Suss all right, welcome another installment of the madness and the insanity, the fun that we call Open Debate Forum. Today's topics are anything related to evangelicalism, dispensationalism in times, prophecy, nation, state of Israel, church history, the papacy, Roman Catholicism, Islam. I didn't have space to put Muslim or Islam in there, Calvinism, you name it, all those topics. First up, as Julio, if you hit yourquests to speak, I'll bring you up
and you can discuss what you'd like. That applies to everyone but Chase Haggard. Everyone else is allowed to speak. Chase Haggard is not allowed to speak. Julio. I tried adding you. It doesn't let me add you. So I don't know what issue is. So there were several evangelical guys who said they were going to come to debate. I doubt that they actually will show up, but we're gonna have fun. Nonetheless, if they don't show up, feel free to time in ask questions. Just hit request to speak.
If you have a debate topic, you're welcome to hop up. Have the microphone put me in my place. I'm really looking forward to getting demolished and smashed. I got smashed by a misfit patriot. I got smashed by Bryce and Gray and some of that crew said they're gonna come smash me today. So I'm hoping that I can come get smashed. I'm really a year to get smashed. If you now, there's some wine moms too. I sent the link to a couple of wine moms. I sent it to a Mormon woman who was talking smack.
So we should be getting some action, getting a little play, get a little bit of you know what, but.
Nobody wants to.
I don't know.
It's like I even sent it back to Donnie Darkened. I didn't realize he's a lunatic that thinks that Trump is the Antichrist. So we're talking about somebody actually even way whackier than I thought. Like when he said that the councilor and I see happened in three hundred and they created the Bible, I was like, Okay, we got we got some low tier trash on hand, but Trump
is the Antichrist. Wow, it's like even it's even next level. Dog. Well, while we're waiting for any of those wonderful intelligent beings to make their way here. Does anyone else have any topics, issues, questions, discussions? We are not on YouTube, So what would you like to talk about? Hit request to speak? If you like to come up and I will give you the microphone and you can speak. We have our first beloved speaker, who I've forbidden to speak, but I'm going to now
revoke my papal van on speaking for this person. He is now unexcommunicated from speaking, and he may now speak.
I just wanted to just wanted to come on and let people know that I'm not forbidden to speak. I've overpowered Jay with my sheer will and a force of masculine magnetism. So I just wanted to show that domineering. And I know who the Antichrist is. It's not Trump.
I mean, I don't want to get into that right now.
And we do have vegans that have seemed to there are vegans who present the pretty strong evidence that Tristan might be Antichrist. I'll just say.
That, let's let's just leave it at that. Let's just leave it at that.
You know, maybe as a child, maybe I sometimes didn't get, you know, to finish the last bowl of ice cream. Numerous times and could that be indicted if someone being the answer Christ Maybe maybe not.
I don't know.
Well, we can't exclude any evidential possibilities in this kind of a scenario.
What what's up, Hey, Jay, thanks for bringing me up. I just had a question about like dispensationalism Calvary and in regards to like Calvary Chapel churches and kind of like their connection to the intelligence Asien seasons. I don't know, maybe the CIA something that I noted, Like I used
to go to Calgary Chapel churches. I'm leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I used to go to Calvary Chapel churches and I saw, like right after the October seventh attack and when there was a major protest in the most sort of western world, like kind of like pro Palestinian protests, all of a sudden, the pastor the churche that I used to go.
To was pretty big.
He's change into his stern every Sunday. It was about the necessity of Israel, the necessity of like what what how much do you owe or your allegiance to Israel.
Or yeah, they're all paid off by various foundations and things. Tanks very well known. They've been paid off for a long time, just like John Hagey.
Yeah, and he used to sometimes even brag about the pastor with sometimes even bragged about like, oh, my connections in the intelligence seasons. He has told me that this was happening or the or like the the Arc of Noah is like on the on the in Turkey on the mountains. And then the intelligence agencies have told me because they have pictures, and I'm like okay.
And then if there's a lot of con men in the Calgary Chapel, in fact, a lot of the people in our circles, like we father Deacon and Aias was raised in Calgary Chapel and went to Cay Calgary Chapel High School. So yeah, we we we know quite a bit about that on our side. I think the CIA connection, if I recall, was Lonnie Frisbee. He's one of the early founders of the Calvary Chapel.
But what is your impression about like of them like today, Like I mean, do you think most of the other branch that was set up like that, but most of the other other other ones that were open later on, do you think they're still kind of like pretty pretty connected with the intelligence agencies, or they're like kind of like doing their own thing or b.
I would assume that they're still loosely connected. I don't know how extensive it actually is, but I mean I think they definitely push, you know, various versions of dispensationalist type views. Maybe not a full on, you know, Schofield style, but there's still like a rough dismensationalism.
They still teach, yeah, around that time, like every week. So the the the actual Sundays we will go to, they would they would do worse, buy worse. They will go to the entire Bible right and totally abandoned that, and every Sunday it will be about necessity of Israel and how much do you and how much do you always rile or the Jewish people? And I'm the glad couldn't glass this time.
Well, the reason for this, as we talked about last night, is because all of these Protestants and Evangelicals are not in the church, and they don't have the church, so they're missing the fact that the Church is the fulfillment of the typology of Israel, and Israel is divorced, as Joseiah says, and as the Book of Revelation says, when the bold judgments are poured out on the city where Jesus was crucified, that's all seventy eighty's punishments that fulfill
Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four. So all that proves the divorce of Israel. And yet God God kept the Covenant, because as Ezekiel sixteen and Jeremiah thirty one and thirty three say, the New Covenant, which is not according to the Covenant with Moses, is the covenant that fulfills all the previous covenants. That's why I second for these. One says that all the promises of the Covenant are yeay in Christ. There's no such thing as a dual covenant.
There's no separate covenant for Jews as a nation state because the nation state of Israel literally was a type of the Church. As Galatians six sixteen says, that's all I have.
Thank you, thanks for bringing me.
Up all right. Next guy raised Us says that we don't know our Bibles, and he's going to set it straight. He says, the Orthodox don't know the Bible. Go ahead, you got an unmute dog do a mixtape for us.
Okay, So first of all, you you're actually you're wrong on the account of the Jewish people. And secondly on the issue about Israel and evangelicals. I'm an Injuria and I've lived in a journal all my life. I've never had anything to do with your intelligence agency. Yet the Bible speaks for the Jewish people, if you.
Read Picks, the Bible speaks for Christianity. Hold on, what does say who does glacious threes say? Is the fulfillment of thea?
Can you come down? You mistake you guys, mickeys. You flesh out one scripture and you forget.
That literally for the previous guy ten scriptures? What are you talking about?
Can you listen to me?
The Book of Doations three? Shut up round booting you. What does Galatians three say?
The problem that you guys.
You can't even form sentences. You wanted to refute us, and you can't form a sentence.
A research on the timeline we do your books? Reaching ross was reaching off that galicians should.
Anything to do. It has nothing to do with who the fulfillment is, the timing of the writing, has nothing to do with who the talk to. This this is what these people are this is the stupidest people on the internet. That's funny. Okay, I'm.
Here, ye all right, Well I actually had two questions, but I'm I'm gonna leave with the person.
So all right.
So the other night when you were baiting the whatever whatever the guy's name was, mister Patriot, I was. I was one of the ones he was calling the sim because I just just like, just like Chase said, not not Chase Haggard, the other Chase, you know, the one from whatever podcast. Just like he said, I've seen him like on the timeline like a lot the past couple of weeks, you know, just like trying to trying to counter counter you know, like the anti Israeli stuff or whatever.
And I've seen absolutely nothing about him in regards to theology. So me and a couple of the a couple of gods that I'm sure they follow you, like, we asked, like we just left comments like do you, like, do you actually know anything as far as theology specifically? I mean, he didn't, he didn't necessarily like react to my.
Guy.
He was he responded to specifically, And that's the one that you saw where he said it doesn't matter if the argument is garbage. Uh so I kind of like we I'm assuming everybody else like kind of anticipated what was gonna happen. But Jack, you still hear.
Me you're cutting it out sort of. I mean I heard I'll drop down to come back in Nylis Nilos. You want to talk.
H mister Dyer, Thank you. I appreciate that. It's good to be on the show.
Uh.
Players finally gets to talk to him, big fan. Been following you for a few years, big fan of Alex for a very long time.
You know.
Uh, it was really pleased to see your work that you've been doing with Sam Hyde. I met him in person at one of his shows, uh not too long ago, and I, uh, you know, I mentioned, you know, hey, I appreciate the great work that you guys are doing, and uh, you know, I hope you you know, I don't know if you've orthop told him, but I mentioned to him. I was like, hey, you know, you're looking into orthodoxy. I uh, you know, I hope you continue.
To do so.
And he's he gave me this kind of strange look. He's always kind of like tearing up a little bit, and I, uh, it was it was funny. I found out after the show that there were a bunch of other Orthodox people that had gone up to him and said the same thing and asked him the same question, and you could tell that we were like, we were like styopping him into uh to Orthodoxy.
So that was.
Yeah, sorry for that for the ramblings story. I just had to share that with you. But I really appreciate art work. I had some yes, So I just want to preface this with a statement, I'm a baptized Orthodox. These are not my positions. These are positions that I'm trying to argue people out of, and I hot to
source your arguments in order to do that. And it's partially my fault because I would like read pill people before discovering the church, and now I'm like having to undo the damage I've done because a lot of the things that I used to iss, I used to hold her you know, heretical, and so a lot of this, I guess is penance on my part. So the first question I had is, so, what is your strongest argument
for refuting I guess what. I don't know if you're familiar with the whole Tartaria mud flood hypothesis, but one of the arguments that people in that sphere of thought think is they refer to what they call the little season of Satan. Essentially, I assume this is after the millennial reigin Satan is loosed for a time, and their argument is that will the you know, Christ has already come and gone, and that we're essentially the descendants of those that were left behind and and we're like in
this last season of temptation. And one of their arguments for this is it's like, well, there's no there's no emperor, right, there's no acumen a, there's no orthodox monarch really that you can point to, and that is kind of a sign of that we're in that little season and the torments that we're enduring, you know, sort of like I believe with Saint Pas he said that the trials of those living in the last days would be equal to those of the apostles, you know, sort of along that
line of thinking, what's your can I can I get your thoughts on that?
Well, first of all, I think all the Tartaria stuff is absolutely retarded in a waste of everyone's time. Somebody tying in Tartaria to the end times just sounds like next level Skitzo. So I don't even know that you could reason with people that think this way. First of all, the history of the Church is very clear in terms of things like apostolic succession, the teachings of the church fathers,
documentical councils. There's no gigantic loss of time. If if there's some of the people that if I recall, they hold to like vast changes in the in the dates and like we're missing centuries or some kind of nonsense like this Chase humoicism.
Yeah, they.
I know, Tartaria people, and it's just I mean, it's it's a it's a cool like sci fi story. I mean, you can just respond by just just explicate, like the history of Aracus. I mean, that's the same that holds the same level of justification, justification and actual historical veracity, because they're they're just saying, oh, we lost all this time,
Well how do you know that? And then there they'll make claims and reach back into this lost area of time and just pull things up and just it's just all arbitrary.
Like there's also questions.
There's also no millennial reign, like a we're not pre millennialist. You cannot believe in a literal millennium in the Orthodox Church just gets condemned as a second ecumenical council. So this sounds like a mix of like Protestant premillennial stuff with weird tartaria conspiracy theories, and it's all just pure gibberation.
Like like Chase said, it's just at hawks. So, I mean history the Church are very clear in terms of things like a succession, so there's no like hidden there's not like a missing thousand years or whatever these people say it's just crazy.
But yeah, but how do you know that.
Because what I just said, like we have the successions of the bishops, I mean, unless you want to say that a succession went away and like what we have today is all fake bishops and.
Well, and that's the thing is is you're gonna you're gonna claim this lost period of time but then still appeal to things that rely upon an accurate historical record.
It's just really goofy.
Also, I'm not I mean, I don't know that there is any guarantee that there would be some ever living Orthodox monarch. And to say that we are living after the end of the millennium, the millennium is the Church. The Church is the Kingdom. The Church is still here, so it hasn't ended or gone away. The other thing is that you need to look into partial preterism because this cures a lot of this stupid evangelical based in
time speculation. And even some of the Orthodox people and the monastics can go crazy with these end time speculations. I mean, this is pretty well known. A lot of monasteries and people go crazy. You have people in Greece saying that furbies were Antichrist. You had people in Greece saying that barcodes were the mark of the Beast. I mean, it's just crazy speculation stuff. But I don't even listen to tard target people, so I don't like, I don't
know that much about it. I think Chase is basically marrying a girl from Tartaria.
I think, well, the thing is understand Tartaria.
You need to understand the Spacing Guild and the intergalactic spice trade.
I thought you were marrying Princess Irulan from Tartaria aka Irakus. Correct.
Well, yeah, but you're not even gonna address all right, I'm just gonna mute you're gonna address anything I'm saying.
You know that in this in this space, all I do is mute people. There was a guy saying that yesterday all you do and there's mute people.
I mean I'm muted right now.
Yeah, even though the only mute button mutes everyone, which I never No one's always muted, So no space is always muted. The only muted space is the space that Chase occupies.
Yeah, that's real funny from somebody who doesn't even realize that mudflows wiped out all of history exactly.
There was a mud baptism like Noah's flood.
Well, what people don't want you to know is things in Hollywood, like like the the mud wrestling scene from from.
It's a secret symbol. It's a symbol telling us what's going on.
Yeah, that's actually a symbol telling us what happened back into Tartaria.
It was in the World Faral movie. Oh what's it called?
Yeah, hi guys, I just just real quick, I just I was wondering if I could address the concerns of the last collar and just make mention of what is it? I think second Theologians, wasn't it. Yes, that's the New Bible. Hold right where he talks about you know, there's so many New Testament passages. Back when when I was a Protestant, I spent a lot of time refuting these kinds of you know, nonsensical skill field type dispensational.
Arguments. And the New Testament is so.
Rich with with passages that clearly refute this talking about the resurrection.
You know, they.
Let's see, they will know whise precede those who are who are are dead in Christ, but they will rise first. You know, I I used to be really good at, uh,
you know, reat reiterating these passages. But I was wondering if Jay, if you could maybe mention some of the stuff and Matthew and second Thessalonian or second Theologians, and uh, you know, some of the other passages that just clearly show that on you know, on that last day, all that are in the grave, show here his voice the righteous under the resurrection of eternal life.
Right.
So John five, you're right when you compare that to what's in for Thessalonians about well the resurrection, it's the same thing. It's the last day. So in dispensationalism, you have two comings of Christ, which is retarded at the end of time, right, So he comes back and sets up a millennial kingdom and then he quote comes back for the for the resurrection. So it's just stupid, right, There's no two comings of Christ at the end of time. There's one bodily advent with a resurrection where we are
caught up in the clouds. That's it. And that's why Jesus speaks of the Last Day, not two last days. One when he comes back and sets up a thousand year kingdom in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices and all this nonsense, which Hebrews says is Antichrist to go back to that. So imagine Jesus coming back and setting up an Antichrist system which he wiped away in seventy eighty, which is so this is how stupid this is. But yeah, the first resurrection is baptism because that makes you a member
of the kingdom. That's when you are resurrected into you're a son of God through water baptism. This is what Jesus says about the first resurrection Revelation twenty first Resurrection, and then the second resurrection is Bali resurrection, and then that's it. There are there's no charts with dates and years and months and codes, and like all that stuff is just a bunch of evangelical nonsense. The Book of Revelation is largely about the Roman Empire and the destruction
of the Temple in seventy eighty. Thus John wrote the Book of Revelation prior to the destruction of the Temple. And that's how the book makes sense. It actually all makes sense. And that's why Neuron Kisar is neuro Caesar. When you look at when you tabulate neuron Qsar, it comes out to six sixty six. It's like the one valid biblical instance of Gamatria. When John says his name is sixty sixty six, Nero Caesar is sixty six. And guess what. There's a textual variant the Book of Revelation
and it comes out to sixty one six. And one of the textual variants, guess what, neuron Caesar also translates to sixty one six. Can go either way. Why would John write that encode? Because John's writing under the Roman Emperor, and so he's writing two the seven churches. They would be persecuted if he said, hey, the ruler person in
the churches is Antichrist. So he wrote the name as a code, as Jews often did, and Gamatria is not what idiots on the internet say about the movie PI or like trying to predict all the future, like the idiot that Jim Bob and Andrew debated Zach Hubbard. It's just the way that Jews would use and tabulate numbers. They didn't have Arabic numerals, and so Jews, just like Greeks, would use their first ten letters four numbers, and ultimately the whole system could be a number. So that's the
action origins of Gomatria. And it could also then be used if you didn't know Hebrew, for example, you could write encode, or you could write different numbers. So that's basics of history and Biblical theology, nothing to do with what idiots on the internet do with.
Like I put in the Hitler in the Demitria code, and it told me he's gonna be the Antichrist, all this nonsense.
Yeah, thanks, I really appreciate that. Yeah, it's that's a pretty thing to refute. It is, and it just astonishes me.
I mean, I personally know people like Hebrew roots type people who literally believe a lot of them, a lot of Evangelicals literally believe that Christ is coming back to establish an earthly kingdom for a little literal thousand year reign in Jerusalem, is going to reinstitute the animal sacrifice, and if the nations of the earth don't come and
participate in that animal sacrifice, they won't get rain. That's why, that's why it seems to me that this would be the perfect recipe to completely deceive uh, Protestants and Evangelicals into accepting sure, some kind of anti Christ reign in the future.
I mean, it's it's the absolute perfect recipe.
You couldn't come up with a better prescription to deceive you know, these uh, these people.
Yeah, it certainly could play out like that. That's why we have to stress, as I often do that every time some want well, almost every time someone Tennis quoted the New Testament, it's not quoted about the end of the world. And this really ends all pre millennialism, right. Premillennialism is based on the idea that the Kingdom of God starts when Jesus returns to set up an earthly
structure in Jerusalem with a new temple terrain. Okay, they think that because they think the famous Messianic psalms on one ten, Sit in my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool is about the Second Coming, But every time it's quoted in the New test someone about Christ, it's about his ascension. So they're confusing the ascension with the second Coming. Super fundamental, obvious mistake. And this is
precisely why they don't understand that the Church is the kingdom. Well, what does Jesus say to Peter, you are the rock, I will give you the keys of the kingdom. That's Peter's role as the corfeus, the mouthpiece of the apostles, not pope, not Vatican one stuff, just the mouthpiece of the apostles. The Orthodox term for Peter is the corfaeus, Greek term for the mouthpiece. He's the mouthpiece of the apostles. He's the symbol of the apostles because of his confession.
But Jesus says the same thing in Matthew eighteen to the entire College of the Apostles, which that guy said thought was a university. The College of the Apostles just means the entire group or the entire synod of the apostles, and they're said to also have the keys of the kingdom. Keys of the kingdom means the ability to preach, to remit sins, and to offer the sacraments. That's what the
bishops or the episcopate do. The episcopate is a Greek term that used multiple times the New Testament for the successors to the apostles. If you read Timothy, Paul lays his hands on Timothy, tell Timothy to do the same thing for his successors. So there's a direct Apostolic descent, which is mirrored on the passages in numbers eleven and other attacks in the Old Testament. When the laying out of hands passes the Holy Spirit, it's no longer an
ironic biological priesthood. It's now a spiritual priesthood of the Church, which is a fulfillment of the ironic, livid priesthood. It's the Melchizdukian priesthood, which Paul says that hebre was seven is superior to the ironic. So everyone who wants to go back to temples, animal sacrifices and all that is negating the Kingdom, negating the Church, negating the history of the Church, and going back to something that is retrogade, and is the type you're forsaking the fulfillment for the
type that's so stupid. This is all right open for anybody else who wants to talk about it. We can go to any of the text you want hit request to speak. I'll bring you up great points there from Paul. And I know this too directly because when I was eighteen nineteen twenty when I started reading the Bible. I still have my prophecy I think I have. I have my Schofield Study Bible. I don't have my Prophecy Study Bible, but I'm looking at my Scholfield study bubble right now.
So I went through all this. I saw it firsthand. I was raised Baptist. I know all about pre tribulation rap sure in the end times. I used to be a pre millennialist. I used to argue for all this stuff. And then when I understood that all the covenants are not contrasted and planned bees, but they're all the same Covenant, and that salvation was always in Christ, even in the Old Testament, and that the millennial reign quote unquote begins when the church is set up. That's it. This whole
heresy falls away. And then when you understand partial preterismthew twenty four, it's over all this heresies is done. What you would think is obvious if you just read Galatians and Hebrews. But you know, I don't think. I don't think. Actually, most of these evangelicals that think that they're like super Bible based, they don't actually know what the Bible teaches like they're literally ignorant of it. But they're always touting their Bible knowledge. Like that guy that Nigerian got earlier.
You Bible ibra da? Are you gay? Why do you nothing with the baboo? Who wants to come up see here, request to speak? I'll bring you up, baby. I think I've got book over here. If you disagree, if you'd like to come to the head of the line, if you'd like to discuss.
Bible prophises. Who wants to talk about Bible prophecies and the blood moons of Israel friends, the Bible teachers, the pretipulation and rupture.
I could do a really good fake preacher voice. By the way, I can even do it, John Hagen. If you want blood moons of Israel, we don't have any blood moon promoter promoters. What about any moon moonpie promoters. Anybody believe in moon pies. I know John Hagy does it. Definitely believes in the moon piths. No one, No one wants to come up and discuss. There's no defenders of this stupid theology. By the way, in Hebrews, that's why Paul cites someone ten in Hebrews to prove this point.
Sit at my right hand, so I make your enemies your frystal right, So kingdom is now hushed tones and then David hushed and then David Yo, what else?
Yes, sir, question about the prophecies from the Old Testament regarding Israel. That's say I will come back to its land. How would you interpretuce?
If you read the Book of Acts, those passages are interpreted as the event of Pentecost. So the Jews in the land right at the time of Pentecost. Peter says that the rebuilt tabernacle of David is the church. The joined together two six that Ezekiel talks about is the church. Read Ezekiel sixteen. It's the same passage. Excuse me, It's the same topic as Jeremiah thirty one and thirty three. So when Ezekiel sixteen says that Syria and Sodom will come into Israel and be a daughter of Israel. How
could Syria be a daughter of Israel? How could they be together in a covenant? The only way they can be together in a covenant is the fulfillment of all of those promises in Pentecost, which is the reversal of Babel, which is the kingdom, which is the Church, one Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism. Thank you. Yes, if you look at Peter's sermons, Stephen's sermons and acts literally explain these things. Okay, thank you for having me here.
What's up, David? I'm you, David. Where'd you go Christmas? Rex? Yeah? What's up? Man? Yeah?
Like, what about the non denominational churches?
Are they?
I mean, it's kind of like up in.
The air whether they're like dispensationalists or not dispensationalists. And I just wanted your your thoughts on on the non denominational movement and if dispensationalism is spread throughout those churches, because I have no idea.
I'm I don't know the extent, but I'm sure it's everywhere. I don't but I have no idea how expansive.
All right, well, I'm not here to defend dispensationalism.
So uh huh do you want to defend Catholicism.
I'm not a not really a theist.
You're not a theist? Do you have catholic in your bio? What do you mean?
Yeah?
I mean I'm not you know, I'm not apologetic or anything like that. Uh, Catholics are those, you know, the one true faith?
How do you know if you're not, if you're not able to defend that, how do you know?
What do you mean if you're not.
Able to defend it?
I'm just not very good at debates and stuff like that. I don't, you know.
I read a lot. I came back to the faith. I have a lot of Protestant friends. Catholicism seems like the the most true church, I mean ever founded by Christ.
Well, but what how do you know that?
Like?
What are the what are the main arguments you think make it true or the one true faith?
It's the rock in which the church is built. I mean it was Orthodox.
The Orthodox Church believes the exact same thing about the Yeah.
Okay, yeah, I don't Yeah, I mean to me, I'm not you know, I don't care if you're Orthodox or Catholic.
I think those are are the so I don't have to be to be well.
The one true church is the you know, the Church, the Apostolic churches, you know, Orthodox to the Church. I don't know, man, I'm just I'm Catholic. I'm culturally Roman Catholic. If I was born in Greece, I probably do.
Usually it falls back on a cultural thing, which has nothing to do so if I'm if I was raised a Buddhast, is buddhism't true? No obviously, okay, So what you're born and what you're raised has nothing to do with which one's true false? Right? Uh, it doesn't know, Okay, So it's doesn't matter if a person's born in Greece or if they're born in Ireland as to which one's career, you.
Know, I, like I said, I don't know, Okay, fair enough, I'm Catholic, Spaghetti, I'm new.
Hello.
Yeah, hey, Jay, I saw you Patriot and I thought it was really funny, but it actually made me kind of sad because my mother is a dispensationalist, and she's very stubborn and not like the brightest bold and when I saw you debating him. It made me, uh, it kind of just reminded.
Me of that, and I was wondering if you had any sort of arguments I could tell somebody who was not bad faith like that, but also just a suburb you know, kind of disconvinced.
But this is a bullshit.
You know well, I mean, if they're not going to listen to, like, you know, the texts that talk about the divorce of Israel, I don't know what would be convincing. I mean, Matthew twenty one. If the Parable Divine Dressers Jesus says towards the end of the Parable that the Kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, and that means, yeah, I show the largely gentile church. So if they don't understand that's the divorce of Israel, Like, what does she say that is?
Dude, I couldn't tell you.
Her explanations hinge on like emotional, you know, Hamas's bad kind of arguments. So it's just really sad, to be honest.
The only reasons I have to do with them, I'm not making exactly exactly.
The only reason I'm even asking you is kind of because I figured you'd get a laugh out of it, but like.
There's really no hope.
I'm guessing right, Well, I don't know. I mean, you know, it just depends a lot of times. We can't like debate our parents into a position. I mean, my mom is still influenced by this sort of Baptist dispensation and stuff too, So it's just not really probably going to go anywhere if you're trying to convince your parents of a position, because parents are never convinced by like a child arguing with them, even if the parents are wrong.
So well, my dad's argument that I'm older than you, so I know what's more true.
It's just from the ultimate boomer age card, Like every boomer pulls this, you know age cards.
Yeah, it's like true in everything I tried to talk to them about, whether it's geopolitics or anything. They're just like, well, you know, I was around when we had to hide under our desks for the nuclear drills, so I know that we can never be friends.
I've heard the boomers. They like it's like one boomer says this, and then the rest of them like repeat it, Like what does hiding under the desk for a new Cup to do with anything, anything to do with like good argumentation or like it's.
This Yeah, media, you pretty much know you know exactly what I'm talking about, and I figured you could get a laugh out of it. But it really is sad at the end of the day. Man, then we just have to pray for these people, you.
Know, really, yeah, I mean, if they can't read Galatians in the Book of Hebrews, both of which are written to refute this very error, which was one of the earliest errors in the Church, and if they can't read Acts fifteen and see that, you know, the Church obviously decided that Gentiles don't support and keep Jewish traditions. I mean, I don't know what to say other than just I don't know, like, uh, has sony did you want to? Yeah? I guess, just love your parents instead of trying to
debate with him. That's one thing I've learned.
Uh huh, all right, cool, let me make sure can you still hear me?
Yeah? All right, cool? Just making sure.
All right, So I'm actually gonna switch out the question I had earlier. I guess there's been enough you know, discussion about the whole misfit patriot things so I'm gonna just move it, move that along. Can I ask you a Can I ask you a political question, like specifically about Trump.
Well, let's ask the misfit patriot question first, because it's still relevant because apparently there's way more uh you know, dispensational minded evangelical people out here than I expected.
Well see, I will. I'll basically just skip to the end of it then. So all right, so at the very at the very end, like sense, right before, right before you, right before you booted him. You know, when he did the whole he did the like retar voice thing. I'm like, he didn't he didn't finish it, but it was it was clear as they what he was about to go into was was just arguing numbers with you. So he like he was getting ready to say, I know, he spent something out like however many yeah, yeah, of
that type of thing. So like that's that's that's pretty much all of us. Well, I guess it really wasn't a question. I was actually just gonna make a point that I've seen him, and I saw some and I saw I saw like all up and down like his you know, his replies or the people that actually still agree with him after after even watching it, Like, I don't understand how somebody could see that and then still side with them.
But you know, they're well, I mean, I don't even know what that's supposed to prove that So what just a bunch of Protestants have an erroneous view about in America, about theology. I mean, all that, that's all that proves it's just a fallacy. First of all, that the majority make it true.
Yeah, you see, but that's but that's like, that's I actually wanted to see, like whatever whatever he was gonna say next, because obviously it was gonna be places either way. But regardless of he just appealing to killing the majority
of you. So I'm thinking that he say, since they're that many many people that agree with him, like I guess the ironically enough to be an argument that left his shoes all the time against us, that since there's x amount of people that agree with his position, ours doesn't matter.
Because yeah, well yeah, I think what people when people when people do that, they're looking for rhetorical points. They're trying to score points to the audience to where they're forcing you to say that the majority are wrong and so therefore you're being divisive and this kind of stuff, that's what he's going for.
There was something he something he did earlier in the debate where he was essentially just trying to be tangentially correct about stuff. I think that's even I think that's way worse than like people that just try and like appeal to majority, like you know, being what's the worst. But it may it may even be equivocation, not just being pedantic. But yeah, that's that's pretty much. That's pretty much all I was gonna say about.
Okay, you know what, what did you want to say about Trump? All right?
So, and and I like, I'm not sure if you said anything about this recently. I tend to catch every single stream.
I don't.
I don't normally catch the spaces unless they're also, you know, like on YouTube. So you may have said something about it, and I just did, and I just missed it. But obviously I agree. I'm glad he's doing the whole, you know, a bit cool thing. I'm not like Pepe the Frog, if you you know what I mean by Pepe the Frog, I'm not. I'm not a doomer when it comes to Trump. I don't think he's I don't think he's sold. I don't think he's some.
I don't.
I don't take it that serious as far as it as far as it comes with Trump or whatever. So I honestly like my question it kind of just BOI was up, like, how do you how do you feel
about like how he's done so far? I guess in the in this current administration, because I do I do agree as far as like with Pepe or whoever, anybody, anybody has been like kind of like kind of shipping on them for the past couple of months, Like this whole Israel thing is is completely it's completely going overboard, like not just the support, but it's just it's like a complete disregard of you know, like us over here, not just him, but obviously every single person he has
up and down his cabinet is absolutely ridiculous. But I just I just wanted to get your opinion on that because I think one of.
The biggest mistakes is that it's all staffs, people of this very evangelical mindset that we're talking about. I mean, making that ridiculous con man woman the faith and value as a woman or whatever she is, that paula TBN clown I mean, that's a huge fail, but I would say that, you know, it's all the other stuff he has done is at least way better than I would have hoped for. So, you know, I just when good things happen, I'm like happy because I expect the worst
in politics. So when ever there's anything good, I can just be pleasantly surprised because I expect the worst. Let's see doctor Pete and then we'll go to some of the people in line. We go to seven people. You got I'm your dude.
Oh hey, Jay, they must be a little bit of a delay, can you hear me?
Now? Yeah?
Hey, A quick question for you. I thought it was just brilliant insightful about this. This numeric number of six one six or six sixty six has a time stamp. I just want to explore that a little bit more, double click on it. Based on that reference, then, what can you say about events and revelations that are exposed sort of following that passage before? Like, is there anything else that you would correlate with with references of kingdoms
on Earth? I mean, was I always was thought that Constantine, the greats Vizantium was a thousand years on the ground, But no, I just wanted to hear more about what your thoughts were on that.
Well, I mean, I don't I don't know that I could specifically identify events after that passage with specific events in Church history, because I think that many of the events in the immediate context deal with Nero Jerusalem and the destruction of Rome. I'm excuse me, the destruction of Jerusalem. So I think that the whore that aligns with the beast is the high priest aligning itself with Rome, for example,
the Crucifide Christ. That's why the city in Revelation is explicitly said to be the city where Jesus was crucified. So I mean, I think John left us no doubts as to who and what the identity of the city is. It's the nation state of Israel undergoing the chastisement that is mirroring the previous defilings of the Temple, the abominations of desolations that we read about in Daniel nine and in the Book of Maccabees and in the Babylonian Captivity.
So these are previous defilements of the temple and what Jesus talks about in Matthew twenty four and twenty one are the defilement of that existing temple in his day, Herod's Temple and the destruction of that temple in seventy eighty by Titus Vespasian. So you notice this mirroring effect that occurs. There's no possibility for an Orthodox person to say that the Byzantine Empire is the millennial reign, because the Second Ecumenical Council forbids any form of killism, which
is any form of literal thousand year reign. So it's not a thousand years. That's what the Creed says. This kingdom will have no end, so it has to be the kingdom is the Church. The Church is eternal. Hence the Church the kingdom has no end. But I think that aside from a lot of the historical context of the Book of Revelation, which we can I think pen on the Book of or that's give me the time of some of the events are describing the Book of Acts.
Some of what's in Matthew twenty four is in the Book of Acts, and then that mirrors as a prototype the end of the world. So the destruction of the temple is a little miniature cosmos when the temples destroy. That's a sign of the final destruction of the entire universe. And so what happens is then mirrored at the very end end of time whenever, that is when we have the final Antichrist and his attempt to you know, control
everyone and enforce the worship of the beast. And there will be some probably apostate church, which is the false prophet in the Book of Revelation, all of which again is mirrored in the first century in terms of partial preterism. So most of the church fathers, when it comes to especially Eastern falls, Saint John Christis, sat Athanasius Cyril of Alexandria, they will interpret the passages like Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four Daniel nine as fulfilled in the partial
Predoros first century. Since so even the epistle Barnabas, the earliest, one of the earliest texts, explicitly says a post apisode at text. It especially says the seventy eighty is a fulfillment of a lot of these things. So that's my
answer that milk, Miguel, what's up? My godfather, by the way, just put together and edited a thousand page commentary on the Book of Revelation, So we did a whole podcast on that written by James Jordan and then edited by my godfather's Orthodox so he kind of tried to shape it up a little bit so that there wasn't much
Protestant influence in it. But the three volume series called Revelation Explained by James Jordan is out that my godfather edited, and it's a really cool series on days of Vengeance in the Apostle Seeing Anti Christ book from Jordan Reil Monastery, a little like fifty page pamphlet book. It's good and it makes the point that I just made the very beginning that seventy eighty is a type of the end of the world. Miguel h Gotta, I'm mute. Miguel Bathe Gotta, I'm mute. Can y'all know? Amy?
Hi?
How can you? Hey? What's up? What's up?
A question about dispensationalism. Do you need to support Israel to be a dispensationalist, because that there's like of two sides here. You have people who think that Israel is important for the end times, and then they support Israel and think that we have a mandate two. And then you have people who take like a really metaphorical view
of Revelation. So my question is what about the view that Israel is important for end times and that if you if we look at the Jewish Messiah, he actually has a lot of similarities with the Antichrist in Revelation, right because the Jewish Messiah. They believe that the Jewish Messiah is going to come down.
Okay, so some dispensationalists will even admit and believe that there will be a Jewish Messiah that will deceive Jews. But every dispensationalist in terms of the history of this movement, from Schofield Darby all the way up to you know, John Hagar whoever, absolutely believes in the mandate for Christians support to support the secular nation state of Israel. So you cannot. I've never heard of a dispensationalist who doesn't believe that. It's kind of wrapped up in the whole idea.
But no, the orthodox position does believe that there will be a future conversion of the Jews. Most of the Church fathers explicitly say this. So now that is not the two things are not equated.
Okay, thank you.
I was worried.
I was a dispositionalist, even though I'm against it.
No, no, no, So dispensationalism is this idea that from Schofield and John Nelson Darby, particularly the Scofield Bible, is what popularized it. The idea that there are a series of conflicting ways that God has chosen to work with mankind. So when Avenue failed, that was Plan A. God instituted Plan B right, the Covenant with Noah. When that failed, God instituted the next one, which is the Covenant with Abraham.
So because God said that the Covenant of Abraham is eternal, Jews think our scimun dispensations think that the nation state of Israel has what they call a dual covenant, that they have a covenant that was always with Him as a nation state. So they do not see the Kingdom as the Church. They do not believe the Church is the Fulfillment and the Telos of Israel. They think that there's two covenants running parallel. There's a God, a plan that God has for the Church which is separate from
the nation state of Israel. And then Jesus returns after the seven year Tribulation to set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices and a temple. So that's the basics of like classic quote dispensationalism all the What they mean is, in this classic sense, there's seven dispensations of different plans as to how God worked with man.
But in the Orthodox jew and in all classic Protestant views, there's only been one way to be saved in any age, whether it's Noah, whether it's Abraham, it's faith in Christ literally the only way. And so the sea that's mentioned in the Abrahamic prophecies or scim me promises of Genesis twelve, fifteen, seventeen twenty two, that seed is the Messiah. He is the Seed, as Paul says in Galatians three in Romans four, so the only way to be a member of the Covenant,
and there's only one Covenant, is to be in Christ. Hence, in Romans eleven, Paul says that Jews are grafted out from unbelief, Gentiles are grafted in, and if Gentiles don't believe, they'll be grafted out, and Jews can be grafted back in. But the grafting is to one tree, not two trees, not multiple trees. One lord, one faith, one body, one sheep, fold, one tree, one vine, et cetera, et cetera, one kingdom, and you're either enter out based on faith in Christ.
There's no dual covenant. But it also doesn't mean that there's no such thing as Jews or that there's not an as chetological place for a future conversion. David Yo yo.
Yeah, so I had a question about Saint Paul. So when Saint Paul writes to the churches and his epistles, we can see that he refers to the believers as saints as ichioi, the holy ones, which means holy in Greek.
So why does he call them holy if they were not holy yet?
Because he's intending to spur them on to what they're called to. So they have the potentiality for that, and then they're called to that. That's why he says, you have to persevere into the end.
Okay. So they have the potential to be holy, but.
Well to be what we call a saint in the sense of like making it to the end of your life and dying in Christ. Now there are people who are holy in this.
Life too, Okay, God, so these people can fall off.
Yeah, there's multiple places throughout and that's not where you're warned of.
Right, Okay, that was my concern.
Thank you.
Felt you know.
I had a question. It was specifically on christology and the hyposthetic union. And my question is because Christ, like in the an Orthodoxy, Christ shares the same nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit because he's God. And when Christ, say, for example, feels something like the crucifixion, he feels pain the how because his essence, because he's two persons, I mean his two wills, like human and
also God. And my question is, how does this human will, which I mean his divine will, which comes from his divine essence, how does the Father not also feel that since he shares the same.
Essence, Because the divine will, just like the divine energies, are uniquely actualized in each person in their own way or mode or role. So the Son has a unique role or mode according to his person or hypostasis by which he enacts and actualizes this single divine will. So even though there's an inseparability of operations, it doesn't mean that there's not a distinction in mode.
And by that same extension, how could for example, when Jesus says I am the father or one?
What does he mean by this specifically.
One in terms of nature, one in terms of pericuesis which is divine in dwelling. So they perfectly in dwell one another, and they perfectly share the same essence.
But can can Jesus also share in the attribute of like I'm trying to remember, of begetting another divine person for example?
The no, because that's what we call a hypostatic property, because that picks out one of the persons. Those are the properties that are not shareable or communicable. So the Father is the sole cause found an archae, so he alone can beget or cause another person. That's what picks him out as the father. Thus Jesus can't have that property because that would make him the father. So these
are called hyposthetic properties. But the other things that we call attributes or operations or energies, those are the things that are common to all three persons. And as the Cappadocians teach, there's nothing in God that is between two or just excuse me. Anything that God has is either a hyposthetic property proper to one person, or it's a common attribute common to all three. That's it. So like love a lot of times you'll hear like Roman Catholics
say that this Holy Spirit is love. Now, the Holy Spirit, just like the Father and the Son all have the attribute or energy of love. So operations or attributes are not persons. Do that makes sense? Yeah, So it either has to be It either has to be a property of one person, like the cause is the Father, or it's something that all three share, like love, glory, omnipotence, et cetera.
If because I come from a sort of Muslim background, that's why I asked, because I sort of struggle with understanding. But if the Father, for example, has the he only has he he alone has the property of begetting another person does wouldn't that make the Father a different grade of divinity in the in the sense of the divine nature.
Because that's why it's a property a person and not nature. So being the cause in the Godhead is what picks out the person of the Father. It's not a property the divine nature. So again, the first point that you want to understand in our theology is a distinction between nature and person. Nature is what's common and person is what's particular or what individuates. So I'm the person Jay, you're the person, Bob. Personhood picks or hypostasis picks out
the individual, the subject or the agent. The nature is what is what picks out what's common between us. What's common between you and I is human nature. So if you think about a father and a son, a father is greater than the son in one sense, in that he is the cause of the son, and the son submits to that father in terms of his role of authority. And this is why we call it monarchical trinitarianism in
the Orthodox Church. But if you notice between a father and the son, even the human example, the son doesn't have more human nature or less human nature than his father, even though his father is the source and his father has authority over him. So in the same way, Jesus says everything he has he receives from the Father in the Book of John. But that doesn't mean that anything that he has is lesser, because as the divine nature,
it's common amongst all three. There's no such thing as levels or degrees of divine nature.
Okay, in that sense, with the Jesus also receiving because Jesus, because I see a lot of people like I don't know what's your position on Jesus Jesus not knowing the hour, but is it specifically him also receiving that knowledge from the Father as well.
It's a use of rhetoric, just like when he says that there's no one good.
I was I was going to ask you specifically, because I remember one time a Muslim gave me the argument that it's the distortion of the text and the apparent meaning of the text, because when he says only the Father is good. After Jesus says that to the man approaching him, the man stops calling him good.
No, it's again, It's just it's a common technique in the Gospels to use rhetoric. Jesus says, cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. Okay, he's not telling you to literally cut your hand off. That's just an exaggerated rhetorical statement. In the same way, he says there's no one good but God well, but he also says that the good Man of the good treasure of
his heart, brings forth good things. So is he contradicting himself. No, I mean, if you read the pastes where it says that not even the son of Man, if you go a few verses down, the apostles say we know that you know all things. So even within the very passage, it still ascribes omniscience to Christ because he has a divine nature, as you pointed out earlier, but his human nature did grow in wisdom and knowledge, and so there
is an element of mystery there. But it's not a contradiction because Jesus is a divine person with a divine mind with omniscience, even though the human nature did grow.
Is there a way for because typically in the way as a Muslim conceive wills and natures is how can it not be that a person with two wills, divine one and the human one, how can it not make up two persons?
How a property of nature and not a property of person. This is what I was saying earlier, is that fundamental to Trinitarian theology and Christology is the distinction between nature and person. And you would be correct if will was a property of persons, but it's not. It's a property of nature's and hence in the trinity there's one will and three persons. But good questions. I appreciate that. Tron, What's up? And then we'll go to truth and emulator and ultra kool aid and David, I'm you.
Hey, So I just had a quick question of hoping you'll settle a debate between me and another guy. But when you are doing the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, when you're taking the Eucharist, do you participate strictly in God's energy or do you or do you participate in His essence? Or do you believe that the essence is present?
No one participates in the divine essence, and no one believes this, not even Roman Catholics. What you're partaking of in the Eucharist, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria says, is his applied flesh. And Cyril says in the Two Letters to six Census that is the uncreated grace and immortality and power of God that deifies the flesh of Christ. In other places, Cyril calls it the energies. So it's not in either or you're partaking of the deified flesh, including the uncreated energy of Christ.
Okay, but I guess do you believe that the essence is at least present?
Well?
The essence energy distinction is fundamental to all the Christian mysteries, and so we believe in apathetic theology, which means that you never see or partake of the divine essence. Nobody teaches this, not even Roman Catholics, not Protestants, not Orthodox. So even though the divine essence is present in some sense, you're not partaking of that because no one sees or partakes of the Divine essence. We would be persons in the Trinity if we took particular the divine essence. That's
why there's the essence entergy distinction. And according to Saint Basil that the energies come down to us, but the essence we do not know in Letter two thirty four. So in the Eucharist, the same principle applies. You're partaking of the fullness of divinity and yet not the divine essence. So it's not in either or, it's a both, and that includes the notion of mystery. Hence the mysteries.
Gotcha. Thank you for settling that. I appreciate it.
It's a good question. And also, like you know, when Christ is present, the divine hypostasis of Christ is what becomes incarnate. It's not technically speaking, the Divine Essence that became incarnate. It's a divine person with the divine Essence who became incarnate. And that's why in the Icon Council it says very clear as day, when we pick out Christ and the icons, we are not drawing an image or circumscribing the divine Essence. We are picking out and
circumscribing the hypostasis of the sun. And that's the divine hypostasis. As the council says, John, what's up? Got un mute? John? Hey?
Sorry about that. So a question for you. I was raised I would say dispensationalists didn't know it at the time, but I'm just now sort of had an experience. I believe in God now. But if you were to set about, you know, learning about the Bible, is it enough to just take each book and know who the author and who it was written to and read through it for yourself to come to this realization.
Realization of what.
I'm sort of sorry. I just followed you, and it sounds like it sound like you're coming from more orthodox side of things, maybe Catholic.
Yeah, Orthodox Christians are.
Okay, And I did hear listening to one of your previous things, you said that Protestants, which I would say I was raised Protestant are heretics. Is it possible to be a Protestant and not be a heretic based on certain things you believe? Or do you have to be part of a unbroken of the original Church.
Protestantism is a public confession of a specific body of teachings in terms of classical Protestantism, like the Five Solos. So the five solo is constant to what it means to be a Protestant historically classically. So if you confess that, that is immediately at odds with multiple teachings of the Orthodox Church, the Early Church, the Ecumenical Councils, the Icing Creed, et cetera. So to reject the Nicing Creed is to
place oneself outside the bounds of classical historic Christianity. So, yes, Protestantism has a confession is heterodox, But that doesn't mean that I'm judging every single individual Protestant thing. You're going to Hell, You're damned. I don't know people's destinies, and we're not told to people's destinies. God is the ultimate judge of that. But we have the duty to tell people that you do have to come into the Orthodox Church.
Because Paul says there's one Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism.
Okay, that does make sense now, So it seems like in the Orthodox Church they sort of promote like you're not individually learning the scriptures by reading it on your own, you're coming up through.
The church.
And so I guess that's well, an individual can read.
The scriptures and learn, but an individual also can misinterpret the scriptures and come to all kinds of crazy conclusions. So it's not that you can't do it, it's just that it has to be done in the context of the mind of the church, which is the mind of Christ.
Okay, right, And coming up through the Orthodox Church, is that how it's taught pretty much just knowing the context or the history of the book, who it was written to, and what time period.
Well, actually, no, I would say, I mean all those things matter. They're definitely part of Exegesus. But for us, the Bible is a liturgical document, which means that it's meant to be heard throughout the year in the readings in the church of the liturgical cycle. And that's because just like Judaism, Christianity inherited the Temple Synagogue system of daily readings electionaries, et ceterup and liturgical worship. So the real setting in context and milieu is within the liturgy.
But that doesn't mean that an individual can't read the Bible. It's just not the main sort of setting for the Bible. But good questions. I appreciate that truth matters, gonna unmute truth matters.
Hey, Jay, how are you doing?
Good? What's up?
I had a specific question I had asked you before, but you didn't respond, actually blocked me. Good faith question on what your view on why full pretterism is not found biblically and I'm not using the creeds, not referring to church history just from scripture.
Why, well, there's no such thing as just referring to the scriptures because you don't have the scriptures. First of all, explain, well, you don't have the right Bible, So why would we listen to you about the interpretation of the book when it's not your book and you don't have the right list of books.
I mean, I'm not I'm not denig rating the role that the Church fathers did. I'm just saying specific, but the.
Church fathers determine what books go in the Bible, So how can you when that's prior to the Bible. How can you toss that out as secondary when it's prior to the Bible.
Well, I mean people can be infallible, just as you know, the Apostle has gotten arguments themselves and they didn't agree. And so specifically, I think I saw you mentioned on YouTube that, for instance, the events of seventy eight AD were a type and shadow of the destruction of the world, which I don't see that in scripture.
I don't see where it mentioned.
But it doesn't matter what you think is or is an a scripture because you don't have the right paradigm or the right scriptures. Again for the second.
Time, even using that, even using the scriptures that the Church fathers and all of the Orthodox people, which I have no problem with the Orthodox Church, it's specifically aschatology I've never heard or.
We do have a problem with the Orthodox Church because if you don't believe in the Second Advent, in the bodily resurrection as a universal cosmological event, you're heterodox and you're not in the Church. You're not even a basic Christian.
Not necessarily because necessarily, because the.
Church teaches that you have to believe in the Second Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection.
I understand that.
So you don't believe in the body resurrection.
I believe that the resurrection from hades A hadan resi resurrection.
Stop redefining the terms in the sense of what the Niceno Constantapolitan Creed says. You don't believe that. Therefore you're not within the bounds of historic Christianity. You're not a Christian.
I know that it's not in the bound.
Thank you. So you're having and you're not in the church exactly, But you have to.
Understand what I'm saying. The Nicean Creed takes its statements from Matthew twenty four and any partial preterist.
All right, enough of that, human I'm you. These people are idiots. I mean, Paul, it's like you cannot deny the Bali resurrection and call yourself a Christian. And Paul says very clear a today that all humanity will be resurrected in one Christia is fifteen on the pattern of the extent of Adams Sin. This is why all the wicked are also resurrected. And so that's not even we're
talking to these people because they're literally Manicheans. They actually think that history, evil, et cetera, continues on for all eternity. They actually think that the Second Coming and the Resurrection have already happened. They're literal gnostic Manichean heretics. And you heard him admit it too. He doesn't believe the creed human emulator. Hey, Jay, can you hear me? Awesome?
Thank you so much for doing these.
It actually is very helpful. I just found your.
Channel from this guy who's Catholic, I think, but he's thinking about the very orthodoxy, and so I've only gotten a to watch a couple of year debates. But I was wondering, what are the best arguments you hear specifically from atheists, because I used to be an atheist until I converted that like are logically coherent both against like classical theism, then to Christianity than to Orthodoxy. Specifically, if you could go through those or if that's too.
Bad the top for evangelicals, dispensationalists in times, Catholic Protestants, so not be need to be rude is not the topics today, totally, Dallas, what's up? Got one? Hey? Jay?
How's it going?
Yeah? What's up?
Yeah?
I was just wondering if the Orthodox Church or the Fathers actually taught like how the conversion of the Jews has played out, because I know a dispensationalists believe about it.
But I don't know. There's no specifics. We don't know exactly how it happens. All right, question Ultra Violet? Are you there?
Hello?
Hey?
Okay, So I had a question about Zachariah fourteeneen sixteen?
Is that talking about a physical reign of price on earth and.
Orbout that it's a present reality in the church?
Okay, Okay.
The nation's having to go towards Israel to celebrate Israel is the escalations.
The celebration is the liturgy. What does Act sixteen say, sixteen? What does Act sixteen say is the tabernacle.
Church?
Are you there?
Oh?
So there you go? So yeah, the Tabernacle of David that has rebuilt is the church according to Acts sixteen. So Zachariah is fulfilled in the church.
Okay, thank you.
The meal that everyone's eating is the liturgy.
Graham, Hey, j can you hear me?
I was just listening in and hearing you argue with that other evangelical I grew up evangelical man a night, and I'm.
In the coming line going to be starting to go to an Orthodox perish with my wife done.
But mostly from listening to your stuff and your debates and stuff, we're kind of that tipping point.
Anyway. One of the things I was going to say and suggest when arguing with Protestants and evangelicals, unless you can get them to admit to some sort of relevance of church history and like drawing.
Ideas of how to interpret the Bible from early church fathers and stuff, it's really no point in arguing from a biblical basis.
Because that's why, because they're just they're never going to change.
They're just going to disagree and say, well, that's not my inter.
And they're going to throw a bunch of other verses that contradict whatever you're saying.
So yeah, exactly, it's just like a big quote mining game basically, and whoever has the most verses.
Yeah, that's why the whole purpose of undercutting at all with the Canada Scripture shows that the Church is prior to your interpretation of scriptures. The Church determine what goes in the book.
Well, and that's why none of these spam Protestant SOLA scripture accounts like these goofy people like autocorrect or Sola Chad will ever join VC or have a Twitter Space debate because they know that if we don't allow them to just spam random Bible versus that they can go nowhere.
Yeah. Also a lot of these accounts are fake grifter accounts, like that woman from a few weeks ago, that Patriarchy woman that looks to be a fraud account. So there's no telling how many of these evangelical accounts are also probably grifters or fake ass dumb rappers.
Yeah, there's no telling how many of them are mine, And so people shouldn't dig into it or ask any questions.
We should change the topic.
They're all chases socc accounts. David, Yeah, what's up, guys, what's uh? First? Yeah, I just want to say I appreciate all the work you do.
You really helped me get out of prostantism, which is great.
Cool.
Yeah, And I actually did you know it's funny that you guys were just talking about that, you know, just the machine gunning that.
They do a Bible verses where they're like, well look at this, look at this.
It's actually just dealing with that.
Have a reform buddy, and it's like it feels like you're just kind of talking to a wall at that point.
Yeah, because it's like no matter how many Bible.
Verses one quote, it's like, well look at this Bible verse, this refutes you.
And then they just like spit out like another two or three.
Then it's like there's no point.
Just like the last guy say, it's like once you go back to like the presuppositions and like, okay, well how did the early fathers interpret this?
Like how did they read that?
Then it's like it completely refutes them, and they're like, well it doesn't really make sense to but on what This has nothing to do with the question I had as far as like penal substitution is there?
Do they have any good argument for that? Because it seems like when you kind of point out the error in the penal substitutionary toment, there's like no wiggle room there. Do they have like a good argument for that.
It's just what they read into. By the way, earlier I said Acts sixteen, I meant to say Acts fifteen sixteen, where Peter says, after this, I will return and rebuild the fallen tent or Tabernacle of David. I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, which Peter interprets as the resurrection of Christ's body and the Church. So it's not a prophecy necessarily of the nation state of Israel. Two thousand years later, I was saying Acts sixteen earlier, and
it's Acts fifteen, verse sixteen. That's why I wanted to stress that in case somebody's listening and heard me say that about the Tabernacle of David. Anyway, Also, remember that throughout the New Testament the word, when we see word, Protestants assume that it's referring to written texts, and Peter and Paul identify their preaching and oral teaching with quote the word. Also, the Word is a divine person and not a book in John one, so they're just equivocating
and collapsing word into written texts every time. And it's not written text every time. Sometimes it is a written text. Yes, you can call the Bible the Word of God, but also the second person, the Godhead, is the Word of God. And Jesus says, you search the scriptures because you think that it is in them that you have internal life. When is they the bear witness of me? The very verse that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees with rebukes all Protestant
sol scripture of proponents as well. And also remember when Peter says that he preached the word of God, Paul says he preached the word of God. That's oral teaching in acts. I think it's twenty Paul says he taught for three years, day and night in Ephesus to catechize Timothy in the church at Ephesus. And how much do we have have a Paul to Ephesis. We have three letters to to Timothy and one to the Church of Ephesus. So did he just recite the scriptures for three years?
This is what Protestants think. It's so silly. It is if you go watch the debate that I did with me and doctor Branson versus Dale, the Protestant. I'm not trying to say it's like the best Sole scripture debate, but the reason it's so good is that doctor Branson knows a lot about Jewish history, and he actually demonstrates that although Protestants think they're following quote Jews or the traditional quote Hebrew idea, when they're solar scripturists. Jews and
Hebrews were not solar scriptura proponents. They believed in tradition as well, and they believed in a synodal rabbinical approach to interpreting and judging from the law, which is not Protestant. So Protestants are completely ahistorical, even when they try to think that they're just following the Jewish model of solar scripture, when Jews weren't soul scripture. David, he dropped off, Yo, what's up? Hey?
Yeah, I just had a quick question, can you.
So you know how Muslims they have the little dollar script and I noticed a lot of Muslims like to run to John twenty seventeen, Right, my God and your God. Does the Orthodox believe that Jesus had a God before he incarnated or that's only when he became human?
The Trinity existed from all eternity. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, as John one says, and the God that he's referring to is God the Father. And that's why the Orthodox Church teaches monarchical trinitarianism, which identifies the God or the one God, with the person of the Father.
Okay, so it's not actually like his God.
It's referring to the person, just like God picks out certain things, right, it's not just one thing.
Well now, literally, God the Father is God, Jesus is God, his divine Father.
Okay, but before he incarnated that was not.
No, it was always the case. He's the eternal son, as John One says, eternally begotten of the Father.
Okay, so like in the Old Testament. Well, I guess it wouldn't have to say it in the Old Testament. That's just the Church's teaching, right.
No, it says it all throughout the Old Testament that the Angel of the Lord that appears in dozens and dozens of they often is the person of Christ.
No, No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about. I'm talking about God the Father being Jesus God.
Right, saying that the Old Testament demonstrates that with the person of the Angel of the Lord, that is Jesus. So Jesus did not begin to be a son at his incarnation. He was always the son of the Father into all eternity. And that's why John one is saying that he's the eternally begotten of the Father. The Father is the source of Jesus.
Well no, okay, so I think it's like so, I think it's like a miscommunication. So I do affirm that Jesus has always been the son of God. I'm not William Lane Craig who believes he just became the No. Right, what I'm saying is and maybe like I'm just not understanding. But what I'm saying is God the Father was Jesus God in the Old Testament as well before he incarnated.
Like Jesus is the Angel of the Lord that's appearing in all of the Theophanes throughout the Old Testament at a five hour talk throughout all of these references.
Okay, So okay, under understood, understood, So like go.
Check out my talks on the Theophanes in the Torah and the Old Testament.
Okay, thank you, thank you very much.
That's a good question. Yeah, exactly. And I also did ah my response video to Trent Horn which is on YouTube. I will reshare that is a lecture also on this topic on the Trinity and the Old Testament. Where is that video? Okay, here it is. I'm going to reshare this on the top of my timeline. David do you want to come back? Yeah, what's up? I actually had one more question, trying to stay muted so I could.
Avoid you know, background noise and stuff, but yeah, I wanted to actually ask, because.
You know, I really appreciate your I.
Think I can't remember.
You advised like a while back to start from the bottom with like reading Affavacious and the cap of Docians and all them. And I actually took that advice because when I first started reading, I tried to jump into like John Damascus and like Palamas, and that's kind of.
Way too difficult. You need to read like the Post. You need to read the post Apasaulic Fathers and then and then what you're talking about exactly.
Yeah, So I started from the bottom, and man, that was so helpful for me. But when I started reading Basil all of his letters and his homilies and stuff, and I guess I started to wonder and like question, like great, because I know that Roman Catholics affirmed the Council of Constantinople.
Do they just not care about like what Basil teaches or Gregory?
No, So, like I know that they hold Santa Augustine in like pretty high regards, So why do they just choose Santa Augustine over like the Council of the Constantinople.
Because of the popularity of Augustine in the West, and then the rise and popularity of and Selmon Aquinas, and so the three A's dominate the West. And I would venture that most Roman Catholics just never bothered to read the Cappadocians, don't care, and if they do, it's just a quote mind to try to find their position the irony. And by the way, they do the same thing with the ecumenical councils, where they don't care what the chief
theologians and fathers of the councils taught. They had this ridiculous legalistic view that they only cite what the Pope affirms, and the councils do documents, and they literally don't care what any of the theologians or any of the writings were, so so you can cite them. Even Get this, here's a funny thing. Constant the noble one actually says, there's an imperial decree that says you have to follow Saint Gregor of Nissa in his theology. Roman catholch said, we
don't care. All we care about is the actual definitions of the Council, not what any of the Church fathers teach. Now they'll say, well, we like the Church fathers, but who cares about Father being sole cause we don't believe that.
Where I was actually I remember you saying that once. Where can you actually find that in the in the the Council? Is it like in the I know it's not in the canons right where they say that, Is it like one of the letters?
No, So doctor Branson talks about it where he translated it from, probably from some of the Cappadocian writings that probably refer to it, or there actually might it might be in the Price for the Richard Price's recent translations of the Acts of the councils Oh, interesting, okay.
And then the other thing I didn't want to ask because I remember you saying a while back. I think you were saying that, like you know, Thomas are just larking like they're still in the Middle Ages, that the Vatican is basically.
Yeah, Rome doesn't care about Tomism at all. Yeah, what, okay?
So what I'm not I'm not Roman Catholic or anything, but I guess what kind of what from the Vatican has led you to that conclusion.
Well, for example, you have the encyclical by Leo the thirteenth that, uh, Thomism is Hold on one second, Hold on one second. I'm gonna i gotta write a check for a bill, and I'll be right back. Okay, Okay, I'm back. So Attorney Patras uh not posture attornis. People get these confused. Attorney Patras is the encyclical Leo the thirteenth very famous declaring that Tomism is the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. But at the time of
Vatican Two, you had what's called the New theology. You had the rise of all these different trends in the Roman Catholic Church. Had a reaction against that from people like Hans Ros von Baltazar, who wanted to bring Eastern Orthodox theology into the Council, Eastern Fathers theology of the Council. By the way, I'm not saying he's a good guy. I'm just saying that that's what happened. You had a
lot of Protestant influence on the Second Vatican Council. Many of the many Kreiti theological advisors that were super liberal and opposed Totomism, the Jesuits had a huge hand in Vatican Two, and actually we're successful in getting several of the controversial Vatican two documents through, and even some of the modern Tomas like Jacques Martain and these other figures
who are also very very liberal. You have Hans Kum, you have Skillebacks, you have like all of these radical Roman Catholic theologians for the most part rejecting and reacting to classical scholastic Tomism. And that pretty much won the day. And that's why Vatican Two just really opens up the
floodgates for anything. And so if you go to most of the Roman Catholic seminaries and places like that, like you're gonna you will find some some sort of quote classical Thomas, like Tim Gordon, you know, he's a big pusher for classical Tomism. But they're in the minority now in the Roman Kelly Church. So the point was not that, The point was just that the trend has really just they don't care about classical Tomism anymore. It's it's very
much in the minority. Interesting, Okay, but yeah, I appreciate that.
I'll probably have to go re listen to this just to kind of like, jot all that down because that's a lot. That's a lot that you just mentioned there. But yeah, I also the other book that I definitely would recommend anybody out there to go read is that that Pelican series. Honestly, that volume one after reading that is completely convinced me of orthodoxy.
Honestly.
Yeah, I mean look again, like it's not I mean, it sounds like a lot of names and it's difficult, but it's actually not. It's not and it's not even controversial, like most most of the cellar stars of Vatican two in the Roman Catholic Church, and the theologians about it can too, like it's it's all people who are not really interested in classical tones anymore. And then that's not even controversial. That's why they're in the minority, people like
uh Tim Gordon or whoever. Yeah, dude, look most of these seminaries they're just like gay bathhouses. Man, they don't care about theology. I mean, I'm being serious, Like it's not a it's not a place where you go to study some theologists where you go to have gay butt secks.
And honestly, like the majority of Roman Catholics that I even come across in like my normal everyday life.
They don't even know about Tomism.
They're just like they just go to church.
No, they don't care. So that that's why it's Larper's online that pretend that they're living in the Middle Ages. Yeah, yeah, but I.
Would Actually I had this pulled up because I thought it was really interesting that we're talking about Rome in that Pelicon book. He's where he's talking about Apostolic continuity. He's making he's talking about i as Here he says that irene Is described it as a characteristic of heresy that each heretic selected part of the whole Apostolic witness, and, after adapting it to his system.
Elevated its authority above the other apostles.
I was like, wow, that's a that's pretty interesting there, and he was he was actually just talking about Marcia on there, but I was like, wow, that's that could be applied to our modern age. But yeah, I don't want to take too much of your time, and that was that was good stuff there.
I appreciate it.
Joy.
So looking through you can just even search like per E T pr P E r I T I A Vatican two cone gar is a Dominican, which means he's a follower of Aquinas and Conegar was popular and famous.
But like.
Uh Dallas is a key Avery Dallas Jesuit. Uh Benedict was a partis a Vatican too. He's not a huge Thomas Carl Ronner Jesuit on reed the Lubach was a Jesuit into Eastern Orthodox theology. Let's see. I mean it's just dominated by a lot of Jesuits. It's not that it's not like a I mean, it's just well known. It's it's not they don't care about Tomism anymore. Yeah, but good questions, Joseph, what's up?
Jay?
So I have two questions.
Have you seen Jack Canhan versus Bill Nye on the Blood? I'm not okay, Well he's a Protestant, I'm assuming so I would want if you don't mind, rewatch it because Bill Night kind of destroyed him.
But he's a Protestant.
Obviously.
I feel like the Orthodox and the apostles of the churches would have, you know, be able to debunk to Bill nys. But second question is said end times. Yeah, I personally think Islam messighes the anti Christ.
Who do you think you think.
That's far our bets.
Islam.
Yeah, I feel like they're Jesus is the anti Christ.
You know what I mean?
Uh?
Well, I mean they believe in Jesus as a prophet, but you mean like his return that that would be Antichrist. It could be Luke Hello, Hey, what's up?
So?
I was wondering what are your thoughts on like the IDF oppression as long as it's on topic. If it's not on topic, I have another question about the idea of what the IDF in Israel like oppression on Palestinian Christians.
What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I don't agree with the wiping out of the Orthodox population in Palestine, that's what you're referring to.
Yeah, yeah, Because I have a friend whose dad was raised in the Soviet Union and then moved to Israel, served in the IDF, and he's like a Zionist, and I was like thinking, oh, well, Orthodoxy and Zionism isn't really compatible.
No, okay, thank you? Mm hm? Who else anybody else has? Sony last questions? All right? Do you hear me? Yeah?
Quick question?
Chase still speak speak? Yeah, I mean article cool? So, so I might have the dog of memory of a little bit. But actually he just brought over so I might need to. So I just saw this yesterday, and this is the whole Protestant like owner of Twitter or whatever. Another look that bothered me all that much. Like I watch enough of you to understand, you know, like why why is a even if I'm not worth a dogtop and the fan? But like you argiment, I agree with him. So there was this thing I saw yesterday.
I don't we're having a hard time hearing you, Hasani. It's really breaking up and noisy. Hard to roll with it.
What's up, hey, Jake, you hear me?
Uh huh hey.
I just want to post something to you to think about in a question, right, ask evangelicals, I'm annax charismatic. When he comes to the paralytic man and he tells him be a good cheer. Your sins are forgiving you, I'd asked the evangelical what does that mean? How can he forgive sins before he went to the cross and the debt's paid because in their low here at salvation, you know, Jesus paid the price, he took the wrath.
He did it in my place, and now I just have to believe and I'm saved.
But if he forgave him before the cross, what would their answer be to what happened on the cross? And you know, for us, Saint Anthonatia says, if it's a matter of repentance, that's fine, but repentance won't save you from death. But they don't even have a concept of being saved from death. It's just I'm good, I die go to heaven.
Yeah, so just maybe something to chew.
On and maybe a more an easier way for them to understand the critique of PSA.
Yeah, No, it's a fair question. I mean, maybe like a Calvinist would say something more sophisticated about how the whole Testament people were saved by the same action, it just was retroactive, So they might say something like what we say. I know that if you'd asked me that when I was a Calvinist, I would have said, well, the work of Christ on the Cross can apply retroactively to people in the Old Testament. So but I mean,
it is a fair question. I guess if you're a sort of a low tier sort of charismatic or Protestant mindset, like I think it would be a good question to get them thinking, I am dat gatto. What's up?
You mean?
Yeah?
Awesome?
So I grew up Catholic and you actually kind of brought me to Orthodox.
Because you talked about the news a lot, which kind of intrigued me because I've never really heard anything else about it.
It kind of sounds like the piineal gland.
Do you think you can like clear up a little bit from your experience too?
I heard the.
View grist is like cleanses your new and just like that experience.
Any association with that kind of stuff would be tenuous. I mean, I think that the reason we talk about the News is that it's more of a Hebrew concept from the Old Testament. When you read David talking about the heart, and then we would say in the New Testament and then the teaching of the fathers is a distinction between that and the intellect or diological reasoning, diocrenesis and these different Greek terms for logical reasoning, rational soul.
So the heart is just simply the inner spirit of man. Paul talks about trichotomy body, soul, spirit, and that's what we mean by the noose. And so for the Orthodox position, if you read somebody like HEROTHEUS Blackos like, he talks about the news pretty extensively, and the idea is just simply that the reasoning of man is out of whack
too as a result of the fall. So a lot of times you'll get Tomas and people like Roman Catholics or west During Augustinian type people who think that the soul is just really basically the intellect, so man is a dichotomy, and they don't have this notion that the intellect needs to be healed by submitting to the heart
or to the nowse. So these are some of the ideas behind that theological tradition, and I don't exactly know why it's not in the West except just for the the rise and the dominance of the Augustinian duality concept of man being a body soul composite and soul being identical to intellect, and that's pretty much a Quintus's position too, So it just kind of became dominant in the West through those figures.
Nihilist again, gone, sorry, there's a delay, and I takes a couple of seconds done.
Mute.
Hey, So the second question that I wanted to ask, and then if I don't wear out your patience, I wanted to audition for some dire cores, got some, got some good dire cores for you. I don't know what's your tolerance level for Shenanigans is right now, but uh.
The the second question that I had was so I was having a debate with Boomer, and he was arguing that because in Revelation, where it defines the heavenly Jerusalem as you know, a linear bounded space, as it has dimensions and a physical description, they were arguing, oh, well, there are descriptions of the Tabernacle, and there are descriptions of the uh, you know, the Temple of Solomon. As linear bounded space is physical objects. Therefore that means that there has to be a physical.
Okay, yeah, but look at what just what did we just talk about in terms of Acts fifteen sixteen, when Paul ecks on Peter excuse me, Peter explains the fallen Tabernacle has been restored, and he identifies it as what please continue, Acts fifteen sixteen. He identifies the fallen Tabernacle as what that's been restored.
I assume we would say that the Church by Christ, just the.
Body of Christ and the Church Jesus is the physical body was a tabernacle. Remember he says, destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days. Okay.
So the argument, the counter to that argument would be Christ is the heavenly Jerusalem and his.
Body, the Church is the head of in jury is according to Galatians. For Paul saysn't Galatians four, we are all children of our Mother above the heavenly Jerusalem. It's a present reality. It's not a literal city that's a giant square that's going to fly down out of heaven into Israel. That's what Boomer's thinking, like, they actually think a giant city is going to like float down and land in Palestine.
Well, I agree with you just said. We're clear guy, this is heresy. And I'm trying to refut this.
I know I'm not making fun of you. I'm making fun of the Boomer right.
Well, and and your response was my response, which is the Church is the true Israel, Christ is the heavenly Jerusalem, et cetera.
Specifically, Peter specifically says the tabernacle is the Church and Act fifteen sixteen. You see, Oh, I see, so that's that.
So it doesn't have to be because it's given a description as a linear, bounded space. There's a spiritual reality, but doesn't that entail some sort of physical reality at all?
Yeah, But the physical reality is the lineaments that are perfect. So the perfection of the lineaments and the measurements signifies the perfection of the Church and the Holy Spirit in dwelling within her and her virtues and qualities. It's not about an actual building with you know, I mean the New Testament says well, who does Peter say, are the foundation stones of the temple the apostles? What does the Book of Revelations say, are the foundation stone or the
new Jerusalem the apostles. It's the same thing. The names of the apostles in the Book of Revelation are on the foundation stones of the heavenly Jerusalem, because the heavenly Jerusalem is the Church, the city that they built, which is a living temple. Paul says, not an actual building and not something that flies out of heaven in the Boomer imagination.
Uh.
Exposing Ye, I'm mute, exposing dispensation.
Me want.
I'm sorry.
I was having problems. So I was raised in these evangelical, Baptist, dispensational churches. Me too, and I'm trying to unlearn all of this crap that I was indoctrinated with as a child, and I don't know should I'm trying to learn, like the differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, So do both of them confirm covenant theology?
Well, uh, this gives a little complex because prior to Vatican too, the Orthodox and the Catholic position on these issues was the same. We believe in the typological fulfillment of the nation state of Israel in the Church. Israel is a type of the Church, the land is a type of the Church, and a type of the world in the Church conquering the world through the Gospel. So that typological continuity and that covenant fulfillment position is no
different to classically speaking, between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. However, post Vatican two, via documents like nostro atat lumin Gentm sixteen ecumenical documents that the Vatican put out some years back about the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to the Jews Rat Singer's book, Many Religions, One Covenant, these documents have all affirmed, in including the New Roman Catholic Catechism, that there is an ongoing, continued relevance to the quote
Old Covenant for Jews today. So the Roman Catholic Church is backtracked and become ambiguous on this question. And that's precisely why Benedict, John, Paul the Second and even in Francis have all said statements like we shouldn't proselytize Jews.
So I would argue that those are contradictions from the Roman Catholic Church, because, for example, if you read the Council of Florence, within Cantate Domino and the other documents of Florence, there's explicit statements that's a Roman Catholic documentical council. There are explicit statements that there is no sense in which any of the Old Testament rights or Covenant is to continue on or be considered valid in any way.
And so the statements that I mentioned from Tate Lamagentium and especially the Vatican relation to the relation of the Church of the Jews document from like I don't know, a few years ago, I forget the exact name of that document. Those documents are hugely controversial, and I would argue that those are contradictory to Florence.
Okay, I'll have to.
Do research into what you've said. I'll probably have to listen.
Over the recording.
So, like, what about how does everybody feel about the mark of the Beast, Like did they believe it already happened?
Or so I believe in partial preterism that the references in the Book of John achieve me in the Book of Revelation to Nero or about achieving about the Antichrist or about Nero. So you could read a good book like Before Jerusalem Fell or Peter Holford's book Destruction of Jerusalem. Those are easy readable texts. But that's the normative interpretation of a lot of the Orthodox Church fathers about Matthew
twenty four and Luke twenty one. But we do think that there is going to be some final Antichrist and some final attempt at you know, some kind of mark and controlling everyone and all that.
Yes, okay, So I have a theory.
For those who believe like another mark of the Beast's system could happen. Do you believe I I don't know if I'm the first one to have ever thought of this, I'm probably not. But how would you feel about the theory that Zionism is the mark of the Beast, because you don't have to be a Christian to be a Zionist and to push for Jews to have their own religious ethno state.
How would you feel about that?
I don't know, necessarily the Zionism itself, which is a secular, you know, political movement amongst you know, pacifist, progressivists, Jews from a century plus ago, that that wouldn't necessarily be the mark. I mean, the mark is identified as something specific on the body in some spiritual sense or perhaps some physical sense. So I mean, I don't know that it is that, but it might be related in some way to a future third Temple or nation state of Israel.
Those are all possibilities. But if you look at a book that's in the Orthodox canon that's not in the Catholic canon, Third Macabees, there's an older version of this, which I think in the Book of Revelation. When John talks about the Mark, he's not really he's not like just kind of picking that out as something that hasn't had any historical precedents. If you read Third Maccabees, which is again it's in the Orthodox Bible. Third Macabees has
told of me doing this very thing. And I think we can get some insight into what this is through reading Third Maccabees, because when he as a dictator tries to institute a mark for everybody to buy and sell, it is called the mark of the Mysteries of Dionysius. Now I'm not saying that necessarily that means that the end of the world's mark will be quote the Mysteries of Dionysius. But it seems to be some kind of blended sort of you know, haagan mystery religion thing.
Well, this is the last thing I'll say, and I'll let the next person come up. But I started to have this idea because if the Bible describes the Jews as Synegod's at Satan, and you're pledging your allegiance Tosigonism to these people, then I feel like that could be kind of plausible.
So well, I mean, I'm not positive that we are in the last days. In the last last days, I mean, in one sense, the end times. The last days begin at the First Advent. Jesus says that you know, he would bring the age to come in the church. The Church is the age to come. Joel says that when the Holy Spirit's poured out on all flesh. It is the last days, and if you read Acts two, that's fulfilled at Pentecost. So I don't think the quote last days is necessarily the end of the world, like a
lot of Protestants and Evangelicals do. We would say the last days began. The eschatological reality of the eternal state was brought at the First Advent. And so when John sees into heaven, for example, in the in the Book of Revelation, when he sees, you know, chapters five through nine, the worship of in heaven, the marriage suffer of the Lamb, that's going on in heaven. That's for us, the same thing as what you see in an Orthodox Church of
the Divine liturgy. So the Divine Liturgy is literally the eschatological marriage feasts of the Lamb here and now. So all that to say that there's a lot of things that I think have to occur that still haven't occurred. I lean more towards an optimistic eschatology that the majority of the world will be converted to authentic Christianity before the return of Christ. How and when that will come about,
I don't know. But also Rumins eleven and most of the church fathers who talk about it do discuss and believe in a future conversion of the Jews.
Okay, well, thank you, that's all I had.
Well, And one thing to bring up to is that it's pretty we're not encouraged to try to speculate too heavily about the.
Aston and the end times. Good point, and we are and I'm not saying I do this, I don't.
But we're encouraged to view it which is the truth as it's that Christ is going to come and return as a thief in the night and repent now, because you could come back at any point and not.
Obsessed to figure all this stuff out.
And we're I would never say, oh, don't be weary of things that you think could be pre sprecursors to the Mark or.
Satanic movements and stuff. I'm not saying that, but like.
You know, definitely we're supposed to take it in a very sobering way of we don't know, so try we're supposed to repent now.
I think that's also part of that part.
Of the beauty of it. That's a really good point. Yeah, a lot of evangelicalism is involved, and it's like a really sensationalist kind of news headline is to Jesus. I'm not saying you're doing that, but like people read headlines and then they go, oh, then and they read that into the Book of Revelation. And I mean it's understandable because when I first started reading the Bible did the
exact same thing. When I was like nineteen and I bought a bunch of prophecy books from the Christian book store, I started like trying to figure out like, oh, the you know, the locust out of the pit. That's like helicopter of the New World Order.
You rip out pages, you put them up on a pin boar a peg board, and you just got strings attached between them.
You're triangulating the prophecies.
Yeah.
I actually I have friends here.
That I used to I used to sketch out when I had the prophecy studied Bible on my sco footbable. I used to sketch out like the dispensations for people.
Yeah.
Yeah, And it's it's interesting because I've seen, like I have a personal friend. He's a smart guy, super talented musician, really good heart too, and he for the last year and a half, almost two years, he wasn't like he wouldn't recording when it puts things out.
And again, he's world class, He's played with world class players, and I kept.
Asking him, like why he goes honestly, I just feel like the end times are coming in. After drilling it into him, I think, you know, he finally realized, wait a minute, maybe this is a deception.
To me.
Being obsessed with the end times is a demonic thing to see see from actually doing something.
Exactly what did Jesus say? The Kingdom of God is within you, meaning the life of the Holy Spirit within your heart, within your news. And that does not mean that it doesn't have an eventual, bodily external, cosmic manifestation in the resurrection. But the Kingdom of God is not a thing that comes down and lands like a giant space pyramid of on Anaki out of Egypt right in Israel.
It's the presence of the Holy Spirit within you. That's what Paul Ingalatian says is the Kingdom of God is the present's Holy Spirit, and the virtue is of the Holy Spirit within you. And that's had within the church, within the liturgy. That's it. There is no geopolitical establishing of some you know, earthly nation state, warrior kingdom or something.
You know.
What's interesting last thing on this is thinking about it now as we're talking about it, the people that are obsessed with trying to figure out you know, in times, prophecies and stuff like that to an unhealthy degree. It's super ustick, actually is it's inherently gnostic.
And by the way, this is a delusion that anyone can fall into, even Orthodox Monastics, they oftentimes have a temptation to fall into this obsessing over trying to predict the end times and who the Antichrist was and since the Tsar fell or in the last days, and we I mean we already had people on here tonight talking about that. Ian.
What's up, Hey, Jay, I just had a question for you about your partial criticism. So you're obviously very influenced by James Jordan. I'd assume Peter Lightheart people like that. Do you view the church today as being the Church victorious? Using like James Jordan's symbolism of the forty years from Christ's crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple being the wilderness period of the Church, and then after the destruction of the Temple the church now enters into the church militant period.
After the destruction of the church or the temple or the temple my bed. I'm not heavily committed to any of those models. I don't think we have a set clear idea on all that specifics. I mean, I think Jordan's one of the first to really try to lay out some possibilities there. Lightheart too. Are you a full preterist.
No, I'm more than I was Cate of Cumin. I was just heavily influenced by Jordan and Lightheard.
Oh I got I'm sorry. I thought you were with the guy who was in here earlier. Yes, we had a full preterist guy in here trying to trap me earlier.
So no, I was just curious because I yeah, I don't know.
I mean, I I just got Jordan's trilogy from my godfather, so I haven't actually read it yet. I did read Jordan's old stuff on it back in the day when he put out some little books on it. I read Lightheart back in the day, But I don't have any set answers on exactly what is that stuff lining up to.
Yep, cool, I was just curious.
Yeah, I agree with like in the Jordanville book when it's the Apostle. In any christ book, it makes the point that whenever the actual end times draw nearer, the church will have the mindset and the discernment to figure out a lot of this stuff. So I think there's some sense in which a lot of that will be opened and revealed to the church as the church approaches that time, because the church has the mind of Christ. So,
but I don't a lot of those answers. I don't have, Chris, what's up, hey, guys.
Yeah, No, I wanted to bring up on on this topic of sort of you know, dispensationalism and premillennialism. The late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay. Those are the other writers that he's influenced. There's a guy out there, Gary Wayne's Canadian author who's quite prolific, right, and he actually I've listened to that a podcasts. He calls that his coming to knowledge of like sort of his Nephelin subject was through the lens of you know, the great
great planet Earth. And you know, I mean, just from what I understand about it.
They heavily rely on, you know.
Prophecy, like Daniel and Ezekiel and revelation.
You had some guy on this space and Daniel nine as we were arguing a couple of nights ago, is the first Advent? It's not the end of the world.
No, oh yeah, of course, Well they're completely misplaced.
I'm not proposing this at all. I'm just saying I just reiterated when you read Daniel nine, it changes everything if it's talking about the first Advent. There's a few other guys out there too.
But of course, I mean one of the things that obviously it focuses on is like sort of like fake Armageddon and the coming thereof like predicating I read.
The Gray Planet Earth back in the nineties when I was an evangelical.
Yeah, and so yeah, and the I've read you know, the the Gary Wayne stuff which pulls off of that and some of the you know, mysticism and with the Nephelin, which in and of itself is a hot topic with the JQ because some connect you know, the Nephilim genetically to you know, a modern day iteration of you know, I guess the geopolitical state we've been talking about, you know, Israel.
That sounds like a bunch of fed shit. Honestly, that sounds like that's a lot of Christian identity lunatics come up with this kind of stuff, yea, And I wanted to put that out there that people are arguing that.
So there's you know, obviously the orthodox position on this is unassailable when it comes to eschatology, and just you know, like take I think it's from I don't know as much about it, but I could see it's a more cautious approach than rather predicting, you know, based upon like you know, piecing Bible pieces together, sort of like schizo.
You know, conpira. So that was just my comment. Good good is a good point. You know, a lot of low IQ evangelicals are duped into a lot of this sort of hybrid nephylim genetic experiment stuff. Now, I'm not saying that Genesis six isn't necessarily talking about angels. I'm not like I've always thought that that's what the text is saying, and there's many places in the Deutero canon to talk about the same type of stuff too, But I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with
what's happening right now in Israel or anything else. I mean, I don't think it has anything to do with nephel M. I could be wrong, and there's just something I don't know about. But the other thing is that, like I said, a lot of the groups that push that stuff are the same groups that push the heresy of Christian identity stuff. I'm not saying that the Gary Wayne dude teaches that, but I'm saying there's overlap with these groups. That's a
lot of FED stuff. I've had those people come around and try to debate too, and they're always like, well, you know who the seed of the serpenty is. It's the Jews. No, that's not saying that there's a there's a and they actually literally believe that like Satan slept with Eve and has a race of people.
Well then you know they actually as the creator of all things and then God created.
Right. This is called the serpent seed heresy. And if you ever meet a Christian identity person, this is what they believe. And if I recall, uh Timothy McVeigh when he was involved in Elohem City, that fake FED group that he was involved in, I think they taught Christian identity stuff. So this is like a classic FED trap.
Anyway, Well, about the serpent seed thing like hypothetically, if someone if someone knew that their brother was literally the Antichrist because of Vegan, made I.
Think, I think you might know a little bit about that.
What would their immediate brother also have to be serpent seed or could there be like did they don't know?
It would mean that trist If Tristan is the Antichrist, that would mean that Tristan is the ultimate seed of the serpent. Yeah, okay, and like okay, so basically like you would be justified and you know, like doing whatever you need to do to save the world. Right, doesn't like Keanu Reeves and Constantine. Right, Keanu is basically trying to save the world from the anti Christ.
So well what a lot of people don't realize that Keanu Reeves and Constantine that was actually a Masonic predicted programming of what the end of the world is going to be.
So the wait, are you saving us or not?
I can't I can't talk on Twitter. We'll yeah, we'll talk on snapchat.
For those that don't know, there is a Vegan who's basically exposed Tristan as the Antichrist. So that's what we're talking about. It's a lot, it's really deep. It's hard to go into and a lot of people are not gonna understand it. But yeah, Marshall, Marshall, you can you hear me? Yes, sir, all right, Uh yeah.
I was just uh earlier when you were talking about the You're talking about the dating of the Book of Revelation and stuff like that. I was just wondering, because I don't think I've never heard this brought up. Do you think it's the plausible that, like, say, the chapter thirteen of the Book of Revelation and various other chapters that they were written prior to seventy eight, and then other chapters are written after, Like, is that plausible that they're written at different times?
I think that would go against the tradition of the Church that John wrote it and wrote it to the seven churches. So I've not heard this, I mean, so it sounds like a higher critical idea.
Yeah.
I was just I was just yeah, I was just curious because like, I was never never heard that or like thought about that. I just kind of thought about it. I was like, Oh, I wonder, I wonder if that could be the case.
Maybe they read before Jerusalem fell, because it's a it's a thhd thesis on the on this thesis, which is really good. So I'm not a huge fan obviously I ken Gentry, but his thesis is pretty good. Roll with it.
Yeah, just a quick thought again about forgiving this point across and stuff. You know, if the Calvinist says something like I can retroactively be applied, it seems like they still don't have a way to describe that it's other than sovereignty, because I've never heard from a Protestant death being defeated. So if the universal death is defeated on the cross, then it seems like that would be awake.
I don't think they would. Yeah, they wouldn't connect it to the defeat of death. They would say that it's just the sovereignty of God that will just they can just sort of apply the grace. But that's a great point too, which is like, well, now wait a minute, dude,
just really a loud man, I can't hear you. Sorry, Okay, that's actually a good point though, because it's like, well, wait a minute, if God can apply the grace without the work of the Cross, or in spite of it, or just on the base of his sovereignty, then the work of the cross isn't really necessary for this event, So that's actually a good roundabout way to disprove PSA. But Calvinism, it's a good point anybody else, it's open for him. We've still got over three hundred people in here.
If you want to request to speak, ask a question, if you like the debate, offer a challenge, bring an issue to the Just keep it to the topics, please, So we're not talking about catechumen, diet questions. Please, I'm not talking about canon law.
Can we talk about fashion? Is that part of the topics? I don't see that.
Men's maybe if we bring the Tristan in here, we can talk fashion, can we not?
I'm having a good day, Okay.
I don't think we need the Beast system speaking to us directly, do we? And Lo? I heard the Beast speaking great words and bless us, So Chase, If if Tristan is the Antichrist, who would the false prophet be?
Honestly, that would.
That would have to be a email or some figure promoting Tristan. Who would that be? Yeah?
That that would probably be Vegan Gains.
But if you're a vegan, why would Vegan Gains be a false prophet?
Well, this is to lull the sheeople who support Tristan into, you know, being caught in a false style. Yeah, I'm I'm pretty close to figuring out what's going on here. I just need a couple more days and I need a couple more whiteboards to be able to draw.
You need some more profited some prophecy charts.
I need some more. I need to finish my prophecy charts and then I'll get back to you.
I should do a skit making fun of propty charts. That would be like really easy to do, and I think a lot of people would think that's funny.
I think that a skit that would be funny too, is a one make in front of the camatria of people, just because it's so skitz and just the connections they make are it's so insane.
Anybody else three hundred and ten people, Nobody wants to come up and speak, ask a question, offer an argument, present the counter thesis, anything to do with evangelicalism, dispensationalism in times, Catholicism, Protestantism, Slow boy, slow boy, and then hey, how are you good? What's on your mind?
Well?
I didn't have anything to argue about I just wanted to see if you saw that Apostate prophet has started going to Orthodox leturgy.
I saw him say that he had attended one. That's good news. I hope that he I think.
I think his wife was raised Orthodox.
Yeah exactly.
I just wanted to say that.
I'm really happy.
I think if if he can influence.
David Wood, yeah, it would be awesome.
Like I don't understand why David Wood has never considered it or won't. Yeah right, I don't have anything personally against David Wood or anything, but I mean he's out of Fordham, so I don't I don't know. Maybe that has a part to plan it. I'm not booting you, it's it was really choppy audio. So but thank you for that. Uh, promitheus.
Up, Jay, it's PROBYTHEUS. Okay, thanks for having me. I just saw the title and thought i'd come in.
Okay, what's on your mind? Are you there? Did you want did you want to talk?
He just wanted to let you know his name, and uh, I think that's pretty that's pretty Sorr Todd father or either.
I am here?
Is it working? Yes, sir? H Yeah, I just had a quick question.
I remember some months ago, Sam had said something about you were going to have a debate on his channel about Catholicism versus Orthodoxy, and I was just wondering if that had happened yet, or if I had just missed her, or is it not gonna happen.
Uh?
No, No one in my circles and my friends wants anything to do with William Helmbrecht, and so what I offered was to do a presentation, to not have a direct None of us want anything to do with Albrecht. He's a really slimy person. It's not an excuse. And so what we offered to do was Albrick does a presentation on his channel and then I do a counter presentation or vice versa. And I've not heard back from Sam on whether he wants to do that, do you hear me? Yeah? All right, yep, that was it. That's
all surely anything I had. So yeah, originally it was going to be a round table, and then UBI didn' want anything to do with Albrecht other possible people, so they don't want anything to do with Albrecht. And then Sam asked me if I want to do one on one with Albrecht. I said no, I'd rather just do a separate presentation to not any even directly interact with him. Did you want to say something else, Prometheus? Yeah, I'm sorry.
Were you talking to me?
You requested to speak? Yeah? What's up?
Yeah?
Jay?
No, thanks for having me up first and foremost. No, like I believe that we are at the time that Jesus described. No, regardless of the labels, I don't really like, you know, are you this faction or that faction? I know that's the title, but I just consider myself a follower of Christ.
I believe that we are.
You know, when he talks about in Luke twenty one, when you see these signs earthquakes, nation fighting against nation, plagues which we just had a big one.
Rewind there, because at the beginning of that chapter he talks about the people standing in front of him would not see. They would not pass away until they saw all those things has happened, And all those things happened in seventy a d. So that's a prediction of Jerusalem being surrounded. That's what he tells them to pray that it doesn't happen on the Sabbath day that they have to fleet outside the city. Those are all events that are contemporary with the generation in front of him.
Absolutely, and it was a mixed star right now. Well, I respectfully disagree because I believe he talked about both. I believe talked about absolutely.
How I would fleeing. I agree with you that it is also talking about the end of the world, But how would that apply to what's happening right now because there was an earthquake or something like that.
Well, has Jesus come back? That's the main question when he'd ask ourselves because the dement.
But he came in judgment in seventy eight as he promised to destroy Jerusalem, just like he came in judgment on the clouds in Isaiah nineteen as he said he would do. And then Ezekiel he says, I will come in judgment on the cloud. He didn't literally visibly come back, but it was a prophetic term language for the coming judgment, which, for example, in the Babylonian case, God judge the Israelites by bringing the Babylonians in to destroy Israel. So the
same thing happened in seventy eighty. It's a mirrored fulfillment. And I'm just saying that some of the things that you've listed actually are referenced in the Book of Acts as well. So why would we think that an earthquake happening somewhere is somehow or the fulfillment of that.
Well, has the millennial reign happened in your view, because.
My reign is the church. So for example, every time Psalm one ten, for the most part, when it's cited in the New Testament, it decided about the ascension and not the Second Coming.
All right, if I could speak just for a couple of minutes here, okay, well.
What I said registered, Are you aware of what I'm talking about?
Yeah, yeah, I am.
And again I would have liked you to what what is respectfully disagree?
Okay? So what is disagree? Question about that? What is Psalm one ten about?
Feel free to read it to me, because I'm one of the most I can't.
Know it, Almostsienic Psalms sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. When did Jesus sit at the Father's right.
Hand when he ascended?
Yes, so the beginning of the reign of Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father to reign in that kingdom, just like Daniel seven says when he comes to the Ancient of days, and he's given authority over all tribes, songs and nations. When John sees into heaven, he sees that as a present reality, that the Lamb in heaven is given authority, dominion, and power over all tribes, songs and nations. So Daniel seven is fulfilled in what John sees in the book Revelation. It's the present reign
of Christ in the Church. That's why Jesus consistently refers to the Church as the kingdom, such as Matthew sixteen. He tells Peter, you are the rock, and I will give you the keys. You will be the keyholder of the Kingdom of Heaven. So it's a present reality.
I disagree with your interpretation in all.
Those versus where is there anything that is your interpretation?
It's it's not about my interpretation. It's about the physical reality of the fact that the Church is still here. Paul said in the Twinkling of an Eye the Church. Hold on, you've been talking, bro, Do I get to respond or are you.
Just going to talk over me?
Goodbye? Prime?
Definitely I agree with that young man that was talking to you about the rapture.
Yeah, there's no rapture in the Bible. The rapture is the bodily second coming of Christ to take us up to the clouds. Does the Bible teach two comings of Christ or one two? No teaches one. There's a twin coming of Christ at the end to resonate. Tell me about one. Tell me what's the only one? First cristin fifteen Paul says that all of humanity will be resurrected in Christ. That's the second resurrection. The first resurrection is baptism,
which begins when you join the church. Man, you're taking the context out of the Bible. Man, I take the context out. Sound like a pharisee. The only paris here's you because you actually you are judaizing heretics. You're the Pharisees. I'll tell you.
In Thessalonians we talk about the raptures and the second coming is with Jews.
You don't like Jews? All right, you're a heretic. Do you like Jews? You're a heretic, Father Christopher, You'll notice the evangelicals have no conception of the Church. You see, this is the big missing blind spot that Christ's reign is in his kingdom which he identifies as the church that he set up. Paul says, Jimi Peter says that the church is a nation, a priesthood built on the
foundation stones of the apostles. It's a present reality. That means the Church, the Temple, the body, the kingdom, the branch, the tree, They're all identical. The sheep fold. It's the same analogies for one historical visible entity, the Orthodox Church.
That's it, Father Christopher, Hello everyone, God bless you. I remember that I read on Saint tel Philostoph Bulgaria. He interpreted that passage from Matthew that it was referring both to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ. There were separate passages. And this is also spiritual, as I remember, there are spiritual symbols over there. So your run out to be on winter or on the Saturday. It's referring to the cold of faith.
And the Saturday is the lack of work.
So the laziness when you do not do the commandments of the commandments of God's right.
I understand that, but with a lot of evangelicals going into the spiritual meanings of the text is going to be lost on them and so I was focusing on the immediate historical, grammatical, historical context just to get the evangelicals out of thinking of it as the end of the world necessarily.
Okay, okay, thank you very much.
I appreciate absolutely No, you brought a great point, and we do want to stress that it is we agree of both. Right. So Jesus is talking about the events contemporary with him. If you read Saint John Chrystalstm's sermons on Matthew twenty four, for example, he makes us very clear that about the destruction of the Temple, and there is an application to the end of the world as well. How do we know that? How do we know that it's a mirrored thing? Again, because the abomination of desolation
that Daniel talks about is referring to the Maccabees. This is why the Maccabees is in the Orthodox Bible. It helps us understand this stuff. When Antiochus Apefans defiles the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar, that's the abomination of desolation the days of the Maccabees. When Jesus talks about the abomination of desolation in his day, he's talking about Rome just like the Greeks, that they will
engage in the same defilement as a chastisement. And that's exactly what happened in seventy eight when Titus Vespasian sacked Jerusalem, put up the Roman pagan banners inside the temple, and then burned it down and destroyed it. That's what Jesus is predicting in Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four. So the evangelical idiots who remove that historic interpretation and fulfillment literally are taken away one of the strongest proofs of the inspiration of the Gospels. This is why this
is so devastating and stupid to do this. And there's not two comings of Christ. There's one return of Christ at the last day. Jesus consistently says in John five. On the last Day the dead will be raised, some to the resurrection of life, others to the resurrection of condemnation. There's not two comings of Christ, like the idiot dispensationalists and premillennials say, there's one final return of Christ. That's why this heresy is so insidious. You'll notice all these
people no connection to the historical Church. They default to Israel, a secular nation state, as their church. That's so stupid these people are. It's an amazing.
It just becomes obvious. Obviously almost all, even Agelicals, are historically illiterate. Yes, and so they would know this if they were historically literate, first and of all. In the second of all, they would know that millennialism and Chileanism was condemned. Now that's not the same thing as rapture theory, but it has elements obviously of it.
And so what we just go to the text and what do you notice?
So they'll get the wrong interpretation because they're historically illiterate, not knowing these things are already been solved and the proofs are in the history. But number two, going to the text, what do you see? There's no amount of evidence that you can present to them from the text. Well, they'll accept it. They'll just reinterpret it like this guy, Oh brother, you're interpreting you wrong. You're so wait a minute, everybody got this wrong for eighteen hundred years.
They don't even know what the church taught historically, and they don't care.
Dot and then so and then we're going to get our we have to wait eighteen hundred years to get the correct interpretation from a fever dream from a guy that comes out of Plymouth Brethren that are a cult even by and weirdos even by Protestant standards.
Yeah, there's literally no Protestants to tat that doctrine either. It's a good point, yeah, Slopez, Okay.
It's for some reason.
Again, I can't hear you. I'm not talking.
Oh sorry, Okay, I had a question. I was reading one of the books that you recommended, Orthodox Dogmatic.
Theology and PSI or Stunny Yes.
By Pomazansky, And inside of it he speaks about the Christ as a sacrifice, and so I have a Protestant background, and so some of it's just confusing to me. And in it he's talking about let me pull up the quote exactly, so it's from Saint Gregory the Theologian, and he's talking about to whom was the blood offered? And to whom what is it shed? And why was it shed?
I mean the precious blood of our glorious God. And then of course he goes further on to say that it wasn't to God the Father, and then it also wasn't to Satan. The robber is how he refers to him. Can you just help me understand.
Yeah, So when you continue reading the book, you'll come eventually to a chapter later on, and it may be around that section where he will cite a Byzantine synod that actually resolved this question when it came up around the eleventh century. And what happens is that the divine person of the Word is offering the human nature as a sacrifice or in an of love, not to pay off wrath or a debt, but to the Father by
the Son in the Holy Spirit. So the reason it's not quote to the Father is not because it's not at all to the Father. It's because it's not just to the Father. That's because Roman Catholics in the Anselmian theory teachs that the son is offered to the Father as a payment. But that's a heresy because there's nothing that exists or happens in God that is between two persons and isn't triadic. So you can't have an offering of the son to the Father that excludes the spirit.
So the Businessing Synod states that in the liturgy we've solved this theological dilemma by noting that thine own, of thine own, we offer unto Thee meaning Christ, the divine person of the word, offers the human nature to the Father by himself in the spirit. So it's a triadic trinitarian offering, is what the synods decided.
Okay, and that makes the language and the liturgy make more sense exactly, okay, okay, perfect, thank you jay.
Yeah. And you'll notice how different that is from Protestanism because for the Orthodox, the liturgy ended up solving this development. So it's not that the Bible doesn't matter. The liturgy is literally all Bible, like every bit of it. But the Church said, our liturgical service itself is a kind of divine tradition that can help resolve this question.
So is then the Protestant understanding of it just come from a further taking of Augustine's theology?
Uh No, not really Augustine. In fact, Augustine would be much more in line with us on this topic. Actually, it's a combination of Anse's theory of atonement, which is a payment debt model. He's really the first to suggest a legal payment debt theory, and some thinks that there's an infinite debt, a creed to accrued to us by sin, and that only an infinite person could pay off, namely God the Son. So God the Son pays off the infinite debt to God the Father, and thus his wrath
is assuaged. So the beginning is of atonement PSA type theory in that way, in a legal construct you go to ansel. But then you get in the middle ages of a very important development called nominalism from William of Oakham and Gabriel Bile, and they influence Luther, who is able to then say, well, this is how God can say you are legally righteous and declared and viewed as righteous, even though onto logically speaking, you have not become righteous.
You're still filthy rags. But God can declare you and see you as righteous through the legal imputational covering of price. And it's based on nominalism, namely that things can be called things even if they're not that thing. Do you know what I mean monominalism?
Not exactly now, I'm sorry.
So it's a denial of things having essences. Right, So how could God call a man righteous if in fact he is in fact unrighteous? And for the Orthodox right, being righteous means that you're participating in the uncreated onto logical energies of God. You see, it's not just a legal status, but Luther needed a way to make it a purely legal status with no ontological metaphysical implications. The philosophy of nominalism, which denies the existence of essences and universals,
allowed him to make that move. Okay, okay, So that makes a lot of the other thing that that proves. And you can read Haiko Oberman's book, who himself is a Lutheran on this called Harvest Medieval Theology, and al Tra McGrath's what you See You Today. They both are Protestant theologians who admit all this. What that shows us is that if the ancient and medieval world did not teach nominalism, then sola fide is literally impossible in the
ancient world. That means Paul didn't teach soul. If you didn't.
And so when we hear early Church fathers talking about Christ as a sacrifice, this is what they mean Versus and Protestants when they hear that, they kind of just put their own ideology into that.
Correct And also you'll note when you read through the Palma Zanski, there will be a section where they cite the Byzantine Synod that I was referring to, where it talks about how well we could what creature could pay off God even if we did have a debt model. Here, I mean, you can't pay God with a human body or with a bull or a goat.
So even the Old Testament sacrifices weren't a payment directly, and that all does that in Romans, I.
Mean in Hebrews. Yeah, the blood of goats and bulls cannot affect the forgiveness of sense. Okay, well, why can the blood of the God Man do it? Because of the actual metaphysical change that we experience through the Eucharist.
And if this is too much, just let me know. But what was then the point of those Old Testament sacrifices.
No, they all do point to Christ's work, Okay, okay, but the point is that neither the animals nor the human body of Christ pays off God. You can't pay off God. So what I'm saying is that the payment debt model is not the exhaustive model of redemption. Okay, there's no and that's why God's infinite. So look, the reason they argue that is because God is infinite and perfect. He doesn't need anything, so there's no need to pay
him off. That's why it wouldn't make sense exactly. That's why it's an offering of love, and it's a demonstration of divine love, not the father damning the son like p s Asis.
Yeah, and that was one thing that you know, had strayed me away from the church for a long time, was I didn't understand why God would require a sacrifice, much less of his own son.
And it says this in the book, it's atheism. It's like it would it would make me an atheist too.
Yeah, it's it's and it's like it's almost like paganism, you.
Know, it is like requiring blood sacrifice. Yeah. Yeah.
And when he wouldn't even accept it, says this in the Palm's ansky book. But when he wouldn't even accept Isaac from uh Abraham, I'm sorry, when he wouldn't accept his son from him, why would he then accept you know, that's a good point.
Yeah, I didn't even think about that. Yeah, good point.
But okay, but thank you, Jay, I appreciate great questions.
Yeah. Actually, that Byzantine Sonat was a huge one for me and it. Also it's like literally the only like it's almost like the Orthodox Church in that synod refuted p s A like centuries before PSA existed. Slava, Hello, yeah, oh, hey, j.
I just didn't want to trupt you if you're still talking anyway, I was just gonna ask you what I've discussed with the Protestant. He's mentioned something and I wanted to know how you would respond. He brought up the urgy in the in the liturgy. Yeah, he brought up theorgy like th e u r g y is the liturgy, And I just wanted to know he was using it in an accusatory sense, essentially saying like, oh, this is borrowed from pagan practices.
How you respond? That's the word concept fallacy, right, So just because Neoplatonic magicians use the term, uh, theurgy or like we talk about saying Gregory the Fama turgis the miracle, wonder worker, he's just just engaging in a word concept fallacy that therefore must mean ritual magic.
Right Yeah, Like if someone does something doesn't make it automatically bad. So, uh is it just a pretty much the Orthodox except that, yeah, we are participating in theorgy Is that how it would be stated or I don't want to misstate the Orthodox position on that. Is it just yeah, we accept theurgy as you can do it in a Christian sense too.
Is that how you ADVERG? I mean, the terminology might have been used at some point by a church father, but it's not that common and it might lead to a lot of confusion. So I mean it might give the people impression that we're trying to be neoplatonic magicians, you know, working divine workings or something. So it's just literally just it's just a word that is depend upon the context.
By the way, I think that you shared that example. We were just doing fallacies in logic class and I was trying to think of example of variouseing examples of post hawk ergo propter hawk. That would be one that simply because something was prior in time that therefore it's the cause the other thing. So yeah, you can find elements or words and a religion prior to the establishment of the church in thirty three a G doesn't mean that it's the cause of that, so thank you.
Cool.
Yeah, there's a lot of the like zeitgeist level stuff is what Father Deacon's talking about they use the post hoc ergo propter hawk fallacy.
Yeah, I totally agree with that.
I think that's what came to my mind too. I just wanted to make sure and then I had one more question, but it would is kind of escaping me now someone someone who brought up the atonement.
I guess one thing.
I would just wanted to thank you for bringing up this stuff about how you know, how if you have Orthodox Christianity you maintain the rituals. And when I was I didn't realize how important that was until I started looking into it further. And uh, yeah, I totally agree with you when you say, like Christian zion Is is basically just like trying to fill a gap that if you don't have any kind of connection to history, then
you're longing for that. But if you understand that the Church is the true Israel and that those promises are now transferred onto Christians at least in large part, you know most of those promises and that's just biblical. I've convinced quite a few people just pointing that out, and it's kind of it's kind of hard for them to disagree because it is so abundantly clear from scripture, So I think that's a pretty easy thing to argue with people.
Lastly, I was just on the atonement thing.
I don't know if you've heard of need good dot net, but he has a pretty like very basic tier understanding of the atonement and the penal substitutionary atonement center.
I'm aware of them. He debated Kyle. I know who he is. Oh, yeah, that's right.
Yeah, I thought, I mean, I know, yeah, however you feel about doing debates now, but I thought it would be interesting, so I thought i'd throw that out thet.
Yeah, I don't know if I would, I might not be able to hold my t.
Or was that guy I kind of did the same Yeah, I kind of did the same thing. And it's yeah, it's it's kind of hard to because I feel like it is a very like I don't know.
I think he has one goal.
Which is probably just to talk to people have no idea about like Christianity, and you know they kind of well, most people he reaches out like they don't have any experience with Christianity.
So it's kind of like the debate with like Bryson or that guy a couple of nights ago, Like if somebody is like really low tier. It's very difficult to not kind of get frustrated when they don't know basic things, and they're usually those people are like super arrogant and self assured.
Yeah it is.
It does come across as very prideful a lot of times. It's kind of hard to like hold back from going in on that. But yeah, I get what you're saying anyway, that's all I got thinks.
Yeah, I mean, it's the same kind of with All brackt Like, I don't know that I'll be able to like not just start busting on him and making fun of him, and he would do and all the Catholics to do is play victim. Oh look at her, he can't he can't even handle it. Look at he lose it, so you know, and they would try, of course everything to try to get me bum fuzzled. So I think if you give all Bricked enough time, he'll fizzle out
and destroy himself, just like Lofton has basically done. Because there's such nasty, slimy people, like they eventually run everybody off. So so you know, Lofton is Loston's worst enemy, and I just think All Brick's worse than Loston, so taking time bombs bone art, I mean, can you hear me? Yeah? All right.
I just wanted to say that the Evangelicals are like the Jesuits. They're ungodly people. The Catholics don't know history correctly, so that's relevant. And the Protestants actually had more slaves than the Jews had slaves. That's really all I wanted to say. Because you don't know what a druid is either. A druid, Yeah, would you like to talk about that?
I know what Druidism is. I'm not an expert on it, but I'm familiar with the history of Druidism. It's not an ism, but yeah, I mean it's commonly referred to that as that in the literature.
It depends who wrote that literature. Okay, that's all you have to say. Well, I guess that's all folks. I don't know what you say either. I can't hear a word.
That Jay is speaking.
I have zero sound. Hello.
It says that there's connection issues with j Did you wrap your device in tinfoil