OPEN DEBATE! Problem of Evil, Protestant Canon, Energies & More! VS. Jay Dyer

The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the dout they they all right. Welcome, How you guys doing, as you know, I turned sweet sixteen today, so happy birthday to me. I got to pick a pretty pink Maserati and a Bugatti. They're both pink. My zillionaire parents bought me both of those,

so I got a Bogot you now go Bugatti. So I'm top g aka top J And I was acting like a brat because it was my MTV sweet sixteen shout out to me and party later at my place. Also, it's open for him tonight. I will be doing a fun stream with my buddy who had just transitioned Tristana over on my channel, which is this channel. Tonight, we will be covering the classic libertarian paradigm film Wall Street by aller Stone. Absolutely, Alexander, would you like to come into the debate,

So all the haters in the chat, it's open for him tonight. That means that you get to come in debate so random, dudes, is your liar loyal? Come in, bring your debate. There is the link you can call in via X aka Twitter aka drama aka high school Drama app. Because everybody's just involved in a bunch of drama on X. It's like it's like high school. It's the new high school. Jamie said that. I said, you're right, welcome to Internet. So but yeah, we always

invite the haters. It's weird because you would think, you would think haters would just come in here and like easily shut it down, you know what I mean, because it's always so obvious in their mind, how evil I am or whatever, And yet when we invite them to come debate, it's just spurging out a lot of the time. Why are you asking if you can come up? Brother? Link is right there? Well do I call in? The link is in the chat, dude, it's in the show

to description. I need my poscription for y'all condition, which is to be a slow boy. But hey, it's okay. We're here to help you become fast boys on this channel. Move you out of that short bus living that you're in that puts you on the fast track to being a fast boy and the way that you do that is to call in via the link. So Athanasius, if you don't call in, if you just or Alexander what was his name, Alexander? If you don't call in and you just span

the chat, you just get booted. So it just wastes yours and ours times is un you dude, We already got seven people lined up. We just started, and yes I'm a little late, but like I said, we will be over on my channel, which is this channel tonight with Tristana covering all over Stones Classic Wow, Screet Wall Street Street, screet Street like the Yin Yang twins, Wow Street with scriffles. There's a lot of scribbles on Wall Street. How y'all doing the night? It's a beautiful balmy Monday

where it's eight degrees outside. Bomb It's a balmy eight degrees with ice everywhere. Wolverine says he just subscribe, even though he'd been listening for a long time. Well, there you go. That's what we want to hear. People are fussing you're late, bro, I'm always late. You know why? Because time is an illusion. Time don't exist except in your mind. I means clocks are a conspiracy of the of the temporal industrial complex to trap

you, and then for the idiots. I believe I'm being serious. That's just a joke. Shout out to our friends, by the way, I keep forgetting to plug them because they've been so cool. They featured me in their magazine. It's like an edgier Mad magazine. It's called Flip City, and shout out to Flip City. They do some really awesome Mad magazine style, but edgier stuff. So if you grew up with Mad magazine and you want to relive that vibe, but in a more adult, serious, sophisticated

way. I don't mean adult like. I don't mean adult like a shop you go in in a trench coat in nineteen eighty five with Peewee Herman. I'm talking about adult as in a grown up person, a sophisticate, sophisticated man, an sophisticated lady, of which we have about three percent of my audience is ladies. Shout out to the three percent. Shout out to the point one percent. You are gonna have to have an occupy Wall Street to come against them. One percent of ladies that watch this channel, it's open

for him. As you know, the way this works, we open it up and you gotta make an argument. So I know that's tough for a lot of people. They have a hard time with that. They think an argument is arguing. No, an argument is not arguing. An argument is a thesis, a proof. Right. If it's a thesis, you've got supporting evidences. Perhaps, If it's an argument, perhaps it is. It is itself a proof of something. It doesn't matter how bad you think I am, how evil of a person you think I am. By the way,

it's weird how meanness is a subjective thing. Right, you can't measure meanness? Right? What's the this algorithm? Oh he's mean? What is that? Jokes? What planet are you on, dude? Jokes are mean? No, as you guys, hopefully everyone has figured out calling me mean is just an excuse to not engage and not deal with actual argumentation. But that's okay because most people just can't handle that, and we understand that. So we got a lot of we got a lot of slow boys, a

lot of carbohydrate boys out there. Get their feelings hurt. They can't handle it. But the other thing that we noticed from the last time we're about to open it up, I mean, I've known this for a long time. But you know, if you saw the so called exchange with I thought he was a gnostic. I didn't really know anything about this dude, right, So people were like, why did you hop into this debate stream and

debate that was so mean of you? Well, first of all, I saw like five minutes of this, and I was like, well, they're debating, this sounds fun. Let me hop on. And all I do is ask questions. And these guys immediately retreated to the slimy tactic, which they all do. Why are you being mean, dude? Why are you being mean? Man? Well, I don't even know you, dude. I mean, these are people whose channels are literally dedicated to attacking everything that

we believe, which doesn't bother me. I'm not afraid of these dudes are scared of their suit abilities. But if you're gonna launch years of attacks and you fold within one minute of a few simple questions, pretty much everybody can see that your tactic of calling me mean, it just doesn't work. Dude. People have been figuring out, wait a minute, this is just something that people fall back on. And you look at the five hundred and seventy

comments. I mean, almost everybody sees through it, right, Like n are like, all right, this is just bull crap, dude. Everybody can tell that. I mean, the dude literally says, I have no idea what the law of identity even is. Yeah, this is exactly right. It's the meme of crying out as they strike you. And it's not

just what these people do. This is actually pretty common. We notice it with a lot of people, and I think, as Elon pointed out today, if you can't take jokes or being satirized or people looking at your positions, that actually just signifies weakness. And you'll notice it almost everybody's retort in the last couple of years, especially since people have basically decided that they will

they won't debate. It's like Sam Shamun is one of these people that no one will debate anymore because they know that, you know, nobody's no Muslim is going to win that debate. And it's kind of the same type of thing going on here where the only people that want to debate at this point with me are like the really extremely low tier people with like a thousand subscribers who are completely diluted and think that they're like a celebs or something like that.

They that all they do is talk about how they want a debate, and then I won't debate them. It's like that, Why am I going to debate a dude with like five hundred subs? Right? There was a dude this week trying to say dyers already agreed to a debate, and now he's backing up. I never even heard of you until two days ago. I didn't agree to a debate. How am I going to agree to a debate when we've never interacted. I don't even know who you are. But

this is the kind of nonsense that happens all the time. And I already have a debate with Jake the Muslim metaphysician lined up in a month. I'm not going to start randomly just taking every debate that pops up. Now. These debates are not real debates. And I don't mean that as an insult. Took people to hop on. It's just that pretty much nobody hops on

except kind of you know, people who have questions. Every now and then we get like a hot headed, feisty, feral person or a wine mom trying to rap or do her slam poetry literally, But most of the time it's just people asking questions, which is fun. You don't have to come in with a hot debate topic. I don't care. You could do whatever you want. Just please make an argument. It's just so old and tiresome when people will cop on with the same old Why ten years ago, did

you make a joke about smoking weed on the internet? Oh? You got me? Wow, you know I'm exposed. You got me a good one. And it's like, obviously a joke, and they act like it's not a joke. It's it's ridiculous. But to the topics today. Remember you have to keep it to the topics. If you call in asking me about bb Net and Yahoo, and if you call in asking about Joe Biden and don Trump, like, that's not the topics today. It's atheism, Catholicism,

Protestanism, Islam and more. I just did a giant multiple Epstein's analysis. Who won't talk about stuff? Who won't talk about well been talking about stuff before you or even on the internet. Dummies, we won't talk both. You mean, I don't immediately talk about stuff that destroys channels. Duh,

Like, what's the point of that there's no point in it. Everybody knows that YouTube is a heavily uh censored soft platform to where you can vary, you can only talk about you know, limited scopes of things, so there's not there's no advantage to like trying to forcibly talk about accept that. People I think do that to try to shut your channels down, right,

they troll you hop on whatever. Look, there's rock Fin, there's all these other platforms where you can have more controversial topics and subject matter covered, so that again today's topics are simply atheism, Catholicism, protestanism, Islam. If you have an objection as a Jewish person, you can hop on here then, I mean, there hasn't been one. So it's like we've opened this up. How long have we been doing this open for him? Like

on Twitter? Ever since Twitter Space has existed basically years, and people are always like, he won't do this, he won't, he won't debate, so and so any of those people could hop on here unless they acted like complete loans and I block them, which is very likely because I do have

famously and I'm very proud of it. Three thousand plus people blocked, and that's because three thousand plus people are idiotic, And a lot of those people, by the way, over the years have not a lot, maybe I don't know, a handful have reached out and said, hey, would you unblock me? I was an idiot three years ago. I didn't know what I was talking about. Yeah, yeah, And so a lot of those people end up coming around to our perspective. But a lot of times it

takes, right, it takes. It takes a while, dude, what are you talking about? Obviously, right, we're going to be within the terms of service because there's no there's no point in those topics. But like that's all anybody wants to talk about when the topic is not that. The topic is atheism, Romanicantholicism, Papasy, church history, protestantsm Calvinism, Islam, tag precell philosophy of pistemology, skepticism, relativism, materialism, universal is

logos, logi ethics, any of those topics you may call in. Now, let's open it up, as you know the way it works. You can even have the floor if you want to talk for an extended period of time. By the way, who else even does this? Does anybody else even do this? Or they open it up to anybody to make arguments. No, hardly anybody does that because they're scared. They don't want to get a challenged, they're afraid of getting whatever. All right, So that dang,

we already got like eleven people in here. We got a philosophy. Man, Let's see Epicurus. Let's see what Epicurus wants to talk about. Gotta unmute, guys, you gotta mute. When you cop on a space that automatically mutes, you just unmute yourself. All right, Hey, what's up? What's up? I'm into a picurean philosophy here to represent an atheist position. Okay, what's on your mind? What do you uh? What

led you into that position? Just seeing the world with genocide and sexual assaults and poverty and child starvation and the vast majority of god gods that are described there. That God is perfect. So an all perfect, all moral God created the universe full of love, genocide, sexual assault, starvation, childhood cancer. So my argument is premise one, a perfect God would never create evil. Premise too, there is evil in the world. Conclusion, there

is no perfect God. Yeah, So basically just the old the Odyssey problema you argument, right, Yeah, So have you looked at any replies to this, because I mean this is kind of standard atheist stuff. Yeah. The main reply is God needs a world with free will because God doesn't need anything. So no, I don't think God has any needs. So yeah, right, So do you believe that there is evil and the world? Oh yeah, terrific suffering and tragedy. Okay, what what is the benchmark

for what's evil versus good? That which causes humans great suffering? That's what evil is in any agency that intentionally creates that suffering. So we got several assertions, right, so you got about three assertions there. How do you know epistemically that that's what evil is? Because humans and even animals and other species like chimpanzees, when we create, we commit certain actions that do harm

to others. We instinctually know this is okay, So your answer, so your answer for an epistemic criteria is that because humans and animals know this, you don't see a problem with that. No, it's an it's an observe from nature, right, So number one, that would be the naturalist fallacy, the idea that just because something is observed, it's therefore natural. Or quote unnatural. You know that's a fallacy, right, okay, Oh okay, so number one, that's fallacy number two. The fact that you observe

something doesn't mean that it's universally the case, does it. It could be it could not be. Oh okay, so then theism could be the case. So it's not an argument if it could be otherwise. Okay, all right, good job, bro, nice one. You just giving it to you. I'm not gonna argue like you. You're not going to argue because none of that constituted an argument exactly. Moving on, Ricky, what's up? Ricky? You? What's up? Rick Slick? Rick what's up?

Yeah? I'm just uh. I will only watch the opening statements of that debate on Lofton's channel, And you know, it's kind of funny to see the guy that Lofton picks to debate on, like on this kind of space. I want to see what your thoughts are on that, and and the guy still won shout out to yeah, so so lot Lofton's tactic is to bring on an inquirer to debate, uh pop normy apologist from TikTok and uh,

I haven't watched it. I've watched a few clips of it, but the consensus seems to be that even the inquirers can now pretty much mop the floor. But I mean, what do you expect from Lofton? I mean, the guy's a total snake. Yeah, I mean, the truth will always win. And and that's what you're saying about, uh, slow boys turning into into fast boys. I can see like how a lot of people, uh, just by inquiring and wanting to know the truth, they automatically

become less slow. So you've been a great help in that, by the way, and thank you. Yeah. I think that you know, over time, people might be tempted with Catholicism. I was at one time when I was a low information voter, and then when you experience it, you know that world inside and out. When you get a taste of it, a lot of the honeymoon, a lot of the sales pitch car salesman stuff wears off. And so really the only audience that Lofton could actually draw is

the low tier Catholic answers style audience. But if you watch Kyle's recent video rebutting Catholic answers, I mean, it's it's actually pretty astounding how low tier. The Catholic answer stuff is even people like Scott han like when they reply to Orthodoxy, it's literally just the same meme level stuff that you see just like spammed on on on Twitter. It's like they don't they don't go into

any of the texts, they don't go into any of the books. Every now and then people like Ebarrow, we'll talk about different you know, apologetic books, church history books, works, whatever, But I mean, it really is just the sort of like you know, quote mining spamming approach. Once people see through that quote mind spam approach, like there's nothing left in

the papacy is completely bankrupt and people are figuring it out. It's becoming like public to even the normy world that the papacy doesn't do all the stuff that it's supposed to do, and so they're basically just short circuiting. So the reality is they're they're having meltdowns, they're short circuiting, and this low tier stuff is only gonna work to convert the most low tier person who hopefully eventually

will see through this. Because when I read through the I read through the comments of some of Lofton's recent stuff, I mean, these people have no idea about anything. So as they start to figure stuff out, they realize, hey, wait a minute, like this is this is car salesman pitch that I was sold a lemon, right, I mean, Brian Holdsworth just made a video saying I didn't sign up for this. Yeah, that's exactly what we've been telling you, bro, that the papacy is not what you

think. It's a car sales pitch. And then when you actually get your lemon and you drive it home and it falls apart, you're like, what is this? Yeah? Yeah, and yeah that's something. When I reverted to Catholicism, I was like, you know, I'll just submit to the

pope, I guess. And that's really kind of the mentality. And you know, I've been telling my parents, you know, I'm from Puerto Rico, so it's the ethnic cultural religion, and they got me to talk to the priests or the parish that they go to, and he used pretty much fallacious argument about how you know, this is like the religion you were baptized and raised in and this is where God has put you in and yeah, it's just overall very little tire and not convincing at all. The bad thing

is that there's barely any Orthodox churches where I'm from. So yeah, yeah, it's it's definitely it's been a journey and uh yeah yeah, well stay strong. Orthodoxy is going to grow. I know it's difficult. I had a long period where I was not near churches as well, so understand what this like. But stay strong. I think Orthodoxy going to continue to grow as rom implodes. And I would add to a lot of people, this is something that Father Moses, buddy of mine, has been stressing. UBI

has stressed this. It is good to begin to look into Orthodoxy, but do not quote or do not convert to Orthodoxy because you want something politically based and trad because that's not what the Orthodox Church is. It's not a political movement that you attach your social media to to become a baz trad right wing

political pundit, like, that's not what it is. And if you think that it's going to be that, you're going to be disappointed like this dude was disappointed with the papacy, right, So you have to understand that when you leave trad world, it's going to take you years to be reoriented to the Orthodox way of doing living and thinking. It's very different. It's very difficult in a different way, and it takes time to get used to that.

So just be prepared for that. And people who are tradcats looking at Orthodoxy it's a great thing. But I'm just advising people to take your time. Do not jump in, do not immediately run to the Orthodox Church and expect that it's going to be totally free. It's got its own problems. It's got unique sets of problems that are different from the tragcat world. I'm not saying it's not better. I don't. I've never regretted leaving tragcat world,

not once since leaving it ever, period. Never even had an inkling of thinking of going back to that, not in a million years. But if I was talking to me back in the day in my twenties, I would definitely say, like, slow down, relax, don't rush. I know that's odd because people think, oh, I got a rush into this, or I'm gonna be damned in the next two days if I don't arguet and rush, but I don't get into the worth of our church, I'm damned. Just take your time. No, you're not damned if you're not

in the Orthodox Church. Within two days. Okay, we don't believe that you're gonna It's gonna take time to lose a lot of that Latin legalistic, black and white mechanical attitude and that has to go. So that's first, and it's gonna take time for that to happen. Remember, the model here is like a hospital where you need to be healed, or like rehab. Actually, I think that's the best model that Father Deacon Ananias has, which is that think about this like rehab. And you're like, what, I

don't need rehab. I'm righteous, No, you do need rehab. We all do. That's the point. Now, the papacy itself is corrupt, traditional Catholic. You're welcome to call in and let's go. Let's go to Vatican one and let's go to the documents. I've got my Denzinger right here, buddy, So you want to call in tradcat, let's go to Denzinger and let's see. By the way, I still have not had any papal

proponent. None of you guys will take me up on the offer to debate the geopolitics of the papacy, because I will go into Tome after Tome after Tome, of geopolitical writing from even tradcats explaining to you how your papacy was co opted by the intelligence agencies in the Western power structure. So I will debate you on the theological front and on the geopolitical front. And by the way, no Roman Kelly will dare debate me on that, none of them.

I begged for professors to come debate this topic because I can show you when and where the CIA co opted your papacy, which means that the promise of Peter doesn't apply to your papacy unless you think the promise of Peter also applied to the CIA. Should I extend that to Alan Dulles and Bill Donovan? Were they also guided by the charism of Peter when they co opted You're

ridiculous. First c you don't know anything, you tradcat in the chat, I tell you right now, you don't know anything about this, and none nor do any of you except one of your great trad cats, David Wemoff, who wrote a giant eight inn page book on this topic. He knows all about it. And yet when he goes on y'all's podcasts like Timothy Flanders, right, he's based and cool, but if I talk about the same thing, he's evil conspiracy tous t for hell? Has Trent Horn talk to

me, bro, We've already done a debate that he lost famously. Do you mean about this? Yes? Of course he declined this. Trent Horn is not gonna debate. Do you apologie, Trent Horn is that's total normy, dude. Trent Horn doesn't think that there's any push for world government. He doesn't even know what the world economic for him is. Of course he's not going to debate this. Are you kidding? Do these people? Yeah?

Exactly? Langley is the first Sea Yeah exactly. Trent says that if you talk about the world like gomy for him and whatnot, that's jack chick level. Yeah, okay, so I guess it doesn't exist. So Trent Horne thinks that it's so low tier and yeah, exactly Tim Gordon. So wait a minute, does that mean that Trent thinks Tim Gordon is Jack chick? Because if Tim Gordon talks about the same stuff I talk about and that makes me jack chick, then that means that Tim Gordon is also a jack

chick lovel according to Trent. But you see, look, dude, you're dealing with people who have no clue about any of this stuff. And the reason that I get so feisty about this is just that they have pulled the most beta woos level passive aggressive shit over the years, right like, oh, he's mean. The reason their excuse is that I'm mean. Look at the tradcat no offense, folks. I can't call in. I have to go eat dinner. I'd have to figure out how to call in. Yeah,

that's what That's always what you guys do. Not I don't have any respect for traycats. I'm sorry. I except for Babylon Bros. And Tim Gordon that's the only traycats I respect. And David Wemmoff. Jordan, what's up Jordan? Michael Jordan, No or twenty three Michael Jordan, Hey Jay, what's going on? Just fussing? What's up with you? Oh? I wanted to know. First of all, I think what you and Jamie do your wife is great, so thank you for everything that you both do.

Thank you. I wanted to know where this and this might not be in the purview of this discussion, but I wanted to know where Martin Luther and Orthodoxy overlap and if they do. I mean, yeah, there's going to be some areas where Orthodoxy is closer to Protestantism than Roman Catholicism, but there's going to be areas where it's not. So we're not going to overlap on anything related to solar scriptura or solo feeda or justification, but we will

overlap on areas where he would critique the papacy. We would agree with that. I mean, father, just father decided. Trentam wrote a whole book on where Orthodoxy agrees and disagrees with both Protestantism in the papacy. It's called Rock and Sand. But so, I mean, there's a whole book on

that very topic. But just in short, we would agree with him on the critiques of the papacy that I did the churches decentralize that kind of stuff, critiquing purgatory, critiquing the merits of the saints, indulgences, all of that is foreign to the to the first millennium of the church. But do you have reverence for Martin Luther himself? Not as like the Lutheran Church.

We all know that that's a crazy no, like co opted No. Martin Luther said all kinds of No, he said all kinds of crazy heterodox things, like if you read the Bondage of the Will, that book's mannichean. Yeah, okay, I'll have to check that book out. But I mean, you didn't know that. I'm not being mean, but you didn't know Martin Luther wrote a book called Bondage of the Will. No, I'm like, I'll just confess. I'm I'm like hereditary involved with Lutheranism, Like,

okay, father, and yeah, great, got your father. Yeah, yeah, I'm not trying. Yeah, I got you. I thought you were debating. That's fine, I understand you're just asking a question. Yeah, I would uh, I would say if you look at Luther's book Bonde of the Will, I mean, he's pretty much distancing himself from anything that

we would call classical Christology. So for us as Orthodox, the way that we're going to settle the grace versus free will, predestination versus free will, it's going to be the paradigm of Christology, which is settled at the first six slash seven councils. So even the Seventh Council in iconography is based on Christology. So we have two wills, two natures, two energies in Christ, which really settles for us the whole issue of predestination and free will,

because Christ's incarnation is the whole model of how we're saved. That's the paradigmic materiology, not justification by faith alone. It's Christology that we begin with, and I would say look into that as the separation point between us and both Calvinists and others. So there's a good book, say Soul Alexander, The Christological Controversy is a good book on that. Sean, what's up, Shawn? Hey? Yeah, okay, Oh, So I have a question that

the soteriology of the Orthodox Church versus the Catholic of Prouston Church. I don't know the soil position of the because I just came out of into Orthodoxy. I'm just a bit confused about the reality of the Orthodox Church. What's confusing? So, like, is it similar to Romanptholicism or is it is a different in Roman? I think the paradigm again is Christology. So the way that Christ deifies the human nature that he assumed is the model by which we

participate in his uncreated energies. So the Eucharist that we partake of is the process of deification is the mystical union. So that's how we're deified, that's what we participate in. So really the model for uh Materiology and Orthodoxy is the essence centery distinction. We are becoming and participating in God, not in

essence, but via his uncreated energies. So I would say read something like the dialogue between uh Acandinos and Palomas called the Dialogue with a Barleymite, about an eighty page thing, but that would give you a good grounding in what our whole paradigm is all about. So it's very different from rob Becantholicism. I mean, they believe in a union or whatever, but what they say they participate in is a created accident in the soul. We don't believe in

created grace. We believe in uncreated grace. All right, appreciate you, Yeah, yeah. I also have a ton of classic talks and lectures on that you can go. We lectured through the entirety of John Damascus's on the Orthodox faith like five years ago. You could go watch those lectures that would show you that as well. Maximos, what's up, Maximos, Hey We're going Hey, can you hear me? Is there somebody in the chat that go ahead, I can here you go ahead. Oh oh yeah, that

was just a quick question. So, uh, I kind of have I kind of know the answer, but I just kind of want to hear your take on it. I'm pretty sure you've answered this question in the past. But so, say like you're arguing with an atheist, which their paradigm doesn't have a justification to account for why we shouldn't eat meat, et cetera. But let's just say they take like a Platonic or a what's this other guy,

a Pythagoron or Pythagoras. They take that position to try to justify why, you know, we shouldn't eat animals or et cetera, because the reincarnation could possibly be a you know, a relative or a human being, and therefore you shouldn't eat animals or something like that. So what would be like a good way to Rebut if they were to take this position, I think the easiest way to go about that is to just think about the classic problems

for Platonism. I mean, the classic problems of Platonism are there's no clear way to know or relate the realm of the ideas to the here and the now. So if that falls apart, right because of the vast dissimilarity between the realm of the forms or the realm of numbers and geometry and the world of flux that we inhabit, then the rest of the whole system falls apart. I mean, you could also ask them for epistemic justification for how they

know that eating an animal is eating a relative. So but again they're not going to have any answers to that. But Platonism and Pythagoreanism are mystical systems at root. So even though Plato did talk about justify true belief, when it comes down to the basic metaphysical presuppositions of Platonism or Neoplatonism or Pythagoreanism, they're really going to be pretty arbitrary. So they'll say stuff like, well, we just know all reality emanates from the one. It's like, okay,

so how do you know that? What does that mean? Like? What is the one? You know? How do you know all reality emanates from? It'll be a very mystical kind of sort of arbitrary position. So that would then if you go for that, I mean, then all of the ethical claims that it's wrong to do this or whatever would also fall apart.

So and Anther's we need to know. Like a lot of times playtons will say stuff like, well, numbers and geometry and forms, they just are just are what I mean, you can't just that's not an argument that well, it just is just all That's what Matt del Honey said, right position. Yeah, it reminds me like that one Pagan you you debate. I don't if you remember, like till years ago. He's like, nor he remember that. Yeah, Australian or New Zealand, try just get the

justification for his platonism, right, he was just trying to. It's like, well, he just wanted you to grant him the system. And then he's like, well, let's just dialogue about it. But uh, the second quick question, So I was watching one of your interviews with the caller. I think it's it was his theme. You guys were talking about the logi and the local way. I don't remember the same thing, but yeah, sorry the logo or sorry the the logi. Sorry, well anyways,

but I don't remember the guy's name. He was this scholar guy you had, and you guys talked about the specific subject. But one of the things that I guess you guys kind of differed on was on the the energies, for example. I think he said somewhere along the lines that obviously there's a distinction between the essence and the energies. But like, how would you how

would you like? What would you say if, for example, in order for those energies to be actualized, they they require a they're required to be part of the essence, Like you can't have energies without the essence, and you can't have an energy without an essence. Would would that be correct to say? Yeah? The Combineosians say that every energy signifies some nature from which

the energy proceeds. So I mean the action, the action of building a house is an action proper to human nature, and it proceeds from my human nature. So the same analogy, according to Covedotions, applies to God. God creating the world is an action proper to the divine nature, to Divinity, and it's not reducible to or synonymous with the divine essence. So right, right, But so what do you say that it's in a sense, it's part of it, but not identical to it. Wou would that be

correct? I mean it proceeds Like when I build a house, the energy that I use to build a house proceeds from me. But it's not. I'm not My human nature is not building a house. Okay, okay, yeah that that fears it up. I was just kind of it was just the distinction between I guess, like, well, there's different what you may be asking is about different types of energies. So not every energy is the

same type of thing. Right. God has, for example, knowledge of all the worlds that he didn't choose to create, So there's a divine idea or a low gie for everything in every possible world. And yet God didn't actualize every possible world, which is why you can't say that his ideas are identical to his essence, because if his essence is necessary, then every idea of every possible world is also necessary, and therefore every possible world is also

actual. So it's not. I mean, it may sound abstract or something, but it's actually pretty kind of obvious. Like if I have ideas of houses that have twenty bedrooms, three bedrooms, ten bedrooms, a movie theater, and I build a house with one bedroom and no movie theater, right, Like I just chose to actualize that idea, even though I have all

these other ideas. Okay, so that's why Maximus calls them thought wills, because God doesn't will to actualize every potential or every thought or every idea that he has. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, the logi is not the actualized The logi is just what is a divine idea? And that could be all kinds of things, right, I mean, what is a You know, God's knowledge is infinite. Besil says, the works of God are infinite. Right, So we don't know everything that God knows or does.

So what we do know is that what he's revealed to us and what he's also revealed to us that he didn't create every possible world. Right, we all we know about is this world. So that means then that not every idea that God has is actualized. Actualize just means that it comes to be on the basis of whatever his predeterminations or his his willing is. So the will element that's brought in distinguishes it from Platonism because in Platonism there is something

similar to divine ideas. The forms are basically the same thing, but there's no notion of God being a personal being that wills to this, to do this versus that. So you understand the intomism or in Augustinianism, because they don't put person first. They have a platonic conception and then they try to tack on the idea of a personal God later. But you have to start

with the person of God. God is the personal he father, right, and that's the basis also for what we mean by divine conceptualism or God creating on the basis of ideas. So does that make sense or as it's getting too abstract? Oh yeah, you're making sense. Yeah, because I thought about that as well, like the whole plate, the rambled ideas having a

similarity but obviously not being exactly the same. So in Platonism, there's no In Platonism, there's no idea that the one chooses which things to actualize in terms of the emanations. It's just whatever is emanates from the one. So there's no idea of a person volitional choice in the one. So this actually becomes a big problem for Platonism because reality is fundamentally not personal. It's impersonal.

It's just a sort of spitting out of whatever is. So if the first principle is not personal, then we don't have a basis for reality at a ultimate level, being purposeful, purposive, teleological, and having a tilose. You see, that's why Platonism is a flight from the here and the now to the one. It's an ahistorical antihistorical position. Platonism. It deemphasizes and rejects history, time flux, change for a supposed return to the one.

But all of this again just evolves into mysticism and irrationality because there's no reason for any of it, even the split of the one into the diet, it's just irrational, makes no sense. Why was there ever a schism from the monad to begin with? And so Platonism result resorts to mythology for this. Yeah, that makes that makes perfect sense. Yeah, good question. So, uh so we got a bunch of people, Thank you, Maximos. Who is Austin? I don't understand. Okay, here's Austin.

I see now, I see them now. So people thought I'm trying to run from these people. I just now saw. I'm trying to figure out who this person is. And then somebody said, you're trying to run from suitor. No, I see Sotera. So I'll go to Austin and then I'll go to Sodor. So there's like literally like sixteen people in here. I'm trying to run from people. Hello, yes, sir, what's up? So, yeah, I'm a Protestant. So I just wanted to ask

some questions about Orthodoxy basically in church authority. Okay, So basically the Jews, right, they had they have an oral tradition and they have like succession from Moses to the time of Jesus, and Jesus appeals to the scripture and says, you know, the Pharisees is something in front of Moses. They have authority, but you know, don't listen to them when they tell you that I'm not the Messiah. And so like he kind of rechecked their oral

tradition and went back to the scripture. So why did God establish Pharisees who are like not infallible, but then after Christ he established an infallible church? Like why did he go from not infallible to infallible? Right, So, first of all, it's conflating two different things. The situation of the Church

post Pentecost is not identical to the situation of Israel pre Pentecost. So the importance of Pentecost is always lost on Protestants because Protestants kind of default want to take the church back to a pre Pentecost reincarnation Old Testament type of setting. But beyond that, it's also a fault. It doesn't work because the way that the Church, or the the way that Israel functioned still had recognized public

authorities. So it's not true that Jesus completely rejected the Pharisecra. He rejected the traditions that contradicted the Word of God. He also affirmed Phariseic tradition in the very passage you mentioned, because Matthew twenty three, when it talks about the seat of Moses, it doesn't say that that oh here in Exodus. No, it just says the Pharisee sit in the seat of Moses. That's a tradition that there is a lineage from Moses through the synagogue system of Ezra

to have this kind of authority. And in the Old Testament system they had authority and they could make judgments that were binding on the local community at a local level. So whether it's the Levites or whether it's the Pharisee system post Ezra, they did have authority. So the idea that is common in a lot of pro groups is that it's either it's either fallible and I don't care

about it, or it's infallible and it's binding. And the Orthodox Church is not that way, Like, we don't have just a two tiered thing of either it's either infallible or it's fallible. Like everybody's bound to their local bishop, but the local bishop isn't infallible. So a Protestant could probably agree with us on that perspective. That, okay, so you have, you know,

recognize local authorities and whatnot. Where we begin to differ is when we get into the specifics of things like could the Church bind somebody's conscience to a decision? And if you look at Anicia or all the way up to the Seventh Council, there's a consistent pattern of the Church and the councils binding people too a decision that's normative and authoritative for the entire church. So for example, if you agree with Arius or if you agree with Thestorius, then you

are excommunicated from the church. There's no notion of the freedom of conscience, which Protestant reformers later adopted. So that's a question of normative thing that's different from individual existential certitude about what's right or what's wrong. So I could agree with the idea that in the Old Testament, could an individual believer hearing the

prophecies of Isaiah when Isaiah's prophesying and teaching. If I'm walking around Israel and I hear Isaiah and I listen to him, can the Holy Spirit work on my heart to convince me of Isaiah's message? And can I know with certitude? Absolutely? But that's not where we disagree with a Protestant when it comes to authority and infallibility. Where we disagree is on the means that the Holy Spirit uses to provide that knowledge and that certitude. So where I disagree is

that you and I might let me put this a way. You and I might agree that the Holy Spirit is what convinces an individual of a position or say, the deedy of Christ. You read the scriptures, I read the scriptures. We both come to the conclusion that Jesus is divine because there's so many passages that teach it, and ultimately we would say that it's the Holy

Spirit that guided us in that. It's a different question though, when we ask, but how do we know which books authoritatively make up the canon of scripture? And that's a post Apostolic tradition based decision of what you think are fallible men, and we're just saying that, Well, it makes more sense to say that not everybody posts to Apostolic period is fallible. There are some cases where they're actually infallible and they're binding on people's conscience. So it's a

question of is their normative authority? Did Jesus set up any body of people who have the ability to bind people's conscience. That's really where the rubber meets the road between Protestants and Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Okay, so yeah, I can, I can agree with some of that. But so you mentioned the canon and let me have to rely on the canon. Yeah, but the Old Testament. During Jesus' time, Jesus relied on the Pharisees to give

him his canon. Like when Jesus was reaching the Bible in the Senegal, he was reading the canon which the Pharisees had given him, And you would

agree that the No, we don't. We don't even agree with that that, I mean, no, the Apostles following Jesus did not agree to the Palestinian Jewish canon, right, So you would say that, you would say the Jews during the time of Jesus, then they weren't the scripture they were reading was in a complete because they didn't have like Maccabees and stuff like that, so they didn't have like a well hold on again, So Jesus and the New Testament in dozens of places, both the New Testament writers, they

all cite the deuterocanonical texts. Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. So it's entirely possible that Jesus did accept the testimony of Maccabees. And one way that we know that he did is that his church accepted the Book of Maccabees. Right, So you know, do you think Jesus set up a church in history or not? Yeah? Yeah, I think Jesus set up a church. But the thing is, I wouldn't say that he set up like an infallible institution because I mean, like you have the Coptics, you have the Eastern Well,

that's a that's a fallacy. That's a fallacy. So you're arguing that because people have split or that there's divisions that there wasn't an infallible church. That's a fallacy, No, not not not that the schisms make one church is not infallible. But it's more that like, how do you like know which like, for example, you've just go through a bush of intellectually you have to read through thousands of years of history to find out which one's the fake

church and which one's the real church. And well, hold on, wait a minute, now, now you're going back. Now you're going back to a different topic, which is existential certitude. So that's a different question because nobody escapes that problem, the fact that you're a Protestant, that isn't you don't escape that epistemic dilemma by saying, well, about I'm a Protestant. So it's not an issue for me because you already said that Jesus did set

up a church. And so if I start asking you about the nature of that church post apostles, what does it look like? What is it? What do you think the church looks like in the first, second to third century? So the church in the early times where you can read about it in the epistles, you can read about it from the church fathers, right, And how have you read those some of them? Yeah, okay, So how does a Cyprian iren as justin Martyr Clement, How do they describe

the church? What aspect do you mean? What aspects you mean? Do they describe as infallible? Any of the features? Are there? Bishops? Is there a Eucharist? Is that there? Yeah? Yeah? Is there? Baptismal regeneration there not? Not necessarily not in the epistles in the Church Fathers some of them, Yeah, would believe in that. Wait a minute, so again wait, not in Paul's epistles. So what's the why sing the Labor of regeneration and Titus three? So yeah, that's just about baptism

removing sin, I think. Yeah, that's called baptismal regeneration. Yeah. Oh so okay, uh, for you're referring to like baptism, Like, let's come on, let's let's let's look. How do you how do you have access to the correct canon of Scripture as a Protestant without the church, so like for a Protestant for you, yeah so need so old Testament canon is the Hebrew canon? So so so Jews that reject Christ, in your view, determine the canon for the Church, not the church well before Christ.

Yeah, because they had authority. So again, so notice proving the very thing I said at the beginning of the discussion that Protestantism wants to take us back to a pre Pentecost church where the church doesn't have authority, there's

no Holy Spirit given to the church. So you guys basically have no use for Pentecost because Jesus said that he would be with Jesus said he would be with Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the world when he's talking about the comforter coming at Pentecost and that he would lead in God the Church into all truths. It's a visible college of apostles that he gives that promise to. You then said, but the church is not a

visible institution. So where did the church apostatize in your view in the first few centuries. Okay, well, there's a few things to impact that. First of all, you said, the Pharisees, like the Jewish any authority. I would disagree with that. I say they have authority. I'd say they have no similar authority to the Church that is today. So again, so you're a judaize, You're a Judaizer. So you're a Judaizer. That's

the admission here, right. What? No, So the Church today has the same level of authority as the Why would the Church take the canon from Palestinian Jews when the Church and the apostles themselves use the do Eral canon and cite the duoconical books. Whoa I mean cited? I'm pretty sure does Enoch gets cited to at one point. I'm aware of that. I did. I didn't argue that it's canonical merely because it's cited. I argue that the

Church includes it in the canon as as the Church decides the canon. And you're saying, I don't accept what the Church fathers decided, I'm going to go with the anti christ Jewish canon. Yeah, but you need to make the distinction between the Jews before Christ and the Jews now that's your distinction. That's your made up distinction, because the Jews before because where where is the Old Testament canon that you're talking about. You're arguing that Jesus used the Palestinian

canon. You don't have any proof of that. Well, we have we know what the like from Jewish tradition. We know like what the main Bible so Jewish. So you don't write you go to right, where do you think Jewish? Yeah, but you don't understand that Jewish tradition is not from pre Jesus era. The Jewish tradition that you're referring to is a post christ era, first second third century so called Judaism that is actually based on a

bunch of rabbinical traditions. So you're not actually accessing the Old Testament Judaism like you think by deferring to the decision that post christ Jews made about the canon. Yeah, they made the decisions off to us, but they still can trace the tragedy. No, they can't. So your religion is right, So you're a Judaizer. Your religion is not based on Christianity the first second, third century. It's based on the Judaism of the first second third century.

Right, This is why you're a heretic. It is you just admitted that. You just said the first second and third century Jews can trace their traditions which I follow to prior to Christ. That's what you said. Yeah, because so you don't follow Christianity, you fall you're a Judaizer because because you don't follow the because you don't follow the Church's decision on the canon, which includes the duc If I'm a Jew living in Palestine right pre Christ.

You're telling me that none of this you're not even answering that you're not. That doesn't answer the point. I'm just going back to your point that they have no authority. So I'm saying, if I'm a Jew living in Palestine pre Christ, none of this is even answering. This is not answering. You just told me. You just told me that you follow the decision of first, second, third century anti Christ Jews who fought against the Church in

the first, second or third century. You go with their canon because they claim to be able to trace it to prior to Christ times. So you just admitted you're a judaizer, Right, you have to define Okay, how do you define judaizer? Uh huh? Right, what you just described, That's that's how your the definition is. Yeah, so let's get our canon from anti Christ first second century, first second, third introduced, which now

he's saying he doesn't actually referred to judyizers. Everybody knows that's where judaizer comes from. Lex, what's up, Lex, what's up? What's on your mind? So? This isn't necessarily my position, but it's a trinitarian question. So the position is basically that that Jesus is the son of God and not necessarily God, and like Trinitarians, they call him like God the son. Okay, what about what's what's the problem? Are you eating? Bro,

I'm going to eat on the stream grossing me out? And he dropped exactly. Okay. So next up was Soter unmute hello more speaking to Jader. Okay, so he's a troll. So you guys spent with this dumb this Your dumb voice is not even funny? Is that like it? Why do you even think it's not even funny? Dude? It's dumb. I'm call it to take on your low tear sort of objections to efeuism. I'm at your voice isn't even funny, dude, just stupid. It's like ten

year olds. Yeah, so this is what you guys were begging for. So for the last thirty minutes you wanted that guy to call in it's dumb. All right. Let's see, I'm looking for like actual objectors here with actual arguments. Look, Ortho, guys, come on, Like, I know a lot of Orthodox guys want to call in and ask her. It's not really I mean, I don't mind you guys being here, but it's like, whenever I open it up for this stuff, it's like a million

Orthodox people pile in, which is fine. It's just like, but the topics are atheism Catholicism, and then everybody wants to ask their Orthodox questions. Uh, let's see, I'm trying to pick the profile. The ones with no PfP are always the wildest ones. Let's choose Daniel Lotus. This sounds wild. I mean, if you're gonna call in, at least have a funny voice. That wasn't even funny. It was just dumb, right my, can you hear me? Okay? A couple of questions. So I'm

a Roman Catholic looking into some of the things. Is about the essence, energies, distinction, and honestly, I read Palamas just finished that a couple of weeks ago. Finish what that was pretty I read the triads. Oh, nice, good job he makes. I mean, he makes a pretty good point. So but I have some questions on that, and then later on maybe we can talk about ecclesiology. Okay, okay, So if we

know God through the energies, then how do we know? And you would say that there is a feliu in the energies because all energies come from the Father, through the Son and in the spirit. Right, it's called the energetic procession. So it would be like a type of like phe Yeah, because the word just means from the Son, and we all believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son or from the Son in the movement of the energies and in the movement of the person. So the Father generates and the

Sun inspirates the spirit through the Son. But that doesn't make the sun a cause of the spirit's existence or hypostasis. Yeah, that would be that would be like a metaphysical thing of begetting or spiration is different than what's happening in the actions of the of God, right, right, So the movement of the energies is distinct from the persons, but the movement is concurrent with the persons because every action is a personal action, so every action is triadic.

So if God loves, the love moves from the Father through the Son and in the spirit. So there's this that that movement is the same as the movement of the persons and this is all coming out of the Cappadocians. Yeah, I gotta maybe read some of the Cappadocs. And then so in the essence, what is the relationship between the son and the Spirit. They're just one thing. And then do they love? Is the love of the triad energetic? Yes, God's love is one of the many energies that he has

that he shares amongst the persons. The Father loves the son, so this is the way Jesus describes it in the High Priestly Prayer and John. But the relationship to the essence is that the Father communicates everything that the son has to the son and biver and also by extension, to the Holy Spirit. So the Father communicates all the energy's power, existence and essence that he has to the son and to the Spirit. That's actually the Nicene definition. The

generation of the son is from the Father's essence. So it's a personal essential generation that communicates everything that the Father has to the sons. Gregory says, accept the father's hypostasis, so the Father gives everything to the son except Father such that they're kind substantial. Absolutely. Yeah, that's nice. Yeah, Yeah, And then okay, and so then the essence is like what it is? Correct, essence answers the question of what a thing is. Person

answers the question of who. Yeah, and then so the energies are how we know the person's how we know the Yeah. So letter two thirty four, Basil says what God's essence says we know not but what he is. The energies come down to us to give us a personal revelation of God. Correct. Yeah, Yeah, I think a lot of the Yeah, it's like I saw something of like a Catholic saying that, you know, puts the best argument against Basil two thirty four. It's like, are we like

making arguments against the exactly? Yeah. The Catholic approach is, let's reinterpret that to be not a real distinction. And yet Basil himself says that the distinction between essence and energy is as real and the same as a distinction between father and son. So Romancolics are argument against their own trinitarian the loss because Roalanchalics just simply don't read them, and they're not even aware that constantinople one

is where the trinity comes from, which is Cappadocian theology. Yeah, and so then they would have a more Augustinian Yeah, they just yeah, exactly correct Aristotelian, which first takes the the Aristotle God of actors purists right,

and then tries to throw in the triad. No. I think it's more so neoplatonism because the definition of divine simplicity that Augustine and Origin uses from plotonis they both use the same definition, and so that's what causes the modal collapse ads problems, and then all the struggling that for example, Augustine has in confessions with how God could be in time, or how God could do different actions, how God could rest in Genesis one on the seventh day, all

of those things Augustin himself says he struggles with because his definition of simplicity is the metaphysics of Plotinus. So that same problem is throughout Latin theology and tranitarian they all the way up into Aquinas, who also adopts a lot of Neoplatonism. The Ariscitilianism isn't the central issue. I mean it could be. It really just depends on which person, which theologian is fleshing this out. There's multiple things going on. An absolutely designed, simple God, right, he

didn't believe that God had potency. Well, it's yeah, it's a different account of what is meant by simplicity. So Aristotle and Plato have similarities when it comes to the monad. If you read Bradshaw's book Aristotle, East and West, the first three chapters discusses similarities and divergences. For example, Aristotle seems to think that there are ideas in the first mover as well, which sounds platonic. So it really just depends on how precise we want to get.

But there are places where Aquinas, for example, is pretty clear in describing divine simplicity as pure suality with no potentiality at all. So there's no mixed potentiality. Uh, it's not. It's it's just pure act. That's it. And so would the would the energies we have some type of potency? I right, So the the the answer of if you read it's it's a difference between first and second act. So if you read this book Essence and Energies, being and naming in God and Saint Gregor Palamas, it's the

it's the difference between first and second act. And that's actually from the Cappadocians so when the Cappadocians are that again, so I can write that there that's the difference between first and second Act from Aristonta, the book, the book Essence and Energies, Being and Naming in God and Gregor Palamas by tekon Pino.

Okay, So there are times when, for example, John Damascus says God is pure act and Maximus says this in the first five pages of the two inner chapters, but Roman Calviox sees that and they quote it out of context, as if the discussion is a reductionist move to define the essence of God is pure act if you read, if you read the first five pages of the two interred chapters, Maximus says, there's two different ways that we speak of God. We speak of God in himself and we speak of God

in relation to and in contrast to creatures. He says, when we call God, when we call God first act, we are not saying that his essence are excuse me, when we call God pure act, we are not defining his essence as pure actuality, he says. We are saying, in contrast to creatures, God is not acted upon, not composed, not changing, et cetera. So there's a distinction in the way that we use pure act of God, and the same thing in John Damasca is on the Orthodox

faith. Every Orthodox person knows that you cannot collapse God's essence into act or excuse me, God's action is into essence, right, That would be the denial of everything. Paul must argues, Yeah, but you have people out there, by the way, in the Orthodox so called world who also pushed this because they either don't know what they're talking about our or they're openly pushing for a humanist reagnion with Rome and they want to get rid of the idea

of the S and center. You stinction, so kind of like fed, I think some of these people are fed. Yeah, yeah, okay, so yeah, I mean I think I've kind of gone through a lot of this stuff, watched a lot of your stuff, and I mean I was going at it originally from a Catholic Like when I first I first saw the

you and Trent Horn talking. Yeah, maybe maybe it wasn't that, but at some point where you said like God, Like the first time I heard about the energies, I was like, that's like retarding, because there can't be some other thing, you know, in God. Besides, like just a like, it seemed to contradict God's oneness. Like the more you realize, like the God of the Christians in the first millennium is not the Aristotle right, pure Aristotle's God, to make this very simple, cannot be incarnate.

Yeah, there's no such thing as a second hype of stasis in pure act that could come into time and space. And every one of the Roman Catholics who argues their position philosophically and metaphysically will tell you that this thing that they're describing isn't in time and space, cannot be in time and space. Oh, good job, you just canceled out the incarnation. Good job.

And then they then they try to tack on this other contradictory system of incarnation down the road, as if their metaphysics can be totally different from their Christology. It's just stupid, and it's not the way that the councils define the triad and Christology. So the real way to understand the essence entergy sinction, which nobody ever listens to me when I've been saying this for like six years, is Christology. Rea John Damascus, Book three. The majority of the

Usen's inergy sinction discussion is not about the trinity. It's in Christology. And if you take all of the essenceentitgy distinction denials of Roman Catholics and apply it to Christology, you see how whack and stupid their system actually is. And they don't even realize because none of them actually go and read John Damascus that the entirety of book three fifteen on is all essence synergy distinction discussion. And if you deny this, your whole Christology collapses and it's whack. But they

don't care. They don't They don't even listen to anything from the first thousand years anyway. So yeah, and then it's like Thomas Thomas has a thing, you know, against John of Damascus, and then he cites mimon eighties. Yeah, his response to why there's no essence sentergy distinction in Dave Veritate is because mimon Id says anything that's simple cannot have distinctions. Yeah, that

would also deny the trinity, dummy, Yeah, exactly right. So I would also say, uh, you know, there's a lot on this. David Bradshaw's recent book Divine Energies and Divine Action has been published, And this is really all the essays that we are constantly sharing with people, all the PDFs that are hard to find, they've all been collected in the one book. So I definitely recommend getting that book because it's a landmark on this. So again all of these, by the way, even easier way to see

this is again the Eucharist. What did we just see with what's his face? The other day? AJ? By the way, I didn't realize AJ is a football dude. He's like a famous football bro. Did y'all know that AJ who was on here right here at this AJ bro, Tim's buddy, Aj' is like some superstar, was like a college football superstar bro. So anyway, I apologize. I wasn't meaning to be rude or dismissive. I didn't actually know that AJ was like a college football star guy. But

anyway, he has a really fascinating story. If you go watch all like the ESPN clips of of his his family. He and his brother were both going to play football and then something happened, I think to his brother health wise. So it's a really fascinating story. And I didn't even realize that

that's who that got was. So but in that discussion with aj we got to this point on the real presence, right, and that the the point is that the real presence is really like one of the best ways to see the essence energy distinction, because no Roman Catholic thinks that you're eating the essence of God. And really they but they all want they all want to say, well, the real presence must mean uh, you know, participating in

divinity, body, blood, soul and divinity. Right, that's the thing they always say, yeah, exactly, So what's the divinity there if it's not the essence of God? Well, Ludwig, God tells us that it's a created accident apparently. Yeah, but you understand that. Newsflash, it's already been defined for you guys. It's called Ephesus. It's Saint Cyril, and he says, you do not partake of the essence of God and the Eucharist, partake of the uncreated energies and immortality. And this is in the

first and second letter to six Census. So if you go read the first and second letters to six Census, which are online, but nobody ever knows. They're just lazy. They don't go read this stuff. They don't care it tells you that it's not the essence of God, it's not a creature. A creature can't make us participate in divine life. That's Arianism. If Christ is just another creature and he just gives us another creation, as Paulomas

says to Barlem, then we're all just arians. There's nothing we're essentially wrong with what Area said. I don't need another created status. I need uncreated life and immortality. Yes, by the way, doctor Bradshaw is super cool if you meet him in person. I got to head then. We had a couple of meals when we were at a conference. We had a breakfast together, and I might have even I don't remember if I sat with him at a dinner or something maybe, but I have had some good conversations with

with him. I mean in person, like he's cool in persons. What I'm trying to say anyway, But I've shared this like a million times and it gets old because people just don't even just I don't know if it doesn't register or what. Let me see if I can find this tweet, let's

say, Cyril Eucharist. I probably won't be able to find this from No, I'm not gonna be able to find it right now anyway, must see flap says one dollar, and says I expect the SMP to peek at five five one hundred before bitcoin at h When it hits around eighty, then the FED will it cautioning a recession. They're planning on a twenty twenty four de risking. I'm envisioning a twenty twenty five bull market. However, how could

cyberpolygon impact banking and crypto? Yeah, I mean those are all really you know, difficult questions. It seems like a cyber polygon if it happened, it would be to like to justify. Oh, now we need to go over to fed coin. Now we need to shut down all this stuff. Right, but again, who knows? Bmax nineteen sixty six ten bucks, Thank you so much, the real Eric Obara three dollars. I'm guessing that this might not be the real Eric Barro. Jay Dyer is the man who

lacks all nuance and perspective. He's a big baby and he can't handle any invective. Now wait a minute, Eric, I'm the one that always makes jokes, and you're the one that said that people on the internet were being

mean to you. Quote making internet cartoon strips of you. So again not even knowing what a meme is. Eric Obarrow got his feelings hurt twenty eighteen because people made memes about him, which he called quote internet cartoon strips, Jay, you can't handle this and the petite pink pajamas of silk that you wear. You slip on those. Yes, you jealously watch Taylor Marshall suck Tristana's and gorged milkers. That was a wild super chat. I have to

admit the real Ericabarrow one dollar. You constantly go against the pope, and you forget the trauma at the time that he dropped the soap Unable to withstand carbohydrate Lofton's Katana swings, you were forced to shriek back and poorly sing. Correct, that's what it's called cringe core. Eric ac drops forty bucks. Thank you so much. Ac. Why do you need to know the law

of identity to tell people about ultimate reality and worldviews? Exactly right. So, going back to the quote debate, I wouldn't call the debate with Derek myth Vision. Derek Mythvision, guys, there's two hundred thousand plus people that follow a channel called Derek myth vision and the channel is devoted to exposing Christianity, and within two minutes of asking questions about his epistemic criteria, he had

a fit. So you guys can go watch that amusing the interaction where they said I was a mean man just simply for asking what the basis to believe in their epistemic criteria was volunteer three dollars and seventy two cents. Jay, what are your thoughts about Dugan? I've done many podcasts on Dugan, I've covered it many many times. I just started reading forth political theory. I disagree with the Gnostic chapter in the background or in the back, the very

last chapter sam sua ten dollars. Can God be timeless and changing? No? God does not undergo change, but he is able to do different things. And the reason we believe that is because we accept it on the basis

of divine revelation. So, for example, we see the manifestation of his Theophanes doing different things, coming and going in time and space right, So the cloud and the sea, the fire right, all these theophanies that we see throughout the Old Testament, they're described as really divinity, and we're told

that God does different things in time and space. So in some way, because God is above the antinomis some theologians say of stasis and change, time and eternity, God can appear to do things that don't make sense to us according to our vantage point. So although we don't think that God undergoes change, there is, for example, God's condescension to engage in reciprocity with human

beings, and doctor Bradshaw covers this in one of his great essays. So does that mean that God undergoes change because he wills to answer our prayers? Does he undergo change because he engaged in the in kenosis? Well, he chose not to exercise all of his attributes or powers when he became an infant, when he entered into the canotic state, So does that mean he underwent change. Well, if a strict act is purest definition of God is at

work, then yes, he had to do something. If he does something different than he underwent change, because that's no longer pure act, that's doing a different act. Pure act is one perpetual, eternal act. To do something different is a different act. Okay, it's not rocket science, it's just what you guys yourselves defined as Okay, and Aja was totally incorrect when he said there's sub acts beneath pure act and totally not true. Not Atonism,

not in scholastic philosophy. Okay, that's more like what we say, how can God prevent a murder but also allow one? I don't understand that question. So God can create a world where beings are secondary causes and have the ability to affect their own causal actions. So it sounds I mean, I don't know what your position is, Sam, but it sounds like a kind of a predestinarian Calvinist position where God has to be the direct cause of

every event. So we think that God could create a world where beings themselves are what we call secondary causes. So God is the first cause. He's the creator of the universe. He sustains it, he preserves it, He is there present in an energetic way in the universe. Contrary to what Muslims say, Muslims don't believe God is present in time and space. And this

is also, by the way, why Muslims don't believe in incarnation. So notice Roman Catholics, when you do your metaphysics, you argue the same thing that Muslims are you right, God is absolutely simple, pure act blah blah blah blah blah. I'm saying, they argue, in this kind of way.

God is perfect, all the Muslims say. And if he's perfect, he can't change or do something different, or undergo change or enter into time and space because now he's no longer perfect because he's entered into the domain of flux and change. Muslims argue, Roman Catholics, did you hear me?

So Muslims are more consistent than you, because then you turn around and say with us that the second hypostasis entered into time and space and walks around and does things while you have the same metaphysics of a Muslim that an absolutely simple, pure act thing can't be in time and space. I mean, how do you guys not see this? I mean literally? In Phaser's chapter on the Neoplatonic argument for classical theism, he says, the one cannot be in

time and space, then how are you a Christian? And by the way, in that very book, Phaser goes on to argue that it's time to give up the idea of creation x Nelo in Apologetics Exactly so, now you go back, You're going to Greek philosophy, not Christianity. What use is all of these five quote classical theist proofs If they're proving demonic heretical positions, it's so stupid. I'm not saying that Phaser is stupid. He's not.

He's very smart. He's smarter than me and knows these philosophy is better. But you can be smart and be wrong. All right. I forgot that we're doing open the form here. So we got a bunch of people, uh, stacked up trying to find like the most Let's see who's going to be sassy. Here we go. We've got some sassy names. Garfield, Garfield, what's up? Garfield? Now? Look, if you if you don't talk about the topics, it's immediate boot. Hello, Yeah, what's

up? Hi Jay? Just quick one. So when we talk about christ divinity, when he manifest in time and space, we are we saying that the energies of prison in his body. Yes, so that's epicist. So the human flesh is what is infused with energies? Would you say? Yes, that's the definition of the Six Council, that the humanity of Christ is fully deified via the uncreated energies, which John Damascus says are communicated to his humanity. So it's the divine hypostasis of the Son in a personal, energetic

way, walking around and doing things and deifying and whatnot. Right, Okay, guys from the clip, right, So it's not the Father, it's not the Holy Spirit, it's not the divine Essence that's incarnate. It's the second person of the Godhead incarnate and the essence communicates to the energies. Well, it's not the essence doing, because persons do. Persons have essence, right, Persons act, not essence. Essence doesn't act. Persons act. So the Father acts to send the Son. The Son acts in time and

space to be incarnate and to then send us the Spirit for example. So it's every action is triadic, but each person in the trinity has a unique role in that one act. So the action of incarnation, for example, that's from the Father, the Son takes on the human nature and then sends the Holy Spirit. So does that make sense? Like the mission of the Son is a triadic thing, but each person is unique in that in that incarnation. Yeah, No, I'm just struggling to try to relate the relationship

between the nature and the energies. Right. So nature is what we say in hypostatic That just means that it exists in the mode of the person that has the nature. So I'm the person Jay, You're the person Bob. We both share a common nature. You have human nature. I have human nature. But what makes it unique is that I have human nature in the unique mode of the person J that has that nature, and J is not

reducible to or isomorphically identical to human nature. Right, It's a both and so it's you share the same nature, body, mind, soul, will, but you have it in a unique way as Bob. I have it in a unique way as J. That's the nature person distinction. I'm the person Jay, the hypostasis, Jay that has the nature of Adam's nature. You have Adam's nature, but you have it in a unique mode as that person. The only difference between us and the trinity, Well, there's many

differences, but one difference is that the trinity are not distinct beings. They are one being in nature. They interpenetrate and dwell in one another. But there are three distinct type of stasies that have that single nature So the Father uniquely has the divine nature as the person of the Father. The son uniquely has the divine nature as the person of the son. The spirit uniquely has

the divine nature as the person's spirit. So all of that is again just that fancy word in hypostatized just means exists in the mode of So Christ's divine nature is present in his person. Correct. Yes, that isn't identical to the essence. No, it's the same thing. But Christ doesn't become incarnate to show us or reveal us the divinity directly. The only thing that we know or experience of God is the personal energies that he uses and reveals.

So that's why if you read letter two thirty four at Basil, Basil says what the essence of God is, we do not know, but the energies come down to us, and the same thing would apply to the incarnation.

The energies are present in Christ revealing the divinity to us. This is why on Mount Sinai it's the Logos who's there present, interacting with Moses right in a personal face to face a way, as Paul says, And the second manthing is three and in John five to nine, it's Moses interacting with the you know, burning bush and the angel will lord there and eating with him. But it's not the divine essence. There's still an aspect to God which

is never revealed, never shown to us. And we see that, for example in John and Isaiah's six, where it says, you know, the seraphim have to cover their eyes, right because creaturely beings never see or comprehend the divine essence. And that's because God is forever both transcendent and imminent.

So we don't fall on either side of this dialectic like Muslims do to say that God is only transcendent, right, Muslims say God is never eminent, even though they contradict because they think that the Koran is an eternal Koran in time and space, which is a contradiction. But still God is not just transcendent or beyond or whatever. He's also imminent. So how do we know

or what's the way that we would describe him as imminent? Well, the New Testament, following the Old Testament itself, uses a description of the inner gaea, So energies is not something invented by Palamos. It's from Paul and it's from the subtuagen the inner gaia of God are his operations, powers, attributes that he reveals to us and and energies. They're not synonymous, which is actions are they like the Greek the Greek term they're actually sort of have

a have like a metaphysical existence to some extent. Well it Energies can describe different things, even in God. So for example, God's omnipotence is an energy. God's actions are called energies or operations in Basils. So most of the time when when Basil Acabadocians use the term like and when Basil uses it in against eunomias, it's typically operations. So whatever, when for example, uh, Christ walking on water, that would be an operation proper to his

divine power, right, But it's not. But there's different actions or operations that God does, such as as creating a world. So creating a world is a divine action, is proper to God's divinity to create a world, but it's not the same thing as walking on water. They're clearly obviously two different actions. So does that help? But then that we speak of the logi or the divine ideas, those are also a type of energy. According to Palomos, Yes, yeah, I mean yeah, I've got some thinking

to do, but thanks, Yeah, absolutely great questions. Appreciate those. Yeah, I would say again, you know, go go if you want to watch the lecture that we did, lecturing through the Totality of on the Orthodox Faith by John Damascus. You know, there's extensive energy discussions in those talks. So I will have a show here in a little bit with with Tristan, So I might have to get off quick. I'm going to try to pick some good ones here. But I want to remind everybody too that

the show spawned is Chalk dot com. Head on over to Chalk dot com. Use promo go Ja fifty to get fifty percent off the tongkat Alie. That's my favorite testosterone boosting supplement they have over there. There's also the Action two point zero, which is available on the main page. There as a male vitality stack and it does work. I've been using Chalk for several years

now. This is the performance stack. If you use the promo go Jay fifty, you get fifty percent off all those amazing Chalk products over there. It's not just for guys, it's also for ladies. As well. There's ladies supplements you can get chalk is legit, they actually work. There's peer reviewed studies you can read over other site. They also have a recurring subscription discount which is J five to three Life. That's J five three L A F E. Use those promo codes and you get vast discounts. Senna,

what's up? Senna? Cinnebun? What's up? Oh? Hi? I had a question. Actually, I was wondering because a lot of Christians seem to have rules about how to go about courting. But is there anything specifically in the Bible that that basically sets out these rules that they do or is it just attributed to things that they think align with their values. That's a good question. I mean, I think in the you know, if you really like proverbs, there's kind of like loose ideas of what courtship would be.

And and you know that's the ancient medieval world. A lot of marriages were arranged back then. So I think that as you know, Western society and civilization progressed past the period of romantic love the medieval courtly tradition, that really change things out of the normativity of arranged marriages into marriages based on you know, decision which should be there. I think I don't want to be in an arranged marriage for sure. So but I mean there's not really like

explicit quote biblical arguments about courtship. I think it's just more of a more of a traditional thing. I mean, it does seem to work better for families in for people who are looking for marriage and family, courtship seems to

produce better fruits. But sometimes people get really crazy and legalistic with this, and a lot of so called Christian heterodox circles where they try to enforce like eighteen hundreds era, like you know, puritanical courtship, and it just leads to nonsense because the expectations are so high and people can in ardy and time can't match up to these crazy expert expectations, and it's just it just a lot of deluded people out there in this whole domain. So I don't have

any answers. I'm sorry, why complex, He's been waiting for a long time, what's up? I mean a lot of Calvinists do this courtship stuff and it ends up being a big disaster. I've seen years of people having disasters through Calvinists courtship stuff. So trad cats do it, I mean, or some orthodox do it, and it can work. It's just that sometimes it turns into this like almost like cult like thing where people get crazy with it. So I don't know what the answer is why complex having a hard

time connecting guys. Remember we will be with Tristan here on my channel in a little bit. A lot of people in here. I'm trying to pick looking at different bios to see who who has like the most ugh, the most likely interesting. I am a tennis ball. Now looks like it's kind of just all trolls, So I don't know. Matthew Rooker, Matthew, what's up? Matthew choose wisely. Zachary sends a dollar and says, I'm

Orthodox. Can you pray for me? I have a ls of the daughter who's too Yeah, sorry to hear that, Zachary, or pray for what's up? Matt Are you there? Yeah? I'm here? Yeah? What's up? Can you hear me? Yes, sir, I'm just uh listening to you for what he listened to you from all and I'm currently uh and you're cutting out. Dude, I can't hear anything, so try maybe maybe next time try to call back in. It's all it's cutting out. I can't hear anything you're saying. I heard you say you listened, and that

was it. Somebody is saying Jack dangelis one dollar? What do you think of Theodore's show bought? Would you invite him on the show? I mean, I think he's like a one Peter five guy. I haven't I haven't really paid attention. I'm not being rude. I just don't follow a lot of the trackcat world. So when I have him on the show, maybe I'm mean to see questioning room Patty ten Dollars. Jay's me and he keeps asking me reasons for why I should believe his system. That's me exactly,

and Petty says he's joking. Keep up good work, Jonathan Miller ten dollars go back on Tucker Carlson call me okay. I appreciate that, Jonathan Alula ten dollars. I want to donate support. Don't have anything to say, but you're my favorite philosopher. Well thanks, man, I appreciate that. That's very kind of you. Let's see here, I'm trying to find somebody who might be Maxfield, but so Tristan and are going to be covering Oliver

Stones. Wow Street, Wow Street here in a little bit. Hello, Yes, sir, Hey Jay, I've been enjoying a lot of your talks on the metaphysics behind Orthodox christian I was just wondering with regards to presuppositions, there's to be one you're cutting out, dude. I'm sorry, I can't understand anything. I can't understand anything, man. Sorry, Let's see, I keep picking the worst, dude, not you as a person, not you as a person, worst quality of connection. That's all I mean.

Do not get your feelings hurt. I'm not calling you bad. So it's against all Ortho bros. Which I'm not dissing you, guys. I'm just trying to find looking for uh contrarians who So it's like if you want Atheism, Catholicism, Protestanism and all the Ortho bros call which is funny. Not dissing you guys. I'm just saying Jack, let's see what Jack's got on

his mind. What's up Jack? Hello? Yes, sir, So, I was kind of I kind of want to come Orthodox, but I don't really understand about like contraception and divorce and I think I have a different view. Yeah, I would just say Ubi Petris has a documentary on it from the Orthodox perspective, and also an interview with doctor David Bradshaw. So I would say to go watch those because they deal with the whole thing very in

very in depth way. Okay, thank you to watch that. Yeah, Ubi Patris's channel, and there's a documentary that he made and a interview with doctor Bradshaw on that very question. Fish no, Nicholas fish fish left hell, Yes, sir, was everybody calling from a dang taint from a from a toilet? What's going on? Calling from a Are you in the cockpit? Bro? I'm in my car right now. Can you hear me clearly? Or I can't hear you. I'm just jogging. Go ahead, all

right, all right? Cool. I just had a question about the Trinity and in regards to like the essence of God and the persons. So when I like think about the Trinity, obviously it's like in a way inconceivable for us to like it, hasn't it. But when like when you talk about the essence of God and you say the Father shares Uh has the nature of God, and so does the Son have the nature of God, and the

Holy Spirit is the nature of God. This since that they share, is this like you know, not in the sense of like time, but like prior to the persons, or is this something that is like, No, there's no temporal there's no temporal priority in God. Okay, because when I think of that, I'm like, okay, So they all share of the same essence. So could you say that's high that the essence is higher than

any of the one person's or would it be equal with the person? There's no higher or lower in God. It's just it's just I mean, it's not any different than the analogy to I mean, do I have human nature more than I'm jay? I mean no, it's like the nature exists in the mode of the person that has the nature. So no, nature is just what God is. And since we don't know what God is, we just simply give it that apathetic statement or status of that God's essence or nature

is unknowable. We know that he has the nature because He's revealed it to us, but what is is we do not know, So we can we can only like like you said, we can only know God by his person in a personal way. Right, just in the same way that when you say you know me, it's because you've had a direct personal interaction with me, Right, But I can't like look into your soul and see like what

exactly you're comprised. Right. So like to a lot of people think that, you know, it's like a definitional thing, like a science project. Like let's put God in a microscope and we'll define what his essence is. And now we don't know what God is, but we know that he is.

That's basil, okay. And so in relation to that, one of the things that I like look at a lot in terms of like I guess you could say, like creation and how it reflects God is like let's say Fibonacci or the Mandel broad set and like fractals or sacred geometry and nature. Yeah, and in what way would you say that related to God? As it is a unise Like these things are like universal patterns in the created world. Yeah, they show us the they show us the mind and the divine

ideas behind the created order. Okay, So like you would say, like it is right to say, like these things are kind of like a fingerprint of or the reflection of like God's mind absolutely, Okay, all right, beautiful because I was just confused on how to relate and obviously with fractals and

fibonacci those are those are like mathematical sequences and patterns. But in terms of things like sacred geometry, is that something that we really dive into as uh, you know, as Christians or is that something that you would like not really look too far into. No, I think there is truth to that. I mean, if you uh, you know, for many years have

talked about that book Quadraga. The first uh several pages of that Quadraga book are about what's called sacred geometry, and really that's just pointing out the patterns and the principles between different disciplines like music or mathematics and geometry, and you know, they're all based on the same principles, which shows the same mind

or ordering behind all of them. Would you say that that is something that would be under the label of like natural revelation or like natural like theology like the Roman Catholics we say, or something like that, or is that like a natural revelation because like obviously, like when I see like like sacred geometry

or I see fractals, in nature or any of these things. To me, it's like, okay, can you you could possibly reason from that that, Okay, this is obviously a pattern that is reflecting something greater, especially with its universality. Right, So could you say that's possibly a way that in nature we could reason too, or at least come to like an understanding of the Creator. Or is that not correct to say? No? I think that Paul says is one that everything testifies to the mind of the One

True God and his created order. Right. But that's not the same thing as like natural theology, where they say, like, okay, no, by itself you can reason back to the Trinity or something. No natural theology. When they read Romans Won, they think that it's actually talking about doing syllogistic reasoning, and that like Pagans would sit there and if they thought hard enough, they would come up to the same reasoning principles that aristol had and

they would reason back to a first cause. And nothing in Romans one is about doing a syllogistic reasoning Aristotilian first cause. It's just merely saying that deep down in everyone's heart there's an intuitive sense by all of the beauty and the majesty around them, that there is a creator, there is a one true God, and they know it deep down, and that one true God in some way is even known, as Paul says, as the logos, the whole the logos is near, the Word is near you even in your hearts,

Paul says to unbelievers. So so that's the actual nation. Thank you for that, though, I gotta go appreciate that we had the show tonight with Tristan Sam Sulix says, if God's acts change, I didn't say that God's acts themselves change. I said that God is able to do different things. And the answer in orthodox theology from the Cappadocians and from Palamas and from the Bible is that God does different things. God's essence does not undergo change.

Yet God does different things, and that's because of kenosis. So everything that you're saying, Sam, just apply it to the second person incarnate. I didn't say that it's a created thing incarnate. I'm not talking about his human nature, talking about the second person, who's an uncreated person in time and space doing different things. So the answer is not a bifurcated either or between either God is created or uncreated, or his actions are created, uncreated,

or changing or unchanging. The answer is that God transcends the antinomies, as many Orthodox theologians say, so he is able to do different things. I mean, this is literally the terminology of Staniloe in Orthodox dogmatics. So if God creates a world, walks on water, and then destroys that world, those are not the same acts. Okay, God walking in time and space to change the wine at Cana and to heal the blind, those are

divine powers in time and space, and they're different actions. That does not mean that they're created actions. They're uncreated actions synergizing with His created human nature. But they're not created actions any more than that Theophanes are created Theophanes. You understand that that Theophanes are called God. The Bernie bush is a Theophanic manifestation. The Bernie bush is not still burning, and the fact that God is no longer in the burning bush does not make God a changing God.

So the answer is that God is above both being and becoming stasis and change. Do you understand that? This is the very answer Maximus gives to the originist challenge. So you're trying to pit things back to the Originist dialectic of either ors, and the answer that Maximus gives to originism is that God is above both statis and change, so everybody's always trying to choose