She stands and spend the spa, the snow, some things, very lives and love. SPA. Welcome chad Nerds and dorks. I'm sitting in a depressing empty room, but that's okay because we're gonna fill it with love. And it's also I'm gonna eventually have cool stuff all over that would be cool crap everywhere, Dude, I promise, I'll promise you that you could believe at So we're gonna open it up. It's gonna be open for him a
lot of fun when we do this. This is so weird and I'm not used to this new setting where I don't have my books and all that. But we got one little bookshelf over there, just kind of chilling and just being a little lonely over there. And hopefully it's not too echoe. Maybe when I get more books and stuff in here, it's not gonna be I'm not gonna be echoe. I don't know. I don't know what y'all think. What's going on? What? What what to do? Would it?
What to do? But we moved, so we got a different situation, you know what I'm saying. We had a different situation, so we we're gonna return to regularly scheduled broadcasting. Now everything's back to normal for the most part. I got a it's gonna be like a Neon flamenco behind me. That's gonna be cool. But I ordered that and it won't be here for like two weeks whatever, so you don't have to put up with Baron.
We're gonna pretend that we're Reformed Puritan Protestants with this barren walls, white washed walls, so we're Presbyterian Presbyterians. The next couple of weeks, I'm gonna infiltrate the Calvinists, pretend to be a Calvinist, just kidding. Won't be doing that. People say, well, why don't you put icons behind you? I don't. I've never felt like it's appropriate. I don't care if
somebody has icons behind him, that's that's their decision. It's just not my vibe and ethos to be like, oh, because we do a lot of stuff, you know what I mean. It's like, if my channel was devoted to Orthodox stuff or something, maybe it would make sense to have an explicitly religious setting. But as you guys know, I am not you're a guru. I'm not a spiritual leader and our spiritual father. I'm a person who engages in philosophical, apologetical argumentation, and that has its limits. It
only goes so far. It's necessary, it's useful, but it is not a replacement for church, or there's no such thing as E church that exist. If you only have people online that are your friends or whatever, well
then that's the best you can do. But ironically, some of the people in the circles of Orthodoxy who criticize what we do so that we promote an online e church, that's ironic because all those same people are the ones that locked the churches down and promoted online e churches, which I never supported ever. So most of what you hear about me is false, believe it or not. And that's because there's a lot of geopolitical pressure that's put on a
lot of the sectors of Orthodoxy for different reasons. That's not today's topic, although it does relate to it. Father John Whiteford will be coming back on the broadcast very soon and he's going to give us an update on a lot of the geopolitical maschinations and intrigues and what's going on over in the Ukrana. The Okra. As we in the South, we said, what's that country? Okra? Okrah Winfrey, no Okrane, the Okrane. He's gonna be
telling us about that. And as you guys know, we had a few couple good open forms this last week thanks to Rachel and Father Deacon doctor Annias and the stirring up the hornet's nest of the Protestant world on Twitter. And as you guys know, I have also stepped into the fray the madness. Did you know there's an even lower tier beyond what you've all experienced and what
we've all experienced on Twitter, Discord and YouTube. These are now elite spheres because I have dipped my foot into the tepid, stank cesspool waters of TikTok Lives Dreamy. Believe it or not, it's there's an even there's a whole other universe. It's even worse. But it turns out in that universe there's a whole heap of people who need to hear about Orthodoxy and we are underrepresented guys over on TikTok. Yes, I know about that. It's a Chinese
surveillance app. You don't have to tell me all that. I've been a conspiracy tenfold hat Man since nineteen ninety nine, I think ninety eight ninety nine anyway. But even though it's low tier, there's a lot of people over there. So look, we're getting kind of like ousted numbers wise by the Muslims and the Evangelicals and the Calvinists and the atheists and everybody over there is just balls to the wall crazy, right, They're they're nuts over there.
They're a bunch of kuks and goobers. But I feel like we gotta be over there, so I'm gonna start doing a little more. What's here's the thing. People like, what do you mean? TikTok's for sure? No, you can live stream on TikTok. That's the thing. So I did a three hour live stream over there, and man, I'm telling you it's it's rough, dude, But I mean it's kind of gotten to where, you know, as you guys know over here the Twitter audience shout out there.
But on Twitter, we're gonna go to the open form here in a second. You know, for a while there over here on Twitter, we hardly got anybody, right, Nobody was coming over here because basically, basically, you know, we basically there was no, there's nobody else to debate. I mean, let's just be honest. I mean, who else are we gonna So it just got into basically crazy land, and we could only have an occasional wine moms spitting bars, you know, spitting spitting Phronsie out
of her mouth through her Virginia slams Virginia Slam poetry. Boom. That's now, why didn't I think of that damn joke a long time ago. She's throwing out some Virginia Slam poetry. Remember that anyway, So basically we had exhausted the tank of twitters apologists, so to speak. But it seems like now what's happened is there's a lot of crazy things going on over on Twitter. And I've gained about thirty twenty thousand followers in the last six to eight
months. So Twitter is blown up for me, which is good. I mean, it's head of air friers o what it sounds like. So I think now with Rachel and these other people's stern of the hornet's nest, we're probably gonna get some more ferile people and they're welcome to come over here and be fair. We don't we don't shy away from that. We're used to
it over here. We're not afraid. We don't get scared of the the rabies apologists basically, but look if it were, if it runs out, guess what I'll do some dang twitter, I mean, some TikTok open forums, you know what I mean. So people always said, when you're gonna debate Destiny, Dude, Look we offered Destiny debates like four times over four years. Destiny always said, I will not debate theology. I only care
about politics. I don't care about politics, So I'm not gonna waste my time debating Destiny on Trump or some bullshit, you know what I mean. Like, I don't care about that. I don't care about debating Destiny on that. That's what I'm saying. So if you do want to support the show tonight, we're gonna open it up here in a second. My nose attention, because we got we've still got some allergies over here where I moved to. Unfortunately, you can't get totally away from it. It is not
cocaine, even though I did move down south of the equator. Basically, not really, But to me, it feels like if you're if you're in Tennessee and you moved down to the Florida. It's like it's like you're in equadoor or something that we've done here with Tristan in a mud hut. We got that battery, we got that nine bold battery power modem. Speaking of Destiny debates, remember that Nightmare debate when he debated with Tristan. I mean, I try to tell Tristan, Look, this dude doesn't I don't think
he debates in good faith. Maybe he does more so nowadays. I don't know. I don't keep up with destiny, but destiny seems to be all over everywhere. But why is this dude debating everywhere? Like all of these prominent people didn't he debates Zzac? What the heck? Why in the hell is Zzac? So basically, there's no such things intellectual academia anymore. Not that I was a huge Zazac fan, but it just seems a little odd. But I guess we help we help bulldoz that whole notion. There's the
respectable, you know, academic strere, and then there's YouTubers. Right, well, I guess we helped bulldos that because you know, we've been out here debating. Yeah, Zzac slurping and Jay sniffing, That's what I'm talking about, these slipping a slip up of this piece she's come. I would do sniffing and slipping exactly by the way I'm putting together a stand up routine.
And then I was listing all my impressions because I think, if I'm gonna do my stand up, it's got to be kind of it's gotta be a little impression heavy, because that's kind of, you know, my forte at this moment. But I started thinking, man, nobody in the the only audience that stand that would work for is our audience, which is okay, because I can promote our audience to come to the stand up event. But like if I go out and do stand up with a bunch of normies,
do they don't. They don't have a clue what's going on. Nobody know who zzek is. Y'a no no, no no abata though, y'a no no no abati Thoughoo, all right, let's open it up with this yip you have in a nonsense. So tonight's topics and we will stick to the topics. If you don't stick to the topics, boom, you're out of here. I'm gonna delete your butt. Topics are as you guys know, things like the dative Christ, the Trinity, Biblical theology, Old Testament
and Testament relations, judaizing he were Israelite. We can bring up that stuff. I don't care. Church history, the law, workspace, salvation, soul of Fita. This soul is the Protestant stuff, tag press up, classical apologetics, evidentialism, logos, logi, uncreated energies as, palmism, comparative religion, Calvinism, predestination, christology, the energies, the Vatican, Church history, papacy, echumenical councils, cannons, the ep schism, orthodoxy,
pistemology. All those are on the table tonight, and anything adjacent to those things you may all still bring up. It's not restricted to that specific list. I'm just giving you an idea. Don't call me, call in about crazy stuff. We're not here to talk about nanotech tonight. We're not here to talk about James Bond movies. We're not here to talk about whatever. Whoever, well who will definitely call in and start talking about those stuff.
No, not tonight. There's a million live streams all the time where we talk about that stuff, calling on that one that's not tonight. By the way, you could still get the philosophy course with Richard that's available below. We also have a events coming up with Richard. I forgot to put the thing if you know, we did it last year on entrepreneurship, becoming your own business person and all that self motivated, self sovereignty, that kind
of stuff, which is all good, especially as things get crazier. That is coming up this weekend. I think I'm trying to remember who's involved in it. Corbett, Me, Benny Wills, usual people, Richard. But you can also get the philosophy course there at the Autonomy Gore Marketplace. And then I forget what I ever. We got other events coming up, but basically, this tomorrow night, Jamie and I are gonna do the full pierced
Brasen and Era a bond. That's gonna be a lot of fun because I did a couple of those maybe three years ago, and Jamie didn't feel like she wasn't feeling good, so she didn't join me. And you know, basically that's mom Bond. We're talking about Mom cor Era, right, Mom Bond. Pierce browsening is mom Bond. You start talking about Sean Canary and that's that's Grandma Bond's. That's your aunt's bond. No, no, we're talking Mom Bond. That's Pierce. So we're gonna have a lot of fun
deep and analysiszations, bays lit analysis izations of the purse browsings. That's gonna be fun tomorrow night. And by the way, I've gone back and rewatch these found all kinds of little nuggets, little golden nuggets, little golden eyed nuggets that I didn't notice. So it's gonna be a lot of fun. All right, it's open for him. Remember, I know I'm gonna have to tell you a million times, so I'm just I'm just gonna accept it.
I'm just gonna accept that y'all aren't gonna remember to mute. And that's okay. I still love you, even sassy Silk Spector, who I see up to the front of the line. What's up, Silk Spector? And we'll go to you first, because we've had you on many times and you are a polite And where'd you go? You'd you dipped off? Why did you dip out? There? You go stay in here? Stat what are you doing? In and out and out? We're gonna go to you first because I like you. You're a nice person, You're fun. One of
our Roman Catholic friends. So remember when we go to you, gotta hit on mute. Uh oh. We're gonna be planning and trying to get you know, some more stuff going on with Tim Gordon. So we have a lot of Roman callity friends. We love our Roman Catholics. We vehemently disagree, but we still love them. So this has disproved the idea who what's up? Silk spector what's on your mind tonight? Maybe? Is this thing acting weird tonight? Every time I want to do this, Twitter starts acting
weird and I don't care about. I'm gonna keep calling on Twitter. I don't give a damn. It says that you are here. Let me invite you to speak. How's that? Can you come on now? Hi? Can you hear anything? What's what's on your mind tonight? Hi? I get to talk to you. I don't know many times I think I only remember twice. But yeah, well I'm trying to be friendly. So I mean you want me to go back to being mean, I can do it. I don't know if there's anything to go back to being mean for Yeah.
No, Well, thanks for having me on again. I appreciate. How are you this eating? I'm good. I'm I'm a little tired from moving and getting things settled and all that, but I'm raring to go. It's been I think at least four or five days since open Forums, so I'm ready to go. Now, last time we I DMed the Alexandria Document. Did you get a chance to look at that? I did? I did, But it's been a bit of a that was a while ago. It was about two months ago at night. That's okay, I have it
freshened my mind perfect. Well, yeah, if you can ever refresh my memory? And what do you want to talk about? It that you great? Why I want to talk Well, I mean you called in so we can talk about what you want to talk about. But the reason that I bring up the Alexander Document is because, as I remember saying to you, this to me is one of the strongest more recent admissions that we have with papal approval that the modus operandi of the church in the first thousand years is
basically what the Orthodox Church has been complaining about for a long time. So we have about ninety nine of the admissions. Not everything, but pretty much everything that we as Orthodox would complain about is basically conceded in this Francis approved commission. Great, so why are you still complaining then? Well, for
multiple reasons. I mean, if you watch Tim Gordon's dream that he did the other day, I would agree with Tim that this is not really a genuine union because if this document is now, I mean, this is not his argument. He was just agreeing that this is really a geopolitically motivated union. It's not really about theology in the final analysis, because Francis is really there to promote things like the multi faith Abi Dhabi, kris Lam, you
know, say Enter and all that. So why would we want to join with that just because Rome is admitting our theological argumentation from the last thousand years. And the other point is simply that this document is true, then Vatican One's not true. Well, I mean that's pretty strong assertion. I don't see how you can say that. Wait, what's so strong assur that if this document is true, Vatican one isn't true. I don't see that that follows. Well, did you read the document, I did, But like
I said, I don't. I didn't get that impression, I guess, And this is your opinion. So if you want to tell me how you're qualifying that, well, it's I don't know if i'd say it's an opinion. I mean, the document is arguing that Pallemism is an expression of the
Orthodox Church, is not an opinion in the Orthodox Church. It's admitting that the synodal system was the normal way that the Church was governed in the first thousand years, and it's admitting that, you know, canonical appeals do not prove universal jurisdiction, and so these are some of the strongest arguments that were used by Roman Catholics to you know, bolster the claims of Vatican One. So basically, this is admitting that a lot of what's in Vatican One isn't
really the case. So how are we supposed to still accept Vatican One? Well, I don't know. It's admitting that. I think that's a bit of a jump year making there. I think that, you know, again, I'm not a theologian. You're obviously much more learned than I am. I did get the impression that there was a strong desire. It seemed on the Catholic side from those documents to Reconcile and Alice, Which has come back to something you said earlier where you were saying, you know, Francis is
interested in this. I don't even exactly know what you called it, but it seemed to be suggesting that he's interested in some sort of Cumanistic world. Really, I mean, yeah, you he signed with the EMM the statement that is the basis for the Vatican approved multi Faith center, and you think you don't think that's a good thing. Do you think it is? Well, I don't exactly know what center you're speaking about, but well, I mean, would you like to look at the video that I shared from the
center. It's on my Twitter right below this. Sure I can I can do that. I can't do it right now right as you want to have someone else on it, and I'll quickly go watch it and then well, so I would say, yeah, actually I would recommend that, so pop out and then I'll bring you back on. And it's I retweeted it, so it's at the top of my Twitter feed and I will also show it to the audience here real quick, right, well, I mean just before
we do that, and I'm happy to do that. I do sense listening to a lot of your vig or content, I suppose that you seem very against that particular avenue of reconciliation that I guess you could call it maybe an agenda that Francis is pote Francis has put forward to you, kind of gather up and reconcile people that are not out or that are outside the Catholic Church. I just I'm just wondering why that's a problem. I mean, isn't that kind of what he's supposed to be doing. Well, I mean,
it's a problem if Rome Gotholicism isn't true. So that's the main issue, is that if the papacy is true, then yeah, I guess it would be that would be his job to do that. Sure, But but as I'm saying, the admissions in the Alexandria Docment really are night and day with what's in Vatican One. I mean, Vatican One is really strong. It's
an ultramontane council. It doesn't have anything to do with synodality. It has to do with the universal unilateral authority of the Roman bishop and the prior document before Alexandria. You go back to twenty sixteen, I think the Chad document. It's the same commission basically under Francis. It admits at the very bottom that the Roman Church did not operate with unilateral universal authority in the first thousand
years. Well, that's essentially what Vatican One is all about. So why would we as Orthodox accept the doctrine of Vatican One if it's admitted that it's not the practice and motorsupperandi of the Church in the first thousand years. That's the entire Orthodox argument. This means that papal papolotry is an innovation apoloshry. That's interesting. Yeah, I mean I again, like, I'm not alive,
I'm not a llegal like, I don't know. I listened to these dreams sometimes and you seem to get very legalistic, and it's funny to me because that's often as well. Hold on legalistic. I mean, Roman Catholicism has a giant book of canon laws. How is this legalistic? I know, That's what I was just about to say. That's why I find it sometimes funny how the Orthodox will, you know, accuse Catholics of being very
legalistic and then kind of take this trap to to bolster their defenses. I suppose you could say, I mean again, I'm happy to pop out and pop by again. I'll give you my opinion, but it's going to be very unlearned opinion because all right, well that's fun. Yeah, go watch that. I'm a player right now. It's not very long. It's only like a minute and a half. And then we'll come back to you and whatever questions you wanted to go to. Oh all right, seein yeah,
and let me play this for you guys. I think you guys on Twitter we'll be able to hear it. So this is the multi faith center that they built and oh it's a conspiracy. No, it's not a conspiracy. There. They built it, and we said for years they were going to do it because France has signed the Joint Declaration with the Grand Imam. I'm sorry, but we don't have a joint faith with Muslims and Jews. There
might be elements that we have in common. We do recognize a higher power and this kind of stuff, but just because there's some commonalities, it doesn't mean that we have a joint Abrahamic faith. Paul says that only those who are of the faith of Abraham are sons of God and sons of Abraham. Jesus says, you are of your father the devil if you do not believe that he is the son of God, and if you do not believe in
the Trinity. And so, for example, after six public debates with prominent Muslims, now it is various evident that they do not have the same faith as we do. They are Aryan or worse than Arian. Do you think that the nice scene Creed does it speak as if the Aryan and the nice Scene Creed believer have a common faith? Of course not. Well, then how much more so do we not have a common faith with Muslims or with Jews. It's just simply not. Okay, there is no such thing as
generic Embrahamic monotheism. There is only Trinitarian theism. Now, let's watch this video and see so multi multi faith, multicultural, everybody's blending together in this giant facility with three different buildings that's supposed to give the impression that everybody has the same faith, and they all meet together in the center lighting these weird candles or whatever that is bringing in the fricking cubes from from transformers, energy
cues or whatever that is. And so now there's three lights, like some kind of weird false triad or something like that. So again the fact that a person has some I mean, let's say I'll talk into a theistic Satanist and they say, I believe in one God. I just believe it's Satan. Oh, well, I guess we have the same faith because you believe in one God and we believe one God. This is called a quantify or shift fallacy. Right, It's a famous fallacy because everybody has one mother.
We all have the same mother. You see. It's a it's a quantifying shift, and that's why it's a fallacy. And so this faith center was built with the blessing of Francis, and it's inspired by Francis's document on human fraternity, because we're all brothers, you see. But this goes even further. It doesn't say that we're all brothers just because we have a common father
Adam or something like that, some sort of generic human brother. This is actually saying that well, with Jews and Muslims, we share a common Abrahamic faith. And this underlies all of the heresies involved in natural theology, which lead to perennialism. There is the AllSpark, Yeah, exactly, the AllSpark bringing in the all spark energy cubes over here. Optimis prime. Abraham worshiped the Trinity. You didn't have to use the terms trinity for all you slow
people out there, but Abraham worshiped the Triad. That's why an Orthodox iconography. Everybody who knows icons automatically knows that theology better than Roman Catholics and Protestants. And so I did a lecture everybody should go watch years ago where we looked at how the triad is an Old Testament doctrine. And if you saw the debate with Daniel Pikachu, we brought that up here. It is. This is from almost five years ago, a three hour talk on the Trinity
and the Old Testament. And I realize, now I'm going to have to do I'm gonna have to do a whole other redo of all this course, because now that I've been reading all of the Jewish scholars, we have a massive Jewish scholars now admitting that, yeah, the Old Testament teaches not a generic Unitarian theism. It teaches a distinction of persons in God. Even then, right multiplicity of personae. According to Summer, Schaeffer's books talk about this.
Siegel's books talk about this, and so the point is that as Summer no, not Summer Shaeffer, no. Boyarin, another one of the Jewish scholars, as I Boyarin, says, early Christianity is really just a conservative form of Judaism that is being consistent with the Old Testament attacks and the fact that they teach multiplicity and God even throughout the Old Testament. Because obviously, do you think nobody had seen all the Angel Lord passages until what the Church
fathers until justin Martyr. No, of course you have multiple passages that teach there is Yahweh, there is the Angel of Yahweh, in whom is the name of Yahweh according to Exodus three and twenty three. And then who's also known as not just Angel, but also the one like a son of Man, one like the son of God, over and over and over throughout the passages. And then in many, many, many passages, the presence of
this other spirit, the Spirit will speak. He speaks. So the Spirit has personhood not just in John sixteen and seventeen, but also throughout the Old Testament. He's a vine person identified as a divine person. So does this mean that Abraham confessed with his lips the phrase trinity. No, he doesn't
have to. Okay, nobody's arguing that. But you'll notice when I debated Trent, Trent made a huge mistake theologically when he said that the Old Testament teaches a generic Unitarian deity and the New Testament tax on this new doctrine of trinity. Indeed, to Christ, oh yeah, exactly, that's why your church is heterodox. You just proved to me that all of your Vatican too
theology is heterodox. And proved because you understand when Trent admits that the whole debate was over because he's just being consistent with Abu Dhabi faith center that we all have a generic God that we worship. Well, maybe you guys do, but everybody that's Orthodox and really believes it, truly Orthodox, they know that the icon of Abraham eating with the ruble of Icon teaches the Trinity.
So you understand, you're being taught a different faith if you're not being taught the Trinity and the Old Testament. Now I know that some of these Roman Catholics say, well, Laru is a kind of Trinity, and the Old Testament. But there's something that we know later. No, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad Moses wrote about me, so that it's this is not like some far off thing. And here's the irony. I remember asking Trent. I was like, Trent, how do
you do apologetics against Muslims? Like if you're not going to argue the way that I argue against the Muslims and the way that every Orthodox person would do apologetics against Muslims, like you're undercutting your own possession. This is It's not that difficult. I mean you may think I'm being legalistic or I'm being obsessive. I don't know what terms you think it is. I mean this is just straight up Patristic theology. I mean when Justin Martyr argues with Trifo the
Jew, he makes the arguments I'm making. When the New Testament writers argue to prove deity of Christ and Trinity and the Old Testament, they make the arguments you hear me making. Where do you do you think I just make up these arguments about the Trinity and the Old Testament, Like I just I
just came, I just invented this speculating it's common patristic apologetics. And if you look at the Joint Declaration of the Vatican with or the I think it's the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was approved by John Paul or ever get who, maybe even Ratzinger. I mean, if you look at Ratzinger's book, Many Faiths, One Covenant, I mean he affirms all this same nonsense that the Old Testament is still valid, and he implies it's valid in
a selvific way. And all of this is to say that we all have a common faith, we all have an a shared a Brahmic faith. No we don't. I mean, this is as silly as imagine Saint Basil or Athanasius saying we have a common faith with the Eunomians. It's literally no different than that. Go ahead, Hi, yeah, sure, yeah, no, so I just watched the video. It's yeah, I would agree. It's a little strange. I don't I don't really get the like glowing lights
part or like what that's supposed to symbolize. That's not even a strange port. The s transport is the theology behind us. Do you think that we have a common faith with Muslims. Well, I think that there's grace to be found in other faiths, but God allows that's not. No, no, that's not what we asked though. The question is not are there graces for everybody in the world or in other religions. The question is the faith, the belief system, the theology. Is there a common theology that we
share with that that makes us children of Abraham with Muslims and Jews. No, no, I don't agree with that. Okay, well, then you've now just rejected Vatican Too's theology of nos ratante. No I haven't. Yes, you have that's literally not that's literally a nos rotating. Where is it a nostratate? I mean it's a very short document and it explicitly says that we have this. I mean the whole faith center is called the Abradic Faith
Center. Yeah, I mean I think this faith center from this very cursory look you've just shared with me, I mean, it seems like a pretty bad idea. I think people it's based on no state from Vatican Too. I don't know what you mean, based on the theology. It's there, go read it. I'm not trying to be rude. We're gonna move on, though, But go read No stratat It's about five pages and you'll see that app everything I said is absolutely true. But we're gonna move on.
So let's see who's next. Ut D x D. What's up dude? Now? Before she before we go to ut D x D or whatever, let's look up no Stratate so people don't think I'm making it up. So it's like people don't know the Vatican documents. I'm not being a dick. I'm just saying that it's just a fact the Church regards with esteem the Muslims. They are They adore the One True God, living, merciful, all powerful, et cetera, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam
takes pleasure and linking itself submitted to God. And then it says, of course they don't acknowledge Him as God, Jesus as God. But the implication here is that you are supposed to esteem radical anti trinitarians and those who hate the deity of Christ. So you understand that Muslims historically at least think that it's shirk to say that a man is God. There's been quite a bit of warfare. You might have heard of this stuff over the years over these
topics, but it explicitly references the faith of Abraham. And that's why Francis and countless other I mean, why do you think Francis goes and praising the mosques towards Mecca as did the supposed trade Benedict sixteenth By the way, so let's get rid of this notion that Benedict with some trad pope praise two ward Mecca. Pope Francis play praise alongside the Grand Mufti in the blue mask towards
Mecca, and so did uh the rad trad Benedict. Benedict is not a rad tread if you've read about six of his books as all the same modernism as all the other Vatican too gaggle, So totally nonsense, totally mythological faith, mythological LARPing that Benedict as a trad it's just not true. I mean, he might have thrown a few bones to the trads, like his Motio approprio for the Latin Mass, but so, I mean, you don't you
don't understand bureaucracy and throwing bones to people to keep them keep them. Oh it's so try. Let you let us have them. Let you have the masks. Man anyway, what's up? O T D x D. I guess he dropped out? Where did you go? Calton Shayler? What's up? Dude? You understand that? Okay, Hey, what's up? Yes? Man? All right? Sounds good. First off, shout out to Jay's analysis dot com. Those part two is are worth it. Thank you.
I just had a few questions of I guess trying to synthesize different points and arguments I've heard you and others make in discussions, so I'd love to hear your feedback on these. I've heard one criticism leveraged against Islam is that God has to be essentially an eternal creator because of how they argue that that he has the aspect, so creation has to be eternal for him to be
an internal creator. If I understand that that consequence correctly. In comparison, I've heard a separate argument independently from that first point for the trinity by saying that, well that you know there must be three persons in God for God to exhibit the characteristic of love. And if I understood these two points right, it seems like a parallel argument is that you know the trinity must be true because in order for God to be loved, he must have someone else
to eternally love. Therefore, their multiple persons are these two aspects like parallel at all a right. So, in other words, love couldn't be just a self referencing thing necessitate some kind of other. This is an argument that you see in Losky Andreyev stan Eloy. So the idea is that not just love it's somef but actually any attribute to be exercised requires something other than the
first principle to exercise that attribute. So the exchange of glove, the movement in the triad of all the energies, really requires something more than just a generic unity. Because if it's just God from all eternity, where are any of these energies direct. There's no created order, there's nothing else, there's
no other hypostasis. So in the triad you have a unique position where there is an eternal exchange of the eternal attributes and energies in the sense of what Palamas calls the energies that are true from all eternity versus the ones that are only applicable to the created order. So, for example, the power of creating God eternally has the power of creating, but he doesn't exercise for all eternity the power of creating. Otherwise there's eternal worlds, right, and we
don't think that, we think that God created exnilo. So in order to have ex nilo, you have to have and God having free will. You have to have this notion of God having in some way capacities that he doesn't
have to exercise unless he wills to. And so when Palomas cashes these ality talks about the energies or operations that are the case or are exercise from all eternity that do not require created order, like glory or love right, because the love is exchanged between the persons of the triad, Father's Son and Spirit. By the way, love is not identical to the person. Holy Spirit loves an energy or an operation or naturally they're all free share, so it
can't be reducible to one of the persons. So in order to have a truly free God, you have to have some distinction in different types of acts. And this Palomas makes this stinction, but it actually goes back to Athanaceous. If you read Fluorovsky's essay Creation and Creaturehood or Athenasians in the Doctrinal Creation.
That essay has a really good argument about how the essence in your distinction is basically in Athanasius when he makes this distinction between different types of movements and actions and God, for example, generating a person father generating the sun is clearly different from the action of creating a world. So not all of God's acts, so to speak, are identical. Creating the world is an action
proper to will, the generating the sun is not by will. So the trinitarian argument there is that you have an unique position with the trinity, whereby God does really manifest and exercise various eternal attributes. And yes, I understand that in a sense they're all eternal, but they're not all eternally actualized. Some of them are. However, there was no point, for example, at which God was not manifesting his glory. There's no glory wasn't dependent upon
a created world. But divine providence is an energy and operation that does require a created world. So God was not always actualizing divine providence, you see, So there has to be this distinction, otherwise we're caught in all these stupid positions of various modial collapse arguments, just like when Thomas collapse God into
pure act. So yeah, so that's the essencenergy distinction as it applies to the trinity, and that's why Unitarian conceptions are always typically fraught with this problem. Now, there's are some Muslim schools that don't believe in a kind of strict ads. Some of the schools do and some of them don't. So like if you're talking to a Shia and they're going to be basically neoplatonists, right, they're gonna follow al Ghazali in a type of neo platonic emanation type
of thing. But the traditional Sunni, who are well, everybody's mostly encountering classic sunny stuff, they have their own kind of distinction between attributes and essence and in a law, but that's not the essence inter distinction. And also it's not really cashed out as a distinction between the action of creating and all laws essence. So it's just doesn't get that sophisticated typically. So does that
make sense? Yeah, So you know, Trinitarian theology has articulated two classes or essentially elements, like you've described that rational or explain this distinction well to be very precise. Palma speaks of three planes of action. So there is the action of generating, and that's the movement in the trinity of the Father, excuse me, the son proceeding from the Father, and excuse me, the son being generated from the Father, and in the Spirit moving from the
Father through the son. That's an eternal and returning back to the Father. That's an eternal triadic movement. That is the first plane, and that's the personal origins or hypostatic origins or hypstatic properties plane pla ay that we can describe the polymers described. The second plane would be the movements of the energies from
all eternity that are not dependent on the created order. And so that would be the movement of the energies that like I said, like love or glory, that we're always also manifesting from the Father through the Son and in the Spirit. Those are eternal, eternally manifesting uncreated energies. And then you have the uncreated energies that only applied to the created order. That would be also typically characterized as the economia like divine providence. Right, this kind of stuff,
or the action of creating or the action of walking on water. I mean, there's all these actions that are unique to the creator order that are not actualized from all eternity, you see, And you can't just say that, well, the actualizing is the created element. But from all eternity. Christ was walking on water. No, no, no, that's an action in time. It's not an eternal from all time. That compromises the reality
of the second person that God had in time and space. It really is the second person that God had walking on water as a divine energy your action, and that's different from the action of creating the world, which is also a divine power. Obviously, so not every divine power is identical. Clearly
what creating the world is not the conflagration. Clearly, this is so dumb, obviously, But when you have this radical modical lapse ADS position, you're stuck with all these stupid ideas that walking on water is the same action in God as creating the world, and the same action as destroying the world. So anyway, those are the three planes, and I'm not to be really precise, that does not mean that the third plane of the economia that that's
only restricted to the operations of God proper to the create order. The eternal movements in God that are not dependent on the created order also enter into the economia. So it's not just providence and creating and walking on water. It is also eternal law and eternal glory that also come into the economia. So those are the three planes hypostatic origin, eternal manifestation, and economia. I
see, and those those excellent. Just to steal man Islamic apologetics, you've argued that they have this modal collapse because of you know, the common schools. Do you from your experience, do you believe that these minor schools you mentioned would be if they started to imitate these planes, would they be able to resurrect and solve these problems? Or is there something in the foundation now?
No, because actually, typically the traditional Stonies tend to say when you start to ask things like the dependence relations in Allah of the attributes and their relation to the essence, they typically say things like it is not permitted to ask beyond this point. Okay, excellent. I had a couple more questions if that's okay? Sure? I okay. So once again, two separate
arguments I've heard from two different Christian apologetics. I wanted to try and reconcile these in your in your Trinity. You your response to mister e on the Trinity years ago, which I honestly is probably the most important video on YouTube. You The point you keep rehashing as a foundational point argument is that we cannot worship creatures, and so when Jesus accept worship that that is a sign
of his divinity, because you're allowed to worship God but not creatures. I have heard a separate apologetic argument for veneration of Mary and of icons, the argument being that we are allowed to worship maybe people in authority or spiritual authority in maybe worship or venerate in proxy to God, and so you may venerate the saints or Mary in proxy to you know, the energies of God that thinks of it, or with respect to the fact that God has established the
positions. Is this a veneration versus worship distinction? Are these arguments incompatible? Could you clarify this concept of when we can worship creatures or not at all? We cannot worship creatures with the worship proper to God at all, and so the only reason, as you noted there, that we venerate creatures at all is because of the participation in the divine energies. So if we are reverencing the body of a saint, what makes that body wholly is the presence
of the uncreated energy. So but that is still not we're not worshiping that saint, because worship proper is only given as saint. Cyril says that Ephesis one adoration to the whole incarnate Christ. So Christ gets a unique adoration and worship, which is the worship proper to God, because he is, as Cyril says, it is the body of the God Man. And so in that regard it is worthy worship because He took it upon himself and deified it.
However, in the saints and these kinds of you know, connections, they're certainly connected to God, but we do not venerate the body of the saint with the same adoration of veneration that we give to Christ. Fantastic, excellent, any question about I guess low Church Protestantism by the way, By the way, the video that you reference for everybody, I forgot about, mister e Yeah, this was a thing I did, like I said,
almost four or five years ago. Now is Jesus God has got a trinity and this goes through a lot of the Old Testament texts that don't just show Triad, but but basically we're working through the Theophanes and so in all of these Muslim debates that we've been doing, the good part is that I've gotten way deeper into this. So I know a lot more about this topic than I did in twenty eighteen and twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, I knew quite
a bit. Not bragging, just saying the Islami debates have actually forced me to go way deeper into this topic. And thus all of those uh, you know, Rabbinical Jewish texts that I've been reading by modern and old Jewish scholars that back this up. I mean, it's just like so wild when you actually get into it. That's why I bring it up with the Muslim debates so often. If you guys go watch the the my opening statement of the Kikachu debate, you know I cited all those texts, and there's actually
more. I didn't even list all the texts in there, but those texts are are amazing. I mean, there's this this whole other genre of academic literature over here that's basically modern Jewish scholarship saying hey, they're not Christian. They're just saying, yeah, okay, so it looks like, you know, a lot of the Old Testament tacks do demonstrate a multiple personae or hypostases
in God that is not a generic unitarianism. So and then they're actually admitting that the generic Unitarian argument is not really there until strictly until mim and idies. I mean, that's pretty hardcore admissions, right. So and you're like, I'm sitting here reading these books and I'm like, okay, so why wouldn't you be a Christian? And you're basically admitting all these points, and you're like, well, I'm still I'm not a Christian, but you know,
they basically have all these points. So a lot of interesting admissions coming going on in scholarship and unbelieving scholarship. That's pretty wild. So but I think I'm going to have to basically just do brand new Trinity lectures. I think that's the way to go about this. I mean, I'm certainly not worthy to do that. But by God's providence, all of these Muslim debates have actually given I mean when I made this video four or five years ago,
I mean I probably knew about. I mean, off the top of my head, I probably probably could recall about half of the Theophanes Versus. Now there's like I was, there's like half, there's like a whole other fifty percent more Theophanies I didn't even think about or know about. I forgot about multiple Theophanes and Judges, right, not just with Manoah. There's an
amazing Thopheny with Gideon where it says Yahweh turned his face to Gideon. What so I mean when you really start digging into this, And by the way, the Summer Text Bodies of God in ancient Israel, that one's amazing. Now he's not a believer, he's a liberal, but he's like, okay, look, let's just be honest. The Old Testament texts they have Yahwey Angel the Lord of Spirit. I didn't even think about throughout the Book of Genesis. The first two chapters of his book are actually about all of these
places in Genesis where Abraham builds an altar, the stone gets anointed. They rest under the oak of memory. So trees, rocks, stones, pillars are being anointed. Dude, that's all the Alphanic manifestations. It doesn't mean that they're worshiping the sticks and the trees, but it is absolutely incarnational. This is a holy tree, right because Abraham stayed over here. It's annoyed. This is a holy rock, is anointed by freaking Jacob puts his head
on it. That's all incarnational principle. That speaks to unique presences of Yahwey in inanimate objects holy objects. I don't even notice trees and rocks holy rocks in Genesis. Well, I mean I should have totally picked up like see you see what I'm saying is like I totally missed all this stuff away. So once again, the same energies argument as the saints and relatives. Yes, he's admitting through it he's not he's just a Jewish scholar who doesn't believe
in Christianity. But he's saying the unique manifestation, Theophani's and presence of Yahweh are everywhere in the Old Testament, and they're not creatures. So yeah, exactly, God is uniquely present in some way. I don't remember if he uses the term energies, but it's that idea. So, speaking of your you can shoot debate, I had a question about three styles of argument.
I heard relevant to what you and Daniel broduct. And you were mentioning of this scholarship, and I wanted to ask, are these three different trains of thought? Which of these are fallacies? And could you articulate as to why these are good or bad strategies. The first was appealed to authority that you mentioned, where Daniel says, well, you know, scholars all agree that
the Quran is perfectly preserved. And your counter was it's a fallacy to appeal to authority just because you know a doctor PhD says it means it's true. So that's number one. Well too, yeah, hold on, So it depends on what you're trying to do with the appeal. So appealing to authorities is not a problem. But I mean, let's just think about this in a really simple context. The sheriff is an authority on lawfare. The sheriff
says that Bob over here committed the murder. Sheriff's an expert, therefore Bob committed the murder. That's not how it works, right. The sheriff is an authority, and so his testimony might be used, and just think of a courtroom setting, right, But the sheriff's testimony has nothing to do with proving. It's not a proof, it's an evidence, it's an attestation. Secondly, it is not the case that universe that scholars universally admit that the
Quran is somehow accurate and preserved. There might be some secular scholars that admit that, but to claim that it's like universal, that's ridiculous. Most scholars are unbelieving. They don't believe in some special transmission of any religious text. That's ridiculous. So where, by the way, what is the evidence that he has that most scholars or universally scholars admit and accept the accuracy and transmission and historicity of the Quran. He just said it, and he said you
could read. You know, he cited a couple of people. Okay, well I sighted a couple of people, So what right? And I mean transmission and historicity of the age of the Quran has nothing to do with whether it's true. Furthermore, academic consensus as a proof is also a fallacy. So it's two fallacies, not just citations of authority as a proof, but also appeal to consensus as a fallacy because it has nothing to do with whether
what's in question its true or false. You could bring that forth and say, look, let's say I'm having to debate on I don't know the veracity of Matthew. Or let's say Plato something less controversial. Let's say, for the sake of argument, of the majority of scholars believe that the Timaeus was written by or recorded by Plato and his students, and so it's an accurate
transmission of I'm just speaking theoretically, Okay. Does that prove it? Of course not, because we all know the majority can be wrong and authorities can be wrong. So it doesn't function as a logical proof. It's not a strict proof in a logical sense. It can be an attestation, right, it can be evidence, but that's not the same thing as a proof obviously.
So it's and you'll notice in the debate that after about the third or fourth fallacy that was mentioned, he didn't even looks like he didn't even know those were fallacies, like he had never heard this stuff. So there's a difference between how you use something like citing authority too. That's what it's not citing authorities itself, it's how you try to use it that makes it either
a fallacy or a proper use. Does that make sense? Yes? And so then part three the counterpoint would be when you in your opening statement you brought up this new Jewish research and you said, basically, here is a here's a line of new academic thinking that brought it right, And I guess that is valid because you're saying this is, you know, one school of thought that is here all that. Yeah, as I stressed multiple times, all I was cited in the jewishchols to show is that first century Judaism is
not a monolithic unitarian enterprise. That's it. And so here's all the scholars admitting that. Does that? Al maybe Daniel can bring forth some mega proof that shows that no, actually it was a monolithic enterprise. Okay, maybe he can. So it's just citing this. It's how you use it, right. I wasn't if I did I say, here's all these Jewish authorities today admitting that there is a kind of trinity in the Old Testament. Therefore the trinity is true. That didn't say that. That would be a dumb
argument. Why would I go to them as if that would prove the trinity? So we can testify to it, contribute, but it cannot permanently. Yeah. What happens in a courtroom when they bring in an expert witness, does the whole court a judge just say, well, you're the expert witness. Case closed. You decided that he's the guilty murderer. It doesn't work
that way. That's an access that he makes the case. Then the jury to thoughts you say right, yeah, and then the counter too, or the opposite of the appeal to consensus, I think was when Daniel mentioned, well the Bible, no one agrees who wrote the New Testament or whatever. There's there's a disagreement, and I think you response to him was new. It's also a fallacy to cite a disagreement as a as a argument is does that follow? Is that? Did I understand that I don't. I mean,
I'm not saying that's false. I'm just trying to remember waits a disagreement about what reminders that we're saying, So, okay, fifty percent of scholars say the New Testament, you know, Mark didn't right? Mark in fifty percent say yes, Mark route Mark? Or for example, is that also well, I mean it's it's a non consensus. It would be just a fallacy of irrelevance. I mean, what if we found uh, you know, what if we pulled all the people in my neighborhood and many of them
believe that one plus one doesn't equal too oh yeah? So oh well, I mean your So I guess at fifty five percent of my neighborhood believes that one plus one equals ten in my neighborhood, then that's the case. It now does equal ten. He see how silly it would be, right, would be like, yeah, that makes sense? Right? So yeah, so disagreements amongst people has absolutely nothing to do with what's your revolts? Okay,
fantastic. I have one last question at urge Protestantism, if that's okay, okay, So, I think a lot of you know, Bible based Loud Church Protestantism, we've build their Sunday morning worship services around First Corinthians fourteen, where Paul basically says, hey, when you guys get together, when if you has a psalm, when of you has a prayer, one of you has words of encouragement? Type of thing? What types? So I guess the question is what type of gathering do you and Orthodox interpret key to
be mentioning? Is this divine liturgy. Is this a separate you know, the daily prayers and vespers right, So I think that there's a couple of things going on here. A number one, just because Paul is talking about this sort of what would probably be a more open situation for people who are
moved by the spirit to do this or that. That doesn't prove Protestantism or like charismaticism because this is at a point in the Church when there is still ongoing public revelation, so that doesn't continue once John the Apostle dies, there's no more public divine revelation. There could be public divine revelation in this intertestamental
period. So this is a unique time period when the Church is transitioning out of being primarily centered in Jerusalem and primarily Jewish to now being more and more so primarily Gentile. Thus throughout the Book of Acts, this is that crucial period. So Church of Corinth still has this is still in this phase where there is what we would call maybe charismatic sort of Pentecost types of stuff going on. Now the Orthodox Church we don't totally deny miracles, like I don't
know, like maybe some cessation as Baptists or something like that. But we don't. We wouldn't conclude that there's still public divine revelation, right that. I think there's just not. I mean, once you know, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints, and so there's no new public revelation, right. But the other point I would say is that just because Paul is stating to the church at corinth that there needs to be ordered for
the sort of spontaneous movements of the Holy Spirit. I mean, if you look at the Feast of Pentecost in Acts too, even that is not chaotic, it's not gibberish because in the very Book of Corinthians, pul says God's not the author of confusion. And in our church, in our tradition, we would believe that at there's still a liturgical worship going on. Right. It's not like there's no liturgy. It's just everybody just you know, chaos and do what you want. Paul is trying to give order to a situation
where there is still instantaneous motivation and movement of the spirit. Right. Like if you if you read the Book of Acts, remember when like Agabus is suddenly inspired by the Holy Spirit, right, And so he says, he takes a belt and says, you will be bound like this belt, and
he was moved by the Holy Spirit to do that. Right, Paul doesn't want the instantaneous movement of Holy Spirit in this intertestamental period to disrupt the liturgical service of the church, which if you read that whole section in Corinthians right from eleven up, clearly that is what's happening, because people are getting drunk at the liturgy at the Lord's Supper, right, So, so it's a liturgical celebration, and even he talks about the altar, but it doesn't tell
us the liturgical service, which is why we believe in tradition to know what the liturgy is. But so I think all of that's going on fantastic. And then real quick critic might observe the iconesis as a maybe a okay,
why do you have an iconistasis that people can't go behind? If the curtain was torn into in Matthew twenty seven, because if you look in the earliest the architecture of the earliest churches in the first and second century, they had the equivalent of that, which are called communion rails, and they're they're clearly there in the earliest churches, then what is the Orthodox centergy. What that means is that I mean the iconostasis is the same thing as the communion rail
in the West, and what that means is that communion is closed. And so it's true that the veil is rent, but that's a specific time in the service when the doors, the royal doors are opened. That happens in the service, it's opened. So the veil being rent, of course, sponds to the point in the liturgy when the doors are open, then you get communion. Ah nice, Okay, I hadn't find that. That's cool.
Yeah, it doesn't mean that, oh, the veils rent. Now, so basically you can just go do trick or treat, go door to door, trick or treat communion dog because the veils rent. Yeah, no, that's fair, because you had mentioned that in your tubes. You said, you know, these house churches were estates that were converted to build it theasilicas. Yes, everybody can look that up. Yeah, that's I would highly recommend early. And of course we always sort of have to bring this
up because there's just this weird assumption. And I used to have this assumption when I was a Protestant. Right when when you see house church, you think of that as like, oh, that's the Bible study I went to after high school when I was playing basketball. Right, house church, Well, that doesn't mean that it's like a low church. You know, strip mall. Paul's got a strip mall. No, it means early church,
like villa converted into a basilica. That's what that means. And early church architecture shows this, and that's why it's liturgical worship that you can see in the earliest days of the church. Here it is. Now this is the
Catholic guy, but it's the same principle here. So because this article went around on both Catholic and Orthodox websites, it's also over an Ortho Christian too, but there you can see it on this Catholic website making the argument that the ancient Mass or the liturgy in the house churches was not as informal as many think. And you'll notice there that the This is the church at duray Europos, which is fascinating because dury Ropos also has the synagogue with the icons
in it earlier than this second century. This is third century church two hundreds where they have a baptistery courtyard and then the service area. And if you get the Hugh Weybrew book, he's actually got pictures where they show like the the rails and the euchuris where they would have had the euchus and whatnot the altar. So anyway, good questions. Yeah, great questions, sir, appreciate Yes, sir, bed and bed safe. Keep what's up dude?
Hey Jay, thanks for having me on. I have three questions to being clarifying questions and one being like an application question. Okay, my first question is can you discern the definitions between world views, paradigms, and ideology.
I think most of the time when people are using the terms worldview and paradigm, they're referring to the same thing, at least when we're using that terminology in the in the domain of philosophy, typically we're just talking about the basic beliefs and assumptions that people have in terms of epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. But an ideology could be more specific, you know, that could be somebody somebody might have a singular ideology of being a radical Marxist, or a
single ideology of being a radical feminist. And I only ask that because I hear you says things whenever you're debating about, you know, the orthodox paradigm being the superior, you know, theistic paradigm. Well, that's because I think that ultimately at that level. The reason that we do tag over here is because the arguments are not ultimately about evidences or the interpretation of evidences. They're about the entire paradigms. So that's why we do that. Okay,
doesn't mean that you can't do evident evidental argumentation. Sometimes you have to present evidences. For example, if somebody says to me, well, what are the evidences that you think Jesus is the Messiah? Well, I mean I may not go immediately to tag to do that. I'm going to say, well, there's a you know, ton of Messianic prophecies that point to the Bible being inspired and fulfilled in him. So so those are evidences, you
say. So the second question is regarding to like the method of developing those worldviews or ideologies or paradigms. You know, basically, I know that I've heard you say something to the effect of that. You know, Orthodoxy is not a dialectical method of progression. But and this maybe goes and ties into my third question, which we know about the you know, mill their fobbing,
uh, you know, open society type worldview. How is there's you know, progressing in terms of development versus orthodoxy And basically, you know, the fundamental question is how do you develop your worldview in such a way that you know you're always going to out compete other worldviews that are competing. Yeah, So I would think that there's a bit of an equivocation there on the
word developing. So I mean an individual might want to study a topic like philosophy and learn about world views and kind of figure out what they believe. That's different from the notion of developing theology in a sense of evolving theology or progressive philosophy or progressive movements or open society institute, all that different uses of
the word. So you know, if I'm I mean I can develop my worldview in a sense of like figuring it out, that's not the same thing as like something evolving over time, like oh, the papacy wasn't really there in the first thousand years, like Vatican One says it developed into that. Okay, that's different than me it's just using the word developed in a different
sense. That's that's different than me figuring out my worldview. But you think, like theologically Orthodoxy, is it progressing still in terms of it's not being static and it's uh like it's it's it's pre suppositions are static, but the elaboration of those are developing. And and then I'm asking, you know, the Milliner Fobbian thing, like their pre suppositions are static, they're developing.
I really no, I don't think the Orthodox faith develops. I mean I mean, yeah, ecumenical councils really just clarify and explicate what's already there. So if by developed, that's what you mean. Yeah, But if by develop you mean, like do you mean by develop I mean like you know in the Milner Fabian you know, the one World or sorry, one True religion, like where they you know, grab all the religious idea of you know, religions of the world and make one religion. Uh. And I
may have the term wrong. Is that uh an ecumunical or is that I always confuse the two terms. Yeah, I mean they want to steer and develop the religions into a control geopolitical tool of a one world religion, absolutely
right. And so you know, my basis is like if they are doing it in a dialectical manner, which I thought that's essentially what they're doing, is that they they're using a form of dialectics, controlled dialectics, such that if yes, that is true, yeah, such that if Orthodoxies comeing and you know, they have their uh, you know, worldview and place they
have you know, their uh, you know, structure of bureaucracy. And I know I'm not using the right term there, but also you know, there's a structure of bureaucracy for Mildner Fabian and obviously it's like a power dynamic
thing. But in terms of truth, like arriving at truth and arriving at you know, an audience discerning between Orthodoxy and this one world religion, how would they know to choose one paradigm over another, Not not because of like being called to God or anything, but just on you know, the basis
of the facts or the basis of the paradigm. I think that the position of the elite is one of pure pragmatism, and so they will hire countless academics from universities to study religions and then present reports, present, you know, papers on you know, how to best steer religious communities in the direction
that they want. So I don't think that it requires them to necessarily master the religion in a true sense or believe it, because I don't think for example, most you look at most of the academics that are pushing liberalism and Orthodoxy for example, I mean, they obviously don't really believe it or live
it. They're just hired hands that are there. For example, everything that we were talking about for many, many years is now coming out in this recent IOTA conference, which is the twenty twenty five or Union conference to promote Nicia too. Remember when I talked about this, and I was a conspiracy theorist. Here it is the International Confidence in Rome in twenty twenty five promoting
the new Nicia how to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. And it's all the usual for Tomite goobers and academics, including the arch Druid Rowan will Illiams, as well as all these other clowns. And so there it is right there, exactly what I said. So are you asking how do they know where to steer it or how how do they I mean their their agenda. Their agenda is very clear, women priests skittles everywhere and then move all of
that into Francis's skittles domain. Yeah. Like I watched uh, you know, David Patrick Henry and he was talking about how they kind of like co opt Orthodoxy terms for their like uh, technologic you know, religious beliefs where they're like, oh, we can talk about theosis or apo theosis at et cetera, et cetera in these terms. That's basically like a technical version,
a more pragmatic version of what you're saying. And what I'm saying is how would someone uh essentially look at that and be like, oh, with the doxy was just this old way of thinking. And so since we have twenty first century technology, that means the Milner Fabians they don't know it's Milner Fabbians, but the people who are co opting with the doxy terms. This is
how the Bible is actually supposed to be progressing. And I think I think the Pope say something about it. It seemed like he even believes that, uh, not dogmatics, but like the theological positions are meant to be progressed over time because humanity. No, I think I think he believes that. I think he believes that the morals and the dogma progress over time. So right, obvious, insane, right, I mean, yeah, yeah, anyway, so good questions. Yeah, we're gonna move on. Let's see
moving on to blood and rain. What's up dude? By the way, guys, what supported the stream via the super chat function. Super chats are through stream laps. Now, if you like what I do, if it helps you, you can support me via stream labs. You can ask your questions there in the stream lamps link. It's a little bit of an extra step, but it's not too difficult. You can put in whatever amount you
want. We had a few super chats. I'll go through here in a little bit, and thank you to you guys who a couple of people I think super chatted while I was gone. You can always super chat and I'll just read it on the next show if it gets missed. But there you guys see that the Church of the third millennium towards Calvic Orthodox unity put on by all the Fortamites, put on and basically sponsored by the State Department people from the CIA. Mike Pompeio has supported and tweeted out a lot of these
people. So a lot of this has to do with geopolitical motivations, very public. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's well known. And they want this new union with Francis, which is part of what the Alexandria document is about. If you watch Tim Gordon's stream the other day, you'll notice that he didn't one stream where he was like, what is all this? What's
what's the Roman Catholics sin on sinodality about? And I was like, I can tell you what it's about, Tim, It's about this sinodality and primacy admitted to be not done in the Roman Caloitic way in the first thousand years according to Francis. So there you go. What why are they pushing sinodality? Oh, I can tell you why because they want to have, as
we've been saying, a union with Roman. And why are they mad at me and other people in the Orthodox Church that are not into a Cumanism in this because we are the ones that stand in the way of this being pushed. It's not that, it's not rocket science, not hard to figure out. What was there? Boy? Hate you because I'm calling this out. No one else is talking about it now. A lot of priests and people
talk about it, and that's great. But I was doing I was talking about this actually in two thousand and seven or eight, and then I was doing podcasts in twenty fourteen fifteen on this. They're still up so vindicated. Oh but you're a conspiracy there's an evil person. All you're so bad all I don't know, I don't know. Sure, okay, yeah, by the way, where you guys at tonight, everybody's being a stingy tonight stingy. You don't want me to just work for free? The labor is worthy
his wages. What's up? Can't work for free? Support the work right there in the super chat function. Also, if you want to support the work in another way, get books and stuff. Get the six hundred and sixty page Red Book has all my theology and geo politics essays and philosophy essays in one book at the website. Sign copies if you go to the shop at the website. So in this book, by the way, if you don't know, in the Red Book, there's about let's see how many pages
are. The first one hundred pages are so is essence introduced sinction, apologetics type stuff, typology, the next several hundred pages are critiques of Roman Catholic stuff. Then the next couple hundred pages are critiques of Protestantism and Calvinism. Then it gets into philosophical stuff, geopolitical stuff, a bunch of old essays
on psy ops and control, dialectics and all that kind of stuff. So if you want the Red Book, get signed copies at the website in the shop, as well as all the other books that are there, Jamie's Books, Hollywood Books and all that. Who's next? Are you there? Oh? Thanks for doing this. I just had a quick question about I'm sure you're, as a questioned before, at some point in the past, titters
space for you to book. I point myself a lot of conversations just online and training groups that I'm in with the Protestants through That's what I mean.
In terms of early Church father teaching. Then, I know there's a line of Apostolic succession from the early church Fathers to now with a wide range of literature or context of the Bible, have you ever outlined a reading list for people sort to read the Church Fathers from the time of the Book of Act until now, sort of call the your gospel applies to the papal the Beach Cuba heresy, because there is there a place to start, like some people
have plub me to start with the Desert Fathers earlier saying that Fanascia, I think, but I was curious how you would not that. I mean, it depends on what route you want to go in terms of what you're wanting to study. I mean, if you're wanting to study are the earliest church Fathers Protestant, then I would can you mute when you're not talking? Then I would start with, you know, Ignatious Clement of Rome, uh, justin Martyr. I would I would read the those early guys and then see
what you see in them. But if you're wanting to get into Patristic theology, then I would start with on the Incarnation of Athanasius, and then I would read the Orations of Saint Gregor now sian Zeus, and then I would read on the Holy Spirit by Basil. So no, I don't typically like lay out some sort of historic track or course that a person should read. If you don't want to dive directly into the Batristics, I would say,
read volume one of Yaroslaw Pelican's Christianity. Christian Tradition Volume one is a great introduction to the historical history of ideas of the Church Fathers, right, yes, sir, So for those in the audience that are curious, that's this book here which I have actually lectured through this book. It's an old lecture on the channel. I remember what I called it, but I did lecture through this book. So it's part one and a part two if you want
to subscribe. Let me think of us if I can remember what way, there's a bunch of Trinity lectures already up. So what did I call that boyd or that talk early Church heresies? I think I think it's this one right here, Gnostics, charismatics and early Church heresies and fathers. I think that's yeah. That's my free half of the first book of Pelicons Emergence of the Calic Tradition. So if you want to watch that first half, here you go. There's that. You can subscribe to get the full half at
my website. Also, yeah, that guy brought up the five year ago Trinitarian response talk in that videos right there, and I appreciate that. I'm glad people really like that when a lot of people have become believers in the Trinity from this talk. So it's had a lot of a fact I hear a lot of people have over the years have said, hey, thank you so much for that Trinity talk that you did. Yeah, man, good, good to hear. Let's move on. Is that all you had?
You have something else? Sibyl a Hinger, Sibyl a Hinger, thank you guys. If you would in the chat, also like and share support us Vice super Chats if you'd like to right broke tonight. That's okay. I still love you guys, even if you're broke. Sybil, looks like it's having a hard time for you to connect. So Patrick, what's up? Patrick? You want to pop on? Project Pat? What's up? Juicy Jake? Project Pat? What's up? Hey? Hey? Here me Yes, sir, Hey, Yeah, I just was gonna ask about your point
about Folk pro Hope Francis. There is a faction that I've kind of been a part of for so ever since he, you know, came into power and whatever that believes that he's the end Times false prophet, that his job is to bring in the one World government or the one World religion and congruns with the war World Government so old. I got a question. When you say a faction, you mean of traditional Catholicism or a Protestant What do you mean a faction? Yeah, Catholics, I believe that, uh, in
particular. I don't know if you've ever seen William Tapley article books on YouTube. He's been on there for about fifteen years, and I don't know some I came across them years ago and read some of his books. Hold on, are you talking about the boomer that sings on his keyboard? Yes? Yes, actually yeah he did. That was some of the early ones. That's right. Hold on, so well, I mean, I'm gonna try
to be nice. I don't want to make him mad. But I mean I made fun of this guy for years, but right, so did but Anderson Cooper, Well, yeah, I made, but for different reasons than Anderson Cooper would. But so, I mean I remember his stuff, and you know, a lot of what he talks about is pretty obviously influenced by evangelical pre millennial stuff. And the problem is that whether you're Roman Catholic or whether you're Orthodox, I mean, the Second Ecumenical Council pretty much forbids any
kind of pre millennial stuff. So You've got this guy influenced by dispensationalism and Protestant pre millennialism. How could that be? That's not Catholic or Orthodox. Okay, I ask which you mean? I mean, I mean, Francis can still be an evil person, but that doesn't mean that William Tapley is correct. Okay, well, yeah, I understand which you means. Have you seen the the apparition of Benedict the sixth Saints to the Colombian Non?
Have you seen anything about that? No? I'm sorry, man, I'm not trying to be rude, but look, guys, I mean Catholicism, man is Look all this apparitions and Protestant end time stuff. I mean, guys, that's not authentic Christianity. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean to you, guys, not distant. I don't hate you guys, but I mean this is just clown level stuff. Man. I mean, do y'all not know about I mean, maybe that guy was even trolling me. Doom and Gloom, y'all know third, this is Doom and Gloom.
Listen to thirty goals tune. This is the boomer at his keyboard and he sings about like the third Eagle, and it's just the most ridiculous boomer evangelical but Catholic end time stuff. Listen to thirty Eagles too. Doom and Gloom coming soon. I'm not joking. Very soon you'll see signs and the moon. He's even got the Yankee boomer uh nasal Doom and gloom. Listen to thirty Galls tone so. I mean, this is even worse if it's a
Yankee boomer, very sooner. Rapture comes Internet. Sorry nobody if your orthodox are Catholic, can believe in the rapture. This is a goober. Why are y'all following goobers? Come on? Doom and Gloom calming soon. Listen to thirty Goals too very soon, if you're ready, you will meeting up bright and Groom. I mean Crunch Corp. I have to admit might have a little bit of third Eagle influence to it. You know what I mean.
I mean, I mean we used to I used to get get buzzed up, like fourteen years ago and we were just die laughing watching this stuff. Dude, this is funny stuff thirteen years ago. Yep, don't be dumb. Fracture columns long before the seventh Trump. Oh, he said Trump dude. Maybe he is a prophet. Maybe he was talking about Trump back then? Whoa dude, My mom's blowing. What's up? Liam? They'll be dumb. Listen to Third Eagles tune No Man Gloom, calming Soul.
Listen told Abo our ears told? Are you there? Man? Brother Jay? How are you? Sir? Good? Good to see it. Have you been? You been? Brother Jay? Are we how are we brothers? Well? I mean we're brothers in Christ? I hope. I don't know. I'm not trying to be mean, but who are you? I don't know. I don't know. I'm like a dude on the internet who shares your religious persuasion? I mean, are you Orthodox? I am?
Okay? Yeah? Yeah no. I also noticed, and I think you deserve some congratulation, didn't You recently went an award for being the most influential Eastern Orthodox person on social media. It wasn't an award, it was that was a father deacon. And Nias is making a joke about a survey that one OCA group did the turn that results that some of them didn't like. Yeah, I'm gonna take and run with it and say that that's awesome and
congratulations, and then that's well deserved. I appreciate the fine work you're doing here, and it's good. There are a lot of spaces on here being run by absolute charlatan's and it's nice to come on and see someone who isn't a complete pretender having fun and telling the truth. So so without irony, I appreciate what you're doing, and I just want to thank you very much. Thank you. Now, Now it says debate, So I'm supposed to try to debate something with you, right, So I'm gonna do a circle.
I'm gonna warm up my pitching arm. I'm gonna warm up my pitching arm. All right, all right, here's the debate I think we should have. All right, in the title of the room, use the word Catholic, and I don't think we should concede to the Roman Catholics that they are the Catholics and the other churches are not the Catholics. I think we should call them Roman Catholics every time. Yeah, it doesn't fit when you have a limited number of spaces. I agree with that. Oh, this
is like one hundred and forty character thing, gotcha. Yeah, I mean, you don't have you don't have to posit a debate topic. You can ask questions or chat or whatever. But it's just I'm just hope and open it up to debate in any time that somebody wants to. But no, I agree that they are the Frankish Papal Church and we are the Orthodox,
Roman and Catholic Church. I think. I think that one of the strongest points that Callistos where makes in his first book, which people are blown away whenever I cite, is that if you go and ask the Patriarch of Constantinople if he's Catholic, he'll say yes. And if you go and ask the Pope of Rome if he's Orthodox, he'll say yes. And this conflation of
the and I'm telling you what you already know. I mean, but for the benefit of the listeners, that this marketing dichotomy where we tell the general public that one of these churches is Catholic and the other one is Orthodox, I think really serves to understand neither church very well. Yeah, I just do that because it's commonly known and spoken of that way to bring in Roman Catholics through the title. That's it. I agree with you. I like to brag I do like to brag I met the man once and he is
just like the most amazing man and everyone is. He just talks everyone's socks off. He's one of the most colostos. Oh okay, Yeah, just like when I read his book. In his book, he's like when you meet Orthodox Christians, they'll like show you their icons. I mean, like,
this is my faith. But I really do think in the twenty first century, when you meet Orthodox people and you're curious about it, and you're like, hey, you know what's Orthodoxy about, one of the first things they show you is his books and like, you know, this is the history of the Church, and this is the schism and this is how we went from you know, the Book of Acts. And I don't know, I just I have such great admiration for the man. I would take any
excuse to talk about him. Really. Yeah, I've read several of his books. I think that he has a lot of good points. I think there's some problems in his Orthodox Way book, but not everybody gets at all. Right now, this fascinates me. This is in all of my years, the first time I have heard an Orthodox person say a word against against Metropolitan whear. So what is it an Orthodox way that you don't feel he
gets correctly. There's a specifically erroneous statement about the sun being forsaken on the cross, which is a Protestant view. Gotcha? All right? Thank you for Sharon. Yeah, anything else you want to leave us with? Oh? No, just did I enjoy your spaces that. I'm incredibly grateful for the work that you do, and I hope you'll keep going. And uh, and I wish you all good fortune. Thanks man, I appreciate that. And uh, good comments. You have a good night. Let's see
who's up next? The so journal? What's so so journal? What's on your mind? It feels like late night love radio? What's on your mind? Who you want to send this dedication out to? I'd like to dedicate third Eagles, Doom and Gloom to my one true love, Bayulah Doom Man Gloom the days let's flood sure comes their blood. Don't be dumb. Rapture comes done. Don't be dumb. Rapture comes your lamps. There won't be every one seven years, tears and fears. Tribulation will up here seven years.
It would be very worst. What tears and fears cheers? Four fears what's up. What's on your mind? Doumen blown. Hey, Jay thinks I had a question about if you could point to good resources to learn about all the ecumenical councils and like what they had talked about and kind of like what came out of it. It's hard to try to find like one complete source or you just kind of point to something. I mean, I would just read the Again, there's not going to be one perfect book on the
the Seven Councils. I wish there was. You could get my endor has a book on the history Orthodox Church that's good. His book Byzantine Theology is good. There's also volume one and two a pelicon, so you don't have to read volume three unless you want to go into medieval stuff. But one and two of this book right here, emergency the Cally tradition are probably the
best that I could think of for what you're probably looking for. Okay, he thinks, yeah, because one deals with the first five centuries generally speaking of the Church, and then volume two deals with Eastern Christianity and it's actually really good. So it's going to cover the spirit of Eastern Christendom. Byzantium, you know, six hundred and seventeen hundred. So that's probably the best that I could think of for what you're looking for. Handmade somebody, what's
up handmade? Doom Man Gloom, kaming Son. Listen to the Yankees Nasal Tone, Doom and Gloom, Yankee Doom, nasal Boom. Think our lovely plan it has been cursed? Is that man tiers and tears and fears, and Katholic Church will be a ghosts that man hears jeers. Yeah. By the way, if you're a papist, then you have to believe as Vatican one says that the office of the papacy and its successors and its function continues
to the end of the world. There is no such thing as a apostate Rome if you believe Vatican One. But again, as we see, most of the Roman Catholics do not go and read their own documents. Now I don't know why, but you have to go to papal encyclicals to read the entirety of Vatican One. And once again I'll put it in the chat for you guys. Seems like this will be at the Vatican website, but I don't know. For some reason, maybe maybe they're embarrassed the Vatican One.
Now it would seem that way with all the synodality, right, And what has Tim Gordon been talking about? What did he just do a stream about? Actually it was actually a good stream and let's see where's where's Tim att? He just did a stream on the synod on sinodality, which is funny because you know, like, what does that mean? Why do you need a synod? It's like meta the weed to have a sin on on synods and synods synod on the sinodality of synods by the way, the let's see
if we can. I can't figure this out. Where's it at? Oh? Live streams? Do mangloom coming soon? Listen to the boomers tone synod update synod on sinodality. Now this isn't scientific, but I did a pool around New York. Not always get the Epoch times ads, so the only AD I get is epart to those bigger channels don't have the date. I think this is it anyway. So Tim's basically we're like, why do we need a synod in sinidality? And I'm like, well, because the synod
on sentidality is about the Alexandrian documents Statements of sentidality and premacy. That's why. So I had a point with all this. So we're on Vatican one. The reason that I'm trying to remember the exact wording. It's like the end of the ages. Right, there's there's a couple of phrases in Vatican one about the continuance of the office of the papacy. I always said,
into the end, that's an end. Let's see. So just as he sent apostles, right, this is in the section on Vatican One's section on the role of the Pope as the teacher of the faithful, and we move on to it is as will that there would be these shepherds and teachers until
the end of time. See that. So when you try to think, when you try to cite Lo silette and all this nonsense that's prior to Vatican One, all these dumb set of a contest that are citing Lo soilette like Rome will apostatize and become the seat of the empty crushed in the end times. And it's like, no, uh, Vatican one has sorry, Vatican one, Trump's apparitions. Maybe it doesn't though maybe actually in Rome Catholicism it's apparitions. Nowadays, Trump but I think they do. I think actually in
practice, apparitions trump Vatican one and the documents, the dogmas. But everybody knows that, you know, papism is actually you're not. Mary is not the pope of the church. The pope is the pope of the church. And Vatican one is very clear that the fundamental structure of the Church exists until the end of the world. The Church does not lose any of its constituent elements, according to the Roman doctrine of Vatican One, until the end of the world. And that does not mean that, oh well, in the
end of the world the Church loses all her elements. No, it doesn't until the return of Christ. Bro And it constantly says that the structure of extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary Universal Magisterium, it preserves this until the end. And that's partly because and so that the entire world can recognize that, right, the papal Church is the church Church. That's the logic of Vatican one. How could it lose its fundamental public visible witness, in constituent element of
unity centered around the papal office. And all the triads are like, oh, it's all rome as apostate Okay, then you don't believe that it can want It's very simple. Shepherds and teachers until the end of time, one and undivided. It doesn't lose its public visible unity until the end of time. The shepherds are there until the end of time. And where's all of our papal lawyers at doesn't mean that they can't, yes, it does. It says, until the end of time. Please stop pope's plainting the cope,
the papal lawyering. It was his will that in this church there would be shepherds. Who's the supreme shepherd the pope until the end? Come on? What does it say right here in chapter two under the this is like the footnotes or whatever, it's the summary. It says that this will stand until the end. The Roman Church and Peter's successors will stand until the end. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Roman church that is not the one in Rome. This is another one. They have a
million answer copes to this. Well, I believe in the Roman Church, but it's the one that exists in the Platonic forms. That's not actually in Rome. Rome's Aposta. But the Trade church exists in the ethereal realm of my mind and online. No, that's not. The only Roman church is the one in the city called Rome anyway, but it says it says it's until the end, like multiple times in here. So again, Catholics, please go read Vatican one before you do. Like these guys never go read.
They never actually read Vaticant with all the ways that do read Vatican wolden end up becoming Orthodox. But let's see ghost ghostidious, ghostious, Ghostcious. I like that they're superstitious and they're freaking ghostitious. Dude, So God, you're over here in the chat, bro, you want a debate, Come on the stream. Why do you think everybody comes to the chat on YouTube? Be like, Oh, I'd love to talk to him. I'd really love to take him to task. What that's what it we're here for?
There you go step into the Bruno thunder Dog. I'm just being silly, are you there? Dude? Ghostcious? What's up? He can't connect? Well, maybe pop out and pop back in? Ill? Okay, what's up? Doom man'd gloom calming. Britain, Russia and the US will be most Britain rossha and the US will be toast nasal Gloom, Yankee Boom Listen through the Boomers, doom World, Where's everybody? They can't connect? What's what's going on? Back tinfoil high, What's up? Doom Man gloom post
Listen through the Yankees croon. Okay, yes, ma'am, okay. I I kind of wanted to just talk about two different entsties. One was iconography, which is kind of the lighter topic and the other topics. The other topic was kind of about liberation theology. Okay. I go to an Antiochian church and majority of the prishioners are staring, so they kind of recognize.
Like I was watching a streamless neck with regards to for teller for telling foody, and I had I took it to our Bible study and I had to read that, and they sniffed that out immediately, Like they sniffed out all of the different like geopolitical things that were involved in all of that. Whereas I think that Roman Catholics have a problem because they're so Western like brainwashed from
all of this, you know, like growing up in this environment. I know I was a brainwashed Roman Catholic for quite some time, you know, just that questern philosophy where we're just like, yeah, we climate change is great, and yeah we should just go out and hang out with all of the people on the Amazon and that's wonderful. But they they really seem to
understand that. And I just thought that was really interesting when I put that document in front of them, that they thought that immediately you're saying that the Syrian people recognize that there's a geopolitical motive in Francis's for Telly tu D like so the liberation theology aspects of it, Like oh, I mean, yeah, they really recognize that because they're they're very devout people. But people don't
realize its star like this. At least the scaring people that I know are extremely devout, and most of them I have are just like brand new here. I live in on past though, so like they're they're brand new here, and most of them speak Arabic as their main language error and so I really that's why I wanted to show them, like what what kind of like what would do you think of this? You know, what exactly do you
think this? What would you say and say are untropolitans? Saba put something like that out and they just kind of snipped out all of the aspects of it that were that you it's that hit on which I thought was really interesting. Yeah, I'm just trying to remember what all we talked about, and
that's that's been what two years ago, maybe two and a half. So some hit some stuff in there about like climate change and then like about shaming people for being wasteful, the oppression of man, you know, we're we're slaves because you know, we're we're appressed because we're a Westerners and we've been oppressing the Amazon keeopleing. You guys like nailed that down. I think it was you guys did in a two part series. I think it's back in
twenty twenty. Yeah, I'm just saying it's a it's been I mean, I do remember, it's just been a while. So let's see. We did the encyclical following Pacha Mama. Right here, here's one a New Order, a globalized encyclical. Okay, so I'll put that in the chat for these people there for Yeah, we've forget about Francis's greatest hits, like we can't forget uh, you know, for Telly Tudi and all these different ones. So what what's what did you, what did you want to do with
icons? All the icons are our priest he actually teaches at the Antiochian House with studies, so after the vespers he tends to like for those of us who are an adult Bible study, he'll talk about the icons. And he was he was saying that he loved the seventh actually medical councils, and he quizes osamis all the time, even even those of us who are active in the church. But he he hit on some really good points about that, Like the icons are really he said, that are the things that bind the
church together? Is it? Because they bring together the tradition, the liturgy, and the Gospel all into one. And he went he went through We had an iconographer come to our church and she pointed and she paid to the dormation of Mary and she and she came and talked to us about like the the the actual rituals that they go through, like the Bible, pastages that they read beforehanded, what are rigorous, Like it's extremely rigorous. They have the Mass, they go to Mass, I mean, and he I just
thought that was really interesting that he really emphasized that. And I just think people like take the icons for granted, there's just all those are just pictures on the wall for catechumus, you know, I think that's as hard for them to understand. Yeah, if you go back to UH Sneck and I actually did a really good interview on icons back in UH twenty twenty is as well. That video is good. I did a really in depth icon talk
that was super philosophical. Maybe it was a little too philosophical for people because they didn't get a lot of abused. But if people are interested in the philosophical take on icons that I was trying to convey from an orthodox perspective, I also have a talk on that at and then pageot and I did a great talk on icons that is basically pointing out that symbols aren't like a world of fake things or imaginary things. Symbols are reality, so they're there they
convey the reality for us. Of course, my video won't come up when I'm looking for it here it is icon an incarnation. The reality of symbols is another one of the talks I did that I tried to convey that point. So if you haven't watched those, i'd recommend those. But what did you want to get to an icon is just that they all it ties together
all. One of the reasons that it does that is that if you read the theology of the Seventh Council, and it's theologians like Saint John Namascus and Saint Theodore's Dudai, you'll notice that what they cite is Christology and Trinitarian theology. Right. All of the principles of iconography come from Trinitarian and Christological beliefs, so as well as liturgy too in tradition, but the philosophy that undergirds
it is Christology. I know when you did that talk with David, you mentioned that dur Us Europa Temple and how that the old the Old Testament with the New Testament and the Old Tradition with the New tradition, which is why it proves that the Orthodox tradition in the way that we filled our churches and that creat our churches, and how we conduct our services and even the setup of the church is very similar to that. And you can prove that even
using the icons absolutely. In fact, in fact this chat that we did Sneck and I, we went deep into the Frankish history and what you learn when you get the Frankish stuff is that the Carolinians rejected the subnth Ecumenical Council, and they did so because they were into Neoplatonism. And so if you don't know the iconoclass, we're also neoplatonists. So people don't realize this, but the rejection of iconography, it's motivations philosophically were originism and Neoplatonism, and
it's a very fascinating history to that. But aside from the theology side, when you get into the history with the Franks, they had geopolitical motivations as well, which were which which was the reason why they rejected the Seventh Council. And this impart is why, ironically the pope of that time, at the time of the Franks, actually did accept the Seventh Council in full. But the problem is that the Seventh Council over time it was realized that the
Seventh Council accepts Trolo, but Trollo teaches married priests. So Rome had to say, no, actually, we don't accept the Seventh Council. We give it verbal credence, but they don't accept the sonauticon and they don't accept the canons of the Seventh Council, which would forbid half of the pagan artwork in the Roman Colley churches. Who also mentioned something about the heterodox icons. When
did the when did that all started? All the Jesuits pushed some of those, but when did that where the heterodox icons really started to be put? I guess I don't actually know when the first heterodox icon would be pushed. That's a good it's a good question. I mean, if you read the Loski Auspensky book on the Theology of the Icon, which is really good. It's a two volume thing. Volume two gets into the whole chapter on the heterodox icons, and uh, you know exactly where they come from? Who
knows? I don't. I mean, there's probably somebody that knows, but you'd have to ask some specialist on that kind of stuff. I don't know, but I'm trying to remember the names of them that they have. The heterodox ones all have names like because they're trying to teach Philly o Quay basically, and they usually have God the Father like next to Christ, and then they're they're both they're both sending the spirit, which God the Father is not
an old man, so it's obviously that's wrong. Do you want you want to you went you went through a pretty agree, responds with David. I do remember that, Yeah, I just remember the names of them. If anybody remembers in the chat the names of some of the let's see icon with Philioque. I mean basically they all have that. Well, this this, I think this is one of them. I don't know that one might be an ancient of days, so I'm not positive on that. Let me see,
I don't know. I just don't remember. They have names, but I don't remember what the names are off top of my head. Hope anybody wants to know the names. I know you did go through. Well, I mean this is not an icon, but it's like, here's obviously a heterodox Roman Catholic version of this where God the Father is breathing next to Christ on the cross. Though, I mean what this is crazy? I mean the baby Jesus sitting on the old man's lap. Well, that one I'm
trying to remember. I think that one is supposed to convey Philly oak Way. I just don't remember off the top of my head which one is which. But anyway, yeah, it's all in that one talk that we did. Did you have anything else? Yeah, I just want to say, you were very, very nice to that Roman Catholic girl. I wouldn't hit it. I wouldn't sensitatient with this. Well, she's called it many times and we've had the same kind of interaction. So she's always nice. I
try to try to be nice. Somebody else is nice. Sue's gay. What's up, yo, Jakes? I was wondering, can you hear me? First of all? Yeah? Yeah, So is it possible for an individual to be a heretic without the church officially in a like what's that word, a hemetizes whatever, whatever it's called, like the church officially condemning him. Sure, So it's possible for like, for example, like a scene to have heretical beliefs and like let's say the second century, but the church
never like officially condemned that scene. Would he still be a heretic or would he not be a heretic until the church condemns him unless he like goes against the Church's teachings at the time. Right, A heretic is somebody who goes against the teachings, right, It's not somebody who is just wrong. So, I mean, many of the church fathers got things wrong but they're not heretics because of just being wrong. Heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy,
not just a sin of of knowledge or lack of knowledge. When you say wrong like that includes religious matters. So like if a saint is wrong about yes, many saints got theological things wrong. Sure, yeah, okay, And my second question would just be again as of this week, quick, but my second question would just be like I've heard and I haven't read
Justin Martin like extensively. I've read the other Saints a lot, but I've heard that Justin Martyr when he's trying to explain a way like the Theophanes in the Old Testament, he gives an exposition where he explains them through the fact that he sees the Son as like a lesser God than the Father who appears in the Old Testament and manifests in that way. Is that true that he
holds this type of like subordinationist sort of theology or trinitarianism. Well, some people argue that, but I mean, you can be lesser in different ways, and so he could just mean it in the sense that when Jesus says that the Father is greater rights the Father is greater in roll, not in power or in essence. Yeah, okay. And when you see, like when you say the Father is greater role, where are you thriving that from? Is it just from the riches teachings? Or is that from the Bible?
I mean, do you remember Jesus saying that the Father is greater than I? No? I know, but I mean in the way that you're interpreting that statement. Well, I mean it right, so that we interpret that ray well. The problem is that the unitarian approach picks one passages passage to the exclusion of the other passages, and the presupposition that we have of inspiration and holistic theology in terms of canonical interpretation means that all the verses matter,
and they all have to be put together in a coherent way. And every heretic picks one verse and says no, all the other verses have to mash up into that verse. Right, So, when Jesus says the Father is greater than I, that has to be balanced with the other statements and John on where he says that he has all the same powers and works as the Father, and that the Father has given everything to the son, right, right, Okay, and hold on. But there's there's not just that,
it's like tons of other texts as well. For example, the son was always in the bosom of the Father according to John One. Typically the holistic approach to the descripture right now, but I'm saying that it's also the teaching of the generation of the son, the eternal generation of the son, as from John One also informs what it means to be greater. This is called the monarchia of the Father, like doctor Branson says, Doctor Branson's going
to be coming on again very soon. Yeah, I've watched a lot of his lectures on monarchical for sure. And yeah, and I'm just wondering, like when you take it to like presuppositionalism, right, and especially on the
Reformed tradition, but I know you'dots to use it in that way. But like when we argue that, you know, the Christian God will not we with I'm not a Christian, but like when you argue that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for all knowledge, intelligibility, you know, laws of
logic, physics, et cetera. Right, would you say, like someone like what holds that, Like, let's say a Muslim or jew using that is it because like their God doesn't have the attribute you know, their God is in a trinity, and that's why he can't be the necessary precondition for logic. Correct, there's no records, right, there's no balance of the one and the many, there's no equal ultimacy of the one the many. If you scroll back to the beginning of this live stream tonight, I went
into great detail and addressing that very question. Okay, And so your position would be that if God isn't at trinity, then he cannot be the necessary precondition for you know, transcendentals, right, because a strict Unitarian position ends up either being a modal collapse or a kind of you could be like a pantheist, or you could be an emanationist, uh it's gonna fall or adist. So I think strict Unitarian systems, if they're consistent, they'll end up
in one of those positions. And those positions are incapable of grounding a world view. All right, So if you could just like elaborate that, like, let's say, you know, unitarian, just take the stance that the sun and this, like the spirit isn't like a separate person and the sun, it's just created and like you know zero eight ye or one ad?
How can Why is it the case that their world you can't explain transcendentals or can't account for them, because, as I said, one example would be that there's not an equal ultimacy to the one in the many, you would have a premisey of an abstract unitarian or unity. I get, I get that's like what they're so, how would you ground the one? How would you ground the many? Yeah? I don't understand what you mean when you say grounding the many? Like why can't a unit during an interpretation of God?
Yeah? And so you're not So what are you? So you said, I'm not I'm not a Christian? What are you? I'm a Muslim? Okay, there we go. Now it's starting to make sense. Okay, so yeah, so I want to like, you're just restating their position, Like, okay, their position. Okay, what do you think it means to ground something? Well, that's that's dependent on the way you're using it and what contexts are you saying ground? Like what do you a lot of context? Okay? What do you think? I mean? I don't
know what you're thinking. I mean, that's why I'm asking me to be elaborate, like, for example, when you say God grown right, I'm on the logic right? What do I think that to me? Moving on, Let's see what's up Harry Littlewood? What's up Harry? Are there? Hello? Yes? Sir? Did you cut the guy off? I did? Hell? Yeah, go ahead, Yes, I'm hear me. I can hear you. Next up, next, try again in a minute, Niktarios, what's up? It's not unfair, it's ay j So I've dealt,
We've We've answered these questions a million times. I'm just not in the mood for his for this snickering, condescending Muslim stuff. What's up? Hey, Jay? How are you doing good? What's up? Good? I just had a quick U a couple quick questions the Orthodox. I've been enjoying your content for for quite a while now. I did have a question. Obviously, I don't know if you know about the controversy that's going on between Father Peter heres WITHTHDOXI. So that's not the is that the topic for what
do you see as the topics today? I know you're debating nothing, it's nothing like So it's not that's not on the topics. That not trying to be mean, that's at the beginning. If you bring it on the topics and I'm not covering those topics forgiven that, I'm kind of just ask a different question. I'm sure I was kind of wondering. Some Protestants brought this up to me. They have a different I know, we have the I
used to be Protestant too. I used to bring this up by the Seal of the Holy Spirit, and they typically mean that as a cell vific promise. How would we Orthodox kind of interpret the Seal the Holy Spirit? Pauller first to it chrismation. Okay, okay, ahead, I wad to remember the whole time verse. I don't know, It's like somehow they just kind of twisted to like a cellvific promise. Well, I mean, chris chrismation
is part of a cellivific promise. So I mean, if you look, if you go back to we did a whole lecture on chrismation on sam Shum channel ME and FDA, because who is that goofus vocab Malone tried to say, there's no such thing as chrismation. So we have an entire stream on chrismation. Uh. And that's on Sam Shamun's channel. Okay. And then my last question would be there's a uh, you know, some Protestants will bring this up as well, about the Parraclyses him to the Theo Tocos except
or are offering old Virgin Dalecos say that again. I'm sorry, I was pulling up a video and it was the audio I started playing. Apologize. Some Protestants will you know kind of you know, kind of criticize us Orthodox for you know, offering this praised Virgin Mary, but like this hymn from the Parraclyses saying except or are offering old Virgin theo Tocos. How would you explain to a Protestant the difference between offering a praise to the version and compared
to God in a way. I know it's veneration worship, but like, how do you kind of explain to a Protestant that way? I mean, we just have you scroll back about maybe thirty forty minutes. I had the exact same I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying, like we already recovered that about thirty minutes ago. So okay, good questions though, Yeah, I mean we have I think in scripture. You know the examples I didn't mention when we talked about it thirty or forty minutes ago. One
thing we didn't mention. So if you are you mad that I'm searching for my name because I'm trying to find the video. To the people that are asking why are you searching your own me, I'm looking for the because every time somebody asked a question, I'm not being rude. It doesn't bother me. It's just like we already did it to our livestream on this three years ago. So rather than me rehearsing the entire thing, one can go look
at it there. So that was me and FDA responding to vocab Malone who said there's no such thing as chrismation, and so we went through all the texts and acts and other places where we do see chrismation. And so the Seal of the Holy Spirit that Paul talks about, I mean, isn't that even in the liturgy when you're christmated, receive this seal seal, receive the seal Seal. Oh, And I was gonna say that, right. So obviously in scripture we have a presentation where we're told to honor God right with
worship. We all agree on that. But we see in scripture people prostrating before Pharaoh. Right, Joseph prostrates before Pharaoh. People prostrate before Elijah, right, Elishah, I think prostrates before Elijah. Maybe it's name in the series, and I forgive. But there's prostrations, right, So it can't just be the external bodily action itself. That is the quote idolatry, because
the Israelites prostrate before the arc and the Temple when Solomon dedicates it. Right, So there's a level of honoring veneration that's not the same thing as the worship that we give to God. And you can just go back and read the essay that Jerome wrote seventeen hundred years ago against vigilantheus. So just read Jerome's essay. Let's see art of Taylor. What's up? Art of Taylor? Doom and Gloom coming soon? Hey man, I can hear you, Okay, all right, rock and roll jak. Hey, you're the best.
You're brilliant. I'm not. I have a couple of questions for you. I used to be a goober Protestant one thing that I had a question of. I'm completely convinced of your position that orthodox he is true father. The Bible does say something to the effects that, hey, to call no man father, because father is we have a father who's in heaven. Can you talk to speak to that just a minute. Yeah. So you know,
we're told, for example, to honor your father and mother. Okay, how could I honor my father and mother if I can't call another person on earth father? So it's it's not literally in the sense of like nobody else can be called father. Because Paul says in his epistles, I am your father. In the faith, he tells that to Timothy, he calls himself Timothy's father. There's nothing wrong with having a spiritual father or a spiritual
authority and having that title. Jesus is talking about the tendency that the Pharisees had to exclude the direct relationship that a person has with Father by basically making themselves the equivalent of God the Father. So it's a critique of the Pharisaic abuse of spiritual authority. It is not literally saying that the word you can never call a person or someone else father. Otherwise the ten commandments. You couldn't honor your father. Michael, what's up, Michael? Doom and Gloom
coming soon? Listen to thirty equels, Tom, what's up, Michael? Michael? Are you there? Uh? Michael's having a hard time connecting, So let's see. Let's trust another person. Sometimes people, you know, it takes a minute for it to connect. Roscoe Ducks, what's up, Roscoe? Roscoe pea cold train. I'm mute, bro I'm your Roscoe. Go ahead, you're on muted, all right. Roscoe is not gonna talk. Kevin, just keeping its simple. Just Kevin, straight up, Kevin
right there. None of that frill, none of that fancy frill with the last Just Kevin. I mute Kevin. Yo, Jay, I just watched your debate with Eric Yarra, and I think at the end you guys or you were talking about the different assumptions between the Catholics and the Orthodox, the different paradigms, and how those paradigms led to Catholic theology, and I just wondering if you could expand on that and kind of explain that, Yeah, it's similar to kind of what I was arguing in the Trent debate. So
when we had the Trent Debate about natural theology. It's kind of an echo of what I was trying to convey to Erica Barr in that debate, because one thing I noticed was that the Roman Catholic classical foundationalist, tomistic evid dentialist approach was what Lofton and Nibara kept kind of putting forward, which is just this idea that well, in order to prove something like the papacy, I
just stack up all these historical examples and evidences. And if I have a giant enough stack of quote minds and proofs and citations and it hits the ceiling, then clearly the evidence is like you know, just it's just insurmountably proving, you know, Vatican One, If I if I stack it all up, if you give me, give me three hours to talk in super slow motion, to stack up to the roof all these pile up evidences, then then see like maybe Vatican One's kind of close to what's true or something.
Right. That's the that's a whole different approach because of their mindset. And what I was trying to convey is that I already know that Lofton and Nibara they don't know anything about TAG. They don't know anything about transmittal arguments, they don't know anything about pre sub there don't anything about any of that stuff. So it was difficult to they to them, and they've still never gotten it that it doesn't like certain it's certain problems are so systemic that they can
cancel out the whole system. So, for example, often is always arguing that you'll got problems too, Dog, your orthodox you got problems too. So while you trying to leave Dog, you got problems too. The argument was never you have problems. We don't. That's so silly. It's a question of what are the problems, And if the problems are so fundamental and
systemic and at a paradigm level, then that cancels out the system. So if the papacy, for example, has dogmatically decreed certain things and then later contradicted that, that would cancel out the papal system. In other words, it wouldn't matter how many or things you pile up in an evidential case,
not saying you can never talk about evidences. It depends on the nature of the thing in question and what you're debating, and if we're debating at a paradigm level, the Roman Catholic system and how it operates, and if it has in fact contradicted in a dogmatic way, which I argued in that whole three hour discussion, that it has in many places and in many ways.
And now everyone hopefully can begin to see this with your boy Francis out here saying, I mean, Francis just helps us out every time there's some kind of dispute with the Roman Catholics. This has been happening for like four years straight. Now something comes up, some big fuor with the Roman Catholics comes up, and then Francis immediately this is so weird, this never happened. I mean, it's just it's like it's meant to be. I'm not literally
saying Francis watches he didn't give a crap about what we talk about. What I'm saying is it is a weird, providential thing that we always get help Francis helps clarify what he meant and how radically he really meant it. And
what did he say the other day? Time to change. Too many trad cats in the Roman Catholic world in America who don't want to change, And that's what he just said the other day thank you, Francis you come to the rescue, because when the Pope explainers come to to try to rescue you here it is there's a strong US faction that are backwards and don't want change in the Roman caloic Churt. I mean, how many times can he say it to make it clear for all these goobers, Well, you doesn't mean
what you think he means. What he really means is hey, je, he don't mean change you. And then now a Barrow is even having to admit, like you know this is this is hard to do. Yeah, that's what I was telling you like six years ago, Eric, when we first started arguing. But I mean, I think Ericabarr just lives and moves and talks and thinks in slow motion. I don't think it's his fault.
I think he just literally lives in another time space continuum where everything is moving at like one fourth speed, like somebody went into the settings on Erica Barra, like in a YouTube video and put it on point two five speed. And Eric has been in that for like the last six years. So that's what's going on. But anyway, what I was trying to convey it was just that you guys are thinking in a evidentialist, foundationalist way. I'm thinking
in a presuppositional systematic paradigm way. And so why would I sit here and stack up historical quote minds about the papacy when the whole thing can just be toppled like a house of cards by pointing out open contradictions. That was the point. Appreciate Jake, Thanks, Yeah, great, great question there.
I like to elucidate that because it often is overlooked, especially you know, anytime you've seen Loften give replies, you know, his long winded, unbearable videos are basically just saying yoga problems to look at the EP yo, look at the EP though, I's like, who I mean, if the EP was a pope, that might be a good argument. But in the orthodox view, you're gonna have EPs be heretics. So what how does that disprove the view? The system doesn't. So people in the chat, if you're
talking smack, all you gotta do is call in. And by the way, you don't have to have it's it's open now to PCs, so you can come on in Twitter or x through the PC. It used to be you can only come on spaces from the app Now you can come on anyway you want, So all you gotta do is hop in. There's the link request to speak. You can come on, make your arguments. You guys know the way we do it around here. Anybody can come on. You
can make your argument as long as you want. I didn't feel like rehearsing all of the same tag stuff and the same trap triad stuff with the Muslim dude that we just went through about thirty or forty minutes of at the beginning. So statue face, dude, what's up. I can't see your name. Oh my name is Emperorder Philippi's Arabis, which I'm sure some of you are aware that that's a Syrian Roman emperor from the third century. Okay, what's up there? I just was piqued. My interest was piqued by the
title of this space. I don't really know what it's all about, and I wondered if you could just give a quick, sure summary of what you're doing. Yeah, So I just usually opened this up to theistic debates on
the topics of things like church history, Christianity. I defend orthodox Christianity, so we usually opened it up to atheists or Roman Catholics or Protestants, Evangelicals, atheo, whoever wants to come on agnostic and typically we end up arguing for topics that relate to you know, philosophy, theology, uh, you
know, apologetics, that kind of stuff. And my personal spiritual philosophy is probably closest to something like neo Platonism, and I pre aiate the old Pagan custom the old Roman Pagan customs of like ancestor reverence m And my personal viewpoint would be, I don't really, I don't really what would what do you think the relevance of Christian doctrine is to the problems of the modern world, Because I'm kind of a lapsed Catholic and I tried going back to church recently
and I just did not find any kind of comfort in what the priest was saying. I guess I'll leave at that. Well. Uh yeah, man, I don't blame you for not being interested in the Roman Gallic world. But I believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church. So I think it has the answers to all of men's hopes, desires, and dilemmas. So I think it offers ethics, I think it offers a meaning. It offers
communion and union with God. I mean, I think it offers all those things that certainly the modern world not only lacks, but I mean the modern world is really kind of a It might be a desolate, empty place in terms of what it offers as answers to man's ills. So psychology and humanism and transhumanism and you know, all of these things I think are basically empty and in no way can give man meaning or hope or or ethics or anything
that's an interesting questions. So you think ethics has to is something dictated, not something that can be sort of instinctually reasoned from one's own logic. I mean, I think that all the different ethical schools or theories might have some truth to them. I mean I think that you could have. I wouldn't bull ethics down to district dictates. I think there's consequential elements to ethics.
I think there's normativity and ethics. I think there's objectivity in ethics. So I think there's a lot of different relevances for different positions in ethics, is what I'm trying to say. So I think the tank commandments are a great tool for I mean, I don't think they're only pragmatic, but I think they are. They are pragmatic, but I wouldn't be just a privatist and ethics because I think that the Ten Commandments works. I also think that it's
true. Could You often hear people say that without some sort of explicit spiritual doctrine, that people would have no ethics, which I always find to be such an interesting statement because to me, I think that ethics are pretty rational, like you can have a rational basis breath, and you should have like you shouldn't just be what you're told to do. It should be you should
have good reason for why you want to do it. Well. I would say that maybe a better way to frame that argument would be that not that you can't have any ethics, but there's not a way to justify the ethics, right, So I would say that philosophy. The way I would argue that would be that if you don't believe in some kind of personal God, and there's not a way to have any epistemic grounding or justification for your ethical norms. Yeah, I disagree with that because I think that the grounding would
be one's own experience and knowledge of what causes pain. I guess that's kind of a utilitarian viewpoint. But we all we all experience pain, we all experience suffering, we know what we can know what causes suffering, well but directly, okay, But why why simply because we know what causes pain, ought we to choose to not inflict pain? I mean? And by the way, how do we know that that's the universal experience? Well, I
guess, how do you know that there's anything? I mean? Well, I mean I would I would give philosophical argumentation as to how I would know those things. But I'm saying, if you're going to a very like Cartesian no kind of argument about you know, no, no, I don't think the car has good arguments. I'm saying, if in your position, based on what you just said right there, I would just simply ask you, well, how do you know that that's universal experience? First of all,
that we all know pain and suffering? I mean maybe we do, maybe we don't. How do you know that? And then I'm asking a separate question, which is that why ought we to choose simply because we know the source of pain and suffering, that we shouldn't inflict pain, or that we shouldn't choose pain. Well, obviously there's times where inflicting pain and suffering are merited when it's in self defense. But I think, okay, but so so now we have a qualification and then you know, but so but why
like why does self defense the the qualification there? Because you're you have a right to limit your own self? So where what are where do rights come from? I mean I think most people would Where does I mean I think most people would? Well, that's a fallacy of consensus or appeal to the masses. What does most people have to so what Well, it's any religion is also a consensus. You have to believe that most people don't think I don't believe that. What would you say a religion is? Then how do
you get people? Because you have to what would be I mean, I just I mean religions have people who have consensuses consents. I but that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's true or false. I mean you could have an everything to do with because most religions have aren't just about divine punishment. They tend they also give dictates for temporal punishment based on the ethical guidelines they set out. So it's not just that God's going to punish you.
It's that it gives people the right to punish other Okay, but that's a better, more consistent, coherent grounding a justification for ethics than what I heard you get, which was pain pleasure and you know consensus. Well, I think you think that just arbitrary doctrine is a better argument for consensus than people recognizing that most people probably experience pain in a similar way. And well, why is it arbitrary? I wouldn't say it's arbitrary. Why is it not
arbitrary? Who wrote it down? Who verified it? Well, the argument would be that the worldview as a whole is coherent and consistent and can give a justification for things like ethical norms. And what I'm saying is, how is it here and inconsistent? Who decided that? It's not a It's not an authority decision, it's an objective principle, or it's an objective argument about the worldview as a whole. So I'm saying that the Christian worldview gives an
account for those things. And there's a basis in that worldview for why there is universality to ethics, or why there's universals at all, And I'm saying, take take the doctrine of Christianity as a fact, but what about people who don't take the doctrine of Christianity? But that has nothing to do with the argument it's being true or false. So you keep appealing to things that are kind of irrelevant to the argumentation. So I'm not trying to be rude.
I'm just saying that, what do you mean what that's that's a fallacy of irrelevance. However many people agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the argument. I mean, if I if I pulled a bunch if I pulled a bunch of people who said that they don't think you exist, what it does have anything to do with the truth or
falsity of whether you exist? Of course not no, But if you're trying to create a universal ethical standard that you want to hold other people to, not just yourself, than the truth of it, well, the consensus of the people again has nothing to do That's a fallacy of consensus, has nothing
to do with whether it's true or false. I guess what would be the reason that you would believe a doctrine handed down to you is has greater truth, and yeah, just greater truth than using your own logic to reach a conclusion about what is good, because my logic itself has to appeal to some kind of universal logic for it to be coherent and consistent, and that requires some kind of omniscient divine mind and I don't have that, but God does.
So that makes sense. But how do you How are you certain that the doctrine that was handed down to you comes from God? Well, there's different ways I could go about checking to see if that's the case. If you're asking for like evidence is one evidence would be that the Old Testament, for example, has probably one or two hundred Messianic prophecies that are specific about
the time, date, and life of the Messiah. So that's one evidence that's super strong, predicting you know, when he would come, what he would do, he would die, et cetera. So that's that's in that
kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If I say someone's going to come and then someone says they're the person at the right time, when you already said there was supposed to be a person who was going to come, it's not just again, it's like hundreds of prophecies that that note, where would be born, under what empire, what would happen in his life, the destruction of the temple, that he would die if he put to death, that he would be a son of David. I mean that there's it's hyper specificity.
It's not just somebody will It's not like nosredamis, like, there'll be a dude and he'll do this. No, it's hyper specific. How do you even how do you even know that the Old Testament is consistent across time for the prophecies you're laying out. Well, the irony is that people knew
that. The irony is that even if I believe that it is, and that's a doctrine of faith, sure, But the irony is that even even liberal scholars will admit that the like the Book of Daniel, for example, it's at least two centuries prior to the coming of the Messiah, and it predicts the empire under the which the Messia would die. And then Daniel seven it says that the temple will be destroyed, it says that it says that
he would be killed. So I mean, are you certain that Daniel has been consistent across time, but also how what level of specificity it does say specifically the Roman Empire and Daniel Daniel lists the empire after the empire that he lived under, which was the Greeks, So yes, well that could be any empire. And the Greeks weren't really even an empire, yes they were.
They were an empire under Alexander the Great. And then you can have you read the Maccabe's, really the Greeks per se, that's the Hellenistic empires. You know it would have been like so Alexander doesn't. Okay, So if you read the book of Maccabe's, it's considered in that text to be the Greek Empire. So even if it's not the equivalent, it's called they're called the Greeks in the text. So whether you take issue with the terminology,
that's fine. I'm just saying that the terminology of Daniel nine is very specific about when he would come, what would happen and under the empire following the empire of Daniel's day, And I'm just saying it doesn't matter how liberal you find the scholarship. They all agree that Daniel's written prior to the coming of Jesus and that's at least two centuries prior to that. So I mean you so you have hold on so you you have a lot of like responses.
But I don't detect that you even know anything about this topic, which is fine. I'm not I'm not expecting you too necessarily, but I mean I would I would think that if you wanted to rebut something like Messianic prophecies, you would know that. I mean, it's not just some guy, so there'll be a dude coming into future, right you would you would at least know something about, uh, you know, the historicity of the Book of Isaiah for example, or like Isaiah's widely attested to in the Dead Sea
Scrolls for example. So are you familiar with the Book of Isaiah. The point isn't to debate what my point anyways, Well, you asked me for evidences of why I would trust those books, and I'm giving you various texts, and I'm not detecting that. The point isn't that you have explaining. The point isn't that you have doctrinal explanations. The point is that you are appealing to your own reason. Well, you asked me, but you asked me what you asked, it's not my own reasoning. My reasoning is a
faculty. It's a that's a here a lot of people who you can't so you can't distinguish between the principles themselves and the faculty of reasoning. So I have a faculty of reasoning. But you asked me for why I believe those
things, and I'm giving you the answers. So you might not like those your reasons for why you believe those things any different than my my own empirical, logical reasons, because I don't think you can give an account for knowledge at all if you're an empiricist, How can you give an account for how are you an empiricist if you're a neoplatonist. I don't understand that question of the entire right. Let's move on. Let's see Vanessa. What's up,
Vanessa? Go ahead, Vanessa? Oh wait, maybe I didn't hit the button right, can you hear me? Yeah? Go ahead, Okay, Yeah. So I just jumped on a while back ago and I was looking at the title I appreciate your time on the space, and given some theological knowledge, I had a question about I know you have the different religions and
the topic I've had this thing. It's not a thing, but I see a lot of visions and it's too much for me sometimes, and I was wondering out of all those religions, which maybe text I could probably read to better lead me. I am cost but I see things, so you know weather phenomenology. Sorry, so that that's called delusion. So you need to read the Orthodox Study Bible and stop following the visions and delusions. American man, what's up? American man? Stay away from me? He I kind
of like this sunglass or glasses, only I feel like scynth wavers. So I feel like I'm like night call over here is Travinsky's night call. I'm giving you a night call to refuture dumb arguments. I wear my nerd glasses at night, so I can't, so I can't refute the dumb arguments from the people. Oh well, my my lesbian internet glasses at night, so I can't. So I can't see anything because the new Internet it's not working right. So no, the light went out because I don't have my normal
lighting. We couldn't have fit it in moving it down here, so I gotta buy any lights. What's up? Matter? You were you at I'm new dude. Man, we got some we got some rough arguments tonight. Boys. It's a challenge. Maybe I should have let that Muslim. I should have let that Muslim do talk, because I probably would have. That would have been a better conversation that Muslim. Dude, if you're in here, you want to come back and you want to rehearse the whole Trinity thing,
we can because we're getting wild in here. Now. Well here's the problem. Here's the problem with Muslims. And I'm actually I wouldn't say I'm Catholic or Protestant, but I'm well, maybe I'm fitted into that sort of line of Christianity. I grew up. I grew up going to Methodist Church. Uh you know, I was confirmed, I was baptizing the Methodist Church. So I don't know if that's in that line again of specifically for what Claire is supposed to be clarified or for what is supposed to be titled as
a Protestant sort of Christian. But that's what counts Protestant, Yes it would. My My problem is with Muslims, you know, and a lot of their books are parts of the Quran can have been debunked. I've actually can prove this out of YouTube. I posted it about a day or two ago, so we've had a whole bunch of Muslim debates. So I mean, I'm not if it, But what's your topic? What do you want to
get to? Well? I think what would need to what I would like to see is that the Catholics and a lot of the Christians, even myself and my own sort of denomination or sect of Christianity. I think we need to look into a bit more of why there are pages and texts missing out of the Bible that would have in the Bible. All right, this is getting crazy. Where's the now? I want the Muslim dude back? Are you in here? Muslim? Please come bay? This is getting ridiculous.
Did we try? Did Roscoe? I want to try again? Where my songlasses that? He yes, sah? What's up? Can you hear me? Yep? Hey j I found some of your work very helpful, and I'm actually reading your book on meta narratives right now, and your work has been very helpful for me in the in term that kind of human a. But even when I was Protestant, I was I was looking into Messianic prophecies,
and I wanted to get your take on one in particular. Maybe if you want to suggest me some additional literature to read uspool on this topic. Okay, which one the Damael seventy weeks prophecy? Okay? Yeah, so I believe that's it predicts the exact year on which Jesus died. I want to know what your interpretation of that would be, and I know it's a
very convoluted text to interpret. So yeah, Uh, well, I think there's if you read in the Orthodox Study by Will, they actually have a really good note going back to like Ezra and Nehemiah about possible rulers which in the building of the wall, which could have been in the beginning of that period. So I'm flexible and open to different possibilities or I don't have like some dogmatic position. But do you know what I'm talking about? Do you
have Orthodox Study by h Yeah, I've read that particular section. I'm aware of some of the starting dates for what people place the four hundred and ninety years on the one in Forst. Ezra chapter seven. So do you have do you take issue with that or something or what? Well? Uh, the question that I wanted to post to you. Is the traditional interpretation from what I've read in specifically Saint aff Nations, some of the some of the
other Fathers. It predicts the it predicts the year that he uh starts his ministry, so like in h so like in the twenty seven eighty. But I believe it's particularly about his death. Would that be issue aromatic for you? Uh? No, I don't have any hard position on this, okay. And do you think that this is anything useful for apologizes? I mean, are you wanting me to check out something like a specific person that you think is really good on this or something or like, I'm just not familiar
with the specific argument that you're saying. I'm just asking if you think because because I mean, if it does predict the exact year that Jesus died, yeah, I mean that's a pretty good that's pretty good evidence yet, right, So would you would you pose this as an evidence for Jesus says the design? I mean, yeah, I think that even if I don't know the exact date per se, I've always thought this is one of the strongest past pastors, even the Jews do, right, So what what do you
what is it you want me to check out. I didn't want you to check out anything particular. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of like flexibility or if you had a particularly like Well, you sound like you have an argument as to like who we need to look to has this position? Or is it something that you studied out, which is fine, I don't. I think it's possible that you could have studied and come to that. Yeah. No, I have studied this a little bit. Uh, and I've
come to my own conclusion. I'm just I'm just asking if you have a particular interpretation of this. No, I do not have any hard I do not have a right. No, I don't. I don't have any hard answers on this. And my second question would be, is there any literature that you would suggest on the subject of Messianic prophises? M Actually, that's a good question. I don't actually know what a good book on that is.
You would think there would be there probably is, but I'm I mean Sam Shamooner and I've done just a bunch of podcasts on it, but I don't actually know of one book that covers up. One reason for that, too, is that your theology like your ecclesiology and all that. That's also
going to affect what you consider messianic prophecies. So, for example, no evangelicals or dispensationalists, for example, will ever grasp or understand all of the Old Testament predictions of the Gentile church as fulfilled in the first coming of the Messiah, and therefore they lose all of those proof texts as well, you see, because they don't believe that the Messiah said up the kingdom and that the Gentiles coming into the Church is a fulfillment of all of those passages and
the Psalms and in Isaiah and Ezekiel. So you know, kind of how we what our presuppositions are about theology also, unfortunately will kind of impact because like if you look up Messianic prophecies fulfilled in cry it's usually you're going to get like Protestant evangelical takes that only focus on, you know, like the specifics of Jesus being killed in Isaiah fifty three and you know, which is
fine, but there's actually like hundreds more. So you see what I'm saying, right, Yeah, I know, I mean Protestants tend to go to like the specific Psalm twenty two exactly, those kinds of like very caleeringly obvious passages, but tend to overlook the repology that's offered a fuel housement because they don't really have a framework through which they can interpret them exactly. And all of the Theophanes as well, because many of those Theophanes also have a typological
import as well. Right, Okay, Yeah, good questions. I wish I had a better answer on exactly Daniel nine, you have, like any maybe literature on proving Christianity from the outset of maybe Judaism. Well, I mean, I'm gonna do a talk on the Jewish texts that I've been reading that I read for the Daniel debate. So I mean, I would say it's it's they're not interested in proving Christianity, but the irony is that it
points in that direction. So I would just say, look at Peter Schaeffer's little book on he just focuses on Daniel and the Son of Man texts. I forget the name of that book, but I think, I think, I think if you if you watch my Daniel Pikachu debate, in the first fifteen minutes, I signed a bunch of these so get the Schaeffer book, Get the Summer book on Bodies of God in Ancient Israel. That one's really
good. And even though they're not specifically about Messianic prophecies, they're basically admitting that the Old Testament is full. If they often these are full, it's basically essence interistinction. There's multiplicity in God in the Old Testament. Those two books are really good. All right, thank you for the answer. Having that stake help bless Yeah, good questions. Yeah, I don't know that you should have said, what the who do you think the ruler is?
That would give it like an exact date. Uh, let's see Christian logos. What's up? Mean? Hey can hear me? M hm? Yeah. So I just got done taking your History of Philosophy course, which was freaking awesome. Yeah, dude, it was really good. Now taking that, taking that alongside the Wheaton College course too, because they have theirs up on YouTube, and I liked yours a lot better. Oh yeah, but that's what I'm talking about. Yeah, I mean, there's goes into a
lot more. Do they have like ninety lecture series? Yours was really cool because because it was very condensed, so it just kind of helped kind of put everything together, and I just wanted to clear up some questions I had on that because I got it past the Q and A portions, so I wasn't able to like ask you directly during that, right, Sure, so, do you see it as really an argument continuing from Plato's kind of innate
ideas is deductive reasoning in through Aristotles and then just this kind of like bouncing back and forth between those two logical positions up through history. Are you talking about because I was kind of classifying the history of Western philosophy as dialectics. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, And like some sense, and I've heard a lot of people say before, like the history of philosophy is basically just the arguments continued between Plato and Aristotle aside either two. You know,
do you kind of see it in between that? And if so, what specifically in Christianity really links these two together, Well, the rejection of dialectics, so christ entity doesn't favor Let's talk about some of the commonalities between Plato and Aristotle in terms of Hellenic dialectics. We would have the idea that there's
a premiscy given to unity over multiplicity. There's a ontological premiscy given to eternality over time, there's a premiscy giving to stasis as opposed to movement and change, and that would be common about the Aerosotle and Plato, and so the ontologically diminished status of the world is actually cashed out as opposites right at least in But God is not the opposite of the world. Creation is not the opposite of eternity. Time is not the opposite of eternity. Change not the
opposite of stasis. And so Orthodoxy says, because of the doctrine of creation, the world is good. It's not a thing to flee from. Christ affirm the goodness of the world when he took on matter in the incarnation and also when he created it. By the way, would why would God create if it's evil? But you know the fact that in the Hellenic presentation there's no doctrine of creation, so there's no creator creature distinction. There's no distinction
between the create and the uncreated. So there's already the inability, due to Hellenic philosophy and metaphysics, to overcome the dialectical oppositions between one in many and created and uncreated, et cetera. So what I was trying to argue is that Christian philosophy and metaphysics that results from the doctrine of the trinity and creation
and the whole narrative of Christianity and so forth the goodness of history. For example, right, Christian christ becoming incarnate is an affirmation of the goodness of history. History is not bad, it's not evil, it's not something to flee from, right right. And I think it's really important here too, the russmannion paper where he shows that there has to be like this relevant or revelation factor two man sure as well, or else he's kind of just trapped
in between the mind and material world. But that does make a lot of sense too, because you know, in Plato and Aristotle they don't have this revelation, so they're kind of just extrabolating from their own minds correct whether it's whether it's deductive or inductive. And then human history, you know, honestly, just probably out of pride and arrogance, just doesn't want to accept that revelation too. Man of really looking up to a god first before starting these
philosophic projects. Yeah, I think in both Aristotle and Plato, you know, for all of their good points in their insights, the sonauticon of Orthodoxy eventually condemns Aristotelianism and Platonism because they're autonomous human rational system building projects, and those those are doomed to fail because they don't take into account not just divine
revelation, but also the fall. And the doctrine of the fall is necessary as part of how we understand man's inability incapacity for the fullness of understanding, man's not going to be able to properly interpret the natural world, for example, without understanding that this world's actually a fallen world, and it's not fallen because of some metaphysical principle. It's fallen due to ethics. When when Adam sin it was a moral problem. The moral problem then resulted in metaphysical change,
you know, chaos, disintegration, all that. But but man's problem is not metaphysics or a metaphysical issue. Man's problem is moral, and that's
why people don't like Christianity for the most part the world. You know, what is used to say in John three, right, the darkness does not come to the light because it's deeds would be exposed, and so people don't want to change and when they realize that Christianity is actually about that, it's not sitting around and you know, meditating about ultimate unity and metaphysical you know,
speculation. That's not what it's ultimately about. Yeah, and without the doctrine of the fall too, I see there being an issue logically if you're if you're taking on a project like Plato Aristotle were trying to figure out between God evil and kind of being forced into a dualistic which eventually is it just a monistic position as well, because don't those kind of just kind of bounce back and forth if you don't have this doctrine of the fall and stuff to
really set that distinction away from God. Yeah, of course, yeah, okay, yeah, okay, yeah, great, Yeah, thank you, and I appreciate you taking the course, really, thank you for those kind words. And for those that are interested, that course is always available. I put the link in the chat there. You can get over at Richard Groves Autonomy a world marketplace right there, University of Reason, and it ends up being I think over thirty hours if you count all the Q and A
twelve different lectures of history Western philosophy there. I don't know father Deacon enough you wanted to speak, you popped off. Maybe you're not where you can speak. If you do want to speak, you can. You're welcome to hop on here. Let's see Loewen Howard. What's up, dude. Yeah, I didn't say the fall was only morals. I said that morals are the essence of the fall. Adam morally transgressed. Then that resulted in all the all the all the metaphysical problems. Go ahead. Did you want to
say something something? Hello? Can you? Hey? Jay? I'm a with Orthodox Christian and your work has been tremendously influential on me and helps kind of bring me to the church. I had a question about cessationism and continuate continuationism. Where does the Orthodox Church fall on that issue? Well, if you by a cessation, if you can you mute, it's echoing, dude. If a cessation you mean ceasing of all miracles. Of course we do
believe in miracles. If you mean by the ceasing of like new divine revelations that are like part of scripture or something like that. Now, I believe that divine revelation was complete when John the Apostle died, and thus, as scripture says, the deposit of faith was once for all delivered to the saints. So if it's once for all delivered as a deposit, you can't have new deposits. And so ecumenical councils are not new divine revelations. They're just
the Church explicating and with more precision, explaining what was already there. So contrary to the Roman Catholic idea of like doctrinal development evolution, we don't believe that. We think that the faith was once for all delivered. Everything that was necessary in the first and second century is still here, is still still the same. There's no new dogmas, even icons and even Mary. All of that's very early. Maybe not every dispute and every explication was early,
but the essence of that faith is unchanged and no different. Okay, thank you very much. That's that's helpful. Did you mean by cessation, ceasing of all miracles or ceasing of new divine public revelation, ceasing of new divine revelation? Yeah. You know, I have a lot of Protestant friends, and they will oftentimes question me as to how I'm able to know that the the cannon is complete. If it's if it's the ecumenical councils that right,
that ratify or that that affirm the canon. What's stopping us from having another ecumenical council that this sort of thing. Well, every ecumenical council begins the council, if you notice, especially like Trullo and the side of council with saying that we intend to follow everything in the previous council. So that's pretty much the norm. So you couldn't have a new ecumenical council that says, oh, yeah, the previous council they give us the Canada scriptures wrong.
And so for the Orthodox Church, the Canada scripture that you find in the synods of Carthage, which are pretty prevalent in the West. The Latins have their own synods under Pope Damesis Augustine et cetera, where they affirmed the same Carthaginian canon. Basically, it's Trolo that affirms the Carthage cannon, and then Trullo is reaffirmed in six and seven for US, so six and seven reaffirm Trullo, which affirms Carthage, which has the Dooter cannon. Okay, and
that that would be seventy nine books. Right. Uh, that sounds right, Okay. I mean I feel like there's some controversy, like there's a third Maccabee's that some jurisdiction. Can you meete exactly exactly? Yeah, I mean it's in the Orthodox Study Bible for example. There Maccabees is there. And you know, for us having the cannon, like we don't have to
have like a soul scripture Protestant mindset about it. So it's okay if like a you know, Slavonic cannon stuck the Book of Unich in there, or a collection stuck the Book of Unich in there, because for us, it's okay that there's flexibility for that, Like you can have trade because we don't.
We're not sold scripture. You can have tradition outside the scriptures. So it's not that big of a deal if like if you look at John Damascus' list for example, even as Lady John John Damascus he thinks the absolute cannons and the letters of Clement are part of scripture. So there's flexibility even up into that period in terms of what actually quote is the cannon. And so when we say the cannon of Scripture, Allah Ecumenical Council. That's just what's
normative for us. Doesn't mean that there's not elements of flexibility with Third Maccabees or even the Book of Munich and some Slavonic vials. Okay, that's great, thanks for your time, Jay. Yeah, good points. Yeah. I mean, you know, we're not a Bible only church, so it's not a problem for us that there's a little bit of flexibility on some of
that. And I mean, to me, it doesn't It doesn't bother me that the Book of Enick is in there, because I mean, Jews cites the Book of Enix, so it's just another attestation to literature, you know, pointing to the Messiah. Doesn't mean that the Book of Enick has to have the exact same level of you know, authority as the Gospels or something like that, because even in the Orthodox Church we honor the Gospels above even
Paul's epistles. That doesn't mean that Paul's epistles are oh you think they're false. No, it's not an either or it's a both in but there's still there's still levels too, even within scripture, and even Paul's epistles have levels within them. For example, Paul says one of his letters this, I say not of the Holy Spirit, but I give my own opinion, and so Paul distinguishes there even what's in his letter from the Holy Spirit. So that does not mean that we're saying, oh, the by errors, Bob's
full errors. No, I'm not saying that bed safe again. And then I'm getting tired, so I'm gonna have to call it a night after this. Go ahead. Hey, Jake, have you investigated the Dead Sea Scrolls possibly being a forgery? I am familiar with one or two of the supposed scrolls or texts being actual forgeries, and so I certainly hold that it's possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a forgery. They could have been forged for
various geopolitical reasons. Some people theorize that I don't know for sure, but if they are authentic, then they do ad tests to the Book of Isaiah. If they're not, my faith doesn't rest on the discovery that Dead Sea
scrolls. Yeah, I've heard you say that. The one thing I was wondering is what would the Dead Sea Scrolls implicate in terms of like the one world government type thing, Like, are they adjusting something that's an Old Testament or you know, the Abrahamic faiths would be able to agree on something where like the Dead Sea Scrolls Refactor, you know, the Old Testament in such a way that changes all the theolog Well, I mean we we already have,
you know, ancient, preserved, authoritative, normative text in the Orthodox Church. So it's not gonna it's not gonna do anything to us unless a bunch of clerics are compromised and you know, cave into something or whatever.
Yeah, it's some deception, Yeah, I mean, there could be conceivably some deception where like you know, Elaine Pagels and bart Ermine and uh, you know, Bartholome you get together and say say, oh, we've decided that these these newly discovered texts, you know, let's say that there's the Dead Sea Scrolls Part two and these these newly discovered texts actually correct all of our misunderstandings about you know, we already I mean that that wouldn't fly,
you know for most Orthodox people certainly, But there's not something already pre existing in the Dead Sea Scrolls right now that doing something like that that it's such you know, I don't know that's actually I mean, I'm not a textual scholar, so I don't know enough about. I mean, I've read a little bit on the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't know enough about Like I mean, isn't there aren't there texts that are supposedly what they think were
Who's the Who's the Zelic group? That's some people say John the Baptist is supposed to leave. I don't believe this, But what's that Zelic group that they think John the Baptist was part of? Those? Uh, like the Jewish version of monks? You know I'm talking about? Yeah, I do. I'm going to blank just just because I have no clue about the name. But I know about the theory the scenes. I'm trying to think that the scenes. Right, So aren't there some texts in uh Dead Sea Scrolls
if I recall that relate to supposedly the scenes? I mean, I'm just going from memory. So so and I think that people say people try to make an argument that oh and ironically, this is actually an old Masonic argument. If you read man Manly P. Hall's Secret Teaching, he was trying to argue a long time ago that oh Jesus was actually secretly an s scene and he was initiated into the mysteries through the scenes, and he was actually some sort of gnostic magician. Yeah, no, that's it. John the
Baptist is actually the Gnostic that's it. Yeah, and that's that's why, that's why the Masons have a really high reverence for John the Baptists, that they think he was in a scene who initiated Jesus or whatever. But I think I'm right about that. I might be getting documents mixed up. I don't know, look into it. If there's something there, it could be, you know, a nice video to look into. Anyway, that was
my question. Thanks. Let's see if the Dead Sea Scrolls did. Yes, the S scenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so supposedly the some of the Dead Sea Scrolls had these texts that we're supposedly attesting to the scenes, and let's see, they gained fame in modern times as a result of the discovery the Dead Sea Scrolls. So yeah, I'm right about that. But I'm not a textual scholar, so I can't speak with much authority on these topics. But we can all cite the experts, can't We cite the experts.
We'll go to one more because I'm getting really tired. I read, We'll read the super Jazz Ryan. What's up, dude? Why had this powder? Canst? Ryan? Are you there? I'm mute, man, you gotta I'm mute, dude. All right, well all right here, what's up? I mean, uh, we're talking about this biblical stuff and all this and all that. I mean, I love I love it, but dealing with today, like what's going on right now? Do you not feel like like some things are coming to an end? What do you mean?
What I mean is like I feel like we have right now, we have kind of like, uh, a false prophet in office. We have uh who francis? We don't know? No, no, Joe Biden obviously. All right, well I'm not trying me, but we're all right. So tonight's topic are not about Joe Biden. Then, last call was you gotta I meet man? Hello? Yeah, what's up? Do hey? Uh? I was hoping to ask an exogetical question the calvint The Calvinists really
use John six and John ten as their main like go twos. I think when they're talking about, you know, on conditional election and perscuence of the Saints some of those things. And generally I think, like I'm pretty solid on some of the uh, you know, responses to the Calvinist understanding of
Romans and stuff like this, because that's very mainstream and apologetics. But the as far as the Johanni literature goes, is there books you'd recommend, and then if you can maybe spend like five minutes or still in those two passages that helpful. You want to spend five minutes on what John six and John ten in regard to what the drawing I will draw, what about ways I'll draw all the men to myself. I mean, you mean all of those
passages. So let me say first of all that we lectured through the entire gospel John, so you can go watch my lectures that go through the entire Gospel. But the thing with this is that we don't just get our christology or our steriology from abstracting it from those texts. So I'm not trying to diverge from or not go into the apologetics or the exegesis of John six and
John ten. I'm just saying that, like I've already we already did like a lecture the entirety of John, So I would say, watched those if you want the full exegesis. But I mean, there's so many passages for example, that intertwine within those chapters with the universality of Rice message that too then only restricted to Oh, but he's only going to draw the ones that he secretly actually likes. Right, So it's true that the apostles were chosen
before the foundation of the world. Yeah, and even Judas was chosen, and Jesus says it'd been better he'd never been born. But none of those passages negate synergism. And that's the problem with Calvinism is that Calvinism is premised on God being well, there's different problems. One problem is God is the immediate direct cause of all events via the divine decree, and we don't believe that is orthodox. We think that God permits evil, but he's not the
direct immediate cause of evil. So there is secondary causes that really have causal power. Now I know that Calvin gave verbal credence to secondary causes, but the problem is that secondary causes means that those beings have their own energy and will, and so if you have your own energy, that means that there's it's impossible that you can ever not have synergy because human will and human energy is fundamental to having human nature, and this is what comes out of the
ecumenical counsels when it comes to Christology. And so to have a sateriology that dispenses with anthropology and Christology, to say then that God's will and energy replaces my human will and energy is number one. To not have secondary causes in fact, even though Calvin has them in theory. And also it is to violate the principle of human nature, which is that nature has its own will and power and energy. And so if you remove those things, then it's
no longer synergy. It's monarchism. And that's why Calvinists or monarchists. But if you read the Disputation with Purists, by the way, it's actually multiple
passages where in the Gospels that Maximus ends up debating with Puris. So if you read the disputation of Piis, I'll say that'd be a good place for you to start, because he will actually actually get a bunch of passages that demonstrate the Christ is submitting his human will and energy to the divine will and energy to please the Father, particularly the uh you know, let this cup
pass from e text. The debate becomes focused on that. And the reason that is relevant to the Calvinist position is that Calvinism ends up squishing human persons into nature, such that human persons no longer have the natural faculty of willing and energy to synergize in the process of conversion. Now, how do I know it's synergism. Yes, Calvinism reduced it to occasionals. That's what I'm
arguing with Theodore. Well, it's it's not synergism anymore because, for example, every time Paul the New Testament's talking about baptism, the Calvinist has to divorce it from the right of baptism. But why doesn't Paul divorce it throughout the passages consistently, especially Toddis three, where he says he calls the baptism the washing of the labor regeneration. Now, Paul says there's one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, but every Calvinist says, no, there's
not. There's two. There's regeneration, which is the spiritual baptism, and then there's water baptism, which is this separate thing. But all throughout the New Testament, those things are always joined. So this is principle of synergism is always there, especially in sacramentology. And that point about baptismal regeneration itself refutes the Calvinist notions from John six and John ten that irresistible grace is what's
absolutely necessary to achieve regeneration and that there's no willing on your part. You don't synergize and regeneration. That's just simply false. Jesus even calls faith a work. This is the work of God that you believe on Him and me is sent and we have no problem saying that faith is a gift. But it's still not the case that you never have the synergy of your will.
But Calvinists regeneration theology is helt on the idea that your quote spiritually dead and so you do not have the ability to will the good, and so they also don't have any distinction between natural goods and supernatural goods. That's part of Christology. That's also part of what Palamus teaches, right, that there's a distinction between nature and SuperNature. That's how we have theosis. So all of
these points are lost in Calvinism because Calvinism doesn't have correct anthropology. Calvinism actually has Pallagian anthropology. And you say, wait a minute, that's impossible. How could you get what That's crazy? Calvin has Pallagius's doctrine of prelapsarian man because both Pallagius and Calvin fought and taught that Adam could have merited his salvation.
Ergo, it's a Pallagian doctrine of prelapsarian man. Now we're after the fall, We're in this hopeless position to where there's no ability to will or to energize at all. And yet we're told in Romans that God either accuses or excuses the Pagans when they do what's right. Well, if you believe and told to pravity, how is God excusing pagans who do right? That
doesn't exist. Furthermore, why does the Bible talk so much about righteous people like Elizabeth and her husband being perfect and righteous before the Lord, and it talks about the works that they did. Why how is David able to say, Lord, you know my heart, I have not sinned before you. I have done what is right. You see, there's all these songs, there's all these plays. You start noticing all these examples that if I was a Calvinist, how can I say that? How is that possible? How
can David write that as a Calvinist? You see how none of these things makes sense? Well, it does make sense though, if the Calvinist paradigm is just simply not correct. Yeah, that's hopeful. And I'll read that disputation with purists. And then do you have to remember the titles for those lectures? You guys? Did you just t Yeah? If you just type
in Jay Dyer Gospel of John, you'll start noticing. I wish I could make it into a whole playlists, but I mean maybe I can, But like I think there's a limit on how many playlists you can put on your homepage. Let's see if you just type in Jadar Gospel of John. Let's see how many we get when we do that. It looks like they all come right up. So there's at least five or six or seven that come
up. Okay. And then I heard you some people in the stream talking about Daniel and I know the generally the Christian interpretation, you know, the with the twin or ninety years or you know this this terminates in the Coming of Christ. And I've spent some time reading some stuff on Daniel though, and you know, the liberals, like obviously they dated to the mid second
century BC. And the reasoning for that is really it's presuppositional. It's like they presupposed that there can't be real prophecy, and so then they go find the propheties and then they put it like the year before that. Yeah, but it's still predicts it still predicts him being born in the next Empire, which is ironic. I'm just saying that they didn't even do good enough in
de blinking too. They missed the fact that it still says that he would be born in the second in the final Empire, which is the empire after
the Greeks. Do you understand? Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna say though, I think that I've actually found some of their ex of Jesus to be pretty convincing, even if I wouldn't agree that it's ex post facto, like I would still say Daniel road Daniel, but like, for instance, with the four beasts that come out of the earth, right, like these are all future to Daniel, and they're all contemporaneous, and so I think you can see them as the four kingdoms that
come out of the the empire that was going over Alexander the Great. See if you got like the Sluke kids, the Tolemse I never give the two others, and then really the Slucan empires through them you get Antiochists who kind of fulfills that typology of the Eighth and stuff like this. Yeah, I think back like Daniel Aida, I think Daniel eight and nine and up into eleven is about that. Yeah. No, I'm saying, like the four Beasts in Daniel seven, though, I see those as those four Greek kingdoms.
I think the I think the liberals are kind of right about that. It's been't give them the you know, given the farm away. Hold on, let me let's go to that. So hold on. So you're saying, uh, Daniel what uh in chapter seven the vision of the four beasts? A lot of people take that as like, uh, what do they say? It's like that one Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, whereas I would see it as and you're gonna find this jenerally more liberal commentary. Well,
hold on, so you don't think it corresponds to Jeremiah? Uh? What do you mean? Well, Jeremiah. Doesn't he have the same list. I'm trying to remember Ezekiel has I know, I know that it's in Jeremiah. Yeah, Jeremiah has a list of beasts, and Jeremiah and Daniel like, uh, doesn't Jeremiah say that he? Or does it? Daniel says that he read Jeremiah, or is the other way around it? Forget? But one of them says, Daniel reads Jeremiah's prophecy. So I'm saying
that wouldn't that likely be the beasts that he's referring to? I remember, I feel like I feel like I've read it and then I've forgotten it. That point on Jeremiah to d'wing a chapter that time, Well, I don't have a light in here. My light burned out, so I can't see anything. So hold on, let me see. I got my Bible here. I just can't see because there's no light. So let's see. I have like in chapter eight, I think that that's about Alexander and Antiochus.
Chapter seven, I have that my notes are that it's about Jeremiah four seven. Let me see if that's right. I just haven't looked at this in a while, so I'm a little rusty on it, but I think Jeremiah four is what I'm thinking of. Yeah, it's it's an old question for me too. It's I'm rusty. It's but I just heard some people talking about it and it kind of got me thinking again. And then another one too. Hold hold on, let's let's before we move on, let's let's
see what we're looking at here. So uh yeah, so he has Jeremiah has four beasts here listed right, He's got declaring Judah a lot to be heard in Jerusalem the trumpet. Assemble yourselves to the fortified city, pick up and fleezzon, hurry, I bring disaster from the north, destruction. The lion has come upon the den. He has made it desolate. Uh maybe this only mentions the lion. The lion is Babylon Daniel seven four. I
think there's more beasts mentioned in Daniel though. Maybe is it Daniel Ford keeps mentioning beasts. I can't tell him. I can really see, are you asking? Yeah, I just haven't read Jeremiah. While so so the the Church Fathers, according to orthodox study, Bubble, tend to think that the leopard is Alexander the Great. The lion is Babylon and that cites JEREMIAHS seven or four for Babylon. What do you what do you think of that?
And and then it was because because there is like there's a multiple like things begin points that are referred to as a lion, right like, so I wouldn't be so quick to but Jeremiah is just hold on, jere But Jeremiah is writing beforefore the Babylonian right right, the Jews losing them part of the
Babylians. So I mean, I think you could just say that because these four beasts are future to Daniel, whereas the Babylonian Empire had already fallen by the time he sees this vision, that it wouldn't really match up because the babylon the Babylonians fall under, uh you know when it ever kinds his grandson's. But what I'm saying is that he lists the four large beasts, and
the first is a lion like a lion has wings like an eagle. And I'm saying that why would he not be pulling from what he read in Jeremiah about the lion there that brings the destruction because the Babylonian he's not described Daniel's not describing in Daniel seven, what is contemporary with him? Isn't he looking back to the previous beasts? Well, I'm seeing as he's getting a vision in the future pretty much like he does. Hold on, why do you think that? Uh? I mean, what don't you hold on? Hold
on? Hold whoa wait a minute. We're overlooking the obvious here. So the four best do you not think they correspond to the four levels of the statue? Ah? Yes, so I was trying to get to that earlier too. I was so because a lot of people associate those. But in
Daniel two, okay, so it's really interesting the chat the statue. You got the head of gold, the body of silver, you know, the legs of bronze, and then the feet of iron and clay, right sure, And you know, the whole idea is like it's like the most pure metal to like this thing that's gonna it's unstable's gonna crumble, hold on, But it's not. It's not that difficult because we know from Daniel two that that the Last Layers is where the Messiah is born, and that's the Roman
Empire. Well you don't believe you're back on that? Yeah, yeah, like I still obviously believe that, you know, in the Kingdom of God and the Messiah coming and like there is uh, you know, there is christological things in Daniel. I just don't know if I had just put that one to who who WHOA. Well, now we're getting into more dangerous territory. What do you mean you don't think that's about Christ? Okay, so the statue unificant? Is his reaction is you know, he's says Daniel R.
What is the stone? What is the stone cut out without the crushes the session? I mean, I guess you could say that's Christ. Like you guess, I mean that's a famous Messianic problem. What are you thinking? I mean the New Testament says is Jesus? What are you talking about? But Jesus also doesn't come and destroy the Roman Empire. So I don't think that, Yes he does, he destroys it by his kingdom taking over the Roman Empire. That's what happened. I mean, it's familiar with Church
history, the Byzantine Empire. Yeah, I mean that's a revival of it, that's not like a toppling of it. It doesn't literally mean he destroys it like an apocalyptic chaos. It means that he destroys it through the preaching of the word. That's what you know. It really apocalypse. He goes out to conquer with the sword that proceeds from his mouth. Right, the way I see the statue there is that it's basically a prophecy of the fall of ab one. So you've got a Nebuchadnezar's the head of gold because I
mean, Daniel tells you're totally wrong. It's it's four empires. It's four empires and the Messiah comes under the fourth one. That's wrong. So I mean this is like you don't think that's a Messianic prophecy. Yeah, I'm just within the text itself. I think there's more clues. It doesn't work. Hold On, that's not how that we do it. We don't interpret the texts in isolation as if. I mean, so, so you bought in a higher critical scholarship, so you don't actually think this this is a
Messianic book. No, I mean, for instance, the fourth man in the flame, like that's Christ. Hold on a man? So who is the stone cut out without hands? Who's the New Testament? Identify that as I mean Peter for Peter, for the Christ as a rock. So you have that. I don't remember if it's you don't know what? Okay, all right, this is ridiculous. Yeah, so I mean baffling to me to here. I mean I was kind of tracking with him initially, like listening, Okay, I can hear this, I can get this. But
now he's like, no, no, that's not a Messianic prophecy. All right, let's read this. So Daniel receives the vision of the statue, and it says that Nebukaneezer, this is what will happen in the latter days. The latter days is always a reference to the Messianic era, right, it's when it's when the fulfillment of these things, as Jesus says, right, all things written the prophets will be fulfilled. He says, here's here's
your dream, Nebukandezer. I saw your dream, he says, thoughts came into your mind, and it was about what would come to pass after this. He who reveals secrets has made known to you what will be, but asked for me. The secret has been revealed because I have more wisdom than anyone, not because I have more wisdom, but that you may know the thoughts of the hearts. So basically saying that God's given me this. It's not you were watching behold a great image. This image was splendor with excellence,
so before you was form was awesome. The image was fine gold. It's chest, arms of silver, it's belly, thighs braun so it's four metals all the way down to the Arno clay, which are based the statue. You watch. While the stone was cut out without hands, it struck the image on its feet and broke them into pieces. The iron, the clay, of the bronze, the silver. Jesus himself says, whoever falls on this stone will be crushed, talking about himself. The stone cut out
without hands is a reference to the Messiah and his divine origin. He's not a human creation. The stone struck the image on the feet and broke it into pieces. The iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver were all crushed together, and they became chaff like the threshing floor. And the stone that became that struck the mountain became a great struck. The image became
a great mountain and filled the earth again. Almost every church, father and anybody, even where this is a prophecy of the Church, which is the great mountain that fills the whole earth. Jesus came under the fourth of that fourfold division, the Roman Empire, which was the last defeat the feet of iron and clay. That's when Jesus was born. This is not like super technical, super hard to figure out. And his kingdom was set up under
that Roman Empire. Not that hard. Unless we want to be unbelieving higher critical scholars than we don't believe anything. This is the dream. These are kings, and the God of Heaven has given you a kingdom wherever men shall dwell, the beasts to feel the birds of heaven, He will give them in your hands, and he has made you rule over them all. You are this head of gold. So Nebuknezer is the head. The Babylonian Empire is the head. After you. Another kingdom will arise, then a third,
and then the fourth is iron. This corresponds to Rome. Whereas you saw the feet and the toes, they will be divided. And yeah, we can debate exactly who the toes are, but the point is that in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom, and it will not be left to other people. It will break in peaces, and it will consume, and it will stand forever. Who does anybody think is the Kingdom of God that stands forever? It's the Church.
It's a prophecy. The Church. Jesus sets up the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is predicted to be victorious. It conquers the Roman Empire exactly as this passage said it would. To me, it's odd that, I mean, I was just confused. So I guess he's just saying, no, it's not about a future Roman empire. It's just about people underneath Nebuknezer's kingdom. Okay, but where's the Kingdom of God set up at that
time? Oh? Well, I guess it's not. I guess it's a false prophecy, or it's just a bunch of gibberish, right, or it's predicting the church. So that's enough of that. Let's get to the super chats. So maybe i'll get my I'm sorry I couldn't read the text better in here, it's like it's super dark. But we'll have to get some
new lights in here soon. Wood Green Grippin sends a dollar, says, finish this stream Seawn Curry ten dollars thanks to Jay, John Venner, sweet, we need an official wine, Mom Wallace, shame for all the worst arguments. Maybe maybe they do get pretty wild up in here. Save us mesolitis one dollar. Hello from Greece. What's up, dude? Hopefully things are good in Greece. Regabitch ten dollars. I just want to say hello, Well, hello, We give a shout out to you, Val.
Val Kilmer right there. Five dollars, Jay, thank you for doing these streams. I was Chris made a Sunday. Thanks God bless keep up the good work. Well, thank you so much. Val, appreciate that circle g five dollars. What if you're a beautiful slow boy and you get lost in the complex writing style and languages of the Church Fathers, Well take it
slow and easy. You don't there's no rush. You don't have to rush into the difficult Church father texts, you know, try to find some of the easier texts first, and maybe rather than even jumping directly into the Church Fathers, try to read something like the Yaroslaw Pelicon book right like volume one. That'll give you an introduction, and then you'll get familiar with some of
the terminology. Expendable Empire ten dollars. I realized I was about to buy an overpriced cop cooler and I wouldn't tip J. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. Yeah, coolers and kuzies do not come before what we do over here. Alan Matrix ninety nine, ten dollars. I've listened to the Trent Horne debate a couple of times, and I don't understand
what he means by doing your natural theology in reverse. I think what he was trying to argue was that, well, Jay, you're still using reasoning and logic when you do your tag apologetics and reasoning and logic is just natural theology. Well, no, natural theology is not quote reasoning and logic. Okay, he's missing the whole point. Natural theology is defined as even in John Paul's encyclical Fetes at Ratio, it's defined as arguing or theologizing or philosophizing
about God apart from divine revelation. That's what natural theology is. So using logic and reason is not the equivalent of natural theology. You'll notice throughout that debate, Trent just kept equivocating and equating quote natural theology with all kinds of different things. Oh you're using logic, that's natural theology. Oh you're making an argument that's natural theology. Now that's not what natural theology is. We
define the parameters very clearly at the beginning of the debate. BMX nineteen six six twenty five dollars. Thank you so much. Appreciate that fat super twenty five bucks. Our longtime buddy supporters, super chatter there. Appreciate you. BMX roll six five dollars. Thank you for this drink. Can you explain what happened in the Westminster Confession tradition. Did they start removing Gospel books from
the cannon? No? I think that the Westminster Confession tradition is just gonna follow Luther because Calvin, if you're not aware, Calvin was a humanist, and a humanist is not the same thing as what we think of as humanism. The Renaissance humanist tradition was a wide movement amongst scholars like Lorenzo Vala, for example, who did good work. I don't agree with everything necessarily, Vali did good work, for example, in exposing a lot of papal forgeries
and other Renaissance humanists. They weren't just Protestants that many of them were Catholic, right like Erasmus. Erasmus was a humanist. And all they were doing was saying, hey, it's time for us to get some degree of textual studies going because there's a lot of medieval forgeries, and there was also a desire to return to the ancient texts. And so you know Calvin Luther, those people, Erasmus as well, they learned Greek and Hebrew because they wanted
to go back to the text. So humanism is part of the reason that they went about this in this way, and that's what led them, for example, to say, well, which canon as Protestants are we going to accept? Well, Jerome was not did not have a high view of the Didero canon. He still cited it, but he didn't necessarily think it was
canonical because Jerome agreed with Jews that we should follow him asoretic text. Now, the Roman Caloic Church did not end up going with Jerome, but the protest and said, well, why don't we just go with the Jews the masoretic texts and drum So that's part of the reason that they have the Protestant cannon. So I don't think that like the Westminster Confession, people just started
removing books. They were just kind of committed to this humanist approach of returning to the original source text or what they thought were the source sex Orgie mentioned this offhand and debate with a Protestant. Yeah, so that's what I was probably referring to. But I mean it's I don't think it's wrong to say that luther and Protestants just throughout books of the Bible. I mean, it's basically what they did. Turtle items one dollar. Would you debate the politics
and religion server? Again, I mean I'm not opposed per per se, but I mean, do they want to debate philosophy? I mean usually when we open it up in there, it's just a bunch of like teenage atheists. So I don't know, it's basically I don't know. Well, we'll see Rvy sports hundred dollars. Thank you so much. Wow, that's so crazy, fat super chat. I've never sent a super chat before. I want to thank you for expanding my understanding of God, bringing me closer to
him. Thank you. Well, Hey, man, Thank you so much. That's a really generous super chat. You don't have to get that much. Kind of humbled by that, but thank you so much. Temple Hat Girl, twenty five dollars. I want to say thank you and appreciate you taking my call. Well, thank you, Temple hat Girl. Appreciate your questions. Sorry, I didn't remember enough about for Telly Tod off the top of my head, but you refresh my memory and I remember all the social
justice nonsense in it. Now average a liberal Zellot Spangler, Sorrel Schmidt, Giovanni Genteel, the illiberal reaction of right and left. What are your views. I've read a little bit of Schmidt, and I read a little bit of Spangler. I've not read Genteel or Alan Sorel. So I like Spangler. He has an interesting approaches history that kind of remind me of Daniel, But I also think that it's unfortunately Spangler is basically historical relativists, so there's
insights there. And you know, we covered Spangler when we're talking about Tavistock, because Tavistot read Spangler in order to weaponize it, which is pretty wild.
Remember, guys, to head on over to Chalk dot com, which the light hadn't burned out, because I could tell you how awesome it is to get over to Chalk dot com and get access to those wonderful supplements that you see here at Chunk, and you want to use the promo code J fifty and you get fifty percent off any of these wonderful products over at Chalk. They are the best supplements out there. Seven Wonders is great for nutrient
deficient diets. We need to use these supplements to make up for what's lacking in terms of our nutrients. Use the promo code J fifty to get fifty percent off all these great products. I do recommend the Male Vitality Stack, especially the Tonkata Lie. You also get the Daily the Ashwell Ganda. The stacks are great because if you don't nearly know what you want to get, you can kind of test it out with getting stacks for men. There's stacks
for women. There's Female Vitality here. That stack is available. You don't have to get the whole stack. You can test out individual products. I would say, if you want to test out the Ashwell Ganda or the Tonkata Lee. If you're a guy, those are all testosterrune boosting products. Use the promo c J fifty you get fifty percent off anything over at Chalk, and also use the promo co J five three Life that's J fifty three l
Ife if you want to get recurring subscriptions, which I do recommend. So thank you guys, appreciate all that, and I kind of wish the Muslim dude would come back.