oh, it's it's the letter from Saint Basils talking about iconography, because you know they're iconoclass, so they're trying to argue that any patristic evidence for venerating icons has to be forger.
Okay, well, everybody doubts the I mean, there's plenty of people who doubt the authenticity of the epithet any US essay against the iconography, So it doesn't really matter if they. I mean, our argument for and belief and iconography doesn't hinge on a letter from Basil. I mean it hinges on the principle behind the incarnation, the real presence in the Eucharist, Sacramentalism. I mean, that's the basis for why we believe that icons, you know, do what they do.
It's not it's not all hinging on you know, a letter from Basil.
And just chime in.
So, yeah, if you're looking for a critical perspective, there's always going to be some level of criticism. Now, this letter is really on its face in terms of iconography because it literally says that he venerates icons. If you want to prove econography from Saint Basil, I would maybe be a bit careful. I would not use stuff that you know they might refuse, as they might debate, because you know, there's always some level if you're in a critical mindset, this is a always a way in which
would you wouldn't use it. So if you want to pry iconography from Saint Basil, you can you can use many of his letters when he refers to glory given to the type in transfer to the prototype, and you've got all of these ideas. So it's the trinity, but you can show that there's a principle here. And I think there's also there's also something from him talking about the image of the emperor, you know, in order.
To to Theians.
And so I think that instead of using this one, which can be debated, and I understand why it can be debated, because it's it seems very obvious, and as there are some that are you know, there are some actually I know there's a fake quote by Athenatius on icons.
But instead of using this one, you can you can show that actually Saint Basil already understood the principle of iconography and actually applied it to strinitary and theology and all which and all the sudden councils just doing that in reverse, which is just return to source.
But if you want to go from a.
Full truant perspective, then you'll be a bit less critical. But if you're talking to press, and please accept that they can have some criticism. You know, we also have some criticism of some documents in another context, you know.
Yeah, I mean they always pick it.
They just do this game where they like quote mine to find a church father who disagreed at some point. Okay, but so what like what does that prove because nobody is hinging the position on every church father having a unanimous agreement at every stage. I mean, there wouldn't be councils if everybody agreed, right, So it.
Really doesn't matter.
And snackt right that I wouldn't hinge the argument on a dubious letter. I would just point out the principles that the Seventh Council uses. If you read Saint Theodore's book on the Holy Icons, he uses the argument like like type prototype that Snag just mentioned