Open Debate! TAG vs Atheist Relativist, Black Hebrew Israelite, Catholics, Protestants Etc -Jay Dyer

All right, what's up? We're live now. This is an odd time. I don't know. Maybe it's too early. People don't have their debate testicles dropping yet too early in the morning. They're too childlike they just came out of the womb at the dawn of the morning. I don't know what that means, but welcome everybody. It's an open debate, and as you guys know, that means that nobody will ever ask questions on the topic or stick to the topic.

They will talk about.

The dumbest stuff you've ever heard of, and they will not know how to unmute themselves because that's always what happens. So there's no point in even talking about it. We got one person already. The topics, as you guys can see, are Catholics, Muslims, Protestant, Atheist, Arian, Hebrew Roots, Joe's Witnesses, Mormons, cult sex, black, Hebrew Israelites, whatever we can get our hands on today. It's all on the table.

I have.

There's a black man, atheist, black science atheist man who's talking smack. Hopefully he'll come. Usually when I put sneak O and Tate in the title, it brings Muslims, but I don't know. I don't know what we're gonna get today. We've got row row dig.

What's up, dude, gotta I'm mute, man, Come on, I'm mute.

Roe dig Do you want to all? You have to unmute yourself? Okay, whatever, better than you. Here's the guy talking smack. Here we go. What's up? He's gonna set it straight?

Man? You just you just predict that.

Yeah, what's up? What's up?

Doll? You doing?

Man?

Yeah? What how's it going?

God?

You're gonna set as straight to disprove the existence of God?

Is that?

What's up?

Oh?

I'm I'm I'm from the Church of Letter the Saints, So I'm a Mormon.

Are you trolling? You're joking?

No, I'm like, I'm dead ass, I'm like a Mormon.

So like you sound like a black dude though they don't really like black dudes and Mormonism.

Yeah, but like you know, I just try to be different. I'm just trying to be Like.

You're trolling. You said that, you said follow the you know what I mean? Uh huh, Yeah, you're troulling. You said that you didn't believe in gods, and now you're a Mormon.

You're joking.

Yeah, okay, So how can you prove God's.

Existence the transcendental argument?

Okay, so can you elaborate on it?

Yeah?

Without God's existence, it would be impossible to give a philosophical justification for one's worldview. That's how tag goes.

Aren't worldview subjective?

No, I mean that would be a self defeating position if you believe that worldviews were all subjective.

So you don't think we would have different worlds.

Having different worldview doesn't. That doesn't entail that they're all subjective. That's a non secutor.

So do you think all world views are the same?

No, at route, everybody has a worldview, but not everybody has the same worldview. But that doesn't mean that everybody's worldviews are the same.

Yeah, so they're not the same.

Right, But that doesn't entail relativism. So you understand that relativism will be a false conclusion from the fact that we have our own world views because there are things that we all share in common. Right, So, for example, you've got to have you got to have some account of knowledge or ethics in your worldview. So the question is, well, who has a consistent, coherent account of knowledge and ethics. Let me give another example of why would be impossible

But how does that link to God?

Well, because if we're going to I have to give an account for our worldview, and that what I believe a worldview is is some basic commitments within the domains of epistemology, which is the doctrine of knowledge, ethics are right and wrong, and metaphysics what exists and what doesn't. So those three things make up a worldview, and we either have an account for that worldview or we don't.

Okay, but well, I could go into all of that, But how do you link it to God? You could link it to anything. How do you specifically just link.

It to God.

Well, not anything can give a justification. So there's all kinds of things I could say therefore potato chips, right, But potato chips doesn't provide any justification for the principles that I'm utilizing, like logic, like reasoning, like mathematical principles, et cetera. All those things that are necessary to have a coherent worldview. They're not justified by me just saying anything.

But again, you're just assuming that there's a being that's accounting for that.

I'm not just assuming it. I'm making the argument. It's a transcendental argument, has an actual form to the argument.

It's a circular argument, because how do.

You prove that that's circular?

The circular the argument is proven by the impossibility of the of the contrary. That's a reductio argument.

No, it's not, because there could be other possibilities. You just don't know of any and you just assume it's God. There could be other possibilities could there.

Be there can't be other possibilities because it's set up in a disjunct of it in an either or you.

Said they can't or can't there.

Cannot be because the argument that because because there's a limited number of options whereas to where you can go in terms of a worldview, for example, No, there's not that.

So you wouldn't be able to tell me if.

You It doesn't require omniscience to make that statement. I can make that statement because there's a limited number of places that you can go to begin any worldview. Any there's not an infinite number of.

Story There is not an infinite to what you could link it to. And that's what I'm I'm saying. There's not not a limit to where you could link it to. You could link it, but there is being a god. You could link it to being anything else, but.

Then linked to anything else will not do the work of justification, because you need a certain type of being to ground the things that we're talking about.

What's that justificating?

What justification is a principle in epistemology. It's giving an account justified true belief for the knowledge you know.

Nothing else could justify justify what you just said.

Because there's a limited number of starting points for any possible worldview. There's not an infinite number of worldviews in terms of starting points.

What define worldview already did?

It's the basic commitments to the principles that we have in terms of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.

That's a worldview.

So for example, let me let me give you an example. Let me give you an example. Let's say, let's take ethics. Since you mentioned that there's not an infinite number of possibilities between knowledge, for example, ethics either being objective or subjective. Right, Okay, so there's not an infinite that's in either or that's a disjunctive. So there's not an infinite number of possibilities

But you can justify your worldview by not defuting the other ones, because you're you're just assuming your.

Worlds view is right without knowing all of the other world views.

Again, I don't have to refute every single worldview because there's a limited number of worldviews from the vantage point of starting points.

So how do you know your worldview is correct.

Because that's the only one that gives an account for the basic principles that are listed.

Of pistemology, what else, metaphysics and ethics?

Right, So you need all three of those things to have a worldview. They're all they all kind of go together. So if I can argue that, for example, that universal concepts, mathematical principles, et cetera, those things can't be reduced to matter, and if God exists, then it makes sense why there would be those things, why the would be immaterial things like laws or laws of logic, laws of nature, et cetera. So, in other words, it's two different peeding world views. And

There couldn't be any other possibilities where this could still be.

I think, well, I mean, you're welcome to argue something to what's your position agnosticism? You're not a Mormon.

I knew you were judged.

No, But how do you prove that it's a personal being.

Right. So, for example, this was the other question I was going to ask, if you were to talk about metaphysics, like, there's only a certain number of options that you could choose for say, the universe being intentional or non intentional, or to use the philosophy terms teleological or disteleological. If it's disteleological, then the universe has no purpose, it's purpose less.

So what you just said was there should be a purpose, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I would frame it this way. If there's no purpose in the purpose, right, So if God is not personal, then there's no intentionality and purpose in the universe. And if there's no intentionality purpose in the universe, then knowledge is not possible.

Right. How is knowledge not possible if there's no.

Purpose because everything would be a purpose less and so what you think has meaning or has directed doesn't really have that.

It's all just purely subjective.

Well that that works fine with my worldview.

Okay, Well, if everything is subjective, then knowledge is not possible and you can't even say that all knowledge is subjective, as we talked about earlier.

Well, we can look at subjective's truths in the community. We don't have to look at it as drastically as you're looking at it in the whole universe.

Well, but again, it doesn't matter whether it's the universe or whether it's the community. Like, there's nothing that makes something true because the community says so or think so. That doesn't make things true. Can't the community be wrong about stuff?

Yeah? I would because he see that truth is subjective.

But no, but I'm arguing it's not subjective. It's impossible to actually believe the truth is subjective because do you understand that if you say truth is subjective, that proposition itself is self refuting.

No, it's not fine.

It is because you're saying you're making a universal truth claim that all truth is subjective. You can't make a universal claim if everything is subjective.

But but you can't make But if I'm saying everything is subjective, it's still subjective.

Every you're not justified in making the claim because you're limited as a finite being. That's a what in logic, it's called a universal quantifier when you say.

Everything, Well, we can make claims without.

Well, you can make claims all day long, but they're not justified claims. They're contradictory claims just.

Because we're not certain about something.

It has nothing to do with certain it's not about certitude. It's about a flat out contradiction. You can't say everything is subjective because everything is a universal quantifier about all states of affairs at all times. It's a universal claim, and that's not possible if everything is subjective.

Okay, well you're right, you're one.

Okay, all right, Well see I'll see you at the Mormon temple ceremony next week. Good job, dude, light World, what's up, man? We'll get married in space and have some space babies. Light World, what's up? Gotta unmute dude?

Hey Jay, how's it going. I'm in I'm in the car right now, So I apologize. If there's a little bit of background noise, but I wanted to hop up here and just comment on a few things I don't want you guys were talking about. I found it pretty interesting. Little disclaimer. I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm cradle Catholic, was born and raised in the faith, and so I have

I didn't say personal opinion, I said intentionality. Sure, God doesn't have a God doesn't have opinion.

Sure, yeah, I agree exactly. So my point is is really where we seem to like anthromorphosized in God quite a bit by giving him human characteristics, saying that he needs this or he needs that in order for some there to be relevancy. My God, the Roman Catholic God, he deviates from all of that. He is not a thing. He's not part of this world at all. So to try to comprehend him or wrap him around in a box, uh, with that reason is you know.

Just I mean, your your own worldview.

Your own worldview believes in anthropomorphic terminology.

So what do you mean, what do you mean my own worldview believes.

In Roman Catholicism teaches anthropomorphic terminology can be used for God.

Well, yeah, so we have the Son of God and we have different.

Ways for us to understand that's not an anthropomorphic term. That's a person. The Son of God's not an anthropomorphic term.

I appreciate that. So let me let me, let me try to say this because I'm I'm really not trying to, I guess, debate on as much things to just kind of share my ideas. You know, if you disagree with my ideas, that's fine. I'm not really here to debate, just kind of.

But I mean, do you actually know the Roman Catholic position or you just stating what you think is the case?

No, I do, I do, and so I.

Don't think you do. I mean you think you do, but I don't think you do.

Okay, well, I think I do, and you might think that I don't. That's fine.

I mean I can already tell you don't by the missu incorrect terminology you're using. So what's your what's your point.

Go ahead, I'm gonna say.

You just speak very eloquently, you know, and and and you know you use a vocabulary very very well. So I'll give you that much. But I don't know if that means I know anything less about the Catholic Church. So God is not of this world, like I was saying, and Jesus Christ, you know we we we as the son of God. He came down to earth, you know, his representation, his physical body. Nonetheless, he was still God. That's the only physical manifestation we've ever had of God

Yeah, that's not even truer, that's not right.

Well, and I believe that to be true.

Well, I mean, have you read the Old Testament?

Sure?

Okay?

Did God ever appear in the Old test Did God ever appear in the Old Testament prior to Christ becoming incarnate?

Fair enough? Okay, fair enough. I give you that he walked with he spoke to Moses, Noah, multiple people.

I'll give you that, okay.

So it's not true that He only appeared in the person of Christ at the incarnation.

Right, none in these physical forms as a burning bush, maybe anything you know, camp morphosized in in which way that he communicated with Noah.

I don't think that did he wrestle with did he wrestle with Jacob?

So a lot of these questions, So.

I mean, did he wrestle with Genesis thirty?

Have you read this?

I can't literally, I can't tell you yes or no. Historically, I can't tell you yes or no.

I have I have my I mean, what does Jenesis say? What do you mean?

I want?

I want to give you I want you can I want to answer something. I want to answer something if I can, because you're you're You're asking me a lot of questions and I don't feel like I've been able to answer or finish any thoughts yet, and it's really making it hard for me to gather my thoughts.

Uh huh, Yeah, it's my fault. I'm sure.

No, it's not your fault at all.

Man.

Like I said, I've already given you, you know, credit for being a very good speaker and all those things. So I'm trying to keep up with you. So in the Bible, Jesus see, I I'm getting sidetracked. I apologize, But in the Bible, uh, you know it says how Jesus spoke, and he he preached, and then he brought the disciples back, and then he explained differently to the disciples. So a lot of the Bible is written in allegory.

Those thoughts of Okay, does Jesus take the wrestling with Jacob to be an allegory or does he identify himself as the one that was wrestling?

So all of it's through God. All power is through God. Anything that's done is through God. All of it that's all through God.

There is no man.

Do you hear anything that I said?

You asked me, who's through Jesus? I said, yes, through God? Correct?

Can you not even hear the questions?

Or like, does it not registering in your head what I said? Does Jesus identify himself as the one wrestling with Jacob in Genesis thirty two?

I don't overbaate him with it, but I can tell you.

That, okay, But you don't know what You wanted to get on and dispout a bunch of stuff. But I'm not trying to me. I'm not trying to mean to you, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Okay, So in John two, Jesus identifies himself as the one who was wrestling with Jacob in genals.

So you're just gonna talk over me.

So yeah, this is the problem with Roman Catholics is that you guys don't have any clue what you're talking about, and you think you know what you're talking about.

Power comes from God. I don't need to know.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?

All power comes from God. You cannot wrestle any adversary without God. Period.

You don't even understand it's Jacob isn't an adversary when he with Jesus.

Okay, what are you talking about?

So what is symbol?

Because I this is idiotic, man. I'm sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand why you guys love to get on as if you are these super intelligent, know it all people and you have no clue what you're talking about. Ads exactly. Roman Catholics are insane, That's what I mean. It's like the only people left in Romanism are people that are literally just nuts except for except for tim what's up?

I have a question what arguments that can use against the being modern day profets, because I remember those. What arguments can I like I can bring forth for the moderns being a falsed thing.

Well, Zachariah prophesies. I think it's Zakaria thirteen or fourteen that in the last which means the time of the coming of the Messiah, there won't be prophets anymore. If you claim that you're a prophet, you will be stoned because there's no such thing as people continue to prophesy after the last prophet. So Jesus says, for example, that

Okay, thank you. I also have a question.

I've like, I've read on some saints, but and like, what's with the saints being given like information like or revelation by good.

Yeah, that's that's true.

There's clairvoyance, but that's not public divine revelation. That's part of the apostolic deposit right. That's why Jude says that the faith was once we're all delivered to the saints. That's the dog the dogmas and the fullness of the of the faith.

Right.

But that that doesn't mean that you can't go see an elder and he, you know, has a clairvoyance about you know, what your issues are, what your problems are, He knows something about about you. But we don't take those things and say, oh, that's part of the you know, the dogmas of divine revelation.

Okay.

So essentially what you're saying is the like the way that we distinguished this is because we've already been given the fullness of like information. However, a clayfuloice is different because it's information that we've has already been revealed to us.

Right, It's not part of the deposit of the faith. I mean, it could be a miraculous thing, like an elder knows miraculously that you know something about you or something like that, or he knows the future about what's going to happen to you, or something like that, but that's not part of the dogmas and the apostolic deposit the full Like Jude says, the faith, as in the

Okay, yeah, I do, thank you, thank you, thank you.

So it's if you look at zachari At thirteen when it describes the Messianic era, it describes it as one where there's not really a need for the office of an Old Testament prophet. In that day, every prophet will be ashamed of his vision. If he prophesies, they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. He

You can leave with.

Super chat through stream labs. There is the link to stream labs right there, and thank you guys so much. Orthodox Mario, Do Do Do do?

Dude?

Hello, what's up? Oh right, sorry, I didn't know my life. I have a question. I'm a Greek Orthodox. I got by the Greek Orthodox Church and I yeah, I saw one of your videos.

I think you posted it a few years ago and you were talking about how the Greek Orthodox has something.

To do with I forgot what it's called.

You basically were telling people to attend to the Russian Orthodox because of what's happening in the Greek a sort of church.

Yeah, go arc.

So not every Greek church, not churches in Greece, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is what I meant.

Oh you're talking about American.

Yeah, I'm not in Greece, dude.

Yeah, yeah, you was talking what was it called?

It was?

Sorry I forgot man talk about?

Do you know what I was talking about?

I mean you're maybe talking about the ecumenical patriarchy and the CIA and all that. That's like a six year old podcast.

Okay.

Also that's nothing to do with the the because I.

Mean England in England and the Greek Orthodose Church in England.

I don't know who.

I mean. I imagine you're under your own bishop in England, so I don't know who the Greeks in England are under.

Oh you were just talking about the ones in America.

Is an American American jurisdiction, correct.

Because I think we're all under bottle and you want me.

Maybe, I don't. I don't know how that all works. And alongst the Greek because I've never been amongst Greek Orthodox. I've always been either Antiochian or ro Corps.

So would you would you say that whole CIA thing would be in the Greek Orthodox, where I am as well?

Is it just in the American Well, I mean the intelligence services have an interest in infiltrating and spying on and influencing every church everywhere, So I'm sure that that goes on in the UK. I mean it's probably British intelligence is probably not the CIA. But I don't know anything about Greeks in the UK honestly.

Okay, yeah, because I've been watching you for a few months now.

You actually I'm Greek myself, and.

I ended up going to a Baptist church and then.

Well, how did I help you if you went to a Baudi church?

No, no, no, no, I was attended about Yeah.

I didn't know about Christianity.

And then I started I got you. Well, I think I think I think Bartholomew is very sus and I would avoid Bartholomew. But that doesn't mean that every Greek church or person is bad.

I'm not saying that at all.

Yeah, I heard what he said about I don't want to look bad why the patriarch, But he said that we worship the same God to Muslims and Jewish people and we're all into the same god or something.

Yeah, he teaches all the same stuff that Francis and Vatican too teaches. So yeah, he's pretty pretty sketchy for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah, So you're the Russian or Phodos are not on the hidden So what you're.

Saying now, Russians are under uh uh the.

MP Okay, thank you for that.

Yeah, good questions man. Glad you're back out of Baptist world. Uh, Marty, Marty the juice man. What's up? The super super chats are pinned if you guys want to leave the super chat there, appreciate that. Gott I'm mute, dude.

Hello, what's up?

Hey, what's on your mind?

Thank you? I want to hear more about that. Your metaphysical kind of view. Uh you said something about the transcendental argument.

Mm hmmm.

I honestly like don't truly see the merit, but probably you know, I can just don't understand. So are you saying that you need that? What is knowledge like in your definition?

Well, I would say there's different types of knowledge, you know, the Greeks even had a lot of different Greek terms for different types of knowledge. But if you mean justified, I think justified true belief and gettier problem and all that in terms of modern philosophy, is a valid question to ask any worldview can they give an account for knowledge claims? And you know, why ought we to believe something rather than you know just what knowledge claims are?

Question. Okay, sorry, do you think that like a thought can capture reality? Fully? Can any thought be like one?

I mean, I think that because we're made in the image of God, we have the ability to reason about the world and accurately understand the world. But that doesn't mean that we have exhaustive knowledge or omniscience. That's why God functions in the worldview to do that for us.

Yes, So what is it that you can know if any thought is like no thought actually describes the world as it is?

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that said.

How do you know that no thought doesn't describe the world as it is?

Well?

Because I can deconstruct like any thought and see that it's partial.

Well, how but just because something is partial doesn't mean that it has no relation to the world.

I'm not saying no relation.

I'm just saying that you said, you said, you said it bears no similarity to the world.

I don't think that there's like no similarity, but I don't. I don't think it describes the world. Actually, it's like it is. I think it does describe partially.

How do you know it does that partially?

Then let me.

Let me just one second, Like, how do I know they describe it partially? I think it's like a deduction thing. Like, honestly, I don't believe that we actually know.

How would deduction tell you about inductive's knowledge?

Maybe I'm confused in the terms.

But like.

Deduction is reasoning from the general to the particular.

From the past to the future. Like, like you know, I know that let the ball.

Drop, that's inductive reason.

Inductive However, yeah, sorry, so I'm saying, like, you know, from uh, let's say, partial worldview, I call it conventional worldview. I know that the ball will fall like a million times, it will probably fall a million and one time. If I you know, pick it up.

Okay, well, how do you know that? So you think it? Well, but how do you know that?

I'm saying it's like inductive or whatever.

It's like okay, but.

David Hume, well, I'm making the human argument. That human said, you can't demonstrate or prove induction, so.

I can't prove it. That's I think that's part of my I can't prove it.

You can't.

So you're a human skeptic.

I would say that I don't know. I'm not in I'm more likey into Buddhism, like I understand it more, I don't follow like completely Western.

Okay, right, So if you're a skeptic and you don't know that there's the you know, the future will be like the past, then there's no basis or justification for knowledge.

So your your.

Position is self defeating. Why because there's no justification for knowledge?

Claims there's no justification for knowledge? What does justification mean?

Justify true belief and the gettier problem?

Justify true beliefs, and what.

The get to your problem?

Get here?

Get to your problem?

Can you say?

What is that?

Yeah?

It's an addition to the classic notion of JTB. Which is justified true belief, the traditional idea of what it means to justify or ground your knowledge claims. Somebody pointed out that you could actually also get something right accidentally, but you wouldn't be just to fighting your knowledge. This is why it's called the Ghettier problem. So it's just an additional fourth criteria.

Okay. So basically, okay, so basically just you know, in Layman's terms, why would you say that your self defeating.

Well, I mean, if you if well, you said you haven't read human, but I mean you're making a human argument, and human skepticism is premised on the idea that knowledge is not ultimately justifiable. You can't justify it. That's the point.

Yeah I can't.

Okay, then you don't have it then okay, then then debate is not possible, thank you exactly?

Okay, so we can agree.

No, that's a reputation of your position. It's not an agreement of yours. All right, So this is like low tiered day O. L W, what's up man? Yeah, argumentation is not possible. How is that a reputation of my poss I was like argue against you?

Ol W? What's up?

Can you hear me, man, So can ask a question about the essence energ.

Distinction within God with what so?

So if you consider God in and of himself, that means that he's deficient with all the energies.

So the energy is not deficient.

He's not deficient. He never lacked energy.

So that's ridiculous, right, just because the energies are if you're considering gods in and of himself, he's still deficient with all the energy.

It's not deficient. There's no deficiency in God. That's that's you have a presupposition about perfection, which is a medieval metaphysical assumption which you can't justify. So this argument hinges on stupid medieval arguments about perfection.

So, like, consider the energy of knowledge.

Let me show you how stupid this.

Let me show you how about dumbest argument is, Uh, God only created one universe and that's less perfect than if he created two, three, four, ten universes. So this is a dumb medieval argument based on metaphysical assumptions about what perfection is. So I'm going to ask you to justify the assumption of the argument. How do you know that that's what perfection is? And a divine being.

Right, So for being to be perfect, he has to be omniscient, which which is that is?

So what about all the other attributes? So is he is he not perfect until he creates a world because he hasn't become a creator.

No, because he is transiently eternally created.

He just hasn't actually done it yet.

No, that's not an If he hasn't actualized it, then he didn't eternally create it.

That doesn't make any sense, right, But transiently created it?

What is that? That is?

And there's no such thing as transiently created it?

Right?

So you're making up terms exactly.

So I can will to build a house, but I don't actually build the house now, I build it two years for now that trans yet metaphysics book.

Yeah, but that's we're not Aristotelian. That's why the aessence introducing which comes from Arisa, Well, good for you.

But are you are you Catholic?

Yeah? I'm Roman exactly, So I'm not asking.

Are you really are you really inquiring?

You're not inquiring into orthodoxy. You're playing you're playing word games.

Well I don't know, I yeah exactly, So.

You're a liar.

Goodbye.

Next up, I'm your dude, Greek name. I can't pronounce your Greek name. I'm mute.

What's up? Okay? Don't low quality?

Hey?

You able to hear me? Killer?

Okay?

Quick question raised Roman Catholic I think goes on here a while ago. I appreciate you answering the last question, which was about, Hey, I can't really impact change on a wild scale.

But anyway, back to the question, Uh, the.

Catholic position on the death penalty seemed.

To have been inconsistent.

Yeah, following kind of the trajectory of every other Catholic position. Seems like a lot of the current writings appeal to either the un position or some sort of I don't know, some some modern secular considerations. But just trying to get an idea of what the Orthodox position on the death penalty is, I'm not able to find anything specific.

Read the ro Corps statement at the ro Corps website on war and you'll find also that the Russian Orthodox Church, the MP still upholds the death penalty mospat dot ru. Their website has a teacher the social teaching, So we still uphold the death penalty, at least in the Russian Church and probably the Serbs and others, but you will find some liberalized Greeks and Oca that do not believe in the death penalty, which is dumb.

What's up, dude? You got.

Dude, I don't know why you keep coming on here if you don't want to talk. That's no nonsense day today, Matthew.

Yeah, a jay.

I just wanted to get your opinion on Sam Simon and God Logic.

I mean, I like him, but they put I know San Simon, he's he's him, but Sam Stramone.

I just want to know if they're well.

I know Sam Sermon is very knowledgeable and he's I believe he is Eastern Orthodox, right at one.

Time he would know he's not Orthodox?

What what?

What is he?

Because I feel like he's attending a Catholic church. He is a Syrian, He's of Syrian origin, so he was a Syrian Church of the East, and now he favors Catholicism as I understand.

Okay, And what about I don't know if you know God Logic, I know of him.

Him Jilly, what what what are his bully?

Because I really can't know.

Yeah, I see, I don't.

I mean somebody said he wanted to do a podcast together, and I said I was down for that, but I don't know what his uh what what church he attends or what his views are. Hm, it's your last chance to do.

What's up?

I'm mute?

Okay, well uh huh.

Hear me y uh from Greeks, from Greece. I just came back from Mount Athos. Uh so I have a message for the Europeans may be listening. Mounts was very clear. I wish I didn't take the new digital ladies, the European ladies.

Uh. I spoke to spiritual children. No thin patios.

Uh Oh, there are famous is the one and a there are sinis and both of them.

We're very clear about.

It because from September selling from September, there will be one one serio number for everything, so for example, the idea, the bank accounts, everything will be in one number. And that is essentially the last states before the markets the beast.

That's what I want to say, all right, appreciate that, so avoid the US tracking tracing crap that they want to push. Ricardo, what's up? Appreciate that? Hello, hell you, what's up?

What's up? Jay? There's like a huge delay on my Twitter.

But I just want to ask you two questions regarding the transcendal argument. I was into the debate with Trent Horne, and he was claiming that the form that you the way that you elaborate on the transcendental argument is a form of natural theology.

Okay, yeah, because in the course of that debate, Trent mistakenly used about three different ideas for what he thinks natural theology is. So he thinks doing apologetics is natural theology. He thinks using reason and logic is natural theology. But when I send him the terms of debate, I defined it according to his own church. Natural theology is defined and not just by John Paul and his few does at ratio and cyclical. It's defined in everybody's theology as

Okay, I understand that now.

But also the second thing, how do you jump from the transcendental argument, which I agree with, to a Abrahamic Orthodox God.

Yeah, I've done that a lot of podcasts on that, So you can find the one that I did critiquing doctor Ed Faser on universals. You can find another two podcasts I did on answering objections to the transcendent argument, and I show in those videos how you get to Trinity from tag. So it's too much to rehearse right now, but you can go watch those videos how Martello no wa it will.

Did all right?

So I I grew up like a pre standard Vatican two Roman Catholic, and obviously I didn't take it seriously. Recently, I've been flirting with set of a contism. However, I have been kind of ping pong back and forth East and West, and I've come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy is better in theory Roman Catholicism is better in practice.

As I mean, I don't know where you're going to where where like not in my experience, but I don't I mean I only typically end up in uh, you know, Russian Orthodox Serbian churches.

So well, it seems like even in those churches, like the priests still seem like pretty like pro birth control. And like that's the thing about Roman Catholicism is like with like Copley with the thirteenth, we have like a magisterium of moral theology we cannot kind of lean back on.

You don't like orthodoxy, No, you don't have that in Rome Falsism either, So you understand. I mean, I'm I'm surprised you haven't realized that. You know, state of a contism is a totally dead end position, right, because you love that it's a dead end position.

No, No, I love it because it's very simple and it's very fun.

A set of a contism is fun.

Yeah, Like the idea of like you're like a small group of people and like the like is like apostased.

So it's a false elitism, is what that is?

Well, I mean it's like when you read scripture, like this is like the pattern, like the vast majority will fall away and it's kind of like this small remnant will kind.

Of okay, but let's cut to the chase here, because if you read Vatican one, it's very clear that the Roman Sea will not apostatize and fall away. So that's why Vatican that's why I said acusism is impossible, and it's really it's really a sact. So you're in a cult basically, no, because the.

Argument set of a concism is essentially like Vatican two was not the.

Roman See And you didn't hear what I said? Did you not hear what I said?

You said that the Roman Sea cannot apostas.

That when I said, I said, Vatican one teaches that clear as day, that the Roman See can never apostatize and it will always have successors until the return of Christ.

Well, so on the perpetuitious successors thing, that's that's.

Kind of easy to debunk because.

That's what you mean, Like if you mean the sheriff Peter is going to be continually like constantly occupied.

Yeah, obviously that's not true.

That's no, it says successors until the end of the world. You can't have a hundred year gap where there's no pope, dude, and you understand you can never have a pope again in your system.

Well, I think, well, so the guys who say that you can't have a pope again, are the ones who say that the new right of ordination are invalid? I'm kind of split on that. I think they're ambiguous at best. But I mean most said of a concerts will still say that you could, like, there could be a new pope.

And how is that going to happen?

I don't know?

Right, So this is a total bullshit position. It's not a real position. It doesn't exist. And that's why although said of a contests all fight and hit each other and to destruct each other's Have you read the book Set of a Concious Delusion?

Yeah, I've heard you talk about it a lot, but you haven't read read that. I've not read that book yet, but.

So you don't.

So you don't think Vatican One teaches that there will be successors until the end of the world. In the Roman Sea, it doesn't teach that.

I mean it does say perpetuity of successors.

Uh huh? And so how were so there's not been a successor in the last seventy years, when when is there going to be another one?

I mean, there could be.

How so one of the theories is like, like when we keep making the joke about Pius at thirteenth and the Third Vatican Council.

Okay, so you don't see that this is totally divorced from reality. I mean, I feel sorry for you guys, But if that's what you if that's what you want, go for it. Man, have fun.

It's going to ruin your life, atheists.

What's up?

I'm mute?

Man?

Hello?

Hi? Are you able to hear me? Great? Thank you?

Hi.

I want to ask you something. It's European for European about this thing. I used to be an atheist, atheist.

I'm Catholic now, but this.

Is so you're still an atheist?

Hey, Jamie, could you bring me a coffee?

No, this is what I wanted to ask, Like.

It's a joke. So you're still an atheist because you're a Catholic.

Yeah, I got it, I got it.

I want to ask you if you think that we should, which is the way, we should, try to convert atheists to God as well?

Why convert them? I mean Francis said that atheists have a path to God as well, and I mean your own Vatican two documents teach that we all worship the same God anyway, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus. So why do you why are you trying to convert people?

Well, for me, the most important fight we got to give is against atheism for starters.

Did you hear what I said?

Yeah?

I heard.

Do you believe that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus all worship God?

I will say, they have a misguided understanding of what God is.

So I mean it says that the plan of Salvation includes Muslims. So I mean you can you can still be saying what's the point?

You know, I understand what you mean.

But what I wanted to ask you is do you think we should convert them from God?

Yeah?

But you're missing what I'm saying is that you haven't actually converted. That's my point because the God that you're worshiping in Roman Catholicism is the same God as the Muslim and the Jew and the Hindu, and if you read the Bible, that's not God. Does Jesus say that we all worship the same God? Or does he say no one comes to Father but through me.

The latter, the latter? Yeah?

Okay, So how is Vatican two in Nostratate and Lemgentium sixteen correct?

Well?

For the moment, I wasn't talking about religion. I wanted to know your opinion about religions.

Yeah, you're not talking about religion.

What do you mean?

No, I mean because I'm for the moment, I'm talking

No?

about leading the conversion of someone to believing in God.

Like you, there's no such thing as generic God. There is no generic God that doesn't exist.

I know, I know.

But don't you think that some people need like a pathway to follow in order to reach to the proper understanding of God?

Again?

I mean, uh, you could say, yeah, there's like steps in the right direction, but I mean that's It's like, if the thesis of Vatican two is that we're all worshiping the same deity, then it's not getting you anywhere.

Terrence. Yeah, I agree, Like.

Why are we You're trying to fix the world. I think you need to fix your views.

Terrence. I'm mute.

Hello, how are you good?

What's up? Hey, Jamie?

Terrence Howard, Terrence trend Darby, what's up?

And so I identify as a Hebrew Israelite. I don't follow these practices of those that you see dressed in those funny uniforms yelling at people in the street.

Corners.

However, I do identify as a Hebrew. I do believe and know that the Bible is a historical book and a covenant unto the children of Israel aka b Biblical Hebrews. And so this this topic is certainly interested.

Okay, so it's a great Why would you believe any of that? It's it's a ridiculous cult. I mean, it's totally nonsensical. There's literally no reason to believe in this stupid thing. Why would you believe it?

What do you say?

Excuse me, I'm just confused when you say a ridiculous cult.

Yeah, Black Keeper Israelie is the stupidest modern cult of all time. Like it's worse than even Mormons or anything. It's the dumbest of all. Why would you believe that?

Oh?

Okay, Well that's your that is your theory that I would certainly, uh, I would ask you to prove that.

First of all, it's a cult, because it's not a cult.

There are several different organizations who are congregations.

Yeah, they're all cults.

How's that all of them? They're all culled?

Okay, Okay, So you're just going to just say you're right, and because you make a statement and because you're.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it based on the debates I've had with all the BHI debated, So.

Based upon what How is it a cult? How is it a cult? Not just because you say so, but how is it a cult?

Well, because it's premised on a ridiculous interpretation of certain verses to try to prove that Jesus was black. I mean, do you agree with those interpretations?

How was he not black? How historically?

How how of Jesus Christ white?

I didn't say he was well, that's a non sequord. I didn't say he was white because I said he's not black.

Okay, so wait, so let's just deal with a couple of things.

Do you think those verses that talks about him with hair like wool and all that proves that he was black?

Absolutely?

But that's what I'm saying is super That's what I'm saying is super domb and low to your low IQ bullshit.

Oh well you know so, so again this is like one of those I'm white because I'm white and I'm right because I say so.

No, I'm saying that it's it's all based on ignorance. You you brought in all the racial stuff, not me.

I didn't anything.

You just said, you think you're white. Do you think you're right because you're white?

I didn't say because you brought that in. That's because you got your emotional and you can't argue the facts.

I'm not emotional.

You started with all this race stuff. I didn't say anything about race.

I didn't start with anything race.

You just did.

You said you think you're right because you because you No.

Okay, No, here's the funny thing. Now, let's just let's let's calm down, all right, because I'm not I'm not angry or anything like that.

I didn't start with any race.

So those verses have nothing to deal with Jesus being black. Why do you think Why would you believe Jesus is black?

Okay, So if you will allow me to answer those questions, and I could most scrutinly do that, all right. So the person who started out with racial stuff, because you.

Be right, all right, that's just stupid.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

S breaking out long.

Right, Jesus is black because it says he was. When it shows him glorified, it says his hair was like wool, because we all know wol means a black person.

Yeahs, yes, So when you're like running tag into an atheists, how would you refuse someone who.

Denies like the ontology of logic, like anti realism.

Well, they could go that route, but I think I would just bring up the problems with that position, which I mean, or so, are do you think logic is in some way physical?

Uh?

If you think logic is purely a token, then we don't know that it actually applies to anything in the world, if there's no real relation between the symbols and the actual external world. And usually those people just say, well, we just can't know, we don't know. Well, okay, but that's not a very good argument, just to say, well we just don't know. We can't know. So you can posit an anti realist position, But well, how does mathematics work in the world? Then to build bridges and to

All right, cool, appreciate it.

Yeah, look up Jason Lyles lecture on Mandelbrot sets, and I think that's a really good response to that.

The type of a position.

Kenobi, Hey, Jenny, I need a coffee bat and she can't hear me?

Obi wan kenobi, I'm mute.

You don't need to see identavigation. These are the arguments you're looking for.

Move along, Move along.

I'm an inquirer into orthodoxy, and there's I mean this. I think you've probably answered this before, but I couldn't find anything on it. It's a question regarding the church, what was the explanation for like, obviously during the Only Church there were plenty of heretics and schismatics, and I think at some points they made up the lay person majority.

Example, the majority of the laity or the bishops or what do you mean majority of.

The laity for example?

Yeah, what's the argument that bishops have more discernment than ladies?

I was asking, I don't understand the question.

Yeah, because like for example, I think when during the airing crisis, I think it was the majority of them that were going towards that.

Was the majority of the bishops that were not laity. I mean, I don't know how many of the laid you were Aran, but the majority of the bishops were semiarian.

Right.

Well, that's why truth is not determined by the majority. Truth is determined by the truth. So you can have a majority of the church be an error. Correct.

Then if if the Spirit is guiding the church, what is an extension of that situation as basic contract.

Well, I mean there's still human free will, there's still the reality of apostasy. And there's other cases where the majority or a large portion of the empire fell into heresy too, like the Iconic class controversy. So the promise of the Spirit is not that all of the bishops in any era will be orthodox or will persevere. You

Glad, thank you.

Yeah.

Truth is not determined by a majority, and that's precisely why all the idiotic Roman Catholic arguments about numbers doesn't prove anything numbers.

Bro Steger curlts unmute, unmute yeoh uh huh.

I I just wanted to ask you a quick question.

So I heard a lot of times about this, this saying about if God can break the laws of logic. I need to understand that, and I don't know if that can be a contradiction itself as an argument. I don't think it's an argument itself. So I just wanted to ask about it.

I think the laws of logic are features that describe the created order. So logic is something that pertains to the created order, kind of like math. So there are reflections of principles in the divine mind. They're not things that determine God's essence or nature. So we don't sit there and say God is you know, subservient to or under the laws of logic. Rather it's the other way around. That God exists that becomes the grounding for the laws

So you'd like view it as basically a part of the nature of God or something like.

That, or no, it's a reflection.

Uh.

So logic is a feature of the created order that is based on the uncreated logi in the mind of God. So there's a logie for every principle of logic or number or whatever that exists in the mind of God, but they're not identical. The low gi are uncreated, but logic and these kinds of things are creatures and they're created. That's what Maximus says, that universals can perish. That's not the platonic position played us as universals are the monad,

It doesn't actually.

So itself asking that's just self contradict itself, right.

Well, yeah, it's kind of a nonsense question. Like, for example, if you know what Aristotilians argue or Roman Catholics and Thomas argue, if you think about the the LPT, the logical problem of the Trinity. When Muslims and Jake and people like that use the LPT, they're trying to take a principled analytic philosophy or logic or predication and then say that the Christian view violates logic and therefore it's

So itself.

He will have a like another divine level that we can encumbrehend him.

We're trying to bound at the well.

It's sort of like, Uh, logic and math are like one of the divine rays that comes from the divine mind to us. God has many other things about him right that they don't exhaust him and they don't define him. It's sort of like if if you saw me over here working out math problems, would you think that math problems are my essence? No, they would be something that is sort of coming out of me or coming from me,

From when I'm getting from Muslis, is that the question itself.

Is wrong just to ask it? Is that what you're trying to.

Say, Yeah, I mean you could argue that the question is premised on the idea that God is somehow definable or exhaustible by created principles.

Yeah, since they said the mind being, he cannot be defined by limited minds, and he's unlimited, so he's not bound by by logic itself he.

Is, it would be violating the apathetic theology of Orthodoxy. Right, So, Apathatic theology holds that God in himself, in his essence, is unapproachable, unknowable, undefinable, and inexhaustible. It's the via negativa. But the way that we know him is by the energies that come down to us, as Basil says in two thirty four.

Okay, so I mean, could he manipulate itself? I mean, he's an all powerful being.

All right, we're gonna move on. No, he doesn't manipulate himself because he is a being with free will and in nature that defines who he is and how he acts. So God can't change his nature because that would be ultimately going against who he himself is. So, for example, when Paul says it's impossible for God to lie, Paul says that because God's nature and character is holy. He can't do evil or bad things, and so what we consider possible or impossible is going to be determined by

Here.

What's up?

Man?

Are you calling me from World War two battlefield?

What's up the Allies? Allies of it?

I can't hear anything you're saying. Call back again, Try again, David.

Do call me from D Day?

Oh?

Another dude calling me from D Day? What's up?

Man? Have the Allies landed? What's up here?

We know what's up?

Okay.

So I had a question about the nature of the Orthodox normatic authority that I curious speak about a lot, Okay, I just wanted to ask how you ended up at the conclusion that Eastern the Eastern Orthodox Church is the historic ordattorial that we should all be bound to, and.

By looking at the first thousand years, by looking at the first thousand years of Christianity and seeing which church matches up to the Church of the first thousand years.

But doesn't that just end up at being your personal interpretation of how that?

No, that's a that's a category error. So the fact that I came to this conclusion does not mean that the conclusion is purely subjective. So that's the mistake that the first guy they called inmate.

The fact that we have.

Interpretations does not mean that everything is a subjective interpretation. That's a non sequitor.

Okay, So yeah, I agree with that.

Then I found figured out the mistake of the first guy. But that's not longer trying to say, hold, I'm trying to.

Well, that is what you're saying, though you said that, you said that if I come to the conclusion that the Church of the first thousand years is the Orthodox Church, then that's just my interpretation. Everybody has their interpretation, But that doesn't mean that the interpretations are purely subjective.

I mean, no, I'm not saying that I'm just saying that, is it there a chance that you could be wrong?

There is a chance, but that's not what normative authority is. So you're confusing normative authority with existential certitude. Those are two different things. Normative authority means is there any body of people who have the authority to bind people to an interpretation. That's not the same thing as how do we have individual epistemic certitude about a question? Those are two different things, and that's why I'm always making this point.

No, I would say that the same objection that I'm trying to make would apply to a Roman Catholic as well.

So yeah, well, but that's not an objection. That's just a statement of what the boat that everybody's in. Everybody's in the boat of You're gonna have to figure this out at an individual level. There's no way out of that boat. Even a Roman Catholic has to try to figure out, well, which papal documents do I follow which ones are the ones that are infallible?

Which?

What do I do with Vatican two? What do I do with Francis changing the death penalty? I mean, you don't escape this in any of these systems.

Yeah, I am aware that, but I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm a Lutheran, if that makes any difference. But I'm just saying that because I've heard you say on debate with more evangelical for the stunts that it owens up at once personal interpretational discription.

No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. That's that's the normative question. That has nothing to do with So your your argument is confusing existential certitude with normative authority. They're two totally different things. Okay, do you understand why they're two different questions? The argument against the Protestant is that Jesus didn't provide the Church a historical body of people that can bind anyone to an interpretation that's normative authority. Why wouldn't Jesus provide that?

Okay, so I got the confusion.

I'm going to look into them more.

That's fine, that's okay, But that's the question that I would say to a Lutheran or to a Protestant is did Jesus not foresee that there would.

Be squabbles and disputes in the church?

And he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anybody to an interpretation. So it's just up to everybody. It's you know, di y, good luck, dude, And then every generation has to reinvent the wheel and rehash and restudy and prove every controversy, even though like obviously the controversy of the Trinity is already settled, right, but if you're a Protestant, maybe not. Let's just let's start all over. Let's do it all over, because all the councils are wrong.

Yeah?

I have a small question.

Basically I read them and I watched most of the stuff in the videos from YouTube and also on your website about the translation argument, it's a very orthodox and traditional way of basically presenting the arguments for the existence of God. I would be curious about basically, like when you have a tresidential argument, we reach the point where it basically we can prove that there's no logic outside of basically like also of God and outside of revelation.

Well.

They also they also don't address modern philosophical critiques, posts and Lightenment. So if you were to go debate any you know, smart atheist like Graham Api or somebody like that, and you start arguing from contingency and all these metaphysical baggage principles, they're just going to say, well, how do you know any of those metaphysical principles or the are the case? So they are not addressing the last five

Yes, and indeed I'm not basically thinking about all that. This is like the main question I wanted to ask, Can there be basically be like a new transcendental version of like the contingency argument.

Yeah, you probably could.

Yeah, you could probably make a transcendental argument for any of those classical because the things that classical apologetics uses are usually necessary metaphysical principles. So you can take that metaphysical principle that's pretty much necessary to a worldview and

Yeah, so that will be a lot more interesting because now that this will be basically not to rely on.

Like self evidence and things like that.

That basically are nonsense in modern.

Philosophy, right because anything is still related.

Yes, yeah, yeah exactly.

Oh yeah, so that will be like a good word for like modern philosophy and for us sorts of excretions to basically like I think we if we can even like recycle these arguments for a more like a complete description or should we not really do that?

No, I think there's all kinds of open avenues for people to do work in transient arguments.

Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, thanks a lot for Christi's reason.

Indeed, thank you good questions. Appreciate that.

I haven't thought about the contingency necessity principles. But I imagine you could somehow argue that you know there must be some necessary things, and that if you deny that there are some necessary existent things, you would be led into some kind of reductio and knowledge will become impossible. I'm sure there's some way to construct that kind of an argument vertical view.

Yes, can you hear me?

So I'm currently trying to convert to Orthodoxy, and I have a family of four and we're all Protestant, and I'm kind of fully invested at the moment in helping build a church. It's a reforming Baptist church, and I really this is more like personal advice. I really don't know how to like pull all of them out of that and then put them into an Orthodox church, at least not in a way that's not harmful.

Well, how would it be harmful?

What do you mean?

Well, I mean, because I had, I would have to convince them in the same way that I've been convinced, and I think it would be a very uh I don't want it to be abrupt, you know what I mean, like, Okay.

We're well maybe yeah, maybe the right thing to do is to ease them into it. I mean, you know your family obviously better than anyone else, so you know, maybe maybe you need to try to ease them into it. I don't know, I don't know what the wise course

Well, I think, well we've already kind of talked about it. In her main question, which I really didn't have an answer to, is she was like, well, don't aren't we already and dwelt with the Holy Spirit?

Haven't we been baptized?

And you know, I don't really have an answer to tell her like well, look, yeah, no, well.

Well, I mean God, in his grace works in people everywhere, and the Holy Spirit is everywhere. But you know, if we're faced with these questions of what the true church is. I wouldn't rest my decision on, you know, some subjective event in the past, like well, you know I did, you know. I mean, it'd be like thinking, well, I said the Sinner's Prayer when I was ten and I felt good about it, so you know, I don't need to become a reform Baptist. But I mean, imagine I'm

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm good, I guess from I guess her advantage points, she's going to be she's going to be turned that I'm that I'm losing my mind or something. But I've I've been really fully convinced in the last you know, six months or so, and I've kind of warmed her up to the idea. But I think that she in her mind, she's like she thinking, well, I've seen the fruit in our lives and our children's lives. Why does why is something need to change?

Well?

Yeah, I mean that's a tough, tough point because on the one hand, we can't definitively say well, you never had the Holy Spirit. But at the same time, it's like, well, how do you could phrase it like this, Well, maybe the Holy Spirit's leading you to orthodoxy, Like you know what I mean, Like, maybe maybe that's the next phase of your relationship with God. He wants them more intimate relationship,

I think that I can't.

And I've already already kind of got her to accept the fact that the argument you were just making a previous conversation about how you know Christ would Christ would preemptively know that these types of squabbles and disputes would happen, and that he would want some authority, and she but she believes that.

I think. Think of the point now, it's just like.

We're like, because we were currently playing the church.

I understand. I mean, you know, you just maybe God's testing you about whether this church planning thing is an idol, you know what I mean, Like maybe maybe if it's not the right church, you don't want to plant that. I mean, do you want to plant a bunch of weeds in the garden or do you want to plant, like, you know, real tomatoes in the garden. Yeah, I would agree, Yeah you could also I would say too, like, you know,

I'm sure Garrett.

Are you there?

DC would working three dollars. Thank you so much. You failed three dollars. Oh, I failed so much. He sent me three dollars. Kamala goom gang five dollars, thank you, ball Cap, Jay is back, Mercedes Benz gag yeah baby, Anonymous, three dollars. I just want to Actually, the reason I have this hat on is because I was supposed to wake up early for a Burmus interview and I didn't have time to comb my Harris, so I just do this hat on.

But then we didn't end up having an interview.

Anonymous, thank you for helping me through a lot of my doubts about orthodoxy.

I feel a lot more confident, glorid God.

That's great man, glad to hear that.

Are you there man?

What's up.

Anthony?

Anthony or either yeah right here?

Yeah, I don't I'm doing well. So yeah.

So I've been part of the Church of Christ probably since it's been twenty fifteen, and I've always had a little bit of I don't know, things are qualms with with the church, but not like it. It was like little things that just popped up recently where I was I had, like a good friend as a Lutheran, and he started talking about infant baptism with me, and and Church of Christ is not you know, they don't believe

What what what what I used to what we used to do?

I mean, like whenever anything was brought up about baptism, because I think that that's pretty much what the Church of Christ kind.

Of yeah, separate themselves, right.

He's like that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Okay, Well, let's just go to the church fathers, let's go to the early church. Let's go what did they say? What did they do? And so I had to look at that and I had to see where I went to him and I said, you're right, like there is evidence about this. And then that took me down a whole other rabbit hole about sol the scripture. And I didn't even really kind of think about that.

And they also all believe in the real presence in the Eucharist too, which you don't.

Church christ don't believe.

So, right, So so I know that, you know, you know Lutheran's I think about Martin Luther, and I've always had a problem. I mean, we Church of Christ, they have problems with Martin Luther. Okay, so this is the long story. Short is that I again, so looking into infant baptism. Looking into that kind of led me into what else the it was the intercession of the saints.

Know, I have the same thing, the same thing happened to me in two thousand and three.

I totally understand.

So yeah, so where I'm at right now is I'm going to the people in the church. And uh, we just we just my wife and I. I have wife and two kids, and we just moved here to Arkansas. It's been about two years or so, and I've been a part of the Church of Christ here and and uh and uh.

Sorry, I'm just.

What is it.

Been looking into this? And I didn't like that it started out. I didn't like the way I reacted, like I'm like, why why am I so like it's it seems to be like that reaction you're kind of given, like you're you're sort of taught that to be so anti Catholic or so anti Orthodox, you're so not even wanting to hear anything out and like they just you know, we have like certain writers in the Church of Christ where you know, they look up you know, it's Bible alone, like that's the whole thing.

But then I remember, I remember.

In the last couple of years, like when my one of my friends was going through a divorce and they kind of went outside the Bible to explain certain things. Because there's no definite position that any Protestant Evangelical, they don't take a position on it or anything.

It's kind of all over the place.

So that was kind of strange to me that I that we weren't like I thought it was Bible alone, you know, so and that was always strange to me about that. So anyways, all these other things that just came up are now are now I'm questioning and I'm bringing it to people, and no one could give me an answer for it.

And and so.

One of the things that just came up was I guess just like suggestions about things to kind of get me started. I'm very I'm like, in the beginning of this, I had a my wife had a yard sale, and a guy from an Orthodox church that's nearby.

We talked a little bit.

And this was kind of before I was just like right at the beginning where I was just being open to it.

And uh and uh.

Then he he came like he left an icon of a Jesus on my car window or my mailbox and he wrote down his number and you know said, you know, thought that he had to he felt compelled to like reach out to me. And now I've been it's been about a few months, and I hadn't really kind of

To do right, Well, yeah, so I would say start with.

Something like John Mayandor's book The Orthodox Church. Then I would read something like Yaroslav Pelicon's volume one of his five volume series, the first one about the emergence of the Catholic tradition, because it's just written as an overview of the first five centuries of the Church. So those two books, they're not too hard to read, would be good for you as a Protestant to give you an idea of the ideological trek of the early Church and

Uh oh, I started freaking out.

So good news is, though, you can avoid the ten years of Roman Catholic madness that I went into, and you can bypass all that nonsense and just go straight to orthodox g what's up, ge Glad and reputing one dollar? What do you think about the fourth position political theory or third position? No, I don't really accept any quasi fascist position, so I don't I'm not into fascism. Fourth political theory of Dugan is a little too much gnosticism. If you read the last chapter in his Fourth Political

I don't know.

I don't know William Dye ten dollars.

Sam Shimun is.

The one that led me to orthodoxy.

That's great.

Traditional Catholics blood will be boiling because they should know that a Catholic told people to go to the Orthodox Church for something.

Yeah.

Well, I wasn't saying that Sam Chimun had definitively converted to Catholicism. I was saying he was attending a Catholic church. That's what he says. So the last time I asked him, he said he's still in between, but he believes that because the Catholic Church will give him sacraments, he'll go there before Orthodox. So that's that's his reasoning. I hope

Christian.

They're Adrian one dollar high. Hey, what's up Adrian Christian twenty dollars?

Jay?

What's the most compelling argument to help a Protestant consider orthodoxy? The very thing that we just discussed with this guy that the Church of the first thousand years believes in apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ, and the Eucharist, vouchism, regeneration, tradition, oral tradition, liturgy. I mean, so therefore anything that's not that is not authentic. Orkers Entery, It's not that difficult. What would you do if you wanted to help convert

I study a lot.

I even learned Greek and Hebrew, and just just trust me, bro, Jude is the only legitimate book of the New Testament Cannon period.

That's it.

Now as a Protestant, how are you gonna tell me I'm wrong?

The church has received all these books of the church.

What church? There's no such thing as the church, which is all the churches and some generic collective. That's a fiction that doesn't actually exist. Patricia, five dollars, Thank you so much, Jub. Shout up to our time stamp master, our buddy, Jub. He says, one hundred dollars. Wow, dude, you don't have to send that much. Appreciate that, though. When is the next TikTok debate stream? I gotta build up the energy for that because it's so intense and crazy.

Also, are all four.

Of the Palomite synods considered ecumenical?

Yeah?

I think they've attained the status of being authoritative, so they're not ecumenical in this sense of like, because there was no empire per se anymore. I guess there was. Technically it was in Byzantium, but you know, the West wasn't really accepting Byzantine synods. So in the classical sense of the ocumena, it wouldn't be an ecumenical council. But the Palomite Synods are for us the ninth Ecumenical Council.

Nathan three dollars.

Hey man, what are what are the teaps for the fat raassis to do the prostrations?

I'm so fat I can't see me tolds.

Instead of doing prostrations, roll down a hill and every time you roll over, do some different prayer. Armani Joones three dollars. Black people go to heaven if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church isn't schis them. I've never even seen a minority at a Russian Orthodox church. We have black people come to our church. So but also, I mean, I don't damn the entire collective group of people because I don't know people's destinies. No, we're not told this, so that's a bizarre question.

G Are you there?

Did you want to go?

I gotta I gotta interview, so I gotta go soon.

But I'll try to do as me as I can.

Hello, he look, can you hear me?

All right? Okay, yeah, quick question.

Just trying to wrap my mind around the trinity stuff in the co equal part.

What is it that that's getting at?

What is it that that means?

It means they all three share the same nature. They're equal in nature.

Okay, all right, that clears up all out.

Actually, so they're.

They're distinct in person, but equal in nature, because I mean.

At first, I mean just coequal.

I thought it uh ontologically first, and I mean.

Well, yeah, I mean ontologically meaning that they have the same nature.

Yes, okay, but.

Not in terms of like like Jesus, let's say the son and the Father are not the same thing per se, right, ontologically saying like, now.

They're distinct persons, but they're united in nature essence. All right, So like two different human beings, they're two different persons, but they share the same human nature. Okay, that's an analogy.

And would you say, like what it is that Off the top of my head, I think John seventeen, I think twenty through verse twenty through twenty three, where it says like well this paraphrasing obviously that you whoever he's speaking to can become one with God. Like I have paraphrasing very hard. What is that because when I think about the coequal part, this is kind.

Of the birth.

Yeah.

Well, yeah, we become sons of God by grace, not by nature. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, so he is the son of God eternally generated from the Father, from the Father's nature. So we never become the nature of God, but we do participate in the grace of God or the uncreated energy of God. That's what that means.

Okay, man, I got a couple other questions.

Man, but I mean, it's raining over here pretty bad. But I appreciate you. I understand a little bit more now.

Yeah, good questions. Appreciate that. I got a couple of minutes for the last Nicholas, last couple questions. I want to remind you guys too, to head on over to chalk dot com show sponsor. Chalk dot com the best in supplements online.

If you want to up.

Your toxic masculinity, you want some focus, you want some energy, heading over to chalk dot com h o Q use the promo code j fifty to get fifty percent excuse me, don't use that promo. Cod use j forty four life to get forty four percent off all those great products.

What's up, man, hey man?

I was wondering if you could recommend the two books one for the on the First Council of Constantople and the Seventh Council.

I don't know if a specific book just on Constantinople one. I mean, there could be some academic text out on that that I'm not aware of. I mean, usually, you know, any book that kind of covers the seven ecumenical councils will touch on the emphasis in each of them. So like Pelican's book, Volume one is going to cover all of those general ideas. But I think only recently. I don't know if Price has done Richard Price has done

Uh?

More like how the Trinity came in?

Oh.

I would say, well, you could read doctor go go listen to uh doctor Branson's lectures on the Cappa doceans because a lot of his lectures deal with conceptinoble one. So doctor bo Branson has a five lectures. I think at his website plenty of interviews on YouTube, that would be a good place to go to. His dissertation is on the cap of Doceans, but uh, I don't know. That might be a little too technical.

I don't know, all right. And then on the seventh Community for the Icons.

Yeah, I would read, uh, the Alspinsky Lost Key book Theology Icon Volume one, and then Theodore the Studit's book on the Holy Icons, and John Demascus is. These are fairly short books. John Demascus is Defense of the Holy Images. All right, yeah, man, thank you? Xander. What's up?

We've got people from Buffy the Vampire Slayer joining us today.

What's up, Xander?

Jay?

What's going on the what's on your mind?

Well, dude, my.

Voice was shot, so if it's annoying, I was torn between coming up here, So sorry about that.

I was talking throughout.

I think I know the answer now having listened to you.

But e Michael.

Jones and his writings on the logos, what are your thoughts on that?

And I was curious too, like Greek philosophy and how operative you think that is in Christianity?

Yeah, I wrote.

I wrote an essay on this called logos and wisdom, and I ever since I heard him first talk about this, I've always thought he was wrong, so I never read his stuff on it because logos is not a pagan philosophical principle. John is pulling from the wisdom texts of

I think. Gotcha?

And then what what are your thoughts on gnocissism and kabala? And I'm curious about Eastern religions.

Have I mean, I just did multiple lectures on kabbala and narcissism the last two weeks, so you could find uh several of those. And I'm not being a dickhead. I'm just saying, like literally just covered that like multiple times in the last few weeks.

Gotcha. And then like Christian Europe, like the kids.

Would call it base like throughout its history, like it was patriarchal, it was a warring, you know, it was it was a masculine ethic compared to now, like modern Christianity is pretty defanged and neutered.

What would you at, Well, most of what you're talking about is just not even Christianity. It's all a bunch of sex and cults and heretics. So I mean, I don't wait, we don't recognize any of that stuff as even Christianity. It's a bunch of clown clown church clown show.

Yeah, well that brings me.

I posted in the comments that do you know brother Peter Diamond.

I don't know them, but I know of that could Yeah.

Yeah, they're they're wild guys.

But I posted so, yeah, people should read the set of a Conscious Delusion by John Pontrello because he is somebody that we helped to become orthodox out of the set of a Conscius world.

Okay, well, that he's a sharp chat like. I mean, I'm pretty new to you. I've only been following you for.

Like a month. But he put a really good argument together. Obviously I don't know so much, but.

Is there a good argument to like? Actually, he made seven points. He said canon law states that manifest and notorious heresy facto exchange.

So John John Pontrello's book is written against all of those arguments, and I did a three hour live stream addressing all of those arguments, so you can look up how set of a contess improves orthodox theology if you're interested in in my response that suff.

Ert sees.

J forty four Life J forty four l f E. All right, I think we're gonna have to end it because I gotta go do somebody's podcast. But remember to get my books over at Jasonelsis dot com in the shop signed copies as the Trek Hollywood three will be out hopefully in the next few months. I'm up to about two hundred and sixty pages. Now I wish it was just it just takes forever to write a book.

Oh man, it's a lot of work. But be patient.

That's why I haven't done a whole lot of part twos and talks for subscribers and all that. I'll try to get some of that material up in the next couple of days. I'm just really trying to hammer away at the book. But thank you guys so much and fun talks today and appreciate the superchats. I think we got a couple more here Stefan DV eleven dollars fifty more cents. Your wife is making more in super chats. Uh, oh, well, if it happens, it happens. I'm proud for her to do.

Well.

Send some super tats for Jay tuition is due. Also, Andrew Wilson, historian debate courses would be involved in that. He asked me to help with that, and I said I would be able to, but the initial day that he asked, I wasn't able to go do it. But maybe down the road, I think we'll be trying to do some more stuff like that. But yeah, I'm always down to help out with something like that. Everybody have a good day.