OPEN DEBATE! Calvin Robinson Blocks Me! Protestant & Catholic CHALLENGE! -Jay Dyer

I want to see you ask the floor, make it clap, clap, bankers on the floor. Banker people bank together, such a medal class.

And I'm singing to the people on here. I'm not singing to you. I want you guys to hear the beautiful music. I want the people on Twitter space to hear me singing. I don't need you in the chat telling me to unmute. I'm fully cognizant and capable of running this stream. Baby. Now we got some a little bit of drama. I want to dress first. Shout out to Snack and Lewis and the chat. Them old school boys that been around for the long haul. We appreciate them.

You know?

How many new dorks came and watched stuff that have never been over here? A lot she has a big audience, So like what you don't even know how the internet works anyway, Listen to Hitchins.

In facts.

I loathe taking part in it almost more than any other argument.

I'm not playing the whole.

For why Because I have to come up here and defend the religion of love, brotherhood, peace, justice and turning the other cheek rather than kicking the other guy in the crutch. And I have to listen. I have to listen while I'm doing it to these gentlemen who remind me constantly of the most irritating, infuriating, revolting person I ever knew, namely my adolescent self.

See, he's doing jobs, he's doing nags, he's making fun of himself, he's making fun of everything, especially the opponents whom he's saying at Oxford act like thirteen year old kids. That's a jab, dummies, that's this is like the ultimate informal debate, Oxford Union Debate, the classic medieval style. You're not supposed to ever say anything, means the woman who feelings Jesus is a feeye wee feey good.

I feewy me few wey.

No wonder people turn to Islam. You are the reason people go to Islam. Yeah, Islam's dumb, but Muslims don't go around good.

You feel.

Mohammed, I don't waken me.

You feel feel good now.

I wish I wish moment would give me a hooky work. No, them crazy, It will just come attack you with a dang great gang because they're crazy. Well, guess what the solution that is not to be a complete goof, a complete goober, a complete feels man. It's it's just it's it's it's just crazy the way it is. You know what I'm saying. It's just wild. I can't even explain it. Man, I don't even know what to tell y'all, just all

How dare you?

And no, you're and your polemics and you're baiting and your blah blah, this litany, this giant wall of Textboh, I'm a bad person for just simply saying would you like to do a formal debate? And he'll debate all day about debating so I let it go. Didn't say anything else. Today he's interacting, debating with other Orthodox priests now. So in the DMS, I said, we, hey, would you like to circle back, circle back and have a discussion on philioquay. I don't want to participate in your baiting

How for what?

I just simply asked a guy, would you like to have a discussion on this? And I get a wall of text about how I'm a piece of crap. Now I'm used to this. I don't really care. It's just so tiresome. It's so stupid because everyone knows this is at his hallowed halls of Anglican University, dumb that this is just how a debate goes and by the way, you are expected in academia to be able to defend your positions. Did you know that if you have to defend your thesis, you go before a board of professors

Honestly?

I mean, haven't we all had it all?

The four horus mithress. They are all the same. No, no, not all the same. They all disagree with you. They must be wrong. They can't all be right. This is the staff of sixth form debate. That has been nothing serious said against you.

See that more jobs, my opponents are sixth graders whatever sixth form is. I'm assuming in weird hogwarts Land, that that's sixth grade. I don't know, but England is basically hogwarts if you don't know, so I'm assuming sixth form is some low level grade of education, right under a

How dare you say such a thing?

Okay, Well, now I'm not gonna apologize for just simply asking people if they like to have a formal debate. And I don't feel bad about that, and I shouldn't feel bad. This is stupid, man. It's people are just freaking cry bully babies. You remember last time we had this event, he tried to mog me and he lost. My comments had like ten times more than his. This is He's like, well, I mogged you, and then I

No?

But I mean the dms usually are almost always pretty civil. He let loose a walle text, baham a bad person. It's all a ruse, that's your stick. It's a game. And oh it's all bait. And I mean, is it bait? When I was out there debating the top Muslims with Sam Schimun getting three to five million views, that's all just a bait. It's just I don't know. We'll open it up because that's all I have to say on

Oh can you hear me?

What's hey?

Thanks for having me on. Yeah. First, just want to say I.

Can't believe how hard Dush destroyed you last night with the Slavic mind argument.

You know, it was uh, it was fun. But the weirdest part was everyone's reaction.

To it, Like, yeah, they were all tweaking.

I mean, they must have missed the part where she was like smoking indoors and also beautiful, so therefore she wins. But uh, yeah, I agree with you about the importance to debate and everything Like debate brought me out of the Jehovah's Witnesses to atheism finally to Christianity, and I think that now that's bringing a lot of people to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It seems like everybody's freaking out, and.

I think it's really telling about the spiritual relativism about our times. But my main question or debate wanted to be about the Orthodox history of England, okay, and I mean my first assertion about it would be, I think the burden of proof flies with you to.

Prove that England was Orthodox at some point.

Yeah, I'm not an English historian, but I think if you look to you know the way that the Church is described in you know, Venerable bead Or. You know when even when Augustine comes to England, not Augustine and Pitpo the other Augustine the Canterbury, you don't find the Vatican one attitude and mindset. And just like with the Church in France, you know, the tradition there is to not have the philioque to recite the Creed the traditional

So the Orthodox Church broke with the Catholic Church in ten sixty six, Great Skins every.

Ten fifty four, ten sixty six is the Norman invasion, that's right, that's.

Right, my bad, So no communion between the two.

However, the Church of England only broke away and broke communion with the Roman Church in the fifteen hundreds.

You miss, You miss what I argued though. My argument was that the faith of England prior to ten fifty four, prior to ten sixty six is the identical synodal faith that does not confess Philly oakuay and does not confess papal teachings until later down the road when that's enforced upon England. That's what I'm saying.

Okay, So your argument is that the Norman invasion is the primary force.

That's one period, right, Well, that's one period when you when you have phases moving in that direction. I don't

Okay, I mean, I think my respect on to that in my kind of argument hinges on the fact that they were in communion with Rome before and after.

Yeah, but so was the Orthodox Church. That how does that prove anything?

Well, it proves something because even after the schism, they still are theologically consistent with Rome.

More so than that just means that they accepted the Roman position.

Right, So it does it?

How does that prove that they always believed the Roman position when I just gave you an example from ecclesiology where they didn't.

So even before.

What is it?

So when Augustine came, there was an insular form of Christianity there and it was different in liturgical practice to.

Both the Roman right and the Orthodox right.

So I don't really understand you're misunderstanding. There's the Orthodox Church is not an Orthodox right. It is a confession about the faith, the Niceno constabulating Creed, a communion based around canons and the sacraments, and it's a decentralized, snodal church. So that is the Orthodox Church. And so the mere fact, for example, that there is no Vatican One papism in the first thousand years also proves my point.

Okay, it's fair enough.

I mean, do you understand the argument that I'm making.

Yeah, getting, I'm getting it now. I'm seeing where you're coming from.

Uh yeah, that's I mean, that's why my Twitter handles amateur meditations. You know, I'm not very like learned on this type of stuff or anything, but I thought.

I'd give it a shot.

Well, that's a similar situation in France, like the Church prior to That's why you have these debates, and that's why there's things like Gallicanism is like there's this holdover of the older sinodal tradition that Papism had to conquer all the way up until the modern era, where you still have French Catholics who still have a degree of resistance to the papacy. Snag that you want to speak to that.

Yeah, So it's important to distinguish being community with Rome and even revering Rome because it's an ancient sea in Roman Catholicism even after the schism. So I'm not quite sure, but the ten sixty six state, because it's based on the idea that the paperc said that William the Conqueror could conquer. But if you look before that, you you will be able to say, look the English and arts during the eptarchies that were really influenced by Charlemaine. But

So you're already really far from Trent Vatican One and that.

Okay, Okay, I kind of see the argument everything, and I do agree that popes can't be heretics and everything, and I see where you're all coming from.

Something that I think before let me ask you question of that, because do you think that Vatican one argues or posits that a valid pope can be a heretic.

Hey, I'll be completely honest, I've never read Vatican One in its entirety.

Yeah. Well, it says that Rome is promised to be the center, the source, and the preserver of unity until the end of the world. So how you could have a defectible pope who is at the same time indefectible is to me just doesn't make any sense.

Yeah.

I mean, even in the even Peter in the Bible was corrected by Paul and everything. But I mean, you know that's.

Different than in Roman Catholic canon law. You said a heretic. Now Peter fell into error and was corrected, but a heretic in Roman Calviolic canon law is a canonical penalty, and that penalty has certain automatic things that occur taste cententia, which is if so facto excommunication, that means without pronouncement.

So my response to that would be, during the times of Israel and the kings of Israel, there were several kings that were obviously incredibly wicked and deposed.

Yeah, this is a common Protestant style Roman Catholic style analogy, and this misses the point of Pentecost. The Church is not one hu of percent identical to the structure of Israel. The kings in Israel do not have the Keroism of Peter, so you can it's a false analogy to compare that to the papacy and a lineage of popes who are bi Vatican one said to be indefectible and the supreme teaching authority for all Christians.

In the world.

That's a total false equivalent see post Pentecost.

So would the office of the Bishop of Rome become completely invalid through if one pope or another pope became a hairtaker.

Spoke heir.

I just think that the Roman Catholic position is inconsistent because it claims on the one hand that the Roman Church is indefectible, and then it also admits that there have been heterodox popes like Honoius. So that's that's the contradiction. It's two competing claims which don't make sense. About the office of the papacy. It doesn't matter whether you say that, well, the office is still infallible, but the people who hold

So isn't it correct if I'm wrong?

But isn't it that it's ex cath when the pope speaks that he's infallible, and like only when a council is actually called and he presides on.

It's not true. It's just a myth that Roman Catholics constantly say. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Ex cathedral is just one of the means or forms of pronouncing infallible dogma. But that is not all that a Roman Catholic is bound to. In fact, you are bound to all of the ordinary teaching, even the teaching that's fallible because of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff. So it's the ordinary magisterium. Yeah. Right, So, and I'm going to pull up because I'm not singling you are

Okay, interesting, I didn't know that.

Would you say that there could be a time in the future that the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox Church could come into a harmony.

Yeah, the Bishop of Rome rejected all of the thirty plus erroneous things that they believe.

Okay, all right, Hey, well, I appreciate you having me on.

Great question, all my friends.

I was gonna get dunked on, but I was going to give it a shot, you know.

So appreciate I appreciate you being civil. And it was a great conversation. And uh, it's actually refreshing to have that kind of a conversation as opposed to you know, a lot of what we get THEO what's up?

Man?

So again, I want people to understand that this is a never ending, never dying trad myth that they think that they're only bound to quote a handful of ex cathedral statements. Again, here is the list, and by the way, I've sent this to Shimoun and everybody because he says the same stuff, because he hears all bractor whoever repeat this stuff. And you know, it's funny because I don't

It's also it runs contradictorily to the historical case of trying to make because they will go into history say we'll look at every single letter sent or received by your pope and said, looky, he says this is a fort An order, and everybody obeyed, and you know, even when it's not real. Yeah, but that's the case that make historically, that's from for easam All Libara tried to make.

This case or they tried to make it with just some friendly less.

As if it's a direct rule that everybody followed, and then when they have faced with it in reality, in the real life, no I don't follow it.

What's up to you? Deal Hoxtable? What's up there on you?

Oh?

Hello, love, guys.

Log I think I've been callowing you for many years.

I'm a huge.

Admirer of yours and all of you guys and your work. I have learned so many things by your side, truly.

So my question was that I.

Read recently a book by jan Aras. I'm from Greece, and he was talking inside this book about Orthodoxy.

And it is between.

Orthodoxy and the West, and he was describing like history, mostly in some ecclesiology, and he was describing a situation where the Greek Church like started to become more Protestant, but in their fronima, not in their official doctrine.

Yeah. I have all the systematic theologies of Greek theologians from the eighteen hundreds and it reads like Thomas Aquinas or it reads like a Protestant systematic theology. Yeah. So yeah, the West and they had a similar situation in Russia in the seventeen hundreds. The West was very influential in these countries at different times. But by the way, I would not recommend Nars. He's got some pretty wild out there liberal positions.

Actually what troubled me is this, well he this book like Orthodoxy, and this book is called Orthodoxy and the West in Modern Degrees.

It has like some okay, it describes this.

This party.

Event, I mean, the protestantization of the influence by.

The worst pretty well.

But he falls victim to.

Another another issue, and that's that's nationalism.

Like he gives very much.

He totally ignores nationalist.

And he focuses on these specifics.

So I'm also wondering if nationalism is also as an ideology, like like it goes, we can't with this.

With this event with Protestantism, I mean it could. I mean modern nationalism is out of the you know, French Revolution Enlightenment ideology, so it definitely could become an idol. But there's also a way to have, you know, a Christian nation without it being an idol. Lewis, I don't understand why you're like, what did I say that's even controversial?

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't plumbing you down.

Oh okay, I thought you were like calling me out. I was like, here we go.

No, I was just disagreeing with the idea that nationalism was as in like I like Protestantism's because like the idea, okay, find like nationalism was what caused Protestantism.

But I think the kind of nationalism that has some involvement.

With Protestantism, like for example, with the Church of England, I think that's like pre Enlightenment. So I'm not disagreeing with nationalism. Post enlignment is a problem, but I think like pre Enlightenment nationalism, which is just a love for your own people and your own in group and not wanting foreign powers, which was what the papacy was influencing your like being this fifth column in your nation. I

I don't want this.

Means that we're playing real politic against him.

Yeah, right, yeah.

I think Snack has commented on I mean Francis even recently, like like Francis saying everybody in your Europe and American needs have open borders. I mean that's a subversive foreign entity.

Like well, a lot of a lot of NGOs, A lot of NGOs that fund and support mass migration are.

So called Christian, yeah, and Roman Catholic, especially Catholic charities, yeah, and other Middle Eastern nations, as I'm sure we all know. But you can support the stream via super chests there. Thank you to Lewis and Snag there for those good comments. Now, I think we have a real Catholic who wants to discuss what's up man you got an immune. Hello, Hey, hey Dan, what's up?

I am a few days ago.

I think I might have Misshargie, but I got the impression that you were saying that the logical position for a Roman Catholic would be to be set of accountais.

Well, I mean I think that both set of a constiest and uh, you know normal Novasorto Catholics are both right and both wrong. So if you wanted to be if you're talking about the Dasha debate, I was saying that if she was consistent with her critiques of Francis, then she would have to be set of a conciss.

Sure, but I think that that also touched a bit on your joint base.

Jo.

Anyway, Jay, I thank you impression that you.

Got into Roman Catholic of him and you started to question like the paper feat Thatcher.

Yeah. I had a period where I was tradcat Latin Mass doubted Vatican two absolutely.

With you consider arguing in favor of athetical countering against like a Artican chie complaining Catholicism. I mean, I know used for Orthodoxy, but I say orstdoxy wasn't an option, and you were talking to women Catholic, would you say that there should be a set of cannabis.

Well not now.

I mean I would have said that maybe in two thousand and six, But why would I Why do you want to argue with me from two thousand and six? Why not me right now?

I guess it was a really curious position.

And I guess it kind of gets into the interpretation of bacon cheese text because I actually used to.

Be a set of cantabas at one point. Oh so, yeah, So when I heard like bacon che.

Texts being described like a break in the face for example, that immediately alerted me, and I was very curious on the details a bit like, you know, it's a particular document, good points, and say this section here with break with traditional college ete.

Yeah, well, I'll give you one example beyond no stra taught there or something like that. I mean, the statements on religious liberty, freedom of conscious, freedom of worship, I would argue, are completely contrary to the medieval teaching of the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop, which in when I'm sanctum is made necessary for salvation.

I mean, I'm not not too familiar with that particular document.

For me, said come Demangentia which made some similar arguments about religious liberty.

Well, well, hold on. So it's crucial to this argument that you understand what that is. So in thirteen eighty two, thirteen oh two, excuse me, Pope Boniface the eight pronounced a famous document. It's not very long as when I'm sanctum, and it's about, on the one hand, the spiritual authority of the papers, but it's also about the universal temporal supremacy of the papacy, in that he is also the

I mean, I have read in Basancy documents.

I'm not trying to share refection, but there is an argument that the state should permit religious liberty participants.

I'm not trying to be rude, but did you hear anything that I argue?

Yeah?

Yeah, yeah.

Could you repeat what I argued?

Did you saying that in Geno Fountain there is the idea that the papacy, kim king, et.

Cetera, and.

The state is required to.

I made a Catholic.

Religion which had been abandoned in paid by Spanie.

I mean, basically, but it's stronger than that, because the unham sanctum dogma is that to be saved you must also confess the temporal power and supremacy of the Roman bishop. And with the pronunciations and promulgations of that I can choose religious liberty doctrines. That is no longer believed, nor is it required. Nor have I heard of any Roman Catholic church in the world that tells me that I have to believe in the temporal supremacy to be saved anymore.

Okay, I mean that, I mean that that kind of gets somewhere, like, I don't think by scontigue arguing.

He can be saved if church.

No, no, no, See, it's not a question of inside outside the church salvation. It's a question of the dogma of the temporal supremacy and power of the Roman Bishop was necessary as a belief for salvation in thirteen oh two, it's no longer necessary. Therefore, Roman Catholic dogma changes and contradicts.

I'd say it is necessary any gay.

So you're telling me that post Vatican Two, the Roman Catholic Church still confesses that the Pope is a world emperor and world leader and the head of all states.

That post be in that language.

They don't believe that contradiction is opposite. No, of course, it is to say that the states need to be decatholicized, and that the Church now promotes religious pluralism in modern society is the opposite of saying that you have to believe in the temporal supremacy to be saved.

I don't.

I don't think fake. I mean, if you think the states the purpose of state is chief force.

Everyone to be safe, again, that's nothing to do. Did I say anything about the state force of people to be saved? So now you're going off into red herrings and straw man.

But I'm just trying to make the connection because you're just saying that the bath can chieve permitted religious liberty.

And that's not compatible with the temporal supremacy, that the pope is the head of all world rulers. I think it is okay, Well, yeah, you can think that. And tell me where in the Roman Catholic world today you find any Roman Catholics in communion with the with Rome that teach the temporal supremacy.

A sure, sure, I mean, I get back to that.

I mean, but what I wanted to highlight them, if I may diverge a bit, was for me said counting them with Bilsom, reading bascant texts and seeing miss contradiction with the tradition of face, which kind of quite a way coming from Jay, But what I read was commentaries on bascan.

Cheat or commentaries fallible or infallible.

They're fallible, but they teach you the interpretation of the text.

So in other words, the way that romancallic dogma works is that the final arbiter, which is the infallible dogmas, now need interpretive contexts that are fallible. So what use was the infallible dogmas if I need the fallible now to make sense of it?

Well, it was infallible in the sense that the person who promagulated it meant meant it, and the debate is really about you know what.

Was meant by the question?

So infallible dogmas don't to resolve the issue.

Like that understand now?

Oh so, what use then, is the purpose of the infallible dogmas? When I thought their purpose was to solve.

The issue, Well, then they do so the issue you understand it correctly, which is the purpose of the commentaries to help you understand.

What they do solve the issue with the foul. So again, they don't solve the issue if they require fallible commentators to explain it.

Yeah, they say they sold the issue, but if you understand it correctly.

Okay, that's what's in question. So you're just repeating your position over again. Okay, I mean, look, I'm try'n to be rude, but let's let's pause it there because I don't want to have this go in a bad direction and have a you know, you know I wanted to Let's let's just stop it there because we want to be cool. Alaska. What's up man? Now, you're welcome to come back, go read some books and come back, but we're going to try to have it as cordial and

Principle.

Are you there? Can you hear me? What's up? Man?

Can you hear me? Oh?

Yeah?

I just had like a small question because I'm not sure. I am a very new Orthodox.

Cate of Cuman, and I had a question about the Coptic Church because if I understand it correctly, they were like the first schism with the Church because of the natures of Christ, right.

I mean there were prior to that. I mean thenovationists, the donutists are prior to that. But go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask about it because I was wishing this video with this like Coptic monk, and he.

Was like really cool.

I thought he was like really you know, saying some really good stuff, you know, And so I wanted to ask your opinion about like is it heretical to church or what's that?

Yes, unfortunately they're heterodox. And you can go to my channel where we have two of our ongoing series up with me Kai and David rhun As. We're walking through Eastern or semi Oriental claims. We will be back to that in the next few weeks, I think now that Kai is back from his honeymoon. Now, guys, we're looking

This is the Church.

And it says it will come to pass that when you're a multiplied and increase in the land, they will no longer say the arc of the Covenant. It will not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor will they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore. At that time, Jerusalem would be called the throat of the Lord, and the gentiles will be gathered to it. That's the Church, not flesh Israel. This is a prophecy of the Messianic era. How do we know because the

Go back to.

Ceremonial Jewish temple worship like the premillennialists and the dispensationless thing. What's up, Greg? I really enjoy your show, man.

I wanted to see if I could ask you a question.

Okay, if this is a good argument against ps.

A and p s A.

Is I understand that penal substitutionary atonement the Yeah, the sin of Adam, the sin of man in general, incurs an almost infinite wrath of the Father which Jesus has to pay for.

Correct typically, Yeah, that would be agreed with. Classical process would agree with that, guess.

So my question though, is wouldn't adam sin and even my sin also be in the same affront to the son as it is to the father?

Yes, so who pays off the son?

Well, this is a point actually that we do make against penal substitutionary atonement in that it is a dieaddic because you have this payment between two persons that neglects the third person, and by extension, it would neglect the second person as well. So yes, this is a variation on and I'm not trying to be rude or still your thunder. But it's a variation on the argument that

Jay?

I got your minute there to his book. I can't wait to read it. Appreciate that. And I've gotten the more recent edition of Asster Hollywood three back from the publisher. It's looking pretty sweet. I think it's going to be pretty good, and that will be out actually hopefully sooner than expected. You know, he had said originally anywhere from July to September might even be out pretty soon. So maybe even April May, that would be ideal. Evan, why

Knock?

Fifty knock. The Celtic Church was in contact with the Desert Fathers. Also, Vikings were Orthodox being guards in Eastern Rome. Make the connections for Calvin R. Was that the guy that was in it earlier? Brandon five dollars, Thank you for pulling the stops on my journey to Rome. Some of these things can no longer be unseen. Pope can be infallible and ahertics simultaneously, exactly me and Eugene five dollars.

Dude?

Ma?

Since ten bucks? Thanks dude?

Uh?

Lord Jays, you want to I mute? What's up? Are you there?

Can you hear me?

What's up?

Okay?

Sir? Hi?

Hey?

I was just watching your videos and going through the ps A something more similar to what the previous people were talking about, and I had a question.

I've been studying this subject and looking for like like answers and things like that. So when we say that.

There has to be a necessary split and the trend he if if Jesus was supposed to have the to get upon himself the wrath of God, how is that not how a Protestant is able to say the contrary to that matter? I was watching your video where you were explaining James White book on that matter as well. How is it that they cannot see that? And is it that obvious?

Or Protestants don't have very good trinitarian theology, so they in the Reformation they defaulted to the Latin Augustinian model of the trinity. They don't have the monarchical trinitarian model that we have, and they don't, by extension then have the right toolkit for really distinct persons, and so person kind of gets collapsed into essence or nature in the Protestant view, just like it does in the traditional Latin

Yeah, yeah, I was trying to who wrap my head on that explanation. And then I went around and look at Governor Ortland on video on that and he was trying to reconcile recapitulation with.

SPA so s A, I'm sorry, and he was saying that it was possible, that it was possible to do so.

Well, okay, So I mean that's you know, creativity on his part. But like I think Protestants don't understand that a lot of these doctrines they're not standalone doctrines, right, like the the the monarchical trinitarianism is logically and theologically connected to energetic manifestation and the Essen synergy distinction. It doesn't make sense because you can find Protestant theologians he will say, oh, actually I believe I think one of them, Robert Moray. I think he says he believes in the

Yeah, I see, appreciate your answers, thank you for everything, Okay, appreciate it.

Yeah, no, those are great questions. Appreciate you. Rolls takes twenty dollars. Roman Caloks have a Schools of Theology frame of thinking. Yes, absolutely, they think that the essence interstinction in Polemism is a school of thought. Correct. They do not understand it as essentially the sperience of all the saints, and that's why you have essentially everything all over the place with them. So you can have Roman Catholic spirituality being Margaret merri el Coquid cutting yourself with a knife

Man?

Are you there? Let's talk God? Can you break down the Son of Jerusalem and decree three that it's not semipalagian? So we don't have semi plagianism in the Orthodox Church. The West thinks that if you're not believing in operative grace or you know what Augustine talks about, they think

I mean, yo, hey, Jay.

What's going on? How you doing? Pretty good?

Pretty good?

Quick question for you.

I was watching the debate you had with Jake.

The meta law foot worshiper or whatever, and I think it was during your second rebuttal, I think he tried to bring up Father Deacon and an ass paper, and I'm more than sure he was straw manning the position, but I wanted to know where I could get a copy of the paper to read. But it essentially he was trying to make an argument that all, like all positions.

Are all world views, all all world views.

Are fundamentally circular. And he tried to argue against tag and say that it's that it doesn't necessarily make sense for the orthodox position alone.

I don't think Jake even understands what a transcendent argument is, so I don't even recall what he was trying to argue there. But you could get Father Deacon's paper by just dming him or sending him a message. So let's see, he's on Twitter as Norwegian news, so I would just message him, you know, publicly. I don't know if he has his DMS on or not, but you could do message him to get a copy of that paper. Josiah, what's up? By the way, here is a twenty minute

Okay, how's it going to, Jake?

What's on your mind?

Uh?

Yeah, So I'm an atheist and watch a few of your debates I was just wondering, could you give like a brief recap of the transcendental argument for God?

Yeah, any knowledge claim requires a certain set of categories to be the case, to be the preconditions for the possibility of knowledge, and those categories require some kind of grounding and justification and some thing that makes them all cohere together. And that being is specifically the Christian God? Sure, and how do you know he exists? Though? By the transcendent argument is one example. I mean, you're saying that there has to.

Be a justification for every belief, and for you, that justification is God.

But isn't that ob secular?

Yeah? But I believe that every worldview at a base level is self self recurring or recursive. I mean, not the atheist worldview, though I would say it is. I mean, you could try to argue for self evident principles, but you're going to quickly fall into being self referencing.

Okay, So.

Give me or do you have like any examples.

Or well, if you have an atheist worldview, I mean, are you saying then that you're a classical foundationals who believes in self evident principles?

I don't know what that means to be honest.

Well, if you don't believe that worldviews are at a base level self recursive or whatever, or circular at a paradigm level, then most likely you would believe that there are foundational self evident maxims or axioms. Yeah, okay, So two problems with that. One is the criterion problem, which is that you can't have a knowledge claim without a criteria of knowledge. But if you have a criteria of knowledge, that's also a knowledge claim, So you'd have to solve

Okay, but I mean, you know, I could say that.

Gravity exists.

How is that.

Like? How does that not?

How is that not a true statement.

Like self evidently? Well, again, I could just go to the criteria problem. If you're gonna if you're gonna say that something just is the case it's first of all, it's ad hoc. Why is that assertion of the thing that is self evident? How do we know that it's self evident? Because you need a criteria of knowledge to have knowledge claims. So if you're gonna start with that, then what's the criteria of knowledge to let you that lets you know that that's self evident.

It's the criteria of knowledge to know that gravity exists.

That the assertion is self evident. You understand there's a difference between believing in gravity and the truth of the proposition that gravity is self evident. Those are two different things.

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're saying.

So when I say the tree is brown, yeah, okay, that's an assertion, that's a knowledge claim that's different from the proposition itself having truth value. Is it true that the tree is brown? Are those higher order? It's two different things. Do you understand that?

Yeah?

Okay? So to say that gravity is self evident at the base level, that's an assertion about the external world and phenomena going on in the external world. On another level, there's an assumption that that's a universal truth claim that is the case, And so I'm asking how do we know that that is universally the case? Maybe it is, but on what basis? What's the criteria of knowledge to know that?

So we know that that gravity is real because you know, we can run experiments and show objectives.

So you're missing the point. The question is about the truth value the proposition itself, not whether gravity is going on.

In the world.

How do we know that that sentence meaningfully conveys a universal truth claim? No, did you say something because we couldn't hear you.

Yeah, I said, I know that.

So the criteria for something being true is that it accurately reflect reality in my opinion.

Okay, so that's true, that's your criteria. Fine, but how do we know that that is the right criterion?

How do we know that something being true equals it accurately reflect reality? Yes, because I mean, how else would you tell that something is true?

Well, just saying that I don't see it any other way isn't a justification. In fact, that's a fallacy. That's a fallacy of incredulity. Yeah, you're right, you're right.

Well, I guess then you're kind of going into like basically saying that words don't necessarily have a meaning and different people have like different interpretations of words.

Maybe, I mean, I mean, you can go into all these different directions because I'm just doing variations on what's called the criteria problem.

Yeah, but again, you know, you're you're kind of going into semantics, specially saying different things.

Epistemology is not semantics. There are two different things. Anyway, Look, go check out the difference between those things. Not trying to be a jerk, just saying, like, just go take a look at those distinctions and maybe that'll help with you know, we're welcome to come back. We can continue that discourse a victor, what's up? Victor? What's up?

Yeah?

What's up? Man?

Can you hear me?

Yeah? What's on your mind?

First of all, I'm a big.

Fan of what you do.

I mean, watching you a lot. I've had I had two questions. I have a cow of his friend who I'm kind of in the stalemate with.

We like arguing with each other.

Are you all playing life chess? But he's check mated you in life?

Yeah?

I just like we like debating, and we haven't been able to get past this point, which is the subject of predestination.

Like, okay, I would say so I have two talks on my clips channel that are about three hours each, and I would say just go watch those and take notes. Not trying to be rude, it's just I don't I can't rehearse the same thing over and over and over. Cleo, what's up? Guys? If you go to if you have questions about Calvinism and PSA, remember all you gotta do

Hey Jay?

Thanks for shaking my call. I think your your patients in Greece doing this is very commendable.

Hold on, how do you come to that conclusion? Because I thought I'm the meanest man on the internet, which one is it?

I never said that I'm joking.

I say that.

Yeah, I'm pretty brand new to you.

One of my close friends is a big fan of you, so he's been showing me some stuff. But I kind of got into the word about like nine months ago, and I pretty much take Christianity at face value. With like what I read in scripture, it seems like a pretty simple religion, right, It's like love your neighbor, except to Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God.

And like, well, I mean that sounds like the basics. But no, I don't think that the religion is just some simple thing of LCD what was common the nominator stuff. That's usually I'm not fussing with you, I'm just saying that's usually what evangelicals say. It's like, oh, Christiana is just you know, believe in Jesus and you know it be nice.

Yeah, it's it's what I know that this is uh, kind of scoffed that, but it's kind of what people like about what I call like non.

Denominational and yeah, you know, but I mean it's.

It's it's understandable how someone comes to that conclusion. I mean, you have versus in the Bible like James two chapter James Chapter two, verse eight. If you really keep the royal law found in scripture, love your neighbor, it's yourself.

You're doing right. I mean, like it's pretty simple.

Yeah, but that but that doesn't doesn't say that that's all there is to the religion. I mean, you're you're expected to you know in John six, if you eat my flesh, you have life if you If you don't, you don't. So you're expected to participate in the Eucharist for example.

Yeah, yeah, And I'm over simplifying it. But I'm going to get to maybe a better argument in a second here. So when Jesus was, you know, going around Juda in Galilee with his disciples, I think he was preaching like a pretty I don't want to say simple, but we're not gonna a better term in a simple message of you know, like loving your neighbor, like not putting the rich over the or anything like that.

So again I have to disagree because there are places where he says those things, like the Sermon on the Mount, but there are countless places where he also goes into great depth about the Old Testament prophecies. He goes into great depth with his parables. You know that to me does does not jibe with the idea that because there are some simple statements, therefore the entire thing is therefore simple. So that's like a parts whole fallacy.

Oh yeah, I think that's that's totally fair.

But I guess the way I see, you know, he's talking to these like illiterate like citizens, you know, preaching whatever it is he was preaching. But like, obviously after all of these teachings when he's.

Tramp, so you obviously came to Earth to save these people, these people that he was teaching to be the intention of saving, one could assume.

So it wasn't until you know, after his death at the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church kind of you.

Know, came to be and whatnot. And I just like my biggest issue, so.

We don't think that after his death the Orthodox Church came to be. So we think that Apostolic succession is the teaching of the New Testament, and so the church is founded in Matthew sixteen when he talks about the giving them the keys and you know, the ability to remit and retain sins at the end of John and then you get the statement that the institution of baptism in Matthew twenty eight and then you get the empowering

I mean, if you look it up on Google, I think it said like the Catholic Church starts some time in the first century.

But you know, maybe I'm wrong.

Well, I mean Google is not going to be like, you know, we're not under Pope Google, right, So right, the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, is who put the books of the Bible together, so you can't you can't get Bible without church.

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit you you're a lot more wise in this than me, who picked it the Bible nine months ago.

I'm still like learning a lot.

But I guess my question meant because it seems to me that a lot of these traditions that Orthodoxy claims to be, like the true path of Salvation sudn't have been achieved by those that Jesus was preaching to in Galilee and Judea and whatnot.

So were they not saved.

So again, I don't know why it would come to that conclusion, because, for example, Jesus himself attended synagogue, attended liturgical worship, attended normative Holy days and practices and fasts and the apostles. Much of that goes into the first century Church when it is set up. So we have fast days, we have Easter, we have Pasca.

We have.

You know, these celebrations. We have a divine liturgy. We have imagery like the Old Testament Temple had. So there's a direct continuity between the Temple and synagogue worship service and the Orthodox Church's worship service, even things like imagery and relics. So no, I mean even the Old Testament add baptisms that had ceremonies, that has many things that continue into the New Testament tradition. So I think that if you think about Jesus himself, Jesus himself worshiped the

Okay, So you would assume then that if the people that he taught to were saved and they were like living in practice, how Orthodox live today.

Well, I mean not identically, because in Redemptive History, his preaching to the Jews is prior to his zephyl resurrection, so they don't have the full message yet. In fact, it's not until Luke twenty four where it says that he opened the apostles eyes to see and understand everything about him in the Old Testament scriptures. So even the apostles got glimpses and they got pieces of it, but

Okay, I guess my final question I want to leave off with is getting that there's a place in heaven for people that accepts love and read scripture like love Jesus and reads scripture, but haven't been exposed to I mean, you know, I have a friend who exposed me to Orthodoxy, right, A lot of people don't have that blessing.

Perhaps, Yeah, I think Jesus for those people, well, I think Jesus is very clear that to who much is given, much is required. And you know, we don't really have the means and the capabilities of judging people who you know, have limited exposure. That's you know, we leave that to God, and God is a merciful just judge. So what we do know is that we tell people to enter the arc. So, hey, Jamie, did you met me? A double shot? Thank you? But

Quick question here?

So regarding Mormons, what would be the correct philosophical refutation if they would say that all intelligences are eternal.

Well, that would be multiple eternal entities. That would be polytheism.

What if they say that it really is not because intelligence, that there are not gods.

Okay, well you can define gods in a different way. But they actually do believe in multiple gods because they believe that Adam is a man who can become like God the Father, as can we all. So they actually do believe in polytheism. Their view of the Trinity is three gods in the sense of three distinct beings who were at one time human beings who evolved into it. So they do believe in polytheism even from that vantage point. But say that there are multiple eternal, uncreated minds, that's

Well, I mean the guy that you debated, Robert Gerd, actually admits of being a polytheist.

Well, there you are, So, I mean, the religion of the Bible is not polytheistic. In fact, there's quite a bit that's a warfare against polytheism. Sense I mean, I mean Mormonism is just like that stupid but whatever, go ahead.

Understand, But so what I should I go after the fact in terms of epistemology that if you have multiple intelligences, there's it's actually impossible for you that to ground anything.

Yeah, if you read Agentes of St. Anthonasius, his critique of polytheism is that it's chaos essentially, and the gods fight with each other, they disagree. You know, there's multiple uh, you know, competing forces in the universe. Uh, and conceivably at odds with one another. I mean, just think about it. Mormons think Jesus and Lucifer are brothers fighting each other. So I mean, yeah, I would fall prey to Saint

Hey? What's up?

Jay?

I'm an Orthodox inquirer right now, I'm god willing going to start my catechiss after Easter. But there's kind of two things I was wondering if you could help me out answer them before I'd become a cate Cuban.

You want to know how to get to colob Is. First of all, space ax is going to have to create some kind of I don't know, like traveling space church that can fly to co Ob. So probably when Elon converts to Mormon, we can solve this problem. Go ahead.

I was I haven't really gotten many good answers on why bishops cannot be married in the Orthodox Church, and I haven't had an opportunity.

To talk to my priests about I mean, it's a tradition that developed on the basis of needs of the time, because, for example, bishops constantly have to do administrative stuff and travel to various parishes. In the ancient and medieval world, that was very difficult for a person to do with family and children, and so it became easier from a practical perspective for the Church to draw bishops from the monasteries. But and this might be controversial, I'm sure that there's

I think there are some mettestations of married bishop in Russia to the sixteenth century, but yeah, in general, they were john from the monastery. It's also tied to the development and the arise as a monastery as a more important institution as the Early Church. But yeah, technically, I mean it wouldn't be canonical, but it's not dogmatic at some point.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it, okay.

And then my second question was regarding well student, I forgot it. It's something to do with bishops and being married. But I appreciate what you.

Yeah's cool, that's right, think about go you know, you can think about it and come back in if you don't too, if you remember it. What is the relationship of Colob to Earth? So I want to bring you I enjoyed Battlestar Galacta. I have to say, I mean this is like you know, nerdship from ten years ago, fifteen years ago. But it was a fun series. I mean, you know, it wasn't like maybe this was a two thousands.

So here's some goober a video on Colob and the Earth. A very interesting quote from Brigham Young that I think shed's light onto the possibility that the Earth was created first near onto Colob let's look at that and see the scriptural evidence.

I guess if you like the Dune universe, you would like the Mormon universe, right, because they're kind of like the same sort of sci fi larp world in my mind.

For that, as well as Brigham Young's quote, Brigham Young stated in the Journal of Discourses, the Earth is our home. It was framed expressly for the habitation of those who are faithful to God and who prove themselves worthy to inherit the earth. When the Lord shall have sanctified, purified, and glorified it, and brought it back into His presence, from which it fell far into space. Ask the astronomer how far from we are from the nearest of those

Brought So, yeah, there's quite a quite an elaborate fan fiction narrative going on with the Lord's a colab here. Let's see who why are women? God's living out there? Right? Gods ado with a body. So we got like Mormon, Mormons and Muslims can like you know, Solafi and Mormons could get together on this. You know, God the Father's got a body. He's up there kind of maybe flying around in like a space chariot pyramid. You know, maybe Yakub could get in on this. Let's see.

The Eldest Church teaches that their God is just one of many gods throughout the universe and lives near a planet or star called co op. It's founder Joseph Smith taught, I will preach on the plurality of gods. The heads of the gods appointed one God for us. Mormon apostle Awesome Pratt taught there are more gods than there are particles of matter. One world has a personal God, and the inhabitants thereof worship his attributes.

They're looking like Darwin over here. Look at this, We've got Mormon Nietzsche. Look at this, Mormon Nietzsche. We have Mormon Darwin right here, and we got Mormon Nietzsche kind of.

Gods stretching back into the eternities. Mormon apostle John Wister.

Oh shit, here we got Mormon Sam Hyde or aka Mormon Leon Trotsky taught that.

There is a plurality of gods is a fundamental.

Truth of fundamentally truth.

The Eldest Church teaches that their God is not the Supreme Creator mcmarly an organizer over his area.

Of the universe. Damn son, we got sci fi Lords of Cola? Did anybody watch Bylstar Galactica the Mother? Nobody remembers Lords of Cola anyway? M exposing dispensationalism, How you doing? Jiub says for two dollars that Mormons have a heresy or of succession. Checkmate, Jay, who got me slowed by wild war? Two dollars? Asked that guy if his name is James, I forgot sorry, Dave Mustard staying five dollars, wouldn't inherit to guilt make Jesus guilty of sin at

I'm also an Orthodox inquirer. I had a question about iconography.

Okay, So I was raised in a culture where you're not allowed to draw pictures of like.

Anything like Jesus or anything in heaven.

Or anything like that.

Like, how did the Orthodox justify or interpret the second Commandment?

Right? So we would agree that you cannot have idols, and the first and foremost prohibition is on idolatry of the heart. Right, So remember the law as a matter first and foremost of the heart, not just externals. So a lot of times Protestants when they hear this, or Muslims or anybody else, they think of idolatry as an external action where it's creating some kind of totem or some kind of picture. We know that that's not the case,

Oh okay, that kind of answers that question, then thank you, Yes.

I would recommend our friends over at Orthodox Shahada made a great documentary on this very question. It's called Christian Worship and the Old Testament. Every Protestant and every iconoclast minded or background person should watch this documentary. It's one of the best. We always end up recommending it. Lewis spent a tremendous amount of time on it. It's based on a couple of the texts you know that well, I didn't mention them, but it's based on Williams and

How do you know that?

So notice the shift in the argument that burden approof shifts. There's no, you can't prove there's images prior to the fifth and sixth century. H really, so you give examples of catacombs. Well, there's images, but you don't know that they were. So now you move the goalpost. Now that we prove that there were images, but you can't show it being raversed. Oh, excuse me, it was the Eucharist reverence. Yes, it was because they taught the real presence in the first, second,

Yes?

Wild Mormon captured three dollars. Mormons hate it when you call them by their temple names. Try it.

How do we know?

How do I know what their temple name is? David whatsoever? Either?

Yeah, Hey, Jay, I have a question about the second temple destruction in Mark thirteen. I heard you talk about how that's a fulfillment of the coved worship in Deuteronomy twenty eight.

I was just wondering, is that just.

In the David Chilten book or is that can you find that the Church fathers too?

No, Chris system is very explicit as our other Church fathers about seventy eight being what's happening in the all of that discourse?

Okay, do you know like what Hamley that is?

Because it was right, it's just Hombily's on Matthew twenty four.

Okay, all right, you know what is that the only one you can think of?

Christystom No, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. Mint. I don't remember specifically about Matthew twenty four, but I think so Cyril Jerusalem, I think of the Catechetical Lectures has a seventy eight reference. Saint Athanasius has a seventy eight reference for Daniel nine. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, I don't exactly remember where, but he does have a preterist person predist statements. Origin does, and I think other there's some other Eastern father references too. Now,

I know that.

For example. Oh, oh, I know another good one. Hillary Hippologists. Saint Hippologists of Rome is a very early uh prederist statement. The Didiki has a predist statement. It's either Dideki or Pistol barnabas As. Yeah, exactly. Oh, Clement of Alexandra, I didn't even I forgot. Now he's not a saint, but he's an early witness. Let's see. Yeah, No, it's not gonna look for I don't say the old website that used to be up about preterism in the Church Fathers.

Time on it.

Okay, yeah, no problem. Also, I did have a question regarding Unham's sanctum in Denzing You're it says a quote where Boniface rejected that he was trying to basically usurp phill up the fourth authority, Like what would you think of that when you bring up there, because I, like I have read it it does have like very strong statements of temporal authority. But then he also kind of tries to, like it seems in the quote he kind of tries to like pull it back a little.

Bit when he's questioned on it.

Well, I think even in the Roman Catholic system, you're bound by the dogmatic statement itself. So and you're saying

Even the Tatas poppy was obviously used to depose emperors as well, so I mean they yeah, so yeah, that's fair.

Okay, Yeah, I think that's everything.

Thanks ja.

Yeah, let's see, I'm scrolling through Lamentabilia says stuff like, uh, I know there's some of these propositions about temporal supremacy. Let me see.

In Vatican one as well, I believe I just read it recently. It did talk about how it's wrong to have the like religious liberty of Protestants as well, so I think that's also a pretty strong No.

Actually, well there's actually quite a few. There's not. It's I always forget these encyclicals. But if you get the Tan.

Books, Quanticua Libertas as well, that's it.

Yeah, there's Quanticua, there's Lamentabilli, there's Pacindi Dominici, Grades of Pies, the tenth and what's it called. It's called Popes against the Modern Errors. It has all of these, do you know what I'm talking about?

Yeah?

Yeah, that book from Tan right here, it has all those sixteen papal documents in it.

Yeah, Catholic answers response was that although they're not teaching a complete.

Religious liberty, they're just saying it's allowed. So they thought that that was a good reputation to that.

Well, I mean, that's I need a better answer to this. So here's the sixteen documents. If you don't want to get this book. By the way, here is a full Tan Books offers the entire book as a PDF. So I'll give this to you guys in the chat. But the specific papal and cyclicals and documents are Mara revalse against liberalism and and by the way, some of these will reference the temporal supremacy of the church as still binding. Syllabus of errors excuse me, that's the one I could.

Okay, yeah, interesting, all right, And.

By the way, there's more if you keep going. Besides the power of the episcopate, the temporal power that has been attributed to it by the civil authority can be revoked condemned. So you'll notice here in the twenties, not nineteen twenties, but in the twenties numbered of the document Silver Savaras of eighteen sixty four, which is attached to Vatican One, throughout the numbers twenty to twenty nine or thirty ish is still upholding the temporal supremacy ow ambishops.