Massive Debates! Jay Dyer on X Vs Everyone!

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S.

S.

All right, welcome, hope everybody's sir.

I woke up today to some fancy, flashy, sassy new drama from the Internet's.

Hottest little boats Eie Wearer.

I'm talking about that predestined as sunny occasionalist, Calvinist Muslim man James Watt and his little cute little list that he's got. He's just so in a tizzy today. He's just sassy today. Something got up under him and got him all sassed. I don't know what it is, but if we're gonna go to Roman's nine, honey child, he's our man. He can exege that perfectly. With that diploma meal degree that he got down in South Africa, down

They might be over here in New Orleans right now.

If it's Marti Grauls time, I'm over here, about fifty miles outside of New Orleans. I I could just run over there and find James if he's over there on down in the French quarters. If he's down there, Exaget and Romans nine for some of the some of the men's over there in the French quarters. But listen, I'll tell you one thing, honey, you ain't going to find a better cosmusweater anywhere in the damn us than down

Go to you?

He's got And it just makes me think all them chickens that Biden had just killed, all one hundred fifty billion of them. If I was thinking like James White and that Colonel Sanders predestination mindset, they was destined for it, honey, all one hundred fifty millions of them. Let's see, maybe he'll come in here and tell us about Romans nine. Romans nine, I'm just joking, being silly. I'm poisoning the well. Oh wait, if I poison the well, it's on Christ.

I don't know what he was trying to say.

If he doesn't debate a person with a green profile picture, wow, those are good reasons. Now, for years, here's the backstory. We messaged James White to do debates on.

The Essen Center. You've seen Shin on Absolute to my Simplicity, Tilly oak Way, all of that stuff.

And for years he said, in his little sassy tone, I don't know orthodox stuff. I just don't have tons of debate I have, and he's just there's just too much list thing I've.

Got to do.

I've got to study the art of the list.

And I don't have time to study orthodox stuff.

So he had no time for the last six seven years, I guess, And now he wants to drive an RV to debate me a year out, and what I guess I'm supposed to like arrange this. I don't arrange in person debates. I mean, I don't mind it. In person debate. I've done one with Tim Gordon's brother in that ridiculous Baptist pastor I don't remember his name, but that was

Oh, debate you, but only.

In person six months from now, and it's like, okay, so I'm supposed to establish and set up a public in person debate for you.

I'm not doing all that shit, dude. You can hop on a damn live streaming debate.

And by the way, all these people usually will debate other people on live streams. And I think his like scrawling screed today of boomer nonsense was quite amusing, Like I'm gonna have fun live streaming about this. So now he calls into question my comedic capabilities.

Is he even a comedian?

Well, I'll have you know that I write for one of the top comedians out there right now.

You may have heard the name Amy Schumer.

Thank you.

Now we're going to open it up today's topics or whatever you guys want to talk about. I do not think we're really going to get many calvin Is in here, but of course Calvinism gets the priority place today for discussion topic. So if you'd like to discuss the elements of Calvinism, that could include predestination, tulip Calvins, institutes, reform theology, Puritans, it could be any of that.

But we can also talk about, of course soul, scripturia. We can talk about.

The history of the church, councils, authority, you know, creeds and confessions, church fathers.

It's all fair game.

Also, anything else related to the history of Protestantism, the prosct Church, Classical Reformation, Lutheranism, Baptist theology, whatever, Also Catholicism is on the table. If you are a papist, you may call in and make your arguments. If you are a Muslim, the buddies of the Calvinists, because they believe in essentially the Divine decree is the cause of all causes.

It's open form today. First up is balance. You have time you.

So, Jay, I wanted to talk to you about Protestism.

Can you hear me?

Yep?

So I've been looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy for a little while now. I was born and raised in Protestant Church. Well, Costolicism never like intrigued me because Swols is gay with the Pope god Man. But Orthodoxy always intrigued me. And my question is because I'm I've always thought about conditionalism.

And I didn't hear what you were saying. Conditionalism? What is that?

Yeah, it's basically now where people do you know die in hell? Annihilism they call it.

You're talking about annihilationism not not yet, my bad, Yeah, I mean, the Bible doesn't teach annihilationism. It teaches that both the body and the soul are joined together in the resurrection for all eternity, and that's based on the work of Christ. So in One Tear the fifteen Paul makes it very clear that your resurrection, whoever you are, is contingent upon Christ's resurrection and defeating death. But that doesn't mean that you're going to have.

Necessarily a good experience of the escaton if you're wicked. The wicked have ever being, but they have ever ill being. The righteous have ever being as well, but they have ever well being.

All right, that makes sense. I just when you look at like mark and stuff. When Jesus talking about like them can turn in the outer of darkness and the national teeth, he says, it's going to be where the fire doesn't quench and where the worm doesn't die. And in Isaiah that's where like there are objects of contempt and their corpses.

I understand that, but the language is intending to discuss a spiritual state. It's not literally saying that they have a worm because the worm, according to the Church Fathers, typically is the pangs of conscience. So they're tormented by their conscience for what they did and what they didn't do in life, they didn't repent, et cetera. But the fire there is it's not everlasting darkness if it's literal fire, right, So it's the descriptions of separation from the goodness of God,

All right, Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah.

I wasn't trying to like make a correlation of it being dark. I know it wasn't being literal obviously, because of the flames. But the analogy whatever you were saying with the warm that makes sense. I never heard anyone say that, And trying to like research and see what other people's thoughts were.

All thees Gaton Paul says that in One Green Is fifteen, God becomes all and in all and the extent of the resurrection. The scope of the resurrection in First Green Is fifteen is just as expansive and universal as the scope of Adams Fall. So that means that everyone, even tiny mustache man like, the only basis for him to be.

Resurrection resurrected is the worst of Christ.

So this also, by the way, we're fu's Calvinism, because Calvinism never really understands or explains why the wicked or resurrected or the reprobate would be resurrected because they have no connection to Christ. And so Calvinists just have to say stuff like, well, God just arbitrarily creates a hell body for them, Padre Pio, why'd you run away? I'm about to bring up a Roman Catholic and you literally just drop out. So it's funny, like, and people love

The whole religion is about intellect.

And being perceived as intellectual and known as intellectual and given the validation of being an intellectual through debate. So one of the things that I've learned over the years that is very important is Calvinists do not at all enjoy being mocked or made fun of because they take themselves very seriously. And of course everyone could see that in all the silly shit that he's posted today, James White, it's all like, really, like this man, there's not a.

Scholar.

He's got a green of photo of himself and he's got a photo of weird background images. The background images, for those that don't know, has a bunch of fascinating lore in it that my buddy and good friend Mark Rowe, who is a very well known documentary filmmaker and a cinematographer, just made as a joke. So like a lot of the stuff, people don't even know what the jokes are.

That's the generation gap.

So although technically James White's probably gen X, I mean, the whole mindset, the whole ethos here is just like one hundred percent boomer for sure. But the point being is like, now, of course he's not gonna they're not gonna grasp or get like, well, what all we're talking about? What we're about over here? But also like it's important not to validate.

Quote unquote these people's like perception of being quote a scholar. You notice I don't care about that. I gave up. I could care less about that shit. I used to care about.

That, especially when I was a Roman Catholic Thomas. You know, when I went from Calvinist to Thomas, I was very interested in academia, very interesting getting my degree. I want to be seen as, oh, I'm a scholar. And then once I realized that all that shits retarded and the people in these movements are actually just retarded, and that I actually I would respect a person who could actually like a guy who actually go out and punch somebody in the face and have a fight way better than

That she was submissive.

And then you got Joel Webbin over here, who's like, uh, basically wants to be a Salafie Muslim as a Calvinist. All these Calvinists just need to go be freaking Muslims. They need to be they need to be Salafie well Hobby, they need to go be buddies with Jake and Daniel Hikikachu because that's where they'd fit in. Jamie said, Joel Webbin believes in Mermaids unironically, which is.

Kind of funny. And now a bunch of the audience are going to be.

Like, oh, actually I like Joel Webbin though, because there's probably a lot of other mrmaid appreciators in this chat, there's a lot of there's a lot of people with their crushes on Ariel over here. But didn't you know Ariel from Little Mermaid is actually a Jewish plot because Ariel is the name for Israel.

I'm just joking as a joke, and.

I would I'd like to remind you all again I am one of the top comedy writers.

Now I did finagle my way into that position.

James White's questioning my comedic skill sets.

I'll have you all know I am the.

Top comedy writer for somebody you might have heard of, Brendan Shaub.

Thank you.

Anybody else wants to come on to the chat. If you hit request to speak, I'll bring you up. You can ask questions in regard to Calvinism all the way.

James White's actually.

A ridiculous radical proponent of stupid ads. So I want to debate him about that. Actually initially, and we were going to talk about Philly Oakuay and all that stuff, and he said multiple times over the years, I don't debate orthodox stuff because I don't have time for it. So he just sort of dismissed it.

And then I asked again about that sinceni.

In distinction, And then we asked Jeff Durbin when back when Durbin was like in the circles or adjacent to James White was saying at one point, oh, you know, I don't really have time go out go tobate James Derbin. So Durbin said, if you would like to debate me, there's a good in line You're it's at least one

Like how much real prep you actually need on Ross?

Yeah?

Yeah, it's up, Yeah yeah yeah, I say, said, I am here, so I wanted to speak with you. I have a friend with the Roman Catholic I am Ortodox, and I watched your video on iconography on the seventeen you Manical Concil, and he raped the objection that viality matter in which style is the icon.

So I can't understand what you're saying.

You watched the video I did on the seventh Ecmmenical Council, and we've done about four of those, so I'm not sure what.

Recent one on iconography where you argued that the current style, like in the fifteenth century the Roman Catholics used is incorrect.

And I read.

The seventh Ecumenical councils canons and I couldn't find anything about that that.

I already addressed that.

So the seventh Ecumenical Council has multiple canons that do address icons, and then one hundred years later almost in the eight forty three Council, it's called the Triumph of Orthodoxy where they create the Sonoticon and they restate all of the canons and the victory or ecume me the principles of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So the Sonoticon is a summary of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and.

Includes all those principles. So just look up the full Sonoticon of Orthodoxy which includes all that.

Okay, thank you. But so if it's wrong to use a different style of iconography and then.

What they use, I mean, I literally address that it has nothing to do with styles. If you watch the video that you're talking about that I did, that was like twenty minutes of a live stream. I literally sat in there. That it's not an issue of the style of the icon. It's rather an issue in other words, artistic style. I mean, you could talk I'll talk to any Orthodox iconographer and they'll tell you that they at times, you know, utilize their own individual style and creativity. So

Like it's obvious. So like what I'm saying isn't even controversial.

If you read the Lost Kyalspensky books volume one and two, they're not even that long.

It just talks about all the same stuff.

Okay, yeah, thank you, that's just my quession.

All right, Yeah, no good questions. I'mpre sire that all right, Dave, what's up, Dave? You don't want to talk?

What's going on? And then Dave leaves?

So Dave the Muslim didn't want to talk, all right, so it's open for him. Any questions regarding Calvinism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, from Catholicism, church history, biblical theology, Islam, Atheism, E request to speak. I'll bring you up. You can ask a question or you can offer an argument. You can listen to your reasons why you think X y Z is wrong. Just keep it to making arguments. And you know it's that other Calvinists too, I forget his name, say awful us or something like.

He's like you need to do a blog debate with me. I don't do debates. That's exactly what Lofton said. Lofton's like Jay Dieks turned down a debate with me, dog, and then he doesn't tell you that the debate offer was a blog debate. Like, dude, this is twenty twenty five, broh Ain't nobody blog except maybe like some substack people.

But I'm not debating you in an exchange of substacks.

Anything I write is going into a stupid book. Dude.

I'm not writing for free anymore. It's going in a book. So I don't know what what what these people are that boomers like you want to come debate on Facebook exchange and like, dude, get the hell out of here, go back to Facebook. Uh, boomer Land, Today's funny because it's all like boomer shit too like. And I will never stop making boomer jokes. I'm the damn grandfather of

Back of the day.

And I will keep making fun of boomers even when I'm a freaking nine year old senior citizen man and the boomers don't exist. I'm still gonna be telling the youngsters the lore of Boomer bullshit.

Where'd that guy go? He drops everybody popping on here? Drops off? Where you all at? Come on now now, Oh now, Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers, Come on now, step up. Somebody got to step up. Oh now, get up, anybody, it's Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers. Step on up and be quizzed. Gets your worldview tested, get your worldview put in check? All right, we got hasani hey, dudekay.

I don't necessarily, I guess it kind of does apply to the town topics, but I don't have anything that's like specific to to one of the individual topics. I just actually I had a question about something regardless. Obviously I was in the obviously I was the one that was sent in the super chests last night, and that little and the thing with hypocrite and me and me and a couple of dud we were we were really going back and forth with a couple of guys in

Okay, Well what was the profile?

It was just it was just Joe. It was like Joe and the last name started with an H. And he was He's some gnostic, that's the thing he was. He was being like very very fun. The damn word the word is escape me. Like we kept on asking questions about about you know, like his views and ship like that.

Uh.

And the only thing he would specify, like, the only thing he specified is he tends to lean towards gnostic beliefs about But then he wouldn't and he just he would literally say about and dot he wouldn't. He would not specify anything else. It was the weirdest ever.

But I mean, you can always tell those dudes to come to the open open forums and have a debate. So Joe, H, I think it's welcome to come to b Andrew, what's up?

I mean, Andrew mute? Andrew unmute if you want to talk?

No, what go ahead? Are there? Did you turn your mind tongue to God? And like? What do people not ever use spaces? Like? Is my space the first space for every single person? D D? What's up? Matter? Yeah?

Hey, how you doing? Been a minute? Have you seen this? Uh recent article? Candice Owens is reposts it, Jack Posto is reposting. It's like Reverend Johnny Moore and our good old guy JP.

Uh, I haven't seen this article. Who who is this reverend?

I don't know.

Is this the guy that was the pedo?

Uh No, I'm not I'm not sure. But it's just this whole concept of the I guess the uptick of Christ is king. Christ is king being co opted by some I guess ethno nationalist types.

Well, I don't doubt that the establishment has fed and people trying to do that. But I've not seen this article and I'm not sure. So you said with our buddy who JB P like Jordan Peters.

Yeah? Yeah.

Jordan Peterson COT.

And Jordan Peter Peterson co authored an article about the co opting of Christ the King dealing with at no nationalists is ever you're saying.

Yeah, so if you see Jack Poso posted about it, Reverend Johnny Moore and Jordan B. Peterson talking about how anti Semitic movements have hijacked the Christis King and uh, well they're basically. But I wanted to talk about it because well, I mean, I think that there's something to it, and I've I've been struggling.

With that myself.

A lot of the guys, even in the Orthodox space, like that Orthodox Luigi like sometimes he's towing that line, you know, And.

Well, I mean I've I've spoken on this topic like multiple times.

I did.

I devoted like the entire week two weeks ago to this topic. And I don't follow all the Luigi's post so I don't know everything that he said, but I know that, you know, Luigi was really into Fuentos for a while and then they fell a scance on one another, and he was dealing with Groyper's for a long time.

That's fake.

In fact, I mentioned that to I hypocrite last night. A lot of those people, I think try to link it to Islam, like this is the right wing dudes that want to link up with Islam. It's like, well, well, like all, well to see their anti Jew, anti Zionis so they're all based when Islam is literally the rabbi say, Islam is the broom of Israel.

Destroy the Just a lot.

Of h Man glorification.

I mean, I'm pretty sure there's a quote by mustache Man himself about oh, we would have preferred the Mohammedan religion.

You know, there's a lot of.

This, yes, he says, like sissification of of Christendom and and all this kind of stuff.

And however, it's also true that the people on the right and some of those spears obviously will not talk about apac u Zionism and the rabbinical traditions and their methodology.

Yeah, that's true.

I'm no judas are like you know, if if you if you make a nuanced critique of all of a sudden, you're a massade agent.

You know, uh, and and it's.

Almost like I've been called that, dude. I've been called that for like years because I'm on the Alex Jones Show. And then when when I devote an entire week and a half actually to rebindic Judaism, dispensationalism, Zionism, then suddenly, oh, you're an anti Semitic.

You know. It's like it doesn't matter what you talk about. Dealers do this.

But unfortunately, I think there's this guy that's kind of a attached at the hip to oh and Shroyer. I don't I don't think Schroyer's necessarily signed is John Hancock to it, but he's kind of floating around this guy who definitely he's got me on the block list on like three different accounts, calling me massad and you know, jew lover and this, that and the third.

But it's just frustrating.

I guess I wanted to come on and see what what your position was on it is.

I do think in a big way it is fake and gay, as I say, but.

Yeah, it's like the only answer to these positions I think is Christ in the in the traditional Orthodox sense, because you know, you're not going to have peace between Arab and jew and all this kind of stuff until there's a recognition of the Messiah. So uh, you know, but in the in the meantime, so that's not going to happen right away most likely.

I mean there's not. Really. It's like when people say, well, who's better a Muslim.

A Calvinist or a papist, and it's like, well, I mean they're all kind of problematics. It's like it's hard to it's like hard to pick amongst the wrong positions sometimes.

Yeah, well, anyway, I think that uh, whoever that that good old Southern molasses boy was that you're trying to get on here.

I think he's kind of racist for not wanting to debate green people.

But that's a good way. But like, yeah, why does James White get to be racist against green people like myself? You know clearly clearly in that.

Picture I'm intending to be taken seriously because I'm pictured with mac and me, And if James White doesn't know what Macamy is, then that's already uh self refuting for James White, basically, his career is over.

Dan, what's up, good evening?

Can I be?

He say?

What?

Can you hear me? You can hear me, I can hear you.

Okay, So I have questions about Calvinism, right, So my first question, Okay, my first question is on your belief over God decline all actions, right, so they believe that, or I'm not very shonable. I know that some people believe that God decrease all actions and that includes scein. But at the same time they they hold that man is responsible for sin. So my first question is how how how does that work?

Right?

Do you understand what I mean?

Yeah, so that's correct.

Calvin Is, for the most part, believe that that all evil and sin are absolutely under the divine decree. Absolutely, so that's really not even in question in Calvinism. Calvinists give lip service to secondary causes and human free will and choice, but even even the secondary causes are still caused by the first cause, the divine cause.

So really it's just kind of lip service. And that's why historically.

Some Calvinists, amongst the Puritans Jonathan Edwards for example, they actually end up being occasionalists, just like the Sunni Muslims.

So let's see Andrew try again at doak pay.

Hi jak Amy. Yes, Sir Hi, so I was going through your video the other day. I'm Roman Catholic, by the way, and you mentioned in your video about icons, talking about how the Seventh Ecumenical Council actually distributes the Roman Catholic position, and you basically said that in the Seventh Council they gave sulf like limitations and criteria for icons in within church services and all that.

I was looking.

Yeah, sorry, I just addressed that it's so in the Orthodox view the Seventh that Caminical councils, and we don't view it like the Roman Catholics, that there's this like strict legalistic thing that, oh, that's only the Seventh. That chemical Council, the Council of eight forty three is what we celebrate in the Orthodox Church as the victory of Orthodoxy is called triumph of Orthodoxy. So yeah, way that council puts out the Sonotacon, which is from A three,

Now, I'm not saying that all.

Orthodox churches obey this, because sometimes Worthdox churches are not canonical, but I was pointing out that the principles that you see even in the canons, even before getting to the Sonoticon and other documents, the principles already from the outset exclude things like the extreme accesses that you see all throughout the Roman cllegtory.

Yeah, so that's what as a thing I couldn't really like. So I saw that. I saw them like in two candids that talked about you can s how to make the icons bind sea, it's explicitly how to what is including in acos always excluded from icons except what obviously Godfather being depicted.

Now there's a canon about the God the Father, and it's actually I think even earlier if I recall the exclusion of God the Father is actually in Trollo, and then it's restate all the Trello canons, by the way, are affirmed by and I see it too, by the way, so there's it's not just the canons, and I see it two. I see you two, also affirms Trollo.

Yeah.

Any and then but if I recall even if you go to New Advent, if you do control F and you search icon on the canons under the Seventh Council, there's I'm going from memory here, there's multiple canons to talk about the icons, the images and all this kind of stuff. They do not lay out artistic strictures per se. That comes later on in the development of what happens in terms of contrasting the East with the West.

Oh okay, so that so layout you said that came later. What's like time period?

Was that? Was that like after.

Well, if you read this, look up the sonaticon and the sonatakon, the full one, like not an abridged one, like the full one from that or what's believed to be from that time is pretty lengthy and it all so you know, it goes into some of.

The operating Okay, cool, thanks man.

Yeah no, that's great.

Questions I put in the in the comments of that video that I'm referring to eight forty three, and that's anauticon Andrew, you want to try again, yes, sir.

Hey, just let you know this actually is my first time speaking on a Twitter space. Sor right, I know, yeah, I know you were. Hey, Look, so I converted to Catholicism in twenty sixteen. I was raised Calvinist Presbyterian. I was just starting to read a lot of church history and in some Catholic apologetics that it made sense.

And then, you know, with the.

Post Vatican two Catholic Church, I was having some theological issues.

Yeah, man, you're going through what I went through in the two thousands.

Yeah, and uh, then you know, so then I I've drifted towards traditionalism, and then and then you know, I've been studying for for a few years, and and then I'm having other issues. And so lately, you know, I've been listening to Father Josiah Trinham and in reading some Orthodox stuff, and there's a lot of stuff that's making sense to me. But this may seem like a simple question, but I've been reading this book, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy. It's uh talking and the guy's talking

How does.

How do they come how does the Orthodox Church now come to like.

A consensus base, uh like decision like it do they just like because Rome is in schism just basically ignore them like no, or like don't.

Uh yeah.

So the Orthodox view does not believe that Rome is still part of the church. That's how a Vatican two kind of mindset where when they look at us, they see us as quote the eastern lung of the Church.

They have this accumenist view.

Orthodox ecclesiology does not include heretics and schismatics as amongst the body of Christ. So no, we do not believe that the papacy continued to be somehow you know, part of the church or halfway in the church or one third of the church. No, they left the church. They're not in the church. That's why they have to convert to the church. And that's why every Orthodox church traditionally, classically, historically has made people go through a profession of the.

Abjuration of heresies.

So when you join the Orthodox Church, are supposed to I sure your previous heresies and mistakes, whether Protestant Calvinists Lutheran.

Or Roman Catholic.

So that shows you right there that I mean, you wouldn't be abjuring your previous heresies if they thought it was the church.

Yeah. And another question, do you have any like historical books that would the like in depth stuff recommendations like on orthodoxy.

In like.

Well, I mean, yeah, like there's a bunch, But if you go to my channel when it comes to the questions of like Vatican two and the history of the papacy and those problems. Uh, I mean, I dare say that I've gone deeper into that topic and more intently into that topic than the author that you're speaking.

Of, or Father Josiah.

Not to knock those guys, but I spent many years in the world of Roman Catholicism and in those documents, and I know those documents better than those guys. I know those documents better than pretty much all the Roman Catholics. So I could tell you, like you know where it'll go in Denzinger, I can tell you where to go and the you know, Roman Catholic dogmatic councils, like I know all that stuff really well. So find my old videos about you know, Romancantholisism Vatican.

You know that kind of stuff.

Vatican One contradictions, all that stuff is pretty solid, I would say from my my channel. I mean, if you're looking for, you know, Orthodox Church history in this regard, I would say get the Papa Doccus Mayan North book.

The Papacy in the Middle Ages.

I think that book is really good because it's about the period when the East and the West split, and you'll see very clearly that from one thousand to fourteen hundred the Roman Church clearly went in a different direction than the pre existing United Church.

Hey, thank you so much, and I will check out your video.

Yeah, I mean there's a lot.

There's a lot, but there's also you know, you could get another You could get Michael Welton's book Two Paths as kind of a readable, more introductory book. Catholic Father crab people.

Hey, there as a Catholic.

The skive them obviously being nearly a thousand years ago, seems like a lot of one side.

Fucked up, the other side fucked up. And then did the spider man mean, uh, you're out, No, you're out. But I'm the Church.

No, you're the Church.

At what point is or the the disunified Orthodoxy and that claim to be the true Church and not have broken apart part of the true Church. At what point is that fruitful and what part of that is just pride? And would it not be beneficial?

Your question assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is unified, and I can make multiple arguments to demonstrate that it's not unified. And to accuse the Orthodox Church of pride is ignoring the papal admissions at the Alexandria Synod and the t eighty Synod which admit that the Roman Church engage in a lot of pride. So, uh, it's a question of which one's right, which one's wrong.

It's not a question of you know.

I mean, look at the centuries after the Schism, which church evolved away from the canonical structure of the Church of the first thousand years.

Yeah, I haven't studied this forever.

So I need you to speak at least in a way that can be interacted with, you know.

And so you're here to debate the topic and you're accusing us of pride, but you're not familiar with the history that you want to debate.

I'm not I'm not saying that Orthodoxy is incorrect where you're claiming that Catholicism you.

Just said that it was an issue have brought you said centuries of pride without unity.

So does the Orthodox claim that Catholics are not Christian.

Where the traditional Orthodox position is that the papacy is heterodox for about thirty different reasons.

Okay, so the baptism in a Catholic baptism is not valid and only an Orthodox baptism is valid, saying that everybody else is wrong when the schism went tit for tat.

This is just an appeal to This is just an appeal. This is just an appeal to emotion.

And the appeal is already assuming that the Catholic position is correct on baptism. So you've not yet demonstrated that the Catholic ex operary operators position is correct. So your appeal to that and appeal to emotion doesn't work.

Okay, have fun, have fun?

So do you want to Why don't you want to talk about the changes?

So he left? So here's what Roman calvics do.

They sit there and they call me names all day, say I'm the worst person ever. They hop on here to debate when we get into the topics. They have no knowledge of the topics. They act like that and then they run away. Quay loquay, I me.

I have two questions.

So the first one is I attend to a Russian Orthodox church, like, is are the teachings that they have in that church the same as if I go to let's say, a Greek Orthodox church, you know, or other like that.

Yeah, it's the same.

It's the same faith because it's it's called the canonical Orthodox churches, So it's all the ones.

That are in communion.

And even if there's a period when one of the bishops or the patriarchs are out of communion until there's an excommunication, you it's still quote the same face, yes.

All right.

And then I thinks, and I have my second question, which is I went to your website, jasonalysis dot com. I went to the recommended reading section. Are those books you know? Do I still have to read them?

Like?

Are they okay for me to read? The ones that are about Orthodoxy? I'm the apologetics?

What do you mean are they okay? Why wouldn't they be okay?

No, I'm just asking just out of curiosity, you know, that's just it.

I mean, I haven't updated that list in a couple of years, but I don't recall there being anything weird or questionable on there.

I'll take another look at it. Vic.

Hey, I just had two things I wanted to say, just a comment and a question. Uh the comments the article that I mentioned earlier. Uh, just like my opinion on that is just like it seems to me that it's a typical like uh, that article. I mean, it's like a typical like cry bully hall monitor like tone policing thing where it's like, oh, well, bad people say Christ is king, So you can't say because if you say that means you're like one of them, you know, So I think we should uh just dismiss it in

Yeah, of course, I mean that's all that's great, reelectic, but like.

For example, like yeah, between material world and the world of the forms, but like at the same time, there also seems to be like uh, a hierarchical dualism, if that's like the right way to put it, in the sense that he seems to say that the good is I'm sorry, evil is the privation of the good, as we would say.

So I'm not.

I don't know.

It just got me a little bit confused that he just kind of say, Okay, these things are intentioned and then these things are kind of like structured hierarchically.

Right, So evil has different senses. Evil can be moral sense, right, which in Christianity we believe that there's a moral sense to evil, and that's really what's meant in the Bible most of the time when it's talking about, you know,

Exists is created by God and it's called good.

And so everything that exists has some nature that makes it what it is, and evil has no nature. There's not a nature to evil, otherwise we would be Manichaeans. But Platonism does not distinguish really the ontological sense from the moral sense. So there's a lack I would say in Plato that, like, you're never going to get an explanation in Platonism as to why the One split into the diad and into the triad, and why we have why we have all this multiplicity that's supposed to get

But of course that doesn't mean that Plato doesn't have a place for.

Ethics and virtues. Certainly he does. He thinks they're intimately connected. But the fact that he thinks that there's a descending hierarchy of like an ontologically diminished status for the descending hierarchy of the emanations, like that.

Doesn't mean that they're not. There's not a dialectical.

Okay, thank you, that really clears it up.

Yeah, questions I think that when you get into like Platinus, he tried to synthesize Plato and Aristotles. He's he's actually trying to deal with some of those problems in both Plato and Aristotle.

It's open for me. You guys want to bring up.

Philosophy, topics, Calvinism, Protestantism, Becauseolicism, Islam, Atheism, church history, papacy, biblical theology. It's all on the table. We got a nice crowd of two and twenty in here. Of course, I didn't think James White would actually show up, but I don't know why he wouldn't if we need, like why does he need a year to prepare to debate like can calvin is stuff that he's debated for the last thirty years. I don't know why, but no, he's of course he's gonna, you know, so he's too good

He debates the Philly OQUI absolutely my suplicity as as an interestinction and its social contourism like that. But and then people who say they want to do in.

Person debates, this is a way to postpone and kind of you know, throw out there a thing that's really difficult to set up, and they kind of just hope that it'll get forgotten. And I also think he loaded his post with a bunch of blame humor, jobs and insults so that I would reply with jobs and insults, which is what I did, so that he could go and say, well, look this person's not serious. He replies with jobs and insults. It's like, okay, so when you

This guy, he's not serious. Look at those jobs and insults as like, you mean.

What DA's white said. So it's a weird double standard. These people are ridiculous.

Yes, sir, So I don't know if you I didn't comment on your debate stream, But have you heard of this guy Naven allegedly Ian.

Now allegedly ian.

He's this atheist right now he's so he basically is trying to argue that God doesn't exist because of slavery in the Bible, and he basically says that because God is the perfect lawgiver, therefore it follows that God is either immoral or does not exist because he sanctioned slavery.

So how would you that?

Yeah, Lewis just made a two hour documentary on that topic. So yeah, there's nothing that necessitates that a lawgiver can't give people laws that gradually lead them to an end goal.

So that'd be like.

Saying a parent is a bad parent because they don't give to their child the laws and the rules that are appropriate for a teenager or for an adult. So it's just an oversimplification fallacy, I would argue, because the idea that the ancient world and you know, in this barbaric realm, that they were suddenly expected to have the norms and the ethics of you know, the twenty first century is just kind of an unrealistic.

Unrealistic expectation.

And also, how does he know that it's more perfect to immediately give the law of the highest expectations versus a graduated law giving that leads men over time to more and more higher standards.

So he's just assuming that that's what's.

Entailed in perfection I have, but I have no idea how he would know, Aufrey or I that that's what's entailed in a perfect lawgiver.

And so you could just ask.

Him, you know, epistemic questions as to on what basis how do you know that was your justification for that assertion.

So because of he's going.

To try to reply on rely on biblical ethics and the revelation of who God is. Well, God revealed it such that he gradually, in a graduated way, gave laws to men to lead them to higher and higher standards. And then Lewis's documentary gets into the history of slavery in the history of Christianity. So he just put he put, like I don't know, a lot of time and effort into that.

Lewis was working on that for like the last three or four years. But away good questions. It's open for him. If you have a question or a comminent you're you're welcome to bring it up to the table. If you disagree, you can make an argument. Please make it an argument. We don't care what you think about me. You can already just say I'm the worst person. I don't care.

You can say I'm tiny mustache man, interbred with Judas, interbred with saar On, interbred with Jeffrey BADONCA doc Dahmer. I'm all four of those combined into also being a KGB Massade.

Cia operative who worked with Jeff SIMONC. Geffrey.

So I'm all those guys combined as an operative. So now we know I'm the worst person, and then now we can just move on to the actual topics.

He what's up, Hello, how's it going?

Jay?

Doing well? I could bring up tag correct. I just had one question. So when I brought up tag to an atheist, he brought up that I was affirming the consequence, and I was wondering how you'd respond to that.

Yeah, I mean, it's just it's not assuming the thing in question. So I think if you go watch my video addressing the top ten objections to tag, and then there's another one I did, there's the it's the two most popular tag videos that I did, and I think I addressed that that objection in both of those videos, So go check those out if you want to fuller it's just misunderstanding what tag is. So first of all, tag is not the same thing as the transcendental argument itself.

John Damascus and Book one without the knowledge. I mean, they have a long.

History.

Right. So if we look at the claim that if you I'm looking this up here, so from the consequent argue for those don't in the audience, the logical fallacy where someone incorrectly concludes that if a conditional statement consequent the then part, if that's true, then the antecedent must also be true. So the difference is that we're not saying that because God exists, or excuse me, we're not saying that because there's knowledge therefore God exists.

In the sense of like a fallacy where you are dealing with normative claims about day to day type stuff or day to day type arguments, the difference is that this is dealing with the notion of grounding for an entire worldview.

So a lot of times fallacies are dealing with things that are not at that level. Right.

So sometimes when we talk about circularity, right, people say, well, you're being you know, the tag is a circular argument, you're committing circularity. And then when we say well, at the root level, all arguments are circular, they then say something like, aha, see you're giving yourself some the free

Now, it's true that.

An atheist could could say, well, I take issue with that claim, right, If TAG is built on that, then I take issue with that claim that everything is built on something self referencing. And if they do, then ninety nine percent of the time they're going to end up with some kind of classical foundationalism or self evident principles or axioms.

Right, And the problem is that that's an even worse route to take.

They'd be better off just trying to go after critiquing TAG rather than to try to affirm their self evident principles. As you saw in the debate with Trent, that's a very difficult and impossible task because anytime you try to argue that something is self evident, you also assume a standard of self evidence that sets it off from the things that are not self evident, and thus that standard becomes more fundamental than the so called self evidence principle.

Like the best advice.

You could give to a first year university student is to work hard. If you do well at university, you will do even better once you've graduated. Wait a minute, that's not It comes an example. Excuse me, if I have caffeine.

I will be awake all night. I'm awake all night, therefore I had caffeine.

So it's a fallacy because there might be multiple reasons why you're awake all night, and it doesn't necessitate that the way that you were awake was through caffeine. But when we're setting up a transcendental argument that's dealing with grounding for a worldview, there's not an infinite number of

Sorry, we're trying to drive and I'm trying to give directions too. At the same time good directions.

Here, it's a false analogy to the caffeine example, because there's multiple reasons and explanations for why you might be up all night. Maybe you're nervous, maybe you ate some weird food, and it's keeping.

You up right.

So it doesn't necessitate that the only reason that you're uphole all night is.

Because you had caffeine. But to apply that to the critique of acts as a necessary condition of why why therefore X, it's not the same thing because the argument is about grounding a paradigm and a worldview in transtional categories as a whole, and there are not a host of things that could ground that. So even if you.

Thought that tag was somehow affirming the consequence, the argue is actually much more radical than that, because it's actually arguing that logic itself presupposes God, so you couldn't use logic as a way to cancel out or disprove God's existence when the argument is about, well, what grounds logic itself? So it's actually missing the forest for the trees in terms of what's prior to the thing in question, namely logic,

John? Danger? We're in danger and John's here. I'm mute.

Why did you leave? I don't understand. There's three hundred people and nobody wants to come up here and talk about any of these topics listened.

I don't get it.

There's over three hundred people, Hi, no problem question.

I was in a debate yesterday and then I was listening to what went on afterwards.

At you dropped out?

Dude.

Now he's totally gone. Tell me, dude, is it? Try again? Try again?

Coming back there?

Yep?

Okay, sorry, but I don't know what happened.

Okay, so I'll just shorten it up here.

A gentleman.

He proclaims to be uh Eastern Orthodox.

You must have a bad connection, dude. I don't know. Maybe you can get to a space place where you got a better connection, but I may not come on now, y'all got we got three hundred people in here, over three hundred people, and nobody has any objections. I know there's a lot of Protestant workers.

I promise I'll be nice to you unless you want a debate, if you want, if you want to ask questions, come on up.

I'll be sweet.

I'll talk to you like Youbama happy, your mama for you. I'll be sweet too. Promise I won't hurt your feelings.

I love you. I'm your mama on the internet.

I won't be that thinged bank daddy.

He's in the dog house.

He ain't gonna get in tonight.

I'll be your mama.

I love you.

Oh you sweet. Internet boys don't won't get your feelings hood, Trent. I missed the days of the Internet when.

Everybody was just uh it was wild West and everybody just made fun of everybody, and you expected to get your feelings hurt. Now we're in this atmosphere for like he should go out ahead, Trent.

Hey, Jay, Oh, I hope it's all right if I get can asked an Orthodox question.

I promise it's not like a basic catechumen one. Okay, Yeah, I was.

Wondering if you can explain to me because in my local parish community I haven't really gotten any succinct answers, but can you like properly explain if like the Russian Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church are formerly not in communion and if so, what is the consequence of that with the ecumenical patriarch.

As far as I know, they're still out of canonical communion, but there has not been a formal excommunication. So church law, canon law usually proceeds in stages. Whether it's even the Romancallolic Church or whether it's the Orthodox Church, they both kind of have some of the same principles about stages of canonical procedure, and so if there was an excommunication of the EP, they're out of communion right now. But for example, we don't rebaptize or quote baptize people who

So hopefully it doesn't get to that, but we have actually.

Seen multiple types of things and examples of this in church history, Like in the first millennium you had patriarchs and schism many times, and it wasn't the Roman bishop who just magically solved that in a lot of these cases. You even had recently, I think the Macedonian Church that was in schism for like eighty years and they resolved that conflict last year, so without the pope.

So anyway, that's where it stands right now.

Thank you.

If I can ask a quick follow up, do you foresee it going that direction that's what you want?

Okay?

Do you foresee it going that direction with the Greek Church based on like your historical understanding.

I don't know, because you know, it includes a lot of factors. Obviously, the EP is really close to the CIA in the State Department, and they're really tied to what Washington wants, and uh, you know that makes it difficult because it's not just religious stuff, a lot of political stuff. So I don't know how that will all

Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you very much, Jay, And also I just wanted to say, really appreciate all your work.

You helped me a lot fine Orthodoxy.

Thanks Trent, appreciate that. That's really kind.

Where As many years to you otis, what's up, man, beam? You want to try if Otis can't connect, I'm.

Yeah, what's the matter cracking?

So for the record, I'm a Calvinist, I'm a reformed Anglican. That's my specsum coming from. I'm very much aware of your criticisms of Calvinism, and you know about the whole like what was it again you say, well, totally means that we can't know if we're elected and so on. So I understand a lot of your criticisms.

But I mean that's a very minor criticism. The majority of my criticisms are hard.

Yeah, I know it's one of them, and I know they are like other like things.

You think, Oh, well, the majority of the majority are crystological. So maybe if you want to debate that, you can address that.

Well.

I had a question, if that's fine, just one question about these Orthodox position. Okay, yeah, so obviously you know

Well, I mean comfort in the sense of we view predestination in those passages as primarily dealing with collectives. And so if you look at even the statement in Rome's nine about Jacob and Esau, if you go back and read it in the original passages talking about the nations, and so when Paul writes to the Ephesians, for example, he calls the entire visible church at Ephesus the predestined, he does not single it out for the invisible church.

Okay, so would you say that there's any comfort we can derive as individual Christians.

Or absolutely, That's what the sacraments are there for, is to actually provide that's comfort and assurance that well, I.

Mean specifically for predestination. Like obviously sacraments of you know, they be assured a little bit.

Again, I mean, I could even I could even say with the Augustinian position that, like, like Augustine said, even if the final persevering elect are the real true quote predestined, we don't know who has that, and we don't in other words, we don't know who has the gift of perseverance. So, for example, even the Augustinian model refutes that idea because he believes in a collective predestining, so to speak to grace.

All right, thank you, then have a nice one.

Yeah, good questions. Hold on one second, team.

I'll go ahead, Bean, Yeah, I just wanted to add on to what the guy was seeing, the affirming the consequent Uh, the way that tag is argued, I wouldn't say, well, like tag isn't being argued.

Uh, let's see, let's see.

How do I see this?

I hid it in my head and I just kind of figure, hold on.

All right, well you can you can think about it. You can think about it, come back, major danger? What's up? Got a mute?

If you want.

Major danger? Unmute? If you'd like to speak, are you there? You gotta turn your mic on? If you guys want to speak. I don't like nobody's used. We've been doing these spaces for how many years? Are you there?

Anybody else is open for him? If you'd like to come up topics that are alvin.

Isn't protests, but also is the Muslims church, history of deal politics. We can make it whatever we want. Jen, what's up? Jen?

I'm mute, En. Nobody wants to speak. You guys don't know how to do this? Go ahead?

Hello, yep, Hey, how are you doing? Jack? Yeah, what's up?

Man?

Uh?

I'm kind of curious if you know this from your study of Catholicism.

I was Patholic as well.

I'm something that's I've been wondering is do you think there was a theological basis for the Latin Church using unleavened bread in the uh in the around the fifth to the seventhde Suries.

Is there a theological basis? I don't know what they would have argued.

I don't know either. I heard theories that because of the Germanic migrations they were in a state of penitence, and oh, okay.

I also heard.

That because of the cutting off of the Mediterranean they couldn't receive proper grade for leamon bread from Egypt. So I was just curious if you knew anything of like exactly why they did.

No, I don't know, And you know, that might be a situation where there could be, you know, some canonical wiggle room. It's kind of like the Orthodox Church, for example, in Japan, as I understand it, Japan, the government mandates that people have to get cremated, and Orthodox can of law doesn't allow for cremation. But they ruled that it's better to have the Church in Japan and accept cremation than to not have the Orthodox Church in Japan.

Oh Canon's are you know? Chirk law is the spirit of the law, and that's.

What's up.

Alright, Hello, all right, so wasting everyone's time in uh defiance?

What's up?

Hey man?

Hey, So I've been listening to you for quite a bit. Love your stuff. I kind of am considering myself a

You go back to the passage where it's originally cited. It's a passage that's talking collectively about nations. Jacob and Esau are two nations in the womb. And the point that I made to the other guy is that we know that it's collective because the same terminology and language that Paul uses in Ephesians is used of the collective visible church at Ephesus and for the for the Calvinist

Let's see if this one does it. Fat pussy, please come play your country music, all right, So guess not fry guys, yep.

I just had a couple of questions. I'm actually an Orthodox catechumen converting from Roman Catholicism, and I've been seeking out I've been seeking out various Protestant sources and Catholic sources for you know, during this mass conversion of Orthodoxy. Maybe why you shouldn't convert, just because I'm curious to see their arguments, And yeah.

I think we should be aware of all that. I think that's a good thing to do.

I actually had a little conversation with Redeem zo U in the DMS, and I just wanted to ask. He mentioned that Oriental Orthodoxy is more quote unchanged than Eastern Orthodoxy, and he never really elaborated. Do you know what he might mean by that?

Uh, he's probably just referring to some thing he heard somebody say. I don't think he knows anything about any of that stuff.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Another thing he mentioned was was Palamism, and I noticed there's a lot of a lot of people who take issue with Gregory Palamas. I don't really know why that is. Do you know why all these different Protestants really don't like Gregory.

A lot of people are speaking from ignorance, and they don't know that the Compadocians teach the essen Sentergi stinction. They don't know that Althanatius teaches the ssen sentert sinction. Sat Sterrihal teaches it explicitly. He talks about the energies

Were you speaking to me?

Jay?

Okay?

Sorry, I think there's a pause between sometimes we request and when you tell us to speak, So I apologize. Yeah, I just had thanks for your spaces. I pride myself in being able to comprehend pretty well, but I usually have to listen to your recorded spaces and take notes and kind of go over it again. So thanks for recording them. I was in Jerusalem last year, long story short. It was in emphesis and Jerusalem actually left October sixth, believe.

It or not.

And while I was there, I just I prayed for the Lord to really reveal himself and to send people who were true seekers of the truth to me. Orthodox priests approached me again, long story short, while I was in the Holy sepulcher and said, hey, God told me that you wanted to pray with me, and it was just wild. Then when I went to Ephesus, almost the

Thank you?

Oh yeah, this is a topic I love to go into and I rarely get asked about it. So the greatest book for this is actually written by a traditional Roman Catholic. His name is David Wimhoff, and he wrote nadam page book called John Courtney John Courtney Murray, Timelife Magazine and the Doctrinal Warfare proposition CIA's influence in the

I mean, all that stuff is interesting, it's.

Fascinating, and they have a curious history. I wouldn't be surprised if Ignacious' model of spiritual exercises wasn't borrowed from his esoteric days.

So for those that don't know.

Uh, Ignacious Loyol of the before he converted to Catholicism, was involved in some kind of esoteric group. I don't They weren't the Illuminati, but they called themselves something like the Illuminatos or the Enlightened Ones.

Or something like that.

And I'm not even saying that that necessarily means his conversion wasn't genuine. I mean, he could have been fully genuine, but regardless, he did bring a lot of those spiritual practices quote unquote into the Jesuit order, and then that became something that was very useful for cell networks and intelligence networks.

So there's a long history to this, Brandon, it was a.

I did a quick question, well a two part question. So the first one is given the chaos of the early Church prior to the Nice Scene Council, and I suppose I've heard this on Joe Rogan's podcast, but do you think there's any credibility to this idea that the early Church might have incorporated psychedelics in their Eucharist? And as a follow up question, do you think there's any spiritual value to the use of psychedelics.

No, I don't think there's anything incredible at all about that. John Aleegro was kind of rejected and kicked out of academia when he proposed the theory some decades ago. It's kind of just seen still as a quack theory. I don't think there's really anything in Christianity at all amenable to or consistent with pollucinogenics. I mean, even even Alvis Toxley, who wrote about superiority of pollucinogens to bread and wine and the Eucharist, didn't think that there was anything hallucinogenic

Like I had a friend.

Who was an extreme alcoholic and drank himself to death, and I would have said maybe in his case, like, since he was at the point of almost dying, like, might as well.

Try some kind of you know whatever.

However, they do the therapy with you know, aohuasc or whatever, which sometimes works for people who have extreme addictions.

So maybe in extreme cases, but no, I don't think generally speaking, human beings should be trying to have spiritual experiences with hallucinogens. Rhodesian chet Hanks, Hey J.

Sorry, my audio kind of went out. One interesting thing you mentioned about Huxley, and I think why Orthodox should always avoid psychedelics is you put your trust in them. I think Huxley died tripping. He like asked for a bunch of acid on his deathbed. Yeah, thanks, so yeah, so I mean that kind of summarizes it well anyway, thank you.

Yeah, that's an interesting point.

I mean, you know, I think when Orthodox saints and elder's comments on.

This, they talk about it like, Okay, yeah, you.

Might be opening your you know, noetic faculties to the spiritual realm when you do that, but that doesn't mean that you're ready for the spiritual realm, and that doesn't mean that it's the approved method for looking into the spiritual realm either, which is why it can, you know, terrify you and drive you insane. I'm not saying that everybody. I've done hallucinogen, so I'm well aware of how it works,

Yeah, seth, good, Yes.

I've got a question.

So I'm I'm kind of a person, but I'm like ninety percent of my way to deciding to become an Eastern Orthodox.

But I have a question about ikons.

Sure, I mean, so it's explained as windows to the divine, right, Yeah, but I'm curious as to like, what do they reveal that scripture doesn't.

Well, they're essentially the same type of revelation as scriptures, So in a sense, what they reveal that scripture doesn't would be the facts and the history and the lives of the saints who lived after the scriptures.

So that's one thing they reveal.

I mean, Gregory Poulomas is a saint and he's not in the Bible, So it reveals to us things about saints after.

The time of the apostles.

Even the icons that are, you know, scenes of even the icons that are the scenes of like biblical imagery, like the the Theophany or christ Baptism. I mean, those icons are the same messages and meaning of the Bible. It's just a different medium or firm because written texts are not the only way in which God speaks to us.

Yeah, and I know icon veneration is quite like it's a big thing. But besides polycarphs like bones that could be considered venerated, like what other examples like in the early days would they be?

Well?

For example, all the early churches, even in the catacombs, have altars and had.

The eucharists on the altars.

So if you go to the catacombs in Rome, you'll see the altars when the church was persecuted down in the catacomb, and even when the basilicas began to be converted after Roman, after Catholicism was no longer persecuted. The basilicas, which are houses like fancy houses that you know senators and elite Roman you know senators used to live in or whatever like, when they converted the houses into churches, they would set up barriers or communion rails, which means

Like, well, howk them.

There weren't giant icons put up everywhere in the second third century. You mean, because the church was in the catacombs. But guess what, when you go on the catacombs, there's imagery. I've been to the catacombs in Rome, and I've only been to one of them there everywhere, and they have imagery, so they have pictures of Jesus, they have pictures of Bible scenes. If you go to the Dura Europo Synagogue, it has images and iconography everywhere on the walls.

Okay, cool, thanks, that's so logic.

Yeah.

I have a video where I discussed this, and I actually go into a Protestant liturgical historian, Hugh Wiber's book Byzantine Liturgy. The first chapter of that book refutes all the Gavin Ortland stuff and the James White stuff. I've shared that probably twenty times on Twitter. Go watch my video that's like twenty minutes refuting Gavin Ortland on icons. I think it's like a twenty minute video. All I do is cite Protestant liturgical historians. So I don't know

This is like stuff like kicks up for whatever reason.

And if people are like, oh, everybody's arguing over something that we've been making videos about for like seven years.

Like go watch all the videos already made on this Darius. What's up?

In fact, maybe I can find that video and put it underneath this for you guys, because I know everyone is too lazy to actually find a video. No one knows how to use search functions anymore. So it's about the fourth one that comes up when I search for it. So I'm gonna put it under here for you guys.

Go ahead, did it my churn? Yes, sir.

Oh, hey, mister Dyer. I just want to say I appreciate you and your your work. It's been very helpful. My friend has helped me converting to decent Orthodoxy. I actually graduated from Master's University, and I've had a lot of questions and I actually asked John MacArthur at a Q and A myself, which is, I'll give you permission to uh not permission to call me on the video at a Q and A about the Master dem Nada. So there's a video of it. I don't know if

Notorianism.

Yeah, yeah, I've watched I've watched videos, a lot of them. I watched all of them, but I'm still having trouble like understanding it are like the has to put it in my own words of.

Wow, okay, hold on, hold on, So let's let's distinguish some things.

So can you mute? It's really loud, so just meet for a second. Oh, I apologize, It's okay, it's me for a second. Okay.

So mass Damnata is an Augustinian teaching based on his reading of Romans five, that all human beings are in Adam as in an archetype. He speaks of this explicitly, for example, in the City of God. I've lectured through the entirety of the City of God and we covered the sections where he talks about this.

The idea is that basically.

We all not only send in Adam, but we were also guilty in Adam because we were in his loins as in an archetype, in him, like in a kind of neoplatonic way. So that means that when an infant is born or from sect from the second of conception, the infant is not only liable to the effects of original sin, he's also guilty of original sin and thus liable to full on damnation and torments.

So that's what mass damnotomys.

And the only people who get out of that in the Augustinian system are those who are not just predestined, but in this life come to the church, come to the font, get baptized, and persevere until the end, and thus demonstrate that they were one of the elects. So you have that's why he wrote a treatise called on the Gift of Perseverance. But he also wrote other books on operative and cooperative grace, et cetera, none of which is consistent with the Calvinist teaching, because Augustine did not

I appreciate that, brother, Thank you.

So what was the question about mass Dunn and John MacArthur.

I was Oh, I asked him. Uh, I asked him back in twenty twenty one. I went to the pulpit, you know, because I grew up not reform, but whatever. I asked him, was there a break in the trinity? Because you know, you just said, Father, Father, why have you forsaken me? And I was expressing and I asked him like, how wasn't there a break because it seems like it and in the video, I don't know. You can go to my Facebook or something like that if

And then wow, that's awesome. Find that.

So yeah, if you I don't know, can you DM on Twitter or something, I can give it to you.

Well, why don't you just post it underneath this thread here, put it as a comment and I'll play that on the live stream or something. But yeah, that's different. So mauth da'maa is the Augustinian doctrine. The argument that I make about penal substitutionary atonement is that the Classical Reformation tradition, when they interpret the text my God, My God, why

Trinity down the road, who cares? Right.

But in the Orthodox position, seteriology is downstream from triadology.

It's the other way around. It's the reverse.

And that's why no Calvinists will ever be able to win a debate when it comes to the monarchical trinity versus their stupid heterodox trinity.

Often. Hey j how are you fine with that?

Hey?

So, I just had a quick question about epistemology.

From some of your videos I've watched, I've seen that you don't just allow claims, so you want epistemological justification for things. But also at the same time, i've heard you say, well a lot of claims kind of have at the base level, kind of like epistemological circularity.

Yeah. I literally just addressed this about twenty minutes ago. Go ahead, okay, I'll tune back in. Fine, you can ask a question again, Go ahead, okay.

So, like, if I wanted to say something like, well, I know I'm a conscious being, like there is consciousness, I mean I can't in your world. I want to be able to say that's self evident. And if not, like, how would I justify something like that.

Right, So, I mean, the first point is that anybody who doesn't want to believe in recursive, you know, paradigm level questions being self referencing, they're going to, most likely ninety nine percent of the time they're going to be some form of foundationalist in terms of epistemology. And if you're a foundationalist, you're gonna have to deal with their criterion problem. You're gonna have to deal with how we know what's self evident and why is that self evident?

And if the self evident things.

Rely on a principle which teases out the self evident and non self evident, then it's no longer self evident because it's relying on another principle because by definition, self evident principles can't rely on other truths or other things. If you watch the Trent Horn debate, the whole debate

Going to be a nightmer.

Okay, thank you, I'll go back and I'll watch the Trent Horn debate, and then as so, what was your.

Question about consciousness? Like what was it? So you just you're just repeating the cards that you.

Mean, Well, no, it wouldn't be because I watched you debate te Dump, and I remember te Dump wanted to do the whole cartesian I think therefore I am.

But you put into question that Trent Horn did the same thing.

I didn't watch the Trent Horn, but I remember what you you brought up with Tea Dump is that hey, Bertrand Russell has a critique of the coquito, which is like, there's a jump to a being or an eye, but nonetheless, like Corre, I do think there there there is not necessarily an eye, but there is experience. And if I wanted to justify that experience, can I say that it's self evident or what I need to be more.

I'll just cut it. I'll just cut it out. Even easier and even better than version of Russell's critique. If you look at cons critique of the coke e toe, he says, if you say I think therefore I am, I am, or I exist, that's a time determination.

You have not proven time yet.

Your argument assumes the existence of time, and so therefore the cogito is not self evident. By the way, the coketo has been savage by philosophers ever since. They cart pointing out how it relies on all kinds of things, not just time, and not just the false non sequit or conclusions or eyes. But it also assumes sentences and propositional meaning, which it hasn't demonstrated yet.

Interesting, So, I mean, is there not necessarily proving an eye like an independent self? Is there a way to epistemologically kind of demonstrate that there is conscious experience outside of just saying well it's self.

Well, yeah, I think the strongest argument is const argument that it's a transcendental category, which he calls the unity of apperception, which is the self for the knower I mean, in other words, for the possibility of perception, you have to have a nowherre or self. But that would be a transcendental argument, that would not be a Kantian self evident axiom.

And that's the unity of ap ap procession.

You said ap perception.

That's just Kant's famous terminology for a unified experience that a self or a knower is having. So basically, Kant is just saying that in order to have a meaningful world, or a meaningful life, or a meaningful experience, there must be some unifying thing or substrate that is connecting all of these disparate experiences in your daily life. And so for that to be the case, it's obviously not going to be proven in since experience since it's not under the purview of since experience.

So where is it? How is it? How wo do we know it?

It's a perfect example of one of the things that calls a transcendental category, which is assumed in any act of knowing. So to have a meaningful experience presupposes a what he calls a transcendental unity of a perception. That's just fancy word for a conscious mind of self a knowwhere.

Okay, cool, Yeah, I'm going to look into that. It's something I've been thinking about a lot. And then after this, like little chat log is closed. Can I go back on Twitter and like rewind it?

Just so?

Okay?

Cool?

Well, thank you so much. Jay. I appreciate that question. I appreciate those are good questions. Andre. What's up man, Colin? I'm you, Hey, Jay, what's up? Man?

Yeah?

Go ahead, Hey dude, I had a quick question for you. It might be fairly simple, but I was thinking about this the other day. Could you elaborate on the Orthodox perspective on who Melchizedek is in Genesis fourteen?

Is he?

I wrote a buff back article on it.

Okay, okay, cool, I'm just beating it because it's loud, but I appreciate your out of the mouth of babes. Yeah, Melchizedek is an actual Old Testament person.

He's not Jesus. He's a type of Jesus, and he is spoken of as the King of Salem.

He's a priest king of Salem, which makes him a type of Christ, being the ultimate priest king.

Maybe we should I'm sorry, We're trying to park and it's like bad traffic here, so I keep getting distracted.

So yeah, he was actually the king of Jerusalem, because Salem is Zion, David explains in the Psalms.

And so what this means is that if you believe Genesis, then it's telling you that uh Salem or the city of Zion, was actually the city of the righteous before the Jews.

Existed in the sense of Abraham. So Abraham is beginning of quote Judaism because he's the first to.

Be called in that way.

And God calls Abraham not because no one else in the world believed in God, but rather Abraham goes to the righteous gentile priest king Malchisedek and ties to him, which shows the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the Ironic And this is why in Hebrew seven Paul uses this as a powerful argument for the superiority of Christianity, which is the Melchizedekian priesthood amongst its bishops, priests.

And laity.

That priesthood supersedes and transcends the ironic priesthood because it is superior, although even the ironic priesthood is also a type of christ.

Joseph, go ahead, hey, Jack, you hear me?

Yeah? Hey.

First of all, I want to say I've been listening for a couple of years, and I love just the way you break things down and your movie your movie reviews, all that stuff. So I love your debates everything. I love everything there is. Yeah, no problem, no problem, it's really good stuff.

Let me ask you. And I've heard you.

I've heard you.

With other people like if someone comes to you who's who comes from a partisant background, which it is more on solo sola scripture, and they want to debate you or have a discussion with you on the Bible, you kind of cut their legs off. And you I've heard you do this before. I don't know if you're still doing this. It's been a couple of months. As i've heard you, maybe you changed your augmentation, maybe, but I've heard you say things like, well, who brought the Bible?

So I want to know I never see using that argument because it's a classic one as one of the ones that helped convert me.

Now, okay, now, so my next question is because I have I feel like I have a response to that argument. So I want to see what you think I want to see what you're what your answer is? I guess so wouldn't that be?

Well, no, that's fine.

You can always bring you know, challenges and responses like that. But could you give me just a couple of minutes because I meant the gas station and I had to use the bathroom and I got to get a water.

So can you hold on for maybe a minute or two? Yeah, so just give me a second? Okay, go ahead. Man, I'm back on the corner all right, so I think can you hear me? Yeah?

All right?

So, like I said before, when someone comes to you and it kind of wants to argue the debate what the Bible says before you you even get into that conversation with them, and you kind of try and cut their legs off from the beginning and say, well, who brought you the Bible?

This and that X Y Z. Okay?

Cool?

And let me ask you, isn't isn't that? Isn't that technically committing the fallacy of composition where you're saying, okay, because the Orthodox Church brought this, that means they have the truth now and everything going forward.

You see what I'm saying.

Isn't that the fallacy of composition to assume that the Orthodox Church, just because they that God used them to bring the truth of scripture to everybody, that now that every teaching they have now is true.

You to say what I'm saying, Well, no, the argument is not that because the Canon was put together by the Church that therefore everything that they believe or say is true.

I don't. I don't even have to concede that.

All I have to do is show that the Protestant epistemic grounds for knowing the Canon and trying to enforce the Canon doesn't work for Protestantism.

In other words, and let me let me explain why that would be the.

Case, because, for example, a Roman Catholic might make the same argument, right, so a Protestant. A Protestant might say back to me, well, okay, so maybe I admit that you know the church quote unquote of history is indispensable for the determination and knowledge and decision of the Canon.

But why Orthodoxy over Rome is ALSOSM. So no, I don't.

I don't think the argument that argument alone necessarily proves orthodoxy, except that you have to go deeper into it and point out that, well, actually, the Roman Catholic arguments is not much better because they just argue that is whatever the pope decided at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasis.

But that just assumes that papalism is true.

The rest of the Church had a fluctuating and varying canon for centuries, even up into the Seventh Council.

So I don't understand.

So if that, if the church was papal, they weren't listening to Damasis about what the canon.

Was, right, I see. So let's so let me ask you all I all.

I need to do.

All I have to do is just demonstrate that tradition and a living body of people with normative authority are absolutely necessary even to know what the written Word of God is, and that undercos Protestancy.

So so okay, so this okay, So this is another question happening.

Okay.

So if if that's what orthodox theology is claiming, if the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is able to if we're able to come to the knowledge of God without the Orthodox Church proper, what doesn't that defeat that argument?

Though?

If I'm able to come to a lot of truth by reading the scriptures, just me alone with the Lord wouldn't that doesn't that undercut that argument then?

Right?

I say, we're saying, well, there's a difference in scripture between different types of knowledge.

So for example, you can have rational.

Diological knowledge of something, or you could have factual knowledge of something and not have intimate knowledge of the thing.

Right.

So like when the scriptures say that Adam and even knew Adam knew his wife Eve, Right, that's a different type of knowing than just having, like I know of the person. So no, I would say that Protestants can have a knowledge of Jesus and a knowledge of those things. If God has his own ways by which he can reach a Protestant, he can do that. But it's not

So let me ask you, so what did it?

That's a good it's a good answer, So let me ask you what can I give that same answer though to Orthodox because if all men are if all men are fallible, right, And I know what the Orthodox teaching is on, you know, on that type stuff. When they agree on a certain issue whatever, you would say that's that. You would say that to God speaking even though infallible men are making that decision, you would say, the Holy Spirit is leading the church correct.

Yeah, like when a council is speaking in an ecumenical you know, setting with the whole mind of the church on issues that are you know, universally agreed upon and received eventually by the entire church. It might be unclear in that generation what that is, but eventually, but over time it gets accepted and we know what the mind of it.

And we know the mind of the church.

But yes, that's infallible, but not the individual men, I see my dutt And by the way, Protestants. Protestants already admit this if they think the Bible is infallible, because they think that these fallible men came together to make at least one infallible decision, namely the Cannon Scripture.

Or you go with the RC.

Sproul route of saying that it's a fallible collection of infallible books, which is self refuting.

I guess I come from an evangelical background, and I've been just really reading, reading, reading scripture, reading scripture, watching a lot of y'all's videos. I mean, I've watched hundreds and hundreds of debates on various topics, and I personally find that you are the best debater that i've heard. I mean, just be honest, yeah, I personally, I mean, your arguments are even if you're even if you're in the wrong, I mean, you can debate your out of it, like it's just that I see.

I'm not saying you are wrong.

I'm just saying that that's.

How good you are, that you know that you can do that. So let me give you I'm gonna hold on, so hold on.

I'm gonna I'm gonna re share a couple screenshots.

Hopefully I can find the other one here.

That give you an example from Protestant scholars of how elaborate the decision of the canon was, and it gives you a window into this so to where hopefully we can realize that like the Canon of Scripture wasn't like it's it's centuries of variations and differences and debates and disputes, and that alone means that Christians were not operating on

Does that make sense?

Right?

No, it makes perfect sense.

And that and that's where what you were saying, God is using Catholics in spite of themselves. God's using process in spite of themselves.

Is it? Can I?

Can I not make the same critique and say that God is always working Whenever God's word is shared, It's never gonna return void no matter who is give.

Yeah.

But again, but but to whom much is given, much is required. And so the more knowledge that you have, the more culpable you are, as Jesus says. And so if you do know about these things and have the ability to, uh, you know, find an orthodox church.

Let me give you another example, like underneath, then you're more liable.

So I just.

Retweeted right now. Uh.

This is a page from Lee McDonald's book Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, and it's the page where he talks about how Revelation was not even and considered the Bible in Rome until affinacious went and convinced the Bishop of Rome that Revelation and Hebrews and other texts were actually should be included in the cannon. So what this shows us is that this is not like they're not operating on sola scriptura. If they're debating what things go

That's one of the key pillars of Protestants.

Just read this page right here from a Protestant scholar on how instrumental the fallible human decisions and argumentation of Afthenacious were about what books went in the Bible.

So, Jay, how are you sharing these pages so I can see? I'm sorry, I'm driving, I have the phone.

I literally just so it should be the top of my wall. I just sweet at the Regent.

By the way, I also wrote, if you scroll down a little bit, I reposted my two essays on the dude cannon from like ten years ago, fifteen years ago.

Gotcha love to that. Well, I don't want to take up too with your time, man, but this, I know that was a great question.

Appreciate it, man.

Just scroll down to uh Reputation of the Protestant Canon Part one and Reputation of the Protestant Canon Part two. Maybe I'll scroll down and find him and retweeting or something superhero.

Hey, Hello, can you hear me?

Stir Hey, dear dar.

I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to be able to talk.

Huge supporter man.

I've been following for quite a while and to love all your debates, especially as the ones that you do with Sam Schmann got logic. But I have a I grew up Protestant, actually Pentecostal, obviously Protestantism.

I have a like one or two questions real quick. So my parents are like, you know, like I said, I grew up Pentecostal. Personally, I feel like the Holy spiritsmen leading me to the Orthodox Church.

But like a lot of that, it's just been like, you know, me doing my own uh my own I guess devor with Christ and like studying.

And stuff like that.

I want to ask you, uh what, like can you can you give me like biblical uh I guess or scripture to support like tradition and stuff like that.

Well, yeah, I mean there's a bunch.

I have an article that I wrote called the Biblical case for tradition. So go to my website, Jayson Elsins dot com and then just look up a Biblical case for tradition and that will give you multiple texts to discuss it.

Uh.

Oh, it's guys, trying to get over here. We're about to get crushed by some honest so trying to several lives. But yeah, I mean there's there's quite a few. I mean, second Thessalonians too, where Paul talks about, you know, whether keep the traditions, whether or oral or written. You know, Jesus in Matthew twenty three refers to the Cathedra the seat of Moses. There's nothing in the Bible about the Pharisees sitting in a seat of Moses. That's tradition.

You know.

There's traditions in the New Testament cited where you know, Jesus said it's better to give.

Than to receive.

There's no statement where Jesus says that in the Gospels, so that's some kind of tradition. The Gospels themselves and their authorship, particularly in the case of Matthew, are known by tradition. So Matthew doesn't tell you that Matthew the Disciple is the author of the text. So that's something that is known by church tradition, and that the various bishoprics and sees passing down the tradition that Matthew the Disciple wrote that, and that's very important for canonicity, right.

So I think Protestants overlook this.

They think that when I say something like, you can't you know, know the canon without the Orthodox Church, a lot of times since misunderstand that and they think that the argument is just, oh, you're just saying that I can't understand those books without orthodoxy, or I can't know what the Bible is without an infallible interpreter.

No, No, that's the Roman Catholic argument.

I'm making a different argument, which is that you can't even know the authorship tradition of the Gospels, which is crucial to canonicity, without the tradition of the Church.

And once I saw F. F.

Bruce, you know, Lee McDonald, all these Protestant evangelical scholars admitting the role of tradition in the Bible and its formation in history, It's like, well, obviously this is not the Protestant model, so.

This is just not true. Gary, Gary got on you man.

I can't hear anybody.

Jay, Yep, are you there?

Yeah?

Wow, Hey, I was just in the neighborhood.

I'll tell your mind.

Oh, I just thought i'd say a little something about your debate on Calvinism. You know what all these religions have in common? What they all believe in the higher God or the atheist? Of course, there is no god.

That's profound, bro.

And it's interesting that now, Jay, I'm curious you said you were even jelical. Is that how you were raised?

What?

What did you say?

What?

I can't take the smack into the your dog? No, I'm orthodox, Jaron R.

Jason, excuse me, you'll notice that James's.

Hey, Ja, I want to ask what's your opinion on Gregory of Nissa and his teaching of universalism?

Like, what would you say to that?

I would say he's wrong about that, and he's wrong about gender being a reduced a product of the fall. So yeah, many of the church fathers got many things wrong.

Thanks, that's it.

Yeah, the Universal's position is condemned by three councils. Jordan. Hello, can you hear me?

Jay?

Yeah?

Awesome, awesome? Uh my name is Jordan. So either questions or you had once sit in one of your lives or debates that the this is a God is the energy of God? How does that make How does that make sense? If God is eternal? How is his existence and energy?

If?

And correct me if I'm wrong? Isn't this the energy is just the act of God, the acts or the activities of God.

Yes, every predicate though, is an energy because they're an energy that we know that's revealed to us, and that comes down to us. So God's existence, God's actions, all of those are in the Orthodox view energies God.

She's okay, So that that does make sense.

And yes, he exists from all eternity. His existence is an eternal, energetic manifestation.

So I guess from like, I guess from there that there's something beyond his existence that's in his essence that we cannot understand.

But that that's yes, it's not in his essence. It is the essence that is beyond existence. And that's directly from Dionysius himself. Oh understood. Awesome, Thank you so much. That that was that was pretty much great questions.

Yeah, R.

Rate plum Off is a debate with the Marline. I awesome, I'm sorry, you can come back. I thought you were done balance.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, what's up, Jordan? I was inviting you back. I didn't realize you were still speaking out that you're done. You can come back if you want.

I have like a two part question, just a shout out. I love your work with Alex Jones and stuff like that, Rachel as well. I see Rachel's here. Her work is nice. But my first question is do you have like a specific timeline base of how secularism has infiltrated America and how that stems from like the UK and in the big Banks, the Rothchild set up and there, and the work they've been doing to like promote uh. I guess you would say degeneracy, but on top of that, like world government control.

I don't know if there's a specific timeline for secularism, because you could argue that the secular realm as an idea for the state and for state craft goes back arguably to the Protestant Reformation and then the seeds of it there and then the French Revolution. So I would say that the French Revolution is probably the real source of the notion of a completely secular realm. That's not touched by ethics, morals, or theology outside of human legislation.

And Jewish banking elites.

And I would argue that America, as an offshoot of the French Revolution already has kind of baked within it a secularist tendency. But it's, like we were saying on the podcast last night with High Hypocrite, my view is that America kind of had kind of competing ideologies in it, So it kind of had elements of Christianity and it had elements of Enlightenment secular philosophy. And America was always just kind of in this journey to see which road it would take.

Would it take the path of enlightenment.

Uh, you know, Masonic secularism, or would it go in a more Christian direction. And it didn't go into Christian direction precisely because for well, for many reasons. But one of the other things that's important that I think people overlook is that that principle of the free reign of the of the state, that it's not under the church or connect to the Church, that there that there should

But I would argue that you.

Could just depend it on French Revolution and then the influence in the West, and then the Roman Catholic Church capitulating to the idea of the good of a secular state at Vatican Two and their rejection of Christian nation states.

Got to Yeah, I've seen the argument like people have made with Thomas Jefferson. They're trying to like twist his words around, saying like he was trying to separate church from like the country basically, but he was based only trying to like actually promote the government, not trying to pick a specific church to represent the government, because I mean, I.

Think but Jefferson does have those Enlightenment Jacobin ideas.

Yeah.

I wasn't trying to like make a case for Thomas Jefferson. I was just trying to shift out that what's it called.

Yeah, he's a good example of somebody who.

Is kind of like got both of those kind of tensions within him, where yeah there's some there's some quasi Christian elements there, but also these Jacobin elements. And then unfortunately America went in the direction of the you know, the jacob inside.

Yeah, you could see that with like the Founding Fathers. I mean, even like George Washington, they were trying to go to the realm of I think deism, where they were trying to say, like there's no such thing as miracles and all that stuff, and they were being like deists towards Jesus, and I was just I was like more or less like trying to like archetypes. Is this like a spiritual like thing that's going on and it like does it spawn from the Catholic Church or it

Okay, that's all enlightenment for a Masonic.

Perfect Yeah.

And then my second question, I'm sorry if this is too long, you can boot me if you want. But I've been writing a book for the past like three years on this like so called spirit of like whatever we're talking about. Then this so called narcissism, like enlightenment crap, and how that's all connected to like demonic forces and stuff.

Yeah, actually, none of the Church fathers do like and the choice of vice over virtue to sort of negating yourself and choosing non being. So, yeah, I think you would find that in Saint Athanasius. You would find that in sant Agusta.

And that's a that's a pretty common refrain when the church fathers are kind of talking about, you know, the metaphysical effects of moral evil. Jordans, do you want to ask another question?

Yeah, I had another question, Thank you for having back on. Also, so in the Letter of Especially it's too the Letter of Dinitheus that was which is accepted the Council of Jerusalem, like the sixteen hundreds. He speaks about in that in one of the chapters where he's he uses the word transfer. But I've had Protestant friends speak about how he is asserting that the Orthodox use that use the exact same

So, first of all, those are Western translations of texts, and it's fine if we have texts that have the word transubstantiation, and if there's no I don't have him even have a.

Problem with that word.

For example, John Damascus in the translations that we have of on the Orthodox Faith, use the term transfibstantiation. That just means a change of substance in the Eucharist through the action of the Church.

But the Roman Catholic view is not just that. It's not a minuscule view of just that.

Like they have a very worked out dogmatic theology of matter, form, and intention for any sacrament, so for the sacrament of the Eucharist and trans association their ex opera apparato doctrine is part of it. Their doctrine of the words of consecration is what does it. And that's odd because that is separate from the epiclesis so in the Roman Goalthic position, they have no notion of an epic liasis that's at all relevant or necessary for the confecting of the Eucharist.

So no believe. We believe there is a real change of the bread and wine, and that change becomes body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy of Christ. Jason Jason, Yes, sir.

Awesome.

Questions more on then?

I know if you are familiar with that, I guess what's your opinion on?

Yeah, so this is an I appreciate, it's not it's not the topic today. We're not talking to in any fry. What's up? Go ahead? Hey?

I had a geopolitics question kind of similar to something a few callers back was saying, all right, uh, something you mentioned on the hypercrite stream youuron is the Rothschild connection to South Africa.

I was wondering what that was about.

Yeah, so quickly as a whole section where he talks about them funding the Bowler War.

Okay, And I had another related thing.

Is it anything of note to point out that Musk and Peter Teel are both South African? Should we be weary of South African technocrats?

I don't necessarily think that there's a direct connection between white people in South Africa and technocracy. I wouldn't think so. I mean, I don't know exactly why. I mean, Charlie's Thorne, isn't she from South Africa too? I mean I don't think she's a technocrat, So.

I don't know. I mean, I don't know the vibe and the ethos of the people of South Africa.

Like it's like I was saying on on that stream, I'm not really well studied on the history of Africa.

And I mean I know the A and C is bad. I know about.

Oh, what's his face? That was in prison forever. He was actually working for British intelligence oddly enough, Mandela, Yeah, Mandela was actually working in British intelligent.

People don't know that. But so I know about some of the espionage saft, but like, I don't really.

Know a lot of the history of the Boers other than the war and all that. Other than that, the roth Childs are involved in funding it.

According to Quickly, Yeah, that doesn't surprise That doesn't surprise me at all.

Yeah, I was actually kind of surprised. Well, actually, I wasn't surprised when you mentioned it, because it's like, well, okay, well.

What do they not fund exactly?

That was it? Though?

That was I think I think he mentioned it in both books.

I think it comes up in both Tragy and Hope and in Anglo American Establishment.

I think he mentions it in both.

I'll have to check that out.

I have the book, I just need to actually sit down and read it.

They were also involved in the debacle over the Suez Canal because Disraeli was.

Their operative hm hmm. Interesting yep.

So Disraeli's machinations over the Swiss Canal or at the past of the rod Jobs.

Yeah, but thank you for the questioning that guys. Tony. What's up Tony? Yeah? Help you, yes, sir.

Yeah.

So basically, wait, all right, we're.

Gonna move on open topics for Calvinism, Protestism, Catholicism. Do you have politics, if you want Islam, atheism. We've still got a lot of people in here, three or so so, and we already did your questions. I want to give some other people some opportunity to come up they want to. You don't have to debate. If you want to ask you a question, you can. But if you do want a debate, you go to the head of line. Uh,

Today's your day. You can even make an argument.

And presentation as long as you want within reason. If you want to refute me, here's your chance. I'll give you the mic. You can talk and talk and talk. Let me know ahead of time if that's what you'd like to do. If not, it's it's.

All on y'all.

Anybody else any any how are You've got three hundre people and nobody wants to talk what y'all doing. It's everybody another some Calvinists in here. So we got three innre people, Dames White making a big fuss today and none of y'all Calvinists. Y'all just want to lurk a lark.

And Joseph again. What's up.

Now?

I've got to Jordan again. Nobody else comes?

Hey, Jack, yummy?

Hey?

All right?

So I had another question. So in the Orthodox Church, the Eucharist is what saves you. Correct, you guys see that as that that's the way of salvation. Baptism and then the Eucharist.

Well, I mean there's a lot of things that quote save you. There's not just one thing that saves you.

All the sacraments are involved in your salvation as well as you know, the Bible and everything.

Okay, got because I don't know why. I just heard another Orthodox guy the other day talking about how the Eucharist saves you and that.

Yeah, but I mean we can say that without it being you know, exclusive, right, So it's still true. But I mean that doesn't mean it's the only thing. Matt, what's up? Hey, what's going on?

Kind of new to the space here, So are you taking a stance in any particular religion. Are you just taking questions about any religion?

Yeah, I defend I defend Orthodox Christianity.

So but we can debate, you know, any challenge to that position from any of the other positions.

Sure, okay, so Orthodox Christianity, that's interesting.

Uh.

I guess the first question would be, you know where exactly does Orthodox Christianity come from? And you know who gets to decide what is orthodox? What is the original meaning of the religion?

Well, I mean the.

Historic churches that were set up under the Roman Empire in the first second third century by the Apostles their successors, who you know, were at the councils of Nicea, Conceptsinople, et cetera during the first millennium. So that's what defines and that's who defines the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church today, that's the canonical Orthodox Catholic Church is the same church as that church.

Okay, But I guess my point is, how do how do we know exactly what they believed in and exactly what they taught all these years later because we can go read them where.

What do you mean?

Where you can read Ignatious Clement Cyprian, you can read Athenacious Alexander.

I mean, these are all pre Nicean Church fathers.

So we all so we're basing our entire belief system on five guys who we have no idea.

No, I.

Listed five people who are very famous, known throughout the entire world. It's not people that nobody knows who they are. They're representative bishops of their time. And then I listed the Council of Nicia, which was all the bishops of the Roman Empire in three twenty five. So these are not nobodies, and they're not people that you can't find. They're not obscure people. So, but we don't have the original writings of the New Testament.

We have copies of copies of copies, So how can we really trust any document from antiquity and from the past.

Do we just have to put our faith in it?

Then, well, the New Testament documents are more well attested to than any other ancient and historical document. There's over five thousand copies of the New Testament from the first few centuries of the church.

That may be true.

There may be more copies of the New Testament than any other book, but those other books we don't claim to be written or inspired by God.

So I guess that's the big difference.

Well, that's just that was just a reputation of your first assertion that it's not well attested to. It is well attested to better than any other book like Plato or Aristotle or anyone else from antiquity.

Yes, no, I'm saying that that may be true.

But if the Orthodox stance is that it is, again depending on what you believe, it was inspired by God or written by God, or however the Orthodox Church says it. Then if that's the case, well we don't we don't have that original text. And then if God wrote it or inspired if God wrote it, or but.

That's no, that's your correct, and that we do not have what's called autographa. We have later copies of the Gospels and Paul's epistles. But that's not how I would go about arguing whether the religion is true. I would use a more philosophical argument, which is more of a more of a worldview level argument than competing claims about historicity of the text, because the religion is not ultimately even based on the text, because it's the church, the.

Community the church that produce the text. So the church is even prior to the text.

So does the belief in Jesus being the son of God? Is that even relevant within Christianity today? Or is Christianity more just about a lifestyle.

No, that's absolutely fundamental to Christianity.

Okay, but how can we know that he was actually God?

Well, I would use a transcendental argument to prove that the Christian orthodox Christian paradigm is the only paradigm that can give an account for knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics.

I'm not sure how you how you can prove that. I mean, we have no writings from Jesus. Nobody who wrote the New Testament actually knew Jesus at all.

I mean, that's just assuming that.

That's assuming that Jesus didn't a point. Apostles who are able to write down what Jesus taught and Jesus did inspire the Old Testament in our view, so that's not even true in terms of the Old Testament.

That's all about Jesus as well.

From our perspective, what the argument I gave is called a transcendental argument that only with the Christian worldview in terms of its metaphysics, ethics, et cetera, can give an account for things like reason and logic.

But yeah, possibly, I mean it depends.

There's obviously thousands of different religions that people believe in, and you know, I don't claim to understand all of them because there's so many, and I'm sure they would make the same statements about their own religions.

Yeah, but that's a different thing from actually doing it. So what's your what is your perspective, what's your worldview?

No?

My view is I'm a Christian, but I think that there's a lot of I think there's a lot of issues, and I think there's a lot of things that people just need to be honest about in terms of the text and and what it really means in terms of how it relates to us all these years later, two thousand years later.

Well, how could you be a Christian if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that's a necessary belief, because that's always been a necessary position for Christian No.

I didn't state it one way or the other what I believe. I was just basically stating stating a point because I think a lot of people consider themselves cultural Christians now where they don't necessarily believe that, but they claim Christianity.

But it sounds like the way you were arguing was as a cultural Christian or as an atheist.

So I'm confused about your position. No, I'm just interested. I'm just interested to get your perspective and what's that. You won't say your position. No, I'm not going to say a position.

I just just just like to, you know, just like to ask questions and see what people's thoughts are because it is it is such an interesting topic.

Okay, So let me give you Let me ask you a question. What how would you give an account for logic and reasoning?

An account for logic and reasoning in terms of what a specific topic?

What is logic and what is the faculty of reasoning? And how do we have it? And how does it work? And how do you know that.

Logic would be something that I could prove using my brain? Deductive reasoning, maybe math science, the environment. You know, reasoning is the ability to to dissect certain information and create a specific outcome.

Uh, well, how does using logic prove it? So we use all kinds of things that aren't necessarily the case. I mean I might utilize, uh, you know, unicorns in my narrative story about fiction realms. That doesn't prove that unicorns exist. So what why does using a thing mean that it's the case.

Or that it's true.

No, I just if you're trying to if you're trying to get to the point of using logic, are you trying to say, how do we use logic to prove what we're talking about is true or false?

Well, earlier I made the argument that only Christianity can give an account for those types of things, and you said, well, I'm not sure about that. So I'm illustrating how I would go about making that argument by asking you what your account is in your worldview for logic as a thing itself, and then I'm going to contrast it with my perspective in my account of how logic works.

Well, quite frankly, I don't think there's anything logical about the story. I don't think there's anything logical that really makes sense.

Well, that's fine, but I'm making a different argument, which was about the categories themselves and how we account for them. So, for example, if Jesus is the universal principle of reason or Logos himself, that's a way to give an account for universals and logic, And I'm asking you, if you're going to use logic to argue against Christianity that it's not logical, what is your account for logic?

Then?

Well, I think I think that that's an assumption to say that he is he is logos or logic.

Well, now, wait a minute.

The revelation, which you don't accept, even though you said you're a Christian, calls.

Him that in John one.

Right, yes again, but there are you know, many issues obviously.

With the new text, So maybe maybe it's all false, maybe all the Gospels are false.

How does that help you to give an account for reason and logic?

Well, my, my, my reasoning in logic tells me that out of all the people who have ever lived on the planet.

So you're you're just appealing to You're appealing to the thing I asked you to give a justification for.

I asked you how logic is the case and how you know that?

And you're just saying, well, I use logic, yeah, but I'm asking you for an account for that.

No, that the logic is from a it would be coming coming from a historical perspective. So from a historical perspective, then you must say then that the miracle of him being born to virgin and resurrecting from the day you're listening.

I'm asking you about logic itself, and you keep diverting away from that and restating an argument based on logic. I want to know in your worldview, how there's such a thing as logic and how it works if you're an agnostic or whatever you are.

Yeah, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure proving what the definition of logic is has anything to do with the using logic to argue against Christianity.

I'm using logic.

I'm using logical statements that you must use those.

Rely on logic. And how does logic work? Well?

Logic works by using your brain, I would say.

So again, you're restating the thing that was already disproven a minute ago. Using a thing or saying that it's in your brain doesn't make it justified and doesn't show how it works. How is that universal? Is it just your brain?

What about my Is it in my brain too?

No?

But it's like it's like, how do you know anything is real in the world? You use your brain, you know?

So your answer is a two quote way to ask me how I know anything is real. When I ask you for an account for logic and universal categories.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.

Then it's how do you give an account for logic and it's universal, immaterial, invariant nature.

What does that mean?

You're using a lot of big words, But what does that mean? I'm giving you, I'm giving you how.

These are standard, they're standard philosophical terms. You wanted to use logic to argue against Christianity, and I'm saying, okay, fine, maybe Christianity is false. I want you now to give me an account for the thing that you're relying on and using, namely.

Logic, because the claims of the New Testament and the claims of the Bible.

Yeah again, I already let's say I can see to you that the Bible is false. How does that give an account for the ontological status of logic?

No?

But but I'm but I'm I'm using logic and I'm getting to my point, which.

Is that they make which is a circle. Because I'm asking you how you know logic works in the world. What's your justification for logic? You're using a thing that you have no justification for that was your original critique of me, your original critiqus have no critique.

You're relying on you. Yes you did. You said, we're relying on a book that we can't know.

Yeah, but that's not a mira because you didn't write it. It's not a critique on you.

It's a critique of my position. And stop playing word games. I'm asking you to justify your use of logic because that's what you're relying on through a few Christianity. So you're in you're in a terrible position. No, not really, because okay, so why should we believe logic? How is it?

What is it?

Where is logic?

Is what you live every day?

And so for instance, you don't say how that is. It's just what you live, Okay, I live as a degenerate.

Is that?

No?

No, No, there's there's certain there's certain laws of physics. Right, for instance, there's not one person on this planet.

So the laws of logic or the laws of physics in a way, you use logic. Can you observe can you can you observe a law of logic under a Microsoft No?

But you use logic in order to figure out what the laws of physics are.

You think things, doesn't tell me that it's true or that it should be used.

I gave the example earlier of a unicorn in a story that doesn't tell me unicorns are true.

No, But for instance, there's not one person on this planet who can walk on uh in a pool of lukewarm water. Right, But in the Bible they make the claim that Jesus walked on water. So that's an extraordinary event.

Yeah, but I already conceded. Yeah, but I concede it to you. Let's say that the Bible is false. That's fine, So it's all it's all made up stories. How does that work for? You? Give an account for logic, the very thing that you're using. I don't know that I have to make that connection. Oh so you don't have to give an account for the things that you rely on, but I do. No, no, no, another fallacy.

I'm not relying on anything but logic and reasoning.

You and you don't have to give an account.

No, no what I am, because no you're not.

You just keep stating that it's the case and that you use it. That's not giving an.

Account for it or explaining how it is or where it is or what it is yeah, but your your stance is that you're you're believing every word of that book as if it is you.

Want me to accept.

You want me to accept an immaterial, invariant, unchanging, unseeable thing that you can't give an account for.

You just say it just is. Now, I imagine if I came to this debate and I said, God just is, you would laugh at that. That's literally what you're doing with the thing that you're using to try to argue against God's existence.

No, that's not what I'm doing, and I'm not arguing against God's existence.

It's not what you're doing. What you literally said about ten times that logic is just what it is, and it's what we do with our brain. It just is.

No, I mean, my argument is that it's a book full of mistakes, contradictions, it's not inerranive.

How does that tell you?

What?

Can you not repeat? You don't even understand what my argument is? You couldn't Could you restate my argument? You're all over the place. I don't know exactly. I don't know that. I'm not all over the place. I'm very precise for the last twenty minutes exactly what my argument is. How am I all over the place when I've asked you, like twenty times to give a justification for what logic is or how you use it.

Well, you're asking me to use logic and reasoning, and I'm using logical examples of why there might be a problem.

No, I'm asking you a higher order question. I'm asking you what it is? Not do you use it? What?

Is it?

What? What? What?

Does what your definition of logic have anything to do with what we're talking about. You're trying to confuse every body in here with your.

Laughing at you. They're laughing at you because you can't give an account for the thing that you're using. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. No, you're not you're not actually giving I assure you. And then when it goes on YouTube, everyone's gonna be laughing to it, So I assure you that you will be laughed at.

No, I don't actually think that, because you haven't given me one explanation for why.

You can't even restate what? Can you restate? Can you restate what my argument is?

You can restate it. Well, you can restate it if you'd like.

I've done it about ten times, and I want to see if you're able to do it.

You're you're not giving an argument at all, all right, you're not even giving an argument for what a sarge.

I gave him multiple arguments in production.

Stone, Stone, Stone, It's amazing, like he couldn't even grasp or restate twenty times me asking him, well, what is the thing that you're relying on when you call the Bible illogical and Christianity irrational? I literally ask him twenty I mean, all you have to do is just restate. You know, you're asking me to give an account for logic. It's like talking to like a five year old. They just keep being totulant.

Stone.

I'm mute, man, Hello, sir, I'm sorry, I just joined your space. Can then I ask your religion?

First? Are you Christian?

Okay?

Very good?

I am a Muslim?

Very good, very good, very good.

I'm Muslim, oh, very good, very yes.

So what is the debate today?

Anything relating to Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Protestantism, you name it?

Okay?

So can I start?

Yeah?

Okay, So I personally believe the Quran is the word of God, the direct words of God, because it came to correct what came before to Moses and to Jesus. So the current tell us.

On why would all words be corrupted to Moses and Jesus?

What do you mean corrupted?

Well, you're arguing that he came to fix what was given.

Before, right, Yes, because he claimed that people changed it with their own hands.

Uh.

No, it says that they changed it with their it.

It says they spoke against it with their tongues and that they wrote false versions. It doesn't say that the in ngeal or that the Torah was changed.

Hm.

It says that descriptures before was changed, and descriptures.

Before that in chapter and five, five forty seven and on, it says that you can check what is new with what came before.

How could you do that if it was changed?

Okay, so easy, we can do it even easier. So the current tells us it's the direct words of God. And to know that it's the word of God, you have to challenge it.

You have to look for mistake.

And that's exactly what I'm doing. Because if if that you can check it before? No, why would I with something corrupted?

How could I check it?

Jim?

Please let me speak one by one?

Brother?

How can I check it if it's corrupted.

I'm just saying it's easy.

Brother.

If you find the Quran, say that. If you find a single mistakes and contradiction into Quran.

No, you don't even understand what I'm saying.

Brother, I'm listening.

You'll just look.

The Quran says you checked the Quran according to prior revelation. You just said the prior revelation is corrupted. Why would I check it against the thing that's corrupted?

Brandon? What's up?

Jack?

Can you hear me?

Man?

First, I just want to say I am an inquirer and thanks for helping me come back to the church.

Uh.

When you are critiquing Islam, and specifically the problem of the one and the many, can you run that argument, you know, the relation of a law to his essence or to his attributes rather, can you help me pick that argument apart?

Well, it really depends on which akida of Islam you're talking to, can you mute?

Yeah?

So that argument is really going to have to be tweaked depending upon whether you're talking to Ashia or whether you're talking to an Ashari, or whether you're talking to

So they just move the problem, move the problem back and stuff. So it really depends upon which school of Islam.

You're talking about when it comes to the attributes. So if you're talking to like a Daniel or Jake, who are Wahabi Salafi, like, their approach is going to say that, like, the attributes are really distinct from Allah and that they exist in and of themselves in some kind of Well, actually, when doctor Branson asked Jake this, he says, do you

No?

Are the attributes fully Allah and fully divine? Yes?

Then how do you not have a composite do it? In regard to your argument for how heap doctor Kalil make the same argument, the platonic argument, a new simplicity position that he doesn't even have an account for actual differentiation, the same way we'd argue against Ads, because ADS is ultimately a neoplatonic position. So again, it just depends up on which Muslims you're talking to.

And how their school gives an account for or Allah and his attributes.

Got it?

Thanks man?

Yeah, So it's not really the one in the many problem. It's more like the attributes.

In their relationship to Allah, and whether a lat really is many or not? Is I mean, I guess it's a kind of a one in many kind of argument, but it's more so the ontological status of the attributes and the majority, like the Sunnies, they believe there's an uncreated Koran. You could just ask them like, okay, is the uncreated Koran identical to Allah?

No?

Oh, okay, then there's two uncreated eternal things, and the same with the attributes. Like that's a really easy way to put it.

They'll go, No, it is the speech of a lot. Okay, I don't care whether you call it the speech of a law. Is it eternal?

Yes?

Is it allah? No, it is the speech of a lat Okay. How many is that allah? Speech of a law? I'm counting too, how many do you count?

No?

It is.

It's like they just it's like talking to five year old robots.

They Vincent, Hey, jay, uh, I don't want to disappoint. My name is actually not Vincent van Gogh, and I am a woman. Are you able to hear me?

Okay?

Yes?

Okay?

Uh So I'm Catholic. My friend whose orthodox got me under your videos, especially when we're discussing the the occult and love your roots videos, So thanks for taking allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

I have one comment in one question, uh, and I think I could throw them together. The one comment is I recently saw your I don't want to call it a debate, but that buffoon called misfit Patriot appeared on your live feed. Yeah, and you know it was embarrassing. Honestly, is a Catholic like those type of people that's not the people that go to Mass every week?

That that's not you know, I used to be a Catholic, so I understand.

Yeah, and so that's kind of like my thread, So I mean, that's really it was so embarrassing. But I do see a lot of that now, especially on the online stuff where people I think someone mentioned I don't know the two speakers ago, the guy that said he was Catholic but was arguing against Christianity.

I don't think he I don't even know if he knows what he is or if he's just a grifter. I mean, he went on Twitter immediately after the debate and he's like, no, I'm not really Catholic, but I was raised Catholic, So I don't think.

Yeah, I think think I was just a complete moron. So I would love any more insight you have on that, because like I couldn't get enough of it. How what a moron he was. But unfortunately it's like a stain on Catholics. And I was wondering if my question is, and it might be too broad of a question, but is there a point you can say that really was a tipping point from you go into Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

Well, if you look up my old podcasts where I just contrast, there's one called Vatican one refutes Catholicism, and then Vatican one for his Orthodoxy, Vatican one versus Vatican two. Like some of those really just lay out the things that led me out of Roman Catholicism. But I mean for me, that was a really long process throughout my twenties.

Like in person, like just constant gay priests, gay orders. The Dominicans are all gay.

I mean, it's just like when you see it on the ground, it's way worse like going to you go to hip hop masses, you go to like clown masses, and you see it's just like you got to see it on the ground. Sometimes people don't believe until they go see it and then and then you know, contrast just just the worship I think was a huge one too, because you know, Francis has been persecuting the Latin Mass.

Yeah.

Yeah, I go to Latin Mass on Sundays, but then during the week I perish near me. It's a very good parish. I somewhat insulated. I understand what you're saying about getting on the ground and like the gay priests, and I guess like when I get online, I see some of that stuff and it just.

Makes my stomach turn.

So I really appreciate you.

Well, I don't mean to say that like the decision was based on like who has more gay priests, because there's corrupt, evil priests and bishops and the Orthodox Church too. Now for me, the decision was literally all based on the theology and the argumentation. I'm just saying that when I was roaming cats, like, I really was, you know, committed to it. But the on the ground world of Roman Catholicism really eventually beats you down and you get really dejected about it, and that was part of what

Yeah, no, that's interesting. I mean I'm committed.

I'm not.

I don't have plans to good Orthodoxy, though it seems that very cool right now, but I just like learning about, you know, Orthodoxy, all religions.

But uh, well, look, I would say here's three easy contradictions. And I mean Roman Catholicism is premise that on the idea that dogma can't contradict. And I can give you three explicit dogmatic contradictions. Number one, unam Sanctum teaches that you have to submit to and believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishops, which means that he is also a world rule and can call standing armies.

Et cetera.

That belief was necessary up until Vatican two, and it's no longer a necessary, but that to me is a dogmatic contradiction. Number two, Francis has changed the Roman Cathoity churches teaching on the death penalty, not just to get away with it, but he actually says that it is contrary to the Gospel. Yeah, the Roman catholt Church saw the death penalty for you know, countless from the beginning pretty much.

So those are contradictions. I would also argue that.

Even within Catholicism, like the giving of a blessing to gay couples, and I know that it's not gay marriage, but the blessing of a gay couple is the opposite directive that the Holy Office gave in two thousand and three under rat Singer.

So those are direct contradictions.

Yeah, I do get that.

And I have some friends who are actually way more traditional than I am, and they basically just say, like, look, Vatican two is invalid, and also Francis is the anti pope, so we're just gonna wait it out, like we are the ones your church.

Yeah, I have a talk on that. It's called a set of a contism for his orthodoxy.

So I look it up. I would say, watch watch that talk because I deal with that whole.

Look it up.

Thank you so much for your time.

Yes, thank you. Great questions, Doctor Thomas Raspberry Gotta I'm mute.

You had a quick question in regards to the previous caller and trying to figure out what the temporal nature of the paper is. He so claimed was at the beginning of the first near the beginning of the first millennia, I know that the papal states were a thing, and I was wondering maybe if that statement from that particular pope was in regards to his control over the papal states and his getting the Holy Roman Emperor in line.

And you know how he says, as the.

Moon reflects the light of the sun, so too, there's a Holy Roman Emperor reflect you know, the divine light, Yeah, shown on the pope or something like that. I don't know exactly what the words are, but it's something similar to that. So is that particular to the time when the papal states existed?

Yeah, I mean the papal states that have an existence prior to when I'm signed them. But the issue is not you know, and the Church, you know, have large elements of property in this kind of stuff. If you look at the Canons of Chalcidon, it's forbidden in the canons for a cleric to have a civil role, and so this is a fissure of a separation between Church

The notion of a papal state.

It's one of those, for example, is the military monastic orders that fight for the pope.

That's something that's completely new.

It never existed, and they rightly point out that clearly there was a geopolitical motivation for the papacy to do this under the Gregoing reforms and to approve those orders. Now, I understand that there they would argue, well, this is part of the to Holy Land and all that.

Yeah.

But the problem is that even if there might have been extenuating circumstances, it goes against canon law in terms of what monastics are allowed to do. Monastics do not engage in fighting in battle. And then beyond that, the Dictatus pope document is the first explicit extreme statement about the pope being a world ruler. No, this is not just large scale property or even defense of his property.

It's really absurd.

It's like it just cites Jeremiah about I have set you above all kingdoms to read out and to destroy, and the papacy says, that's about us, because we're the head of the world, and if we're the head of the church, and if the church is superior to the rulers, then we're the head of all rulers, right, So it's just preposterous, you know, logic there. And the argument is that even if you could justify that like historically, and even if we gave the papacy an excuse for all that,

In the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved.

Right, all right, thanks so much.

I appreciate it. Thank you, doctor Thomas. Appreciate your your presence and your good question.

Emmanuel, Adrian Emanual whoever can connect, I guess nobody can connect. Balance. We've already done your questions. Is not trying to be rude to you, but we want to move on to some other people.

We've got a long drive, so I mean, do a little bit more. We've been going for a good while.

Any questions, challenges, discussions regarding Calvinism, processes with Catholicism, Islam, atheism. I mean, if you're a Muslim coming up, know that we already kind of are aware of the arguments, so you don't have to walk us through saying we know that you think the Koran is the word of all lot.

We know all that. And I'm going to ask you about the Islamic dilemma, so know that ahead of time. And if you can't restate what the Islamic dilemma is just don't even come up.

It's not worth anybody's time because we don't want to go through this whole process of like explaining it to you and then you don't know what it is, and then you just keep repeating what the Koran.

Says, which is not a debate. If you can restate the Islamic dilemma, even if you disagree with it, if you have the capabilities to restate it, I will welcome you.

Up to the microphone. You can come and be first. We still got what well, we got more people than earlier. We got over three hundred, three hundred and thirteen people. And that atheist guy was something else. And it's always like the thing that it's annoying too when people won't debate their actual position.

That's annoying when they're like, oh, well, I'm not going to say what my position is, but I'm going to argue in bad faith from all these other positions.

Well, I mean, it is a debate room, but kind of the assumption here is that you're going to debate the actual position you have, not pretending to have a bunch of positions. And atheists love to do that too, because they can like jump between positions. When they get refuted, they can just switch to another position that they don't actually have.

So it's a kind of a classic bad faith tactic. By the way, Muslims are doing this too.

When we were on the God Logic extreme debating, all the Muslims, a bunch of them were doing this too, where they act like they're Orthodoxic inquirers or they're interested in some position, or they'll say they're atheists, and then they start arguing Islam just to get in there to argue their stupid positions. It's like, it's just a weird thing to want to bad faith argue a position that you don't have. But it's actually a tactic because it's a way to just change your position mid debate. Well,

Like it doesn't take long to figure out when people are not really being a good faith debater and to god logics credit Like he spotted that Muslim dude within like ten seconds, He's like, no, he's not.

He's not really atheists. He's a Muslim. So this kind of stuff doesn't really work.

At least not with us.

I think we can like sniff this stuff out within no time. But if you have an actual position that you'd like to discuss or defend, you're.

Welcome to come up. I will bring you up. We've got over three hundred people in here, and that's great. These spaces used to get a hundred. Now they get sometimes four hundred, five hundred.

So anybody want to discuss Calvin hasn't protestism with alicism, Islam atheist them.

We have a shout out to Father Degan and Ias.

We have a beautiful Tristanna, our favorite trans individual on the chat. Some people think that she's the Antichrist. I think that's a little overboard. A lot of vegans are beginning.

To think this.

Uh, there's not really hard evidence for this, but I support her. Even if she is the Antichrist, she would be the first female trans antichrist. Trans transit transity christ and Shout out to Rachel's in the chat. Shout out to slowboly white Board. Shout out to Jubb, Shout out to Melkite, Shout out to not Chase Haggard, who I'm sure is all is literally not Chase Haggard. Shout out to Vaklav, Shout out to ac. We've got a bunch

You got to unmute. I'm mute, dude, FDA, you gotta ut if you want to talk.

Oh, I didn't really want to talk, but just your ummute dude, I'm unmuted.

Oh, I thought you wanted to You requested to speak, You requested to speak to not speak? Yeah, that you got me.

Yeah, I'm just waiting for some good questions and debates. And uh, I'm sorry I missed the atheist guy.

I don't know what his argument was, well, uh, it's actually something you pointed out before, where you know a lot of atheists will kind of like not say their position so that they can hop into a bunch of different positions.

Oh interesting, have you noticed that?

Well don't they actually even say to you, I don't have a position? Atheism is not a position? Yeah, pretty much the onus is on you. Remember that was even uh Stein tried that move on Bonnson in the famous debate.

Oh yeah, he did.

You're right, Yeah, which is fine.

I mean.

That you could say atheism itself is not position, but it entails positions. So let's look at those, like, you're not positionless, So what's what's your position?

Do you think that goes along with assumed neutrality like they actually think, no, I'm just actually super neutral.

I have no position, no.

Com Yeah, well I think Stein pointed that out too, because he made a bunch of positions about what qualifies as evidence and proof and stuff like that, and uh.

That.

Boson's response was, yeah, well it depends the way that you verify history versus you know, that was the crackers in the pantry fallacy. But you obviously do have pre commitments and certainly your atheist worldview will inform that. I mean, that's crazy to Actually it's it's not crazy, it's disingenuous.

Actually, well the.

Guy, that guy was pretty pretty honest about being disingenuous. Yeah, I'm not going to debate my position. I'm going to debate a bunch of other posiness. No, we don't really do that.

Yeah, I mean if you take debate class, you know they'll make you, as part of your course, argue the positions that you don't hold and so that you learned to Steelman. Well, that's not really what we're doing here. Do you ever do you ever do that with students where you tell them like, Okay, you're gonna argue for the sake of argument a position that you don't hold, so that you learn you know their position and how to steal man.

It sort of.

I mean, we don't really have that much time in the semester to actually do like debates itself. But what I what I do try to do when we steal man an argument, we're just going over a queus and it's harder for the first year like freshmen, they're just they're just blank stares, like they don't know how I think a lot of it's they're insecure, they're afraid to say something. But what I try to get them do is like, well, what would you say, Like, let's what

And occasionally.

Students like freshmens will get you know, upperclassmen get that real well, they've taken philosophy classes and stuff, and so they'll try to formulate counterposition and then a response to that and stuff like that. But I mean, that's philosophy. Even when you're writing papers, right, you try to think like, okay, we would be the best objection to this, and how would I formulate that? Yeah, it's just dialectics.

Yeah, this is a but it's a really difficult skill or thing for a lot of people. A lot of people, I guess just maybe out of laziness, like they don't want to actually deal with the other positions best argument. It's just a lot easier to straw man it or you know, make it sound like it's something that is not to knock down, you know, a fake thing, farm boy?

What's that meant? I'm you.

About the word theosis and where that word from, as in the etymology, how did the Greek and Eastern Church arrive at that word versus our English word sanctification. Curious about that, particularly if that word's in the Greek New Testament and where it ultimately comes from.

Thank you.

It's a good question. Off the top of my head.

I'm not sure if the New Testament ever uses the word theosis. It does talk about us partaking of the divine nature. It talks about us being like God. We will be transformed into His into the likeness of his glorious body.

You know, we will partake of his glory. Paul talks about.

Dunamus and inner gaya, But I don't know if Tom had a p if the I mean, you can just look. You could google it really quick and see if the New Testament ever uses the word.

I don't think it does. Says that it does not, Yeah, just checked it.

Yeah, I'm not sure which Greek father would have been the first to use it, maybe Theophilis or Athanacious something like that. But it just became a term that sort of encapsulates the participation in divine life that we undergo. And I mean that, you know, you'll find the terminology of sanctification use sanctified, made holy set apart.

In the patriistic writings. But I think probably by the by the.

Controversies relating to first Ephesis and the nature of Christ at Ephesus and the Eucharist, because Cyril uses the Euchrist.

As an argument against Nestorians, and then.

By the time of the Sixth Council, when Maximus is debating about the deification of christ human body, the Sixth Council uses that terminology where they say that in the incarnation, the human nature of Christ is fully deified. That in the six Council, so it becomes kind of concilier dogma by that time, although it's pretty pretty normal even prior to that time.

So, but I don't know the I'm not a you know, a linguist, so I'm not sure.

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, apotheosis was used, and obviously we distinguish theosis from that. But in Greek antiquity, obviously they had a concept becoming divine. It just was heretical because they didn't have the energies doctrine, so obviously I'm imagining the use of it derives, you know, from antiquity and the concept from apathiosis.

Okay, thank you, And you said apathiosis that word is in the Greek New Testament.

No it's not.

Okay, I'm misunderstand you.

Sorry, it's in antiquity. I'm trying to remember how far back, if maybe even in Homer.

I'll have to look.

But it's not a foreign concept, is what I'm saying.

And so.

Just like when Saint Paul on the arapegis speaking to the philosophers, uses their language and says, well, you know, this is whom your poets even speak of, and whom we live and have our being, I imagine the fathers use those kinds of concepts, like say Gregory theologian says, when speaking to philosophers, speak philosophy, they may win the philosopher over. So they probably what I'm saying is the concept obviously existed back then, and so they pulled from

I got you could I ask a follow up question, Yeah, sure, what's up?

Do you.

Do you feel like the English word sanctification misses some meaning or doctrine understanding or anything like that when dealing with the Orthodox.

Well, the problem really is just that it's kind of like the word transferstantiation. When we were discussing that in it earlier. You might not have heard that. But it's not a problem with the word itself. It's just that, like if the.

Translation of John Demouscus that we use from the Catholics uses the word transubstantiation, it's not a problem. It just doesn't require us to bring along all the metaphysical baggage of the Scholastics and exoperate operato and all that other stuff, because the word just means a change of substance, which is fine in the same way like sanctification usually has this Protestant connotation where Protestants when they hear that word just like penal or just like substitution, like they import

It depends on what you mean.

Yeah, I think that there's probably some rhetorical wisdom when to use it, because, like you said, a lot of these words they're contaminated from other heresies and stuff like that. So your audience may think that you're meaning something different when you use the word or oh, they're like us, they believe Mormons are famous.

For doing this.

Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah, well we believe the same thing. I mean, they they know you don't mean the same thing, and you know that they don't. And so you're playing this stupid game for an hour, like and so sometimes you just got to choose, like, Okay, depending on my audience, what sort of words would I use? But yeah, the word itself is not problematic.

Okay, thank you guys.

Hey, Jay, I just wanted to piggyback off of something that you said earlier. I'm Orthodox now, but I grew up Protestant. And it's interesting when you talked about earlier about steelmanning somebody's position, I was immediately reminded of not too long ago when all those performed Protestants were coming out and they were so adamant that Orthodoxy was wrong. But when you saw what they thought, we believe they

Yeah, they'll they'll debate all day about tone policing, they'll debate about debating and not actually debate the topics. It's really it's kind of just it's like a passive, aggressive, weird, effeminent.

Thing, right anyway, thanks for bringing me up, Yeah.

Thank you. I agree. I mean it's weird too because back in the day, like in the two thousands, like Calvinists and Catholics were way more like intellectual about the debates.

And this is something because I remember, like I was in Messing that you know, from two thousand and one two three, I was all about internet. Catholic Protestant debates, right, because I was Calvinists and I was arguing with the Catholics all the time.

On the internet.

There wasn't really an Orthodox presence much on the Internet in terms of apologetics or websites, so it's kind of like just default Protestant versus Catholic. And one thing that's interesting is like back when it was the blog wars of those two thousands era, you know, exchanges and even Facebook, like, it was a lot more you know, because you have to write out stuff, So those are a lot more

Call you out.

Most people don't know how to moderate a debate, so they suck at moderating debates and they don't ever call anybody.

Out when they violate the rules.

But even if you violate the rules a little bit and interrupt, I mean, it's not the end of the world. It's just the moderator calls you out, and you know, like muti or whatever. That's the way it ought to operate. But on these open spaces here like this, like when we had you guys heard the atheist guy in here right totally arguing it in bad faith being a sophist, Like, no, I'm going to interrupt that person this is not a formal debate.

I don't owe anyone a formal debate. I don't owe some rando dude a formal debate.

And again, in the case of James White, I tried to debate him for years, and I offered to debate him on the trinity and that he had a faulty concept of trinity as any indistinction, and he for years said, you know, no, I don't have time to learn Orthodoxy.

I'm not interested in any of that.

And then here we are, like six years later, and he, you know, tweets about how he doesn't understand my profile, which is super boomer, which is funny, and then he says, I want a debate when I drive my RV in a year. I mean, to me, it just sous like It's like, I'm kind.

Of surprised that he sounds like a comedian.

And he was saying, I'm I'm a comedian, but he doesn't think I'm a comedian, but he's actually an unintentional comedian because it just sounds like this just sounds like a bunch.

Of like made up clown stuff. It's just weird.

Uh.

And then he said, why would I debate a person who has a green picture on their profile of themselves?

Is he a green person? That was his retort.

Like, what, by the way, I just following up you said back in the day, like you said, debating online wasn't really a big thing. There weren't that many people there went a bunch of goobers.

Yeah.

Right, This is probably prior to even like Facebook. You didn't have Twitter acts and all this stuff, and so you could kind of people knew what they were doing. For the most part, you can kind of get it, and there was kind of reputation within those circles. Now everybody and their moms online can just challenge you, know you, and so it's a matter of like wasting time, Like sure the person might be right, but there's a million

Yeah, I mean, the positives of debate are oral.

Debate is that people don't get the trick of relying on AI, which is what a lot of them want to do when they say I only do written debates, Well, you didn't have AI back in two thousand and five when you were doing written blog debates and now you do. So No, it's not going to work to let you just like sit there and type out and who has the time to do this.

Anyway.

I'm not going to type out twenty pages argument with some random dude. That's what was going on today. There was a Calvinist guy saying I will only debate you in a written blog format. I'm like, dude, it's not two thousand and three, man, what are you talking about.

The other thing you figured out there was another group of people that were challenging tag the kind of the pseudo intellectuals. Most of them would never come into a voice chat debate, and what we figured out is basically what they were doing is they were taking these into other servers and working them out and taking them to philosophy professors.

Yea like Appy and Right, So you're not actually debating that guy. You're debating like a buddy, You're a debating.

Yeah, grad students And two of the best atheist philosophers are Appy and what's the other guy with my blanking on.

Oz and Ozzy.

Yeah, he's the guy that coaches Della Hunty when Della Hunty gets scared.

Yeah, So they just take it and they work these things. So it's like, well, just no, I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth and text with a whole crew of.

Yeah, you're supposed to debate like, uh, you know, a discord of fifty atheists.

Or you're scared? Right, ultravol kool Aid?

What's up, hey, Jerry Camyred.

Yeah, So I'm actually local in Phoenix and I used to go to Apologia Studios and I've studied under James White for a while before I started learning about Orthodoxy, and I just wanted to say that when he promised it, saying.

Like, oh is this him?

I don't know.

He knows full well who you are. He made responses, he's talked about it. Yeah, he's talked about you, So I don't know how he was trying to start that with.

Like, Oh, who's this guy.

He's made claims about you before and he knows farewell who you were, so like, I think it was just dishonest how he started the interaction trying to claim like, oh, is this the guy people who have been talking about.

Yeah, he was being silly, so I agree. But yeah, again, let's like.

It's the same kind of thing that William Aulbrick would do, where it'd be like you'd be trying to set up a debate for years and he would say, Okay, in six months it'll be live. And then it's like he's expecting you to set up a live venue and you're like, well, now, let's just do it on the internet.

I don't do that. I do it live. Do it live right, like O'Reilly or something.

It's like everybody in the world nowadays does internet debates. What do you mean setting it up in person in six months and then six months goes by and it's like, oh, yeah, a lot going on, let's do it live in another six months. It's just so stupid. It's like you could literally hop on this stream. And by the way, haven't you been told defending Calvinism for thirty years? Why do you need a year of preparation to debate and defend

It's just it's just stupid. Eli, I went's up by the way.

By the way, I don't know if maybe Wes Wes Hoff might be more popular than James White now right. So it's like we're already trying to set up a debate on tim cast with me versus I don't I don't know if I'll have a companion or not, but me versus. It was supposed to be Michael Knowles originally and Tim Poole, and then I don't think Michael Knowles will do it, so I was like, well, you better get Tim Gordon because Michael Knowles will rely on Tim Gordon.

And then they were like, oh, we need Protestants too, and so I can't stand.

I don't know who's I guess James White's worse than Doug Wilson. So I have less distaste for Doug Wilson than James White. But I mean, isn't Wes Huff kind of the hot topic right now? So what did he be better than all these boom Boomer gen z old fogies that nobody really cares about.

So I'd prefer it be like west Off.

But I don't know.

You.

Oh hey, Jay, I had a quick question on the topic of confession. I don't know if you don't want to answer that or well.

Father Diacon probably be able to better answer that than me.

Okay, perfect, perfect.

Uh So the reason why I'm asking is because I was talking to a Protestant family member of mine and we were talking about confession, and she was saying, why would why would she go confess to a priest when she can just guess confess it between her and God? Because if the idea and I'm not fully well versed on confession yet, but basically saying, wouldn't you be constricting God's power of forgiveness if you have to go to

I guess in her words, well, I think that in.

The Old Testament it was already kind of an element of this, because you brought your sacrifice to the temple based on in many cases the type of sin that you had committed.

So that was kind of an implicit confession. And then sometimes we see this.

We even see the tradition with John the Baptists, where it says that they came to him repenting and confessing their sins and being baptized.

So even with John the Baptist, that occurs.

Jesus says in the Gospel John that he breathes on the disciples, and he says, whoever sins you, they're remitted. Whoever sins you retained, they're retained. And so we think that there really is this principle of the notion of the Body of Christ having the ability through the ministers to actually remit and retain sins. So there's a real power that's there that you know, is not in the Protestant world.

But it's not a bad thing. It's actually a good thing.

And because we're bodily creatures who are not just you know, minds floating around or ghosts floating around. We have a body, and our body then interacts with another body, which here's

It's it's better understood in my view. Oh okay, that makes sense.

So I guess from what I understand is while technically you could still be forgiven of your sense if you were to confess it to God, it would be best to document.

Of confession helps us have an assurance of forgiveness, and that's the positive part of it. So that's a good thing in my view, I mean especially.

Yeah, so Christ establishes the way to confess, the way to pray, a lot of these different things, and you can always say, like, well, couldn't we do it? Apart from that, Yeah, but he didn't prescribe. He didn't prescribe that. Now, of course we do in our prayers we confess to God. But we're told it's a both and that. But you need to to pray this way, you need to confess this way. You need to do these things. And like

Because I wasn't.

Accountable to anybody. And so we learn accountability to God.

Yeah, a good point.

By making ourselves accountable to other people. The way that we practice obedience to God is obedience to our hierarchs and our elders and stuff like that. In this case, the priests.

The way that we.

Practice all these things is here and now, so God knows that this works. And the other way if it was just well, I can just go straight to God. It doesn't do anything practically and psychologically, one typically continues in their sin. But and also to have like a real relationship with a priest who's counseling you, well, why do you think that you did this? Let's talk about this and let's go forward on how to make you better. You don't get that in Protestantism.

Mm hmm.

And also it follows on the scriptural thing having a witness, like you're required to have a witness in these things like where's your witness? And oh, I confess to God? So the priest acts as a witness. You're confessing to God in the confession, and the priest is the witness to that and has given the power to then as being the witness also to announce the absolution or retaining the sins.

What's up? Are you there? We can't hear you, dude, Are you there? I don't know. Your microphone doesn't work. Then sounds like static, So it's open for him. We're still here. I've still got a little more energy. If anybody wants to hop up on the panel.

Topics, So are Calvinism, Protestantism, Catholicism, islam, atheism. If you would like to discuss, if you would like to debate, if you would like to offer an argument, Alexander, go ahead, yes.

Sir, all right? Cool.

I had a question when talking to Calvinists and they start playing the that's not what we actually believe game.

What do you go to look at?

Because a couple of times I've talked some and they've said, oh, that's not what we actually believe, that's not what Calvin Todd, and I look it up and that is what Calvin Todd kind of like how I went and sat down and read all the Vatican two after getting tired of Catholics doing the same thing.

What do you recommend?

What do you recommend reading as far as refuting Calvinists when they start doing that.

Well, I mean, I mean, well there's there's different, you know, groups of Calvinists, so they're all going to kind of have their pay their favorite sort of peteologians. I mean, you can't go wrong in Calvinism with the fifteen to fifty nine institutes, the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge, John Murray, I mean, those are all kind of the you know Luminaries, Francis Puritan. I mean, those are all pretty well known representatives of Calvinism. Okay, you know, put that on the

Okay, yeah, I'll get around to it eventually, but mostly I'm just going to try not to talk to Calvinists.

Well, i mean, the Westminster Confession itself, might be the most, you know, because it's intended to kind of be their confession of faith and.

It's not that long. It's just like, I don't know, twenty nine or thirty paragraphs. But it does have a catechism with it, so you could have the Westminster Confession or the Westminster Catechism would be the classical Calvinist confession. What's up, job, Yes, sir, Yeah.

When I was a Calvinist, we used the Westminster Confession and Catechism all the time. That was kind of our If people converted that they would use that as catechism.

Go ahead, man, what's up?

I wanted to ask a question about vicious circularity and how if you or Father Deacon could help define it for me.

He's probably the best for this.

So I've heard like vicious circularity as opposed to or being virtuously circular as opposed to vicious circularity, and I've been trying to like study this just to give like a clear definition on it.

So he.

Argues that circularity is just a loaded term, and that's confusing. So he argues that at a paradigm level, at the base level, worldviews are self referencing, are recursive, and that that might help avoid the confusion over the fallacy of circular reasonings.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

Yeah, obviously, so it's typically vicious circularity. And I don't even use virtuous circularity because it's confusing, so but yeah, typically vicious circularity is where the the argument's conclusion is basically one of the premises. So what supports the conclusion the premises. The premises support the conclusion. And this can be done in a different way where you slightly reword it, or you go through a chain of reasoning that goes back, well,

I heard an atheist talk about tag like, oh, this is viciously circular because premise one God's the necessary condition for knowledge is basically just being restated and the conclusion therefore God exists. And my understanding is that, no, that's not viciously circular because premise one is in fact not identical to the conclusion, right, and so vicious circularity would it be that it would be viciously circular if God

And that's not the only art. I mean, I could just plug whatever I want it in and it's like, well, it makes it true. God's true because I assume He must be the necessary conditions. If it was simply that, obviously that is vicious circularity. But the support for that is twofold one is impossibility of the contrary and number two which is the indirect account, and number two is

Thank you for that question, Joe. Appreciate all the time stamping and hard work that you do. Wi Fi. What's up?

Man?

Hey?

Jay?

What's up? So?

I'm pretty new to the debate scene, and I've been debating some atheists, so I've been eager to take more debates, and i've kind of I've taken them maybe a little too hastily. I'm debating some guys who may be bad faith or sophistry maybe the right term.

I think he debated one of them.

His name is Korn's and I just I guess wanted your opinion on how to deal with these types of people in debate.

Well, honestly, I would have waste my time with debating bad faith debaters.

I just think it's a massive drain. And a lot of people are a lot of people internet a board and they're just kind of like wandering around looking for something to do, and they'll just debate for the hell of it, adopting positions that they don't hold.

So I would just not waste my time.

I would be catechized in Orthodoxy before debating, and and to go that rout peep the sheep.

What's up? Hello? Yeah?

What's up? Man?

Wait? Am I on?

You are?

Okay?

I didn't expect to get on this early, kind of trying to think about what I want to say, but I just want to say I'm a big fan. I just tuned in, so I read the topics and I guess you're debating, you know, the different denominations and whatever.

So where up again?

Uh?

Yeah, So I'm a Protestant. I grew up in the South and basically discovering your content, uh just made me realize that it was a bunch of you know byes honestly, and it was di y and kind of just being stuck in that circle and then hearing all about all the solo fide and so like solo scriptore and all that stuff, Like I never heard about any of that stuff in my life, and then you introduced me to that, and I bought an Orthodox study Bible, and I've been

Let's see, so.

The it's kind of ambiguous because of uh I forget the terms that you said, but you said that basically scripture can be described and is it three or four different ways like ontological. I'm a bit of a slow boy.

So bear with you.

But no, no, no, that's that's not that. It's called the fourth senses of scripture. Yeah, talking about the literal, the literal, the spiritual, allegorical, the tropological.

And the anagogical Yes, yes, yes, and that's the first time, Like I said, like, you open my eyes to a lot of that stuff.

And because growing up Baptist, you know, you got.

To remember a couple of verses and go to church every now and then and say that you're you know, you're moral and this and that and that's pretty much it. But I do believe what you say is true, you know, like there's a history to it and there's a reason you follow certain canons and scriptures and all that stuff.

So I do agree with that.

But oh yeah, So the the question I have is how do you know when to apply one of those.

What was it again?

I forget?

I'm sorry, right, So these are this is called hermanudicts, which is the interpretation of the scriptures. Okay, so hermanudicts is not like there's principles and rules, but there's no hard and fast uh way or science necessarily that's going to tell you automatically when to interpret which text, just on the basis of that principle of the fourth senses.

Also be there.

So you can kind of go crazy with this like Origin did, where he over allegorized everything. But you can also be too extreme in the other direction of being a literalist or focusing on only the grammatical historical context, which is just the first layer or level of scripture. But it doesn't necessaridate that every single verse has quote four senses.

It's a little more nuanced.

Than that because some, you know, passages of scripture are just straightforward. They're just meant to be, for example, proverbs, although some proverbs do have a deeper spiritual significance, like you know, in the first few chapters of Proverbs, when it talks about lady Wisdom and the seven pillars that she's built her house and she brings bread and wine.

Job, what's up? And just had to show, I mean to boot you out how you were done?

Oh no words. And this is different from about the vicious quilarity thing. It's just kind of about the first order verse second order thing. I wanted to refresh my memory on. So is it correct to say that first order statements are constitutive of second order statements?

So like.

If someone says God does not exist, right, like this is the whole like old j Mike thing. He likes to ask people like, does the proposition God does not exist entail a contradiction? And I was thinking about this and I think it absolutely does, because in the light of the Christian paradigm, if God does not exist, then that would destroy the possibility of knowledge to make any second order statements about first order?

Yeah, is that correct?

And first order is usually it's the second order our statements. First orders are Jim believes the tree is green, then Jim makes a statement I know the tree is green, or the Jim makes a statement the tree is green, which implies those are second order statements. So typically the first order is just being in the mental state of knowing something.

Does that make sense? Right?

First order is a knowledge claim, right, Yeah.

But I want to make the difference that it's really statements are usually it's a second order beliefs that you believe something and it qualifies as knowledge as a first order. Does that make sense? So not your statement about what you believe? Those are second order?

Okay, Okay, I didn't.

I didn't get that, but.

I would add, yes, it does entail contradiction because once you prove that God's a necessary condition uniquely, so the possibility of knowledge. They already assume the a necessary condition for the possibility knowledge because they're making knowledge statements. Then you show that it's God, but they deny God. So they're both affirming and denying the necessary condition for the possibility knowledge, which is a contradiction.

Correct. Yeah, that's that makes sense.

All right, thank you job. I want to go on next to Isaiah. What's up?

Hey?

Can you assume me? Yes, ma'am?

All right.

So I'm new here and lovely rooms.

Hello everyone.

So I had two things I'll try to be quick. The first, so the father was speaking about the freshmen being hesitant. I guess you'd say, to deal with a quinas and have those arguments. And I had the same experience myself when I was a freshman dealing with a quinas.

I'm not a linguist and I'm not a Greek scholar, not a textual scholar, so I'm not familiar really with textual issues in translating certain terms. I mean, I know that does exist, but I don't think it really is detrimental to the overall message. I think God is able to communicate in every language the basics of the message. But there are certain languages like Greek, for example, that allow for philosophical metaphysical distinctions that languages like Latin don't have.

It made perfect sense.

And so that's one of the reasons why the Western Latin Church fathers did not develop in the sense of explication being the center distinction that theology that the Eastern Church did. But I'm not a linguist and a scholar of texts.

Okay, Yeah, I was just curious. Again, I've heard you speak of a few Greek phrases in your knowledge of them. You know, like the word sin, for example, is like the actual verb to sin is you know, it means to throw a spear and miss the target, and like that is a big difference, you know, just in the actual meaning. And so I think I think you're correct, and you know, the the application of the metaphor is obviously the same. But yeah, I was just scurious. Thanks thanks for letting me speak.

Sure.

I mean, a lot of the Orthodox world uses a lot of terminology from the heritage of the Church and from the New Testament, but I don't know the Greek. I know the Greek alphabet, and I know a lot of the theology terms and their usage of meaning, but I do not know uh.

E elect elect electorum, I Q.

Are you there?

Illustrationist yep, and that's me.

I had.

Let's see, at first, I had a few questions about predestination, but I think the orthodox understanding of predestination is pretty straightforward. Actually, you know what, I'd need some clarification because I've always had a Calvinist predisposition. So what would your the orthodox understanding of predestination be.

Alright, so we already addressed this pretty extensively in the first I don't know hour, so I would just say, this is a recorded space, so you can go back and rewatch that.

I don't have the energy to rehearse all that. Do you have another question, Yeah?

Sure.

My other question would be about essence energy distinction. I saw a clip of you being interviewed by Michael Lofton and you said something to the extent of the essence of God subsists within his energies.

What's that all about? I didn't.

Yeah, so the energies proceed from the essence, I said. God is fully present in his energies because his actions.

So just like if I build a.

House, I'm fully present in my action of building a house. The action of building a house is an action proper to my nature as a human being. It's a human act. It's an act by my will. But my will and my act of building a house are not identical to or reducible to the person Jay nor my nature. So the action proceeds from my nature, but it's a personal act that I engage in in terms of the mode.

Literally the opposite of chemism.

Got it?

And one last thing, I know there are a lot of Protestants out there, and with the Internet, a lot of people are looking towards the Apostolic faith.

Do you have any advice for anyone who's.

I'll be blunt.

I'm kind of attending a church that doesn't believe that the Communion is the real body and blood of Jesus, and I've had doubts about that, and as a result, i haven't been partaking of the symbolic Communion, and frankly, I don't know how to put my faith into practice.

I'm kind of in this gray zone. Any advice to the Orthodox Church is only true church, so where you're at not a church. That's my advice. All right, appreciate it, thank you. Yeah, I would go check, you.

Know, go visit Orthodox church and you will see that, you know, the liturgy at least is reverent and organized such that they believe that it is.

The real presidence, or at least that's the profession of the faith.

Hence the reverence and the beauty there, which does not exist in the Protestant world.

Actually, jam, yeah, hey, is it all right to ask a question about the Divine Light and Saint Simeon the New Theologian.

I've read two of the volumes. I haven't read all four, but I can comment on.

What I know, Alrighty, So I was reading. I wasn't actually reading Saint Simeon. I planned to do that later, but I came across a quotation that where he seemed to be saying that unless one has seen the Divine Light, he can't presume to think that he knows Christ, or that he has Christ within him, or that he will

Yeah, I think that.

I mean, I need to say the contact, because first of all, he was thrown out of his monastery because he said that this was available to everyone, and then that it was not a thing that was only for a chiritual elite. So this doesn't this would this would seem to contrast with his arguments because he argued that if you argue that the the parlemism was for a spiritual elite, he said it was a return of the

And you know hardly anybody has seen the divine light. And so I would need to I would need to see the.

Context to see like what he's saying, because it doesn't sound like because I mean he he railed against Missallianism, and what you're saying sounds like Missallianism.

Okay, okay, yeah, I I need to get him and read some more of him, but thank you, and I'll probably come.

Back after i've read something.

Do you know where that quote is?

If I'm not mistaken, I think it might have been in the Saint Vladimir's publish publishing of the of his h Now that's the that's.

The four volumes. But do you know which are the four volumes?

Now?

I'm gonna have to read it because I came across it all nine but I don't have the money to buy it right now.

But once I do, I'm gonna give it a read.

Okay, Well, DM me about it, because I'd be curious to go and look it up. But like I said, I only have two of the four volumes. I ever read them all?