Part 1 - Incarnation, Icon, Old Testament & Papacy - David & Jay

All right, we're live. Greetings everyone, This is David R. Hunt today. I have a very great guests with me today. A good friend of mine. I don't think he needs any introduction in my channel, but Jay Dyer is with me, the soy Master, the soy face Master. Hello, Jay, thank you for thank you for joining me in this stream. And I was basically just thinking, you know, we can kind of

just talk about pretty much anything. So if you have people in the live chat, if you have any questions, anything that you want us to talk about, make sure to write stuff, make sure to share the stream. And before we get into the stream, is there anything you want to kind of mention before we start. Yeah, thanks for having glad to be back. We haven't had a We had a chat about drama, you know, a couple months ago, so it's nice to be back and chatting about you

know, normal dude things. So things coming out. We've got the Orthodox Italy pilgrimage. If you go to my channel, you'll see there's a a one minute video up about that. There's links that take you to the website for my priest. You can reach out to Father Vladimir if anybody's interested. So it's like a couple of week ten days. I think in November you can get all the information there if you guys want to go. I recommend that it's going to be a lot of fun. It's not I mean,

it's gonna be high quality, you know, saying in nice places. We're not slumming it. We're gonna be seeing a lot of really good Orthodox sites. Love it. So why why are you doing Italy? Isn't it Roman Catholic? Yeah? I know that, But so my priest has a connection to the Florence Florentine Academy of Arts there and they teach the Renaissance style of art, and he's worked with that school for a long time. Andre Tarkovsky it teaches there as well. I think he has a connection to that school

too. So he spent a lot of time in Florence, and so he knows a lot of people in Italy. And there's actually, you know, several Orthodox churches and sites in Italy. People won't know that, but in fact there's a giant Russian Orthodox cathedral there were that will be at But also, I mean Italy has you know, a thousand years of Christianity where it was Orthodox, you know, going back to when Paul writes the Letter to the Romans. So there's a long history of Orthodox Italy and a lot of

those sites that we're going to will be that. Obviously, some of the sites are now Roman Catholic, but they're still relevant to us as Orthodox because they have, you know, relics of Orthodox saints. So it's going to be a great time. And if anybody's interested, it's getting down now, down to the deadline. So you need to go ahead and sign up if you do think you want to. If you want to go, yeah, and you know I might. I might also peer there. Who knows,

that's a that's a possibility as well. I also have something to announce this specially fans of Phish Tank, fans of Sam Hyde might know this guest. I have an interview at a podcast episode scheduled with John from Phish Tank. I kind of he basically was kind of my favorite character pretty much. I really enjoyed just like looking at the antics that he did and stuff like that. And the show recently ended, right, so we're gonna do the well.

We initially we agreed on June eight, but he wanted to reschedule to June fourteenth. So we're gonna do a so we're gonna have a conversation one pm Est June fourteenth with John from Phish Tanks. I definitely don't miss out on that as well. And that's pretty much yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. And thank you too. Sis Pilgrim from the twenty

dollars were already kind of starting strong. I was thinking of kind of just starting this with a with a question that I kind of prepare before the stream. But we've got a ten dollars super chat, and I kind of think actually kind of have to, like, you know, since he super chat, I think it's it will be good to kind of like start with this and butch paradise ten dollars, he asked. I often hear that Calvin made the penal substitution, but Saint John that Damascus Act Exposition book three, chapter

twenty seven seems to say the same thing. So I think Jay, you will especially kind of know I have I have a chapter twenty seven, Book three like pulled up, so I can read that part if you want me to. But seems like from from like a very basic perspeadive, seems like kind of like a mistake on the words and confusion of the words and concepts. But you want to get into that, Jay, Yeah, so sometimes the set like you said, yeah, the same words are used, but

they don't mean or signify the same thing. So I know that section of the exposition very well. And he does talk about there being a sense in which the punishment, which is the debts. You could say, you can use this language, there's no problem with that. But the idea between Calvin's notion of the punishment and what John Damascus calls the punishment is totally different. For example, John Damascus makes it clear that the punishment has nothing to do

with a spiritual death. It's nothing to do with damnation. The sun is not cut off from the Father. It's the severing of the human soul from the human body. And that's what he undergoes at the cross, and he does that to enter into the Kingdom of Hades. In the soul that he has, the divine person has the human soul. He enters into that kingdom. And by the way, I just did a long two hour talk. I was invited to Antiochian Men's event. I did a two hour talk on

the descent into Hades, and this very point in this very chapter. So it's still freshened my mind. If anybody wants, you can go to my rock fan and you can listen to that whole two hour talk we did. But yeah, so that's totally different than what the notion of the penal substitution is in John Calvin, because Calvin does have the view that the eternal debt of damnation and spiritual death is something that the son is taking upon himself for

us as a divine person. I don't know that Calvin that really clarifies that it doesn't really make any sense. But this goes back to Anselm's idea. So even though Anselm didn't have the full on developed reformed in Lutheran theology of penal substitution, Anselm is the birthplace of this idea for the West, and it has to do with the infinite debt infinite payment model. So we offended an infinite God with our sin. It needs there needs to be a divine

infinite payment from the son to pay the Father. First of all, that's not trinitarian. And there's an eleventh century Byzantine Synod that deals with this error that the offering is not from the son to the Father. The son is offering his human nature to the whole triad. That's the only way to have this transactional offering model in the Eucharist, or just go in the liturgy,

make any sense, So that alone refutes the reform view of it. But just to make it really clear, as we've always pointed out, you cannot say that the Sun undergoes any kind of damnation or rejection of the Father because for many reasons, but one would be the Santi Trinitarian right, So the son can't lose the indwelling of the Father or the Holy Spirit. He's a divine person, and so it would split the Trinity, it would destroy the whole you know, triad if you did this. So no, it is

not John. And if you if you read the rest of book three, you will notice that when he talks about the descent into Hades, there's nothing to do with John Calvin. John Calvin does not believe that Jesus as the divine person to the human soul which has been suffered from the body, that he descends into a realm of Hades, preaches the Gospel to the dead and then harrows the hero wing of Hades. John Calvin does not believe that,

so totally different. Yeah, And I want to add a quote from Saint John Damascus, because I remember reading this from book four, So this is from book four, chapter eighteen, and this definitely shows you that Saint John's views very different from the reform. He says, for neither for neither as God nor as man, was he ever forsaken by the Father? Nor did he become sin or a curse appropriating then or person and ranking himself with us. He used these words. So the basic idea is that these are terms

used for Christ by appropriation. Yes, right, but he did not become curse, He did not become damn. He Saint John explicitly says, very clear says he was never forsaken by the Father. Whereas you know, this idea of the father damning the son is very much in you know, Reformed theology. So I will I will kind of add that as an answer. It's very clearly shows that this is not a concept or a belief in the

early Church fathers. And as you said, it's quite anti trinitarian. I mean, it will also mean that the Sun damns undammed himself as well, which again, is this kind of weird metaphysic behind it doesn't that separates the trinity and ends up having a triteistic view where the father acts against the son as if the son is a foreigner to the father, as if the son

is opposed to the father. This is as as you said. The other options would be to say, oh, well, I guess Jesus was just a human being who was punished in this way, But that would be Aryan or Nestorian to have a split between between the subjects in Christ. So either way you cut it, it's it's anti trinitarian or it's Christological nonsense. Yeah, pretty much. So I think that sufficiently answers the question regarding this.

And as I said, people in the live chat, you can kind of if you want us to talk about a specific topic, a specific question, you can you can drop this. But if you want your question to be definitely answered, and yes it's super chat, will be will guarantee that for

sure. A question that I kind of want to start with in this stream, kind of like a more basic question, is well, I kind of was thinking about maybe we can talk a little bit about just why people should be Orthodox and also what are the issues that just people in general are facing, specifically men are facing today. So the first question I had in mind that we can kind of talk about because I kind of have my own thoughts

regarding this. But aside from the fact that it is true, because a lot of people, especially when they get into ortodox, they don't really think this way or any religion. They kind of they don't really think, oh, it's true. They think of it as like, oh, how useful it is or how based it is. Right, aside from the fact that it is true, why should one become orthodox? And what does it do to help you with the problems and the issues that we face in the world,

Like what what is your take on this? Yeah, I think for guys like us, we're mainly concerned with, you know, this or that issue. Is it true? Is it false? You know? If you if you're really interested in what's true, then these kinds of things will definitely resonate with you. But there's all these other things that go along with it, right, I mean, it's not just a matter of objective truth and a propositional knowledge. It's a question of really a renovation of your whole life.

And so in my experience, is something that is constantly sort of invading and hammering at me when I am always wanting to go off in my own direction and be kind of you know, sinful, be self absorbed, to be you know, concerned with what I want. Like something will happen to kind of constantly sort of break you out of that and bring you back to confession, bring you back to communion. And a lot of that's providence. A lot of it is you know, spiritual warfare. All that stuff's going

on. So I think that it's what am I trying to say, it's like the true version of a twelve step self improvement program. Like it's not I mean, I'm not trying to reduce it to the it's not just the moral thing that makes you a better person or whatever. But like all the red pill dudes, and when I see you know, the manosphere and the Tate sphere and the you know, the people that hate them, and it's like all the things that these people are grasping for that like they'll get a

little piece of the truth and then it's like that's it, right. So I think that really what we have is is that the totality picture of what all of these different spheres are looking for and grasping for. We have that, and so why is it? Why would I be orthodox? Because I mean beyond it being true, Like I can't see any other narrative or mythos or story that actually makes sense of the past, my life, the future, your life, right, what's going on in the world, your politics,

Like it really has the big picture explanation for everything. Um, it's a like I said, it's going to force you to constantly work to improve yourself in the most literal sense of the word. Um, it forces you to reorganize your relationships, like how you deal with people. I don't mean in the sense of like are you mean or are you nice? That's not what I'm talking about. But I'm talking about dealing with people in the in like in a just way. Are you being just to people? Are you

being loving in the true sense? Are you being humble in the true sense? Because I think you know you and I have a conception of what it is to be humble, what it is to be fair to people that's very different than a lot of other people. And I think that they don't. They see us as mean or as very matter of fact or whatever. But for us like, that's that's how we should treat people, right, we

should treat people in a way that's loving but firm. Right. So I think that a lot of people have different, just way off conceptions about how we ought to operate with people, how we should treat people. And Orthodox he really does reirient you to treat people in a different way. But that doesn't mean that, oh that just you're not nice, like you're going to be super nice. Now you're gonna be super this and you're gonna talk like

this to people. That's that's not what humility is. That's not what spirituality is. That's a false affectation that people have to give the appearance of being pious and humble, piety signaling and all this kind of stuff. And you know, if you look in scripture, there's one text that I always come

to mind when I think about this. I think it's in Luke. It's where Jesus says that the Pharisees they judge people on these kind of externals, and he says that the things that are highly esteemed amongst men, he says, are abominable to God. So what are the things that are highly esteemed amongst men going along, to getting along, to get along, being nice, right, this kind of stuff, And that's what Jesus says is you

know, God doesn't care for that. So I think what I'm getting at is that in the long run, orthodoxy is it's going to constantly force you to reorient yourself and everything in your life, Like the way that you relate to people, the way you relate to God, the way that you look at the world, your world or your paradigm, how you are trying to better yourself. All those things come into play. And my life has definitely been better. I mean, the struggles and the problems don't go away.

You get different problems. And you know, you and I did a stream a long time ago that a lot of people really could have benefited from if they had paid attention to it. We were talking about traps along the way, because when you become Orthodox, it's not like, oh, Okay, I'm Orthodox and everything's good. Now. There's a whole new set of traps and temptations that you have that a lot of us have seen, a lot of us have seen people go down. You know, Oh I'm gonna be

this radical, true Orthodox person. Oh I'm gonna go into Roman edies to the extreme. Well I'm into David Billy Harden universalism or I'm into whatever else.

Right, there's all these different like pathways that will lead you off of the correct path, and so many people get caught up in that, even when you warn them about it like that, they go down these roads anyway, that's not German really to your question, Um, I feel like I'm rambling, but you know that that's that's the thoughts I have on the spot, like what is it? Why? Why would I do it? Well, beyond it being true, it's it's really like the healing of your your

whole being ultimately, but it's not something that happens right away. You know, somebody was saying to me the other day, you were mean in a comment to somebody on you on Twitter. So orthodox you hasn't changed you at

all in four or five or six years. And I'm like, so, so if I make one mistake in a Twitter, which by the way, I don't even think what I said was that mean, But let's say I was being mean on a tweet, does that invalidate all of like, you know what I mean, all of one's spiritual journey for five or six years. That's crazy. Yeah, you're going to be battling the passions your whole life. I mean there's monastics who said that, you know, they were

still struggling with lust to their death. Been m Yeah. A couple of things I'd also like to add in regards to this is that for the last couple like veeks, maybe even months, I've kind of been reading some like texts and articles on virtuetix, and I think it's kind of is relevant on this topic because a lot of people think when it comes to ethics and morality and being a good person, they think, if you do X y Z

all actions, Oh can you hear me? Oh kay? Yeah, can you meet your mike because I can hear it from the all right, So I was got a call from an important thing and then this microphone has a short in it. Go ahead, Sorry, okay, okay, Yeah. I was just saying that it's a lot of people think that doing good things is like a checklist X y Z checklist and all of that, But it's about the character and disposition that you're that the things that you do reflects and

harmonizes fit. Right, So they think a lot of people just assume that one action you do kind of just defines your whole character, right, whereas really it's your character that defines your actions in the first place. It's the other way around. And with Orthodoxy, it is that character, that disposition. You're trying to restore that disposition to the virtues that God himself naturally has

that are communicated to you. And that's what repentance is. And this is why people will be making mistakes, but they will also be trying to attain the likeness of God through asceticism to uh, you know, fighting against the passions and so and so forth. So there's this very wrong conception that even a lot of ortodox people have regarding this. Another thing that I'd like to know is that when it comes to what is a true religion what is not, A lot of people look at it by oh, how base it is.

And in that sense, you know, Orthodoxy is good on that front. But the issue is a lot of people they try to they try to look at what the true religion is by looking at like the evil and the demonic stuff in this world, and then they say to themselves, Okay, which religion combats against this stuff the best? That's not the most correct way to look at it. You'd rather want to look at it in this way.

You want to look at it in the way. Okay, what religion allows me to engage me to combat against it in the best possible way. Because a lot of people, for example, they look at the evil things in the world, and then they become convinced that there's there's a there's a god like Entertained for example, Right, but then he becomes Muslim because in his opinion, the most sensible religion when it comes to morality and stuff like

that is isla. Well, one might, for example, a lot of whatever choice he makes, right, whatever choice anyone makes, they might be deceived by these demonic beings that they're trying to get away from. Right, I mean, demonic stuff isn't just like in the movies where like you get possessed or you know, even just jumps into your face and scares you and does a little cool jump scared. That's not really, that's not really how it works. It's deception, right, And so people can be deceived if

they act on their own accord instead of protecting themselves against these influences. And so this I think is something that a lot of people miss out on then comes to looking at, Okay, what's the true fate? Why should I

be in this revision? And so I will say, and I will definitely agree with you, and I will kind of add that the reason why one should be Orthodox is because Orthodox he really gears you against the demonic forces, demonic delusions, and aside from being the truth, it is the one religion that allows you to do this and allows you to develop and even claims to develop you into having the same virtues and character that God himself has, which

is very radical to to say, but this is just an affirmation of man being made not only in the image but also in the likeness of God, and at the end of the life of man is to be deified by the grace of God. Right, so that Orthodox is really even the only religion that even claims to do something like this. And this is how I think people should kind of look at it what it can really do for them in the in the sense that it really matters, not in the sense of,

oh, this religion is going to make me a lot of money. Well, this religion is going to really develop your soul in the property because your body is going to die your earthly you know, the money you have on the earth is going to go away, but your soul is going to you know, still going to continue living. And the kind of the treasures that you have in your soul, that's what's going to matter for it turn too, really and that's going to define the kind of character you have both bodily

and spiritually. Is kind of how I will how I will see this. Yeah, I think the you know, Islam is a good example of a situation where I was thinking about this the other day, Like, it doesn't it doesn't heal you in any way internally. There's no notion of like the interior man being cleansed and the interior man, you know, ridding himself of vice and attaining virtues. But you know, one thing that Jesus is always concerned with, like I was saying in that text and loop, is the

internal state. Like you can fool everybody with doing a bunch of externals. Right. You can externally appear to be pious, and you can externally tweet about your prayers and how much you pray, and you can tweet your public prayers all day long. And even though Jesus says, don't do this. He says, to go and pray in your inner room or in your heart,

right in your news. Then how how is that religion going to do anything other than make me into some kind of weird hypocrite right where I'm just doing my religious actions for worldly status because I think it'll make me cooler, get me, you know, four wives. Whatever Islam thinks right that Allah will bless me and I'll have a lot of money, or I don't know what, I'm a shake with a bunch of oil platforms. I don't know. But none of that really changes or effects or helps you in an interior

way. So it's not that those things are wrong, right, there's nothing wrong with exterior blessings or the world or anything like that. That would be nastic than going in a different direction. And a lot of Protestants get into this really superpietistic mode where it's all about you know, they're just sitting around obsessing all day along about their inner devotion and you know, their inner state.

And to me, that's also kind of a weird opposite extreme. So I think that the classical practice of Orthodoxy gives you a notion of the body is good but it has a place in a hierarchy. The soul is more important than the body, and the soul should steer the body. But that doesn't make the body bad, right, But in Islam, there's not really any notion of this healing of the interior man and it of the vices and

attaining the virtues. So it's just odd to me that you have the whole religion based around this this idea, and to me it would just it just kind of it's sort of like the you know, other quote monotheistic religions. They just create people who are externally doing things and they never internally heal.

Yeah, I definitely agree with that. If you got a new super check question by Joshua is Sonza five dollars think you, josh He asked, I recently heard of oc A pre say the current cannon was not affirmed by Nicki Michical Council and certain Russian Orthodox churches have a different cannon. Is this true? I think that you are definitely the expert on church of cannons on that front, but it was them on the canon of scripture, as you talking

about scripture. Canon of Scripture, I definitely, yeah, I mean there's in the Orthodox view, there's a little more flexibility on this. So like the some of the Russian Bibles have i think one of the extra books of

Esdras, so like they have like third Asras or something. So, but it's not that big of a deal because I mean the Orthodox Church that doesn't happen, don't have a Protestant view of the canon, where like there has to be this one statement of a canon from a list of books from the council, and then everything else, everything you know, hinges on that.

Because for one, if you think about it, if the cannon is somewhat flexible for the first six centuries, and then then obviously we're we believe that people can be you know, saved even if they have you know, one extraitutor canonical book, or they don't even believe the durecanonical books. It's not you know, Saint Jerome didn't think they were canonical, but he's still a saint. So I'm not saying that today you're free to do whatever you want

with the canon. But if the Russian Orthodox Church, if Russian Bibles have an extra Duto canonical text, I don't see why that that's any any any different. So but beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what he means by that the current canon is not the current cannon is affirmed by North by the echemenical councils. So that's not true. It's the sixth Council. I think it's the Trollo Council lists and then it's appended to the sixth Council and then

restated in the seventh. So there is a list of canon that the Orthodox Church accepts. But if there's some tradition, you know where the Russians, for example, have this extra Book of Estros, it's not that big of a deal. Yeah, And I will also well, one thing I will kind of add is that at the end of the day, the kind of the doctrine that is manifested and exponses it is to the Church, because the

Church is the pilled in ground of truth. So this this explains the distinction in the understanding that we have from the various different other Protestant sex on the cannon and h right now, just another five dollars, super Church nates tender asks Christ has ascended, truly He has ascended? Are there dogmatic prohibitions on icons of the Father? The Moscow Sennot of sixteen sixty six just is this

but some stay was valid invalid. The main argument I will kind of say is that, well, sat John Damascus says, we will sin if you made depictions of the Father in his person. The Moscow Synad does address this, but at the same time believe that synod also was against the Old Right like completely, and we can kind of see that's not the case because we

have canonical old Right. But how will you answer this question? I have I have a stream on this with Snick, But yeah, I think so it's true that the Moscow Synod is not an acumenical Council, but the theology that it exposits in its doctrines of the icons is correct because it just reflects what's in the Seventh Documenical Council. And the book to read on this is the Ospensky Losky Book, Volume two. There's multiple chapters in that that are

really good. So yeah, this question gets asked a lot, and I think I can shed some light on this to help out. So basically, the teaching of the Seventh Council, reflecting what John Damascus says, is that you cannot make images of the hypostasis of the Father. So that's correct, we don't do that. We can't do that because Jesus says no man has

seen the Father at any time, so we can't do that. So, in other words, this is very important against Roman Catholic theology because a lot of Roman Catholic icons, especially ones that were intended to teach the philioque by they were promoted by Jesuits and they were pushed into Orthodox lands. This is actually part of the reason the Moscow icon sent had happened, is that Jesuits were pushing these weird icons of like old man the Father and then Jesus and

then the Holy Spirit, like being sent by both of them. Right, Well, first of all, the Father didn't become incarnate, and so it doesn't make any sense to picture him as an old man because he's not incarnate, And to picture him as an old man would be to suggest that he was incarnate, but he wasn't. So nobody sees the Father at any time. The only legitimate icon of the Father is the Son, and Jesus says that anyone who seeing me as seeing the Father Hebrew says, he is the

icon of the Father. So how does this make sense. Well, the only legitimate portrayal that we can do of the Father is not just the Son, but the energetic manifestations that are proper either to the Father or to the Holy Spirit. Because the Moscow Icon Sentoate says the exact same thing about the Holy Spirit as it says about the Father. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit

is never incarnate. But what we do see in scripture are the energetic manifestations proper to the Spirit, namely tongues of fire and the presence as a dove. So sometimes you'll notice that we could speak of the voice that appears at the baptism of Christ, or that they hear the voice of the Father,

because that's an energetic manifestation proper to the Father. And so we can talk about the voice, we can talk about the dove, we can talk about the tongues of fire, but none of those are the representation of the person of the Father or the Holy Spirit. The only person that can be represented

is the Son because he became incarnate. So the icons of the Son, according to Saint Theodor the Studite and the Seventh Council, they do pick out the hypostasis of the Son, but the Ancient of Days is a unique case too, where it's not the it is the person of the father. The father will notice, it's the per ass the son. So that's why we

can do the representation of the person of the Father through the son. In the Ancient of Days, it's not it's not an old man, it's a Christ's image that we see in Ezekiel and in Revelation one, right, Christ appears to John and John doesn't really recognize him because it says, you know, he was like a he has this angelic look where he has white hair and you know, he looks like this kind of like the way Ezekiel describes the one like a son a band that's writing the chariot. That's Christ in

his full glory and divinity being being manifested. And so it's okay to portray Christ in that way in the Ancient of Days as the image of the Father. So there's some people have pointed out that sometimes icons can portray the idea of a thing and not the person itself. And so that's another way that we can speak of, like, for example, the words of Scripture. Fah er, right, that's not an incur that's not an image of the person. It's just a word that depicts or picks out the idea of the

father, and that's very important to our iconographic theology. So I think the theological reasoning of the Moscow icons Ino is absolutely correct. And when you look at that book by Lasky Alspensky, you you'll see why they did this council because in that chapter there's a whole bunch of heterodox icons that they give examples of. There's like five of them, and they were getting really popular in

Orthodox and ends at the prompting of Jesuits. Jesuits knew what they were doing when they were trying to get Orthodox lands to accept the Philioque by these ridiculous just they're just creepy, weird icons and and you can tell they're heterodox icons because they don't make any sense. It's like an old man holding Jesus holding the Holy Spirit. It's like, that's that's not the Trinity. Yeah.

I think the point about ancient of these is especially important because I think one mistake that people do is that they kind of confuse the symbolic manifestation that icons depict and the person that is being depicted in the icons well, and the point is very important because this relates to the sacred heart stuff as well, right there, ven Weed, you know there The reason why, right, the reason why Christ can be depicted is because he's circumscribed in this humanity.

But what is being depicted is not a generic human nature with a couple of accidental properties added on top of it. It is the person Jesus Christ.

Right. In the same wave, when we depict, for example, Saint Paul, it doesn't have to necessarily look like Saint Paul has to pick out hypostatic properties of Saint Paul, for example, that he's the author of the fourteen Epistles, right, and so there will be some icons that will have like fourteen Epistles that Saint Paul is holding to point out that you know,

this is indeed Saint Paul, and in things of this nature. And so it depends on the distinction between nature and person also energies, right, and so the Ancient of days and the Father is speaking, the Holy Spirit descending

as a dove, the tongues of fire. All of these will be examples of the manifestation of God in the proper mode, in accordance with the person that is being manifested within the energies right, So with the Holy Spirit, right, he is being manifested in the form of a dove right in baptism, to signify that the Holy Spirit descends to deify the baptismal waters, that we will be part of right as we die in Christ. So I think again, as he pointed out, I think a lot of people kind of

confuse these categories. I would be very interested though, to see I don't think it will be possible in this treae, but I it will be pretty interesting to see the examples of the heretical icons. I'm actually like to grab it because there's a couple that are really illustrative the books right over there.

But yeah, to make your point, right, So if you look at Saint Theodore's book on the Holy Icons, you know when he when he argues that theology that gets accepted at the Seventh Council, he points out what you said, which is that the uncircumscribable right would be, for example, the divine essence right, the mind essence is uncircumscribable. He also says the Father is uncircumscribable. But what happened in the in the and ultimately in themselves.

The persons would be circumscribable as well, except that the Sun willed to become circumscribable, and he willed to do that via taking on human nature. So the divine person of the Sun assumes a circumscribable nature which is unique to him, which has its own unique idiomata, which is, you know, Jesus had this kind of a nose, and he had this kind of a beard, and you know, and you look, when you look at Orthodox iconography,

he typically kind of looks the same. And I tend to think that that's because Orthodox iconography really is depicting what Jesus look like, and that we have maintained that tradition going back to the early days. So my view, as I understand what the icon Council is saying, is that they really are balancing the Seventh Council. They're really balancing out Trinitarian and Christological theology with iconography. And as you pointed out, it rests on the essence energy distinction.

I mean, it rests on other things too, like there's things between between nature and person. But when you read Saint Theodore's TRiDaS, it's like it's all the stuff that you and I are always talking about. It's the stinction between nature and person. It's the essencenergy distinction. It's God has one will because he has one nature. And say, all of that is in that

book. It's also in John Damascus Is on the Divine Images too, except that John Damascus is is he's more interested in type prototype relations and it's a little more philosophical, whereas Saint Theodore's book is more like, well, here's our tradition, here's the crystological theology, here's the trinitarian theology. Uh,

this is what it means to say that the human nature is circumscribable. But in a sense you could say that energetic manifestations are also in a sense circumscribable, because energetic manifestation is just what we're talking about when we talk about these theophan needs. Right, that theophanies are the energetic manifestations of the person of the son in the Old Testament, right, the Angel of the Lord is present in a preincarnate, energetic way such that it can be in a sense

circumscribed. And so you know, we see we think of the cloud and the sea, the cloud and the pillar, the pillar and the cloud of the fire. We think of you know, the glory cloud that comes down in the temple. I mean, these are theophanic energetic manifestations, and they're not the essence of God. They're not the divine person, it's himself, but they're manifestations of the vine person. Right now, I'm some of the cloud in the case of the Angel, the Lord, that is the second

Person himself present in an energetic way. So again, remember that that's none of that stuff is divorced from the iconographic theology. That's that's being argued at the Seventh Council and at the Moscow icon Sentods and when we understand the essencenery

distinction and all that. Right, just think of this basic point everybody always makes about like in Roman Catholic imagery, the halo is above the head, right, it's not touching the head because that's the supernatural, beatific vision grace of the next life, right, because in this life you just get a supernatural created grace. In the Roman Catholic system, in the Orthodox view, the icon is behind the head because they're actually participating in the uncreated energies.

That's the whole point of the halo. It's not above the heads completely ridiculous. Right, So let me show you a couple of these heterodox icons that the Moscow Sonata was trying to come back. Yeah. While you do that, I'll just feat some of the other super chats as well. Rachel Wilson, thank you for the five dollars super chat. Thank you both for these valuable videos that help people understand propertyology, or for both your videos to people

all the time. Yeah, I see that. I appreciate it, Rachel, thank you for the support. Frankie D ten dollars super chat. Jay, my apologies for not being able to send super chats for a while. I might have to set up stream labs on desktop to get it to work, because on mobile mobile it has really been a pain. God bless well that, um is you want to see one? Yeah, sure, I appreciate that. Frankie D. Yeah, I don't know. I never tried stream labs on mobile. It seems to work pretty good for me though,

um on the computer. See. So here's this one as famous. It's called the paternity and and uh, this is an icon that was being pushed in Orthodox lands and you can I mean, I think if you're Orthodox you'll immediately see the problem with this icon and you can look these up. I mean they're pretty famous. This was called the Paternity. Yeah, and this is the problem because number one, uh, the that's a baby Jesus. Okay, Now the Father shouldn't be holding a baby Jesus, right, I

mean it's number one. It's like didd was was baby Jesus? Uh? Did he incarnate from the Father? No, he's from the Virgin Mary, right, So that's weird first of all. Secondly, again, the person of the Father is not an old man. He's not incarnate, right. And in the Ancient of Day's icon, you'll you'll recall that it's not the the It is depicting the idea of the Father, but it's not an old man. It's Christ. The Ancient of Days is Christ. Because Christ is

the image of the Father. That's very important. Okay. So then the other thing that this icon has, which is problematic obviously is the philioque. Right. The Father is sending the Holy Spirit together with the Son, and so it's intended to convey the double hyposthetic procession. So that's one icon that you can see is obviously a problem. And remember an orthodox theology, it's these are not just pretty pictures. They're not just paintings, they're theology texts.

They're teaching us theology. Right, So let's see there's another. They've got several in here. Let me sit, let me find another good one. Yeah, well, well yeah, all right. So this one, as you can see, is a problem too, because this one is called the New Testament trinity. And this is a lot of these are either uniate or just Jesuit right, creation icons. So here the Father and the Son together are like equals, and then who's in the middle, the Holy Spirit.

Yeah. So again it's just basically double hypostidic procession trying to be taught there. Um, so you get the idea, Yeah, and I can I mention one more thing? Sure, sure, go ahead. Here's one called Coronation of the Virgin, which is also you'll notice Roman Catholic theology, where the Father and the Son together again, the Holy Spirit is coming as a result of the Father and the Son together upon Mary. Just really weird, bizarre looking theology. But you got to have the old Man and you

gotta have Jesus. Right. We don't do that. We don't have old Man and then Jesus. Right, the Father and the Son It's not like that the ancient of Day's icon is the son with an older look, because that's what John sees in John one, and in John is referring back to what's in Ezekiel one, Ezekiel nine, and ten. Does that make sense what I'm saying? Like John is seeing the sun in his glorified state,

and he has an appearance of the ancient of days? Right, he looks like the Father, but it's the son bearing the image of the father. Does that make sense? Yeah? Definitely, And I guess I kind of said might be. I think you pretty much covered the entirety of the stuffy. I mean, you might as well just clip this section and just posted on YouTube. Was that perfect? Well? You know what we should because this every like every time there's a discussion that comes up, right, like,

what's the ancient of days? Can we depict the Father? I mean yeah, this comes up all the time. I'm trying to find an ancient of Day's icon that is Orthodox, and you can see how. I think there is one on Mount at Us that people will usually refer to. Are you thinking about that one? There is a there is one. I mean, there is an Orthodox Ancient of Day's icon um saying I want to say somebody like, uh, there's also the talks about it being fine and he

says it is the Father. And there's also the Chris cru icon that people refer to because it's a miracle working right, same principle there. And there's another fine one that's not Roman Catholic on here. Yeah, and there are also other this one would be Orthodox right like so here, I don't know who this is or where it's from, but it it's basically making the point

that, uh, you'll notice that that's Christ. Right, it's a reference to the Father, but it's Christ as the person of the Father, right, mean, Christ himself is the icon of the person of the Father. It is not the hypostasis of the Father that's depicted in the icon Jesus the way that Ezekiel and John C. Jesus warrified one. It's it's the idea of the Father conveyed by the person of the Son. Thank you well, perfect, I think that's the that's available. Good and tug Nazi. I

will definitely get to your question. I just your super chat. It is just that I want to kind of get to the super chat for other people PBF five gods subject, thank you, thanks for the great trap brothers appreciate it. And before all right, So I'll first get to Tuck Nasty's question. He asked current thoughts on farther Stephen Freeman, So who those who don't

know. I guess there's a history between you two because father to Stephen Freeman used to well, I don't know if he still promotes, but he used to promote this idea that the Old Testament isn't really talking about real events that actually happened. Rather a lot of it was just merely allegory and not real history, whereas the Fathers treat the Old Testament as a history text even though it has allegory symbolical events. We don't deny this, but it also this

scraps real events that happened in history. So I guess you know what are your current taughts? And fought to Stephen Freeman. Well, I've never had a dispute with him, but Jay is the one that had so years ago. This was resulted from actually a priest was telling me that I should respond to as so people think I just go around trying to pick fights or something.

Actually there was another priest who was messaging me saying, hey, would you reply to him on his blog on ancient faith because he was I mean it got pretty extreme at one point. I mean this is like six years ago, so I don't remember all the details of what his post was, but it was something like a lot of these Old Testament story It was basically

a kind of a loose originism. I don't mean that he affirms origins universalism, but that many of the events accounted recounting in the Old Testament are not historical. And so the discussion got into things like, well, do you think Adam and Eve were historical? Do you think this or that? The problem with this is that you know, the New Testament in many many places speaks and presupposes that these people were actual historical people. The iconography teaches that

they were actual historical people. I am in need, right, David Solomon, Right. So, like the problem is that you open the floodgates when you start saying that, oh, well, we don't have to believe that these are historical events, right, we do. In fact, there's a great quote always read from Saint Cyril of Alexandria. It's actually it's in the Genesis Creation Early man text by feather stuff from Rose. Here it is. Here's what Saint Cyril says on this. He says, questions in Joshua or

now excuse me, that's a previous comment. Saint Cyril wrote that you cannot apprehend the scriptures correctly if one attempts to contemplate the spiritual meaning without respecting the actual historical meaning. Quote those who reject the historical meaning of the God inspired scriptures as something obsolete or avoiding the avoiding the ability to comprehend it rightly according

to the proper manner the things written in them. For indeed, spiritual contemplation is good and is profitable, and it enlightens the eyes of reasoning, especially well it reveals the wisest of things. But whenever some historical events are presented us by holy scripture, in that instance, a useful search into the historical meaning is appropriate in order that the God inspire scriptures might be revealed to be

selvific and beneficial to us in every way. That's commentary on Isaiah. So he's specifically talking about the events in Isaiah right Old Testament texts, and he's saying that you can't deny the historical reality upon which the allegory or upon which the spiritual meaning is predicated. And by the way, he's not the only one that says that. So, this idea that you could sacrifice the historical meaning to save a deeper allegorical spiritual meaning right at the cost of getting rid

of the historical, is actually what's denied. And by the way, Saint Maximust Confessor says the exact same thing too. You have the Atholassium volume. There's an introductory essay written by Father Cosmos, and at the end of that introductory essay he says that same Maximus, never sacrifice the historical reality for the allegorical or the spiritual. And that's a mistake to do so. In fact, if you look in Galatians, for Paul makes his allegory on the basis

of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah having been actual people. The allegory would make no sense if they weren't historical people. And so this is the quadriga. This is the four senses of scripture. The four senses of scripture are never intended to deny the first sense. In fact, the other three senses are built on the first sense of scripture, the grammatical historical. That's the

basis for the allegorical, the tropological, the anagogical. So it's really odd to me that anybody who you know, thinking about the historical, because these people always say, well, you don't know the church fathers. The church Fathers use symbolism and allegory. Well, they don't even realize that the four senses of scripture that they are using presuppose the first sense being the literal historical.

And that's just standard scholarship on anybody that would talk about the four senses of scripture that comes out of the Early and Middle Ages, and it's it's codified in the Middle Ages, in the East end the West, by the way I mean, it's it's pretty universally used by the by the Middle Ages, by the East end the West, to speak of the four senses of scripture. Another point too, is that you know, he was for the Freeman in that those actually had written many articles. It wasn't just one.

He had written many articles about well, the Old Testament isn't historical, and it was even verging on sort of quasi Marcianite statements about how you, well, this God, the Old Testament he's kind of mean, and you know, this doesn't make sense that he would operate this way and telling, you know, the Angel of the Lord going before the armies of Israel to destroy and cleanse the Promised Land. Jesus would never do that, you see.

So you see the re well, that's Marcian. And so when I read Urinais against heresies, the funny thing is that when I responded, I did two videos responding to him back six years ago. Urinais uses the very examples that he was giving and says that these are historical events and if you deny these, you would be following Marcion. So I'm not people gotten mad at me, like, oh, you're so mean, who were you to do? I'm only disagreeing with what he's saying in these essays that I don't see

any church fathers teaching this. The only church father I see teaching this is Origin, and Origin's view of sacrifice in the historical reality for the allegory is condemned in the confession of Saint Sophronius at the sixth Council explicitly. M Yeah. And one thing I'd like to add about seeing clearly is that it's not just comment here on Isaiah. He says this in the introduction to the Glyphia and the Pentitic that the historical sense is what gives foundation to the spiritual sense.

So with without the historical sense, you don't have a spiritual sense. That that's as strong as an endorsement to an in vindication of the Old Testament being a history book, a history book that actually writes about real events that did happen. Um. Now one can argue abill some of the events that happened, you know, the whole. If you you know, some people are interesting the whole, like Nephilim discourse and Old Diver. They might say, oh, well, it's not just real people that you know are being

bored against. These are actually like you know, demi human. You know, there's there's that interpretation, right, So like you can make that kind of an argument, But what you can't make as an argument is that, oh, well, this doesn't happened. This was just kind of like it.

It's just it's just supposed to tell us a story, right, and to his credit, right, And obviously you're not like fans of like super big fans of Ancient Fate radio and all of that, But to his credit, um far as Stephen de Young does actually defend the history of the Old Testament, right, So, uh, to some people that might be interested in that, they might kind of like be encouraged at the very least to see that there's still some people that have a sensible view of scriptures. Yeah.

I mean. It's the other thing too, is that you know, I've read enough of the Church Fathers over the years to know very well that there are countless quotes I'm not just quote mining, but I mean with with the proper context where the Church Fathers do talk about the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures. Uh, you know, even even Saint Jerome, but he's

frequently speaks this way. And so you know, again, I want to remind people that if you have the the the Fathers of the Church at the Lastum, if you go to pages forty five, forty six, forty seven in Father Cosmos, the famous Maximus Scholar, he will sit here and give you an explanation of the four senses of scripture, and he will talk about how the purpose of this is to get you, too, area to contemplation

of the scriptures and their true meaning. According to Saint Maximus, which is ultimately to contemplate the logi of Scripture, which is to point you to Christ. But in this four or five page section he explains very clearly that Maximus's notion of moving up, you could say in the contemplation from the literal historical right. It's grounded on the literal historical right. And so there's there's other mistakes going on too in this where they will call fundamentalism believing in the grammatical

historical sense of the text, that's not what fundamentalism is. Fundamentalism is a movement of Protestant evangelicals in the twenty early twentieth century who hammered out five basics or fundamentals that they believed in that they wouldn't compromise on. So that's the actual origin of the term fundamentalism. And by the way, the five fundamentals are pretty much things that we would agree like the Trinity, the virgin birth,

the deed of Christ. Those are the fundamentals that Protestant fundamentalists stated they believed in when the Protestant churches and Evangelical churches were being heavily liberalized in the nineteen twenties, thirties, and forties. So that's what fundamentalism is. That is a question of lack of faith in the Bible and in revelation. That is different from Hermanutics, which recognizes the four senses of Scripture in terms of

exegesis. Two totally different questions. But the people who want to make you know the religion more palatable to atheists and two evolutionary proponents like they're always interested in conflating these things and acting like fundamentalism has something to do with hermonutics. Now it could, because you could have fundamentalists who do stupid exegesis. But those are two different questions. I mean, it's it's just a fundamental level

confusion. And as I understand it, the reason that father Freeman kind of had a lot of these assumptions. I don't know him, so I've only interacted with him seven years ago on that blog, and I'm not trying to be mean to him or rude to him. I'm not saying anything bad about him personally. I don't know him. But the my understanding was that he had come I think from an Anglican background, and a lot of people who

come out of Anglicanism or Episcopelianism into Orthodoxy. They're trained in you know, liberal institutions, and then they just come into Orthodoxy thinking, oh orthodox, He's like this more mystical version of an older mystical version of Episcopelianism, and I can keep all of my textual liberalism. And it's just it's not that's not honest with what the church fathers teach about the texts. You can you will not find church fathers saying that the texts are not historical. I mean

that's severely in the minority. Okay, you might find Nissa, Saint Gregonissa agreeing in a few places with origin, but other than Saint Gregonissa, no, In fact, a lot of these people lie too. They'll take Saint Gregor Palamas, where he talks about places in Genesis, in Genesis one, they'll say when he's talking about the creation of the angelic aon, they'll take that and lie and say that he's saying that Genesis isn't historical. Total nonsense.

He's talking about the creation of the angelic realm not being in history because they're created in the spiritual realm angels, right, they're not created in time. And so you see how people are are crafty and they lie and they say, Aha, see Saint Gregor Palamas is denying sixth day creation and then he turns around it teaches sixth day creation. It's just total dishonesty about these

people. Yeah, definitely on I think I think the main problem with this kind of like allegorization because a lot of people think but like they kind of have this dialectical view of like, Okay, if you're not a fun you know, if you're not having the symbolic logical view that you're supposed to have, then the opposite is you just take everything at face value and you'd end up defending indefensible things and that this is kind of just you know, it's

you don't believe in bory or the spiritual sense and you think that everything is literal. There's a thousand year premillennial kingdom and you're a dispensationalist. This is totally silly, right, It's just unnecessary, right it you know, both approaches can be wrong, and it doesn't mean that just one extreme being rejected,

it doesn't mean that the other extreme must be endorsed. Right. It's not like I have to choose between documentary hypothesis higher critical liberalism, Jesus quest on the one hand, and then over here I have to be John Hagey dispensationalist. You know, thousand year kingdom, dragons flying around in space, seven day avenues. Literally, they act like that's the two choices you have, no, Yeah, and it's it's similar to kind of like the temptation

that people had in the fifty sixth centuries. But like on the one hand, they saw the an off site extreme and then they thought, Okay, if you're not gonna be an officide, you're gonna be nestorian then. But orthodoxy just tells you, actually, both of these extremes are wrong. There is a proper royal path in this and that's what got bad news for the allegorizers to the extreme. And by the way, allegory is a valid fourth sense of scripture, right or second sense. However you list them, it

doesn't really matter. If you read the Aspensky Lasky book on icons, the chapter on Hassikia and icon and particularly the chapter dealing with the energy's doctrine and icons. Okay, this whole chapter where Saint Gregory Palamas is discussed in how iconography is tied into the US and synergy distinction. I got bad news for those people because Palamos argues that icons are not symbols. Icons are conveying realities, and he argues that everything that you see in an icon is a historical

reality. That's his theological argumentation. So unless you want to deny icons, which is ultimately what the originist view does. People don't even remember if you read the Mayador text on business he theology, the chapter on monks and humanists, he says that the motivation behind iconoclasm is platonism and originism. Why would platonism and originism be the motivation behind the attack on icons? Very simple,

because origins presuppositions are the denigration of history and of time. That's why he has a problem with the body. Okay, how could the body be resurrected as the body? It's not good. It's bad. History is bad. We got a flight flee from history and from time. Those are prisons platos. So the body is a tomb, Time is a prison. Because that's

gnostick, that's Platonic doctrine. That's not our doctrine. Because Jesus stepped into time and he assumed and deified actual human nature, the same body that we have, the same nature that we have. So iconography is an affirmation of the grammatical historical events. Palamas says, they are real historical events in icons and if you say that they're not, you're a neo platonist and you're actually condemned by the Seven Council. Yep, and let me let's see, all

right, another super chat. Think you jacked, meister shul I mean, it's going to be kind of difficult to go through all of this kind of stuff, but really appreciate you. All of you guys were supporting the stream. He sends five dollars. And I guess I suppose this is a question for me, because he says Christ is ascended, truly, he has ascended out of curiosity. Do you think he will ever do an updated refutation of

the fake Orthodox? Right? So the first thing I will say is, I think what I already did is already sufficient, and it's only kind of gets into the key things. And I don't think if I updated it, I will kind of just say the same thing in a refined language, so to speak. But I also I could kind of just get into the basics of it right now and kind of just explain why it is a nonsense cool position. And so for those who don't know, we're referring to the old

calendar. Is they called themselves genuine Orthodox, they called themselves true Orthodox, right, So they have these various different names. They tend to not be in community each other. So these are just different splinter groups. And the basis for their separation is initially the adoption of the new calendar. They claimed this was uncanonical. The evidence that they use was the Cigilion of sixteen eighty three. It turns out that was not actually the Canada they're talking about.

What doesn't actually exist. What is condemned is using the new calendar, Pascal calendar. But the new calendar that we use in the Orthodox Church uses the old calendar, Pascal calendar, right, which is why we have not only a different Easter to the Roman Catholics, you know, unless you have times in twenty twenty five or they happen to coincide. This is also why we have different days on Ascension and Pentecost, right, This is because we use

a different Pascal calendar. So you're not condemned by the council. We don't do that. We don't do that right at the very least, not now or anything like that. I don't think it's going to happen in the future. So that's the first thing I will will note is that there's no canonical

basis for the initial separation. But then the reason became all because you're ecumenist and your bishops preach heresy bear headed, right, And they use the first second Council that Saint photis presided Canon fifteen about how it is valid to separate from communion from bishops that teach heresy bear headed, and they make it seem as if you're obligated to do that, and there's this kind of mechanic behind it they have in their mind where if you have a bishop that is preaching

heresy bear headed, then he basically poisons the communion that of the other bishops that he's a part of. Right, So it's not just Patriarch Bartolomy that they will say is a problem. Well, the other bishops are in community with Bartolomy, is what they will argue, So you shouldn't be in communit with any of these churches. So there's two extreme positions. One of them say, well, the ortolac Shi still has grace, so they will recognize

that we have grace, they will just say we shouldn't. We are not the true churcher, we should not be you know they you know, they should basically fix. So that's kind of just in more of a mogic position. Then there's the extreme position that just says, Okay, the Ortolast Church doesn't even have grace, they don't have any any kind of grace. They don't have any baptism and a Eucharius anything of that sort. So the problem

with this communal view is that it is ahistorical. Right, There's many instances of bishops preaching heresy bearheaded where the other bishops who are completely a verefit and they still remain in community with them. The source is an example of this. Another example i'd like to use, and this is an example I didn't use in this video, but I can. I can use it in this stream is actually ten fifty four because until the thirteenth or fourteenth century, Alexandria

was in community with the Roman Catholic Church. Now we will say the Roman Catholic Church were heretics even you know after that time, would you say that the patriarch of Alexandra was Roman Catholic or would you say they were Orthodox? Right? I mean, that's that's a question mark. We will as Orthodist Christians say that they were Orthodox Christians that were still in you know, still trying to hold onto the unity of the Church, and until you know,

read the Council of Forlorence, that kind of just went to vent. Right. But that's that's a historical fact, and and it's it's a historical fact that challenges the ecclesiology of the so called true Orthodox position. So the true and the problem with again with Cam fifteen of the first Second Council is that all it tells you is that if if a bishop is preaching heresy bareheaded, you can separate community with that bishop from that bishop and you don't get condemned

as a result of it. But it doesn't say you have to do this right. So the monks that Constantinople separated from community the stories, they didn't recognize him as a bishop, but there were many bishops in other parts of Christian or they were fully are of what the stories were saying. Antioch strad Up defended these stories for until for thirty three. Patriarch of Antioch Stride up

defending their stories. Everyone was in community Antioch two, and even they defended him even after the Atturnycommendical Council, right even after the eclesial condemnation, they still defended him. And the churches were still in community with Antioch. So what does that mean. It just means that they were still part of the Orthodox show there, the sacraments were still being recognized, they were still in community the rest of Orthodox churches. They were still part of the Orthodox Church.

There was not a full blown schism. And so the importance of maintained communion in spite of these wrong things that happened, and a lot of people talk about this is to preserve the unity of the church, right, This is what's important. So if you talk about like Moscow Constantinople, one thing that we can talk about, although there's an egoistic separation, there's a recognition of sacraments from both sides, right, and this kind of preserves the unity

of the church in that regard as well. So a lot of people had this Roman Catholic understanding of schism or like you're thrown out of the church and that's so it's over. You know, you're gone you're out, like completely, you're completely gone out veryas in your talk Church. It's it's in degrees, right, and it's it moves over time, right, it progresses over

time. So that's a vast difference between the two positions, and from my observation, the so called Shortsdox position is trying to maintain Orthodox ecclesiology with Roman Catholic pizzub positions. I'm not saying they're Roman, obviously they're not trying to be Roman Catholic, but I do think they that they want to or not have Roman Catholic presuppositions in their ecclesialogy. Ing you want to add to Jay before we move on to the next but no, I mean I think you

nailed it there. I mean it's this attitude of like, uh, everything is sort of like a light switch, like it just flips, or like as soon as somebody says something heretical, the light swift slitch switches flip and then everything is just the grace is shut off like some kind of machinery, you know, like the electricity is no longer there, and it's just kind of it's completely a historical and unrealistic when it comes to how the church operates

in history, there's a nautical procedure that occur, like phases that occur for things like the excommunication of patriarchs and bishopers and so forth. It's not this overnight thing. It's it's true that people have in I mean, it's a case by case basis what I'm trying to say. You can't like apply this one size fits all to where the light switch goes out and then everybody's lost

grace. It just doesn't make sense. It's in it. What it does is that it's realizing real problems but then having a bad solution to real problems. And we don't see in church history saints setting up parallel ecclesiological uh you

know structures. Parallel ecclesiological structures is what schism is. So yeah, precisely, so I can be, you know, I'm sympathetic at the very least to the teo positions that still actually say, you know, you guys are still part of the true Church. It's just that this needs to be. But there's very few of them that actually genuinely holds that view, and the ones that do end up becoming orthodox anyway. That's kind of my observation both

from the history of the church. Right, we have a lot of saints that used to be Old calendaris and they became Orthodox because they saw pretty much very similar things about the same things about the ecclesiological problems of this kind of position, how it's really a dead end position at the end of the day. Another question from Ilius is he asked, is architecture as important as iconography in the Orthodox Church? I'm aware of the vision for Agia Sophia and the

Easter pate pointing altars any more points. So the first the main survival kind of give is that, well, there's a lot of precedents from the Old Testament liturgical structure itself, right, whether the user of iconography themselves, the nave, the altar, the kind of purpose of the structure, the architecture, all of that has precedents in the Old Testament and liturgical structure. But this is something that is also up your speeches. So what would you also

add, like to the importance of the architecture. Why do Orthodox churches look the specific way they do? Right? I did a talk on a book called uh Mystagogy of the Church, and that's a little work by Saint Maximus, and he talks about the structure and symbolism of the church. Um, so it does have an important role. And there are you know, strictures and limitations on how the church can be built. So it is important.

Um, I don't think it's as important as iconographic theology because it's you know, the iconography is more is more of a direct presentation of the theology. And sometimes the church, you know, sometimes people have to rent another person's building, you know, to do to do services. So but it does

matter, and eventually it does the theology seeps into the architecture. Sure, yeah, I think I definitely agree on I think, like, h the architecture, like it's more like a well, the way to describe is, especially in the early Christian persecutions, is that the basis for what we do or worship is fundamentally internal, right, That's like the most crucial thing. And so when we talk about externals like architecture, even iconography, even though

that's part of the internal right worship service. Due to the theology of iconography, with the sun being the icon of the Father and all of that, all of that kind of becomes more manifested over time. And the possibilities emerge as well. Right, So this is why you will see, well, this is why obviously there's a vast difference in architecture within the early Church pre Saint Constantine and Postine Constans, because well, there wasn't really even a possibility

to kind of showcase the manifestation of Christian worship and architecture. And even still some places today, right, Like there's apartment churches, there's places that people rent, like they are used as Roman Catholic churches or Anglican churches, and they used they are used, you know, by renting as Orthodox churches to

conduct service. Right, So it's not, as you said, it's not as a it's not like it's a thing that you necessarily have to have in order to have correct service, but it is something that is an outworking of the liturgy itself, and the possibility does does emerge. Right, So that's I will definitely agree with that point. Training Melissa with the five dollars great stuff, thinks David and Jay appreciate the five dollars super chat think hum Melissa,

Ryan asks five dollars thank you for the super chat. Keep up the awesome work, guys, y'all are bringing tons of people to arthodoxy. My question is is there any hope for the for the Greek Orthodox archdiocracy and the Acoumenical Patriarchate God bless Well. I am part of the Acumenical patriarch it directly. I do think there's hope, but obviously there's a lot of difficulties regarding

the geopolitical situation and some of the policies of the EP itself. As someone on the ground himself, I will my main thing is, you know the bit. One of the reasons why the EP does a lot of things that kind of bogs people's mind is because of the geopolitical situation of the Chomedical Patriarch

and being in the constats Noble Patriarch. Bartone definitely definitely thinks whether that is actually true or not, that's a different question, but he definitely does believe that any wrong move he might make is going to make the Turkish government angry, and that's one of the reasons why he is very much aligning himself to

the US government. For the same reason why the Chemical Patriarch allied with the British government right during the during the conflicts during the First World War and m the aftermath off it, which which is why, right the initial Turkish policy of skepticism towards their chemical patriarch it ended up being in the case is because while you guys sided with the British and now we've got the country back, so what are you guys going to do about it? Right? And this

is why there's the whole Turkish patriarch a story and all of that. I guess that's a different story. But I mean, I have I have hope. I think there's certain things they do properly that you can look at at the jurisdictions that they don't properly do. There's also a lot of problems that

needs to be sold. But I think I think the source of a lot of the issues that people have, probably with regards to Ukraine, which I can say very clearly that I definitely think the Comical Patriarch is wrong on the Ukraine situation. A lot of it is because of geopolitical situation and EPs alliance, whether they want to or not, EPs alliance with the United States government

and the aftermath of it. I don't think they should be allied with the United States, but you know, you can't really say they should be allied with Russiated because Russia has a history of kind of just using different nations and groups and kind of just say okay, I used you and I'll get away, right, So Russia does have a history of doing that, which is

why it's it's not as simple as it looks like. That's kind of my take on the ecumenical patriarch it as as someone who lives in is stumbled right, So what would you say, jay As, Like, what was your take on the Greek church in mostly you know abroad, I understand what you're saying. You know, it gets complex in other countries. I mean in the United States, it's it's pretty cut and dry typically when it comes to

what you can and should and shouldn't support. And so you know, a lot of the the GOA is pretty bad news in the US, and so I would just say, like Father McHale did a video last night that was really good where he was talking about how you know, you know, don't you don't need to be giving these people your money. So it's time to move on to in my view, churches that are are more faithful. So try to find one that's more faithful, because if in the United States.

Unfortunately, a lot of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is basically just an adjunct of the Democratic Party openly. So, I mean, the Democratic Party is crazy, So why are you supporting these people? It's just nuts, I mean, and they make it very easy for you to figure out, like you have to go get some PhD to figure out, you know, what these people are supporting. It's all public, so I would, yeah, I

don't support these people. Vote with your dollars. Mm, yeah, I think that's uh yeah, I And like in in here there's kind of like, I guess I actually, never mind, I'm not going to talk about them because they don't they don't deserve publicity, so I'll maybe I'll save it for another day. But um, so it seems like there's someone mad in the light chat. Well what about yeah, uh, they're they're a Monophysite

who calls us, Oh yeah, he says you that story. Heretics believe a christis two nature's tubls, two energies, two minds, which is yes, we do believe that. Um, because he's human and divine being human means you have a human vill So he has a human vill in divine ville. Being human means he has human activities, which means he has two energies. Being human means he has a human mind. So there's no shame in admitting that. What is shameful is actually thinking that or position is shameful.

In his position, it leads to try teasm because by that logic mind energy will all of these will be proper to the person, proper to hyper stasis. There are three hype statis in the trinity, therefore there will be three vols. Well, rich church father believes that none of them, not a single one of them. They condemned this as heresy. So yeah, that's

all I will say to that, to that nonsense. So I appreciate a two dollars super chat or to Eric, But I guess that's that's basically how I will will kind of do, and I will already have a massive playlist on this issue. A lot of these people, just a lot of these people just cope, and a lot of these people don't even listen, they don't even read. They just make these propaganda lines and they try to agitate.

But what I see is that I see a lot of people Ethiopians, Syriacs, cops that actually look at the material you present, look at the arguments we present, and actually do become orthodox. I've heard I've seen a lot of people, particularly Ethiopians, some of them marine even in the chat here, that actually became orthodox because they saw the same thing that I am talking about right now, right that the monoposie position on Christ is heretical because

it leads to various different heresies of triteism to even the Storianism. As a matter of fact, it is just a different side of the coin. But it still used the same piece of theological piece of positions that the story has had. So I think people are interesting. Chick can check that playlist. But one okay, Frankie d another ten dollars super chat. I appreciate it,

He asked, Jay. Are there icons that explained the theological reality but not the historical reality, such as the icon of Ascension and Pentecost which shows Paul present with the apostles, but he wasn't there. Yeah, but if you look at the argumentation as to that that actually comes up in the iconography chapter in this and the dispute is over. Even though Paul wasn't there in terms of time and space, he is there in terms of the theology.

So the point is not that every icon is only depicting historical events. The icons are depicting historical and eternal realities at once. Both. It's a both end. So you misunderstood my comment, my clarification as if I was saying that icons are only depicting historical realities. They're depicting historical realities and eternal realities at the same time. And sometimes those theological realities surpass and transcend historical realities.

But that's not a denial of the historical reality. Because there's a debate. There's a discussion over whether Paul is present there because he's one of the apostles, even though he wasn't literally standing there at at Pentecost. Yeah, and another question that someone had is from Lewis. I think that's tense Fis

Franks think you appreciate the super chat. He asked, if the Bible forbids drinking blood, why do we drink Jesus blood and the eu Chris The short answer I will give is that the blood is the life, and so the life of animals are sacrificed to God. Basically, that's very basically putting it. And we partake of the life of Christ himself. That's why we take to Eu Chris and because that life that Christ himself has is shared to us

for our salvation. So that's the basic take that I will have. So, Jay, I mean the Old Testament, the forbidding of blood is has to do with death and coming in contact with death. And so you're not supposed to eat if you're going to eat an animal in the Old Testament, it has to have you know, Nope, you have to have the blood drained. Right. This is the whole basis behind how Jews you know, do kosher meats and all that stuff. So, but the point is that

it's not blood itself that is bad. It's that you can't be in contact with death in the Old Testament because it makes you unclean. That's symbolic for moral death and spiritual death. And so Christ in the Eucharist is giving us his blood. That is not the blood of a dead man. It's not a human sacrifice. It is the deifying energies of the god Man. And that's why the liturgy calls it the bloodless noetic sacrifice. Yeah, let's see,

all right. Next question is from Axios five pounds appreciate the support he has. How will we best explain the Orthodox position on statues? You CBS and Ecclesiastical History book A chapter eighteen makes reference to an ancient statue of Christ. The basic answer I will say is that, well, that statue is out in public, right, so it's a it's a statue that's for decorative

purposes, So it's not a statue that is in the church. If we don't have statues in churches ninety nine point nine percent of the time, because statues are part of secular artistry. Iconography is the religious art of the church, and that's that's why it's in churches. However, statues in public, and as Eusebious is describing, my personal take on it is that I don't

see it as a problem. I think it's just a showcasing of Christian artistry in public, but it is not like it's an icon That's basically what I will say, though I will still I guess I will venerate, but there's I think we still need to distinguish between religious art that is iconography that the church possesses and kind of the secular modes of art that people use in order

to make images and pictures of Christ within that context. Anything you'd like to add on, No, I mean I think that's you stated it really well. Yeah, I mean icons are liturgical, so they teach theology and have a place within the liturgy and the Seventh Council, and you know, the icon councils distinguished that from like David said, you know, secular art. So you know, if you think about like Renaissance art styles and all that.

Now, I don't really have a problem with all that stuff. It's just that that's different than what's in the liturgy, and that's the big that's the big issue here. So people want to make statues. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Constant four. Thank you for the five pound super chat, he says, Jay must of the friend watched your Rashid debate,

found you compelling and a fallacious, amazing work. He's more receptive towards the docent trinity, now, right, that's that was definitely one of the that's great. Thank you. Yeah, I never know how people are receiving those debates, because that one got really kind of high level, you know, metaphysics, So I don't I don't know, I never know how how well that is translating to the audience. But I'm glad to hear that. Yeah, and I and I will definitely say right. Like those kinds of

debates, I think they definitely. One of the things that I notice in the aftermath of that debate is that a lot of people are starting the question specifics in Islamic Theolgravitch. No one did it before, right. So one of the things that recently occurred, not recently, but a year ago, was about, well, what is the relationship between Allah and his properties?

Right? Because the whole argument against the trinity that a lot of Muslims use is predicated on on the idea that there's just God and you can't have anything coeternal ven Him. And you know, if you do that, then you just do simple counting, simple mathematics. And that's the argument that they use. But the you know, the the names of Allah that refer to properties, are they distinct or they not distinct? Now, most Sunni Muslim sects,

and that is Akida's creeds. Rather they will say actually, yes, they're distinct. But then that completely undermines their whole argument against the trinity, because they themselves admit that there are distinct things from God that are divine, that are coeternal with him, that exists with him, and are distinct with him, so usually count those two. So there's basically a hundred all loss

by that logic. Right. So a lot of their arguments are based on like very simplistic understandings of theology, and once you think about it a little bit, it starts to it all starts to crumble, and it all ends up degenerating into a low IQ discourse. Like like one of the arguments that people still point out, it's like, how was how did Christ? How was Christ born of the Virgin Mary? Event? And how did Christ do natural defecation? And stuff that doesn't make any sense to me kind of arguments.

Then just one look at the whole theology of original sin Orthodox It can't have answers as a questions. Already Christ did not have original sins, so all of these things you're talking about that he didn't have those things, right, you know. So that's basically how I will look at it. Max the Confessor of five Dollars super chat appreciate it. He says, why there's so many triteist in the Storian and monozzolat tendencies in Protestantism. They try to

explain everything from Villa. I kind of don't answer yet that last point, but pology answered this question good. Yeah. I think that the Protestant tendencies are what they are because they don't really have a coherent theology of the Trinity or Christology, so they just kind of go with, you know, cliches or things that they think sound good, or things that they think the Bible's teaching, and a lot of times they don't know, you know, what

mistakes they're making. But it's just basically that, you know, Protestantism comes out of a you know, it's it's basically Augustinian Roman Catholicism that's kind of purified of Roman Catholic trappings. So it's going to fall into the dialectical tendencies that a strict Augustinian theology contained. Yeah, I think it is as you said. I think one thing I noticed when I first became Orthodox was that there was a very heavy emphasis on correct Trinitarian and Christological theology. Right,

there's a very very heavy emphasis on that. And I don't have experience in protestantstems, so I don't know how it is there. But in Nortstocks, even I listened to the liturgy, when I listened to certain specific terms, like you know, the hymn of Saint Justinian, only begone son in the world of God, I kind of just thought of it as well, why

are they, like, what's the point of saying this? This is kind of just I guess, I guess it's cool or whatever, But you realize that actually there's there are very good reasons why these concepts in terms of using the liturgy over and over again so that people can know about um these basic fundamental things. Right. So, one thing I noticed, especially in Calvinism, is that their monergism, which is the which is basically the idea that

salvation is affected is effective only by the divine will. Right, it doesn't. It's not a synergy, but it's just only the divine wills. Only God saves. And it's it's this choice and the choice of man doesn't matter that really affects the christology because then well, the whole incarnation and the work of the incarnation that Christ did, that is a part of the solveific work.

Now you can't say then that there are two bills in Christ one divine, one human, because if you said such a thing, then you will be attributing attributing humanity a part of the work of salvation that is exclusive to God alone in the Calvinist system, right, So there's I think there's in orthodoxy, you start with the trinitarian theology, right, you start with God and that that's what where you get the outworking of the rest of the things,

right with sacraments toology in Protestants submits the other day around. So it's it's just like specific Bible verses and it picts of theology off of that, and then they do try to Tranto and theeology that kind of makes sense with that in Christology and so and so forth. And this is I think the source of a lot of the Nestorian when not to lie triteistic and other interpretations

and understandings in that exist in various forms of Protestantism. Aside from that, it also I think it stems from just kind of a lack of knowledge about church disputes, because that really helps you to come to understand what's the correct way to look at it, and kind of just like a d emphasis on the theological look on the Bible aside from oh, you know, how can we prove that Jesus is God in the Bible? Right? Like there's that focus, but aside from that is not that much of a much of a

focus on that point. It Would you agree with that or do you have anything else to add in regards to that? Yeah? I think that you know, Calvinism starts as theology with predestination and the divine decree, so that's gonna condition the rest of the theology to be determined by will. So that's probably what you're talking about here, and it doesn't give a place to secondary causes, to creatures having their own will and energy. Um. Yeah,

that's that's that's it. Um a question someone had in the light chat. I think, yeah, it's pretty much We've pretty much been true whole at the superchat questions as they as they came. But one thing I did prom because I did promise him, is that have you seen the um what was that that the icon Zelenski gave to Pope Francis that had like instead of having Christ, it had just like a blank screen like it's an unlockable character or

something like that. Yeah, Like, well, what was that whole whole thing about well, you know, supposedly it was to symbolize the lives of children that were lost. Uh, I don't know, but yeah, I think that it also seemed to be maybe even on a deeper level, true symbolic of the fact that you know, that regime and that that whole expression

has essentially lost and doesn't believe in Christ. I mean, if you watch Father McHale's video last night, he talks about how they're already using the Phillyoaquay right, the the so called fake Orthodox Church there's residing in Philly Oakua. Uh, they are, um, you know, they're already engaged into Cumanist activities. So I mean, I think that's a fitting symbol. Yeah,

we don't, we don't want Christ anymore. Yeah, I think that that's that like my general take on this situation as well as that because I want to make it clear, like it's not because I I'm afraid that I might be interpreted that I generally like, I'm not like pro Russian in this whole situation that's going on, because I think there's some issues that Russian needs to solve, and in both in regards to this issue and both in regards to

the Church what it is doing, particularly in Africa, even though you know there's there's no OCE debates in regards to that, but you know, I still think they're wrong in that regard what Russia is doing in certain geopolitical senses.

It's not all of it is something that I will completely back, but one thing I can definitely say without feeling any shame, is that I think Ukraine as a country as it is led right now right is definitely wrong in multiple levels, in geopolitical levels and religious levels, and I think there definitely

needs to be a change in regards to that. How that change of cures I don't know, but there definitely needs to be something that needs to happen that that fixes that basically the problem that they have, because I mean, it's, as I said, like it's it's it looks like an iconon it's literally a corruption, right, it's like a demand of corruption. It looks like an iconography. It's opposed to be an icon but it inserts earthly teams into it, which I guess you can kind of it can be cute about

it, but it does so at the expense of Christ. It takes the focus away from Christ and it puts it into something else, and that whole, that whole thing, that whole idea itself is I will say, fundamentally fundamentally demonic. And I think you know that there are certain activities, spiritual

activities that are certainly helping or guiding the leadership of Ukraine. I will definitely say, especially with what happened with the whole Key of Love or situation, it's absolutely absolutely disgusting, especially in light of the fact that the Ukraine or the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, led by Metropolunifrid, everything they can to distance themselves from Russia, from the Russian Church, and it still happens. So it goes to show that what their real intention is, and it is to

destroy godleness and order. Basically, Joshua asked to tell a super chat appreciate. He asked, why don't you like ancient Fate radio. It's because they had They promote certain completely heterodox things, and they don't do anything about anything to fix They are too lukewarm. That's the basics that I will say, is that they're basically way to lukewarm. There's some good content there and then

there's some absolutely horrendous content that no one should look at. And I think they really try to appeal to They really try to make orthodoxy like appeal to normalis, which in a sense, okay, that's cool if you can do it in terms of packaging. But they when they mix certain doctrines into that normal packaging, I think that's the big problem. And then they have a huge tendency to do something like that. So those are my basic reasons,

right. Yeah, they've been pushing for a long time all kinds of water down heterodox ideas, you know, promoting authors that are pushing for women pre I mean promoting authors that you know, attend a Roshan events, Skittles events. I mean that just should be obvious too if you're familiar with what they what they push. I mean they've been doing it for like twenty years. So yeah, we already have videos and streams talking about this, specifically Marked

with the twenty big twenty dollars super chat. Appreciate it, Mark, He says, love both of your works. Will love to see you both in tract more of these Protestant pop apologists, But Sally, I don't think they're very interested, will be and you will be in over their heads. I mean, I have people so Transhorn made the tweet saying that they should do a round table between an Orthodox and Roman Catholic and a Protestant icon veneration,

and I'm the icon veneration guy. He suggests to create truly, which I guess you can do that too, But to my knowledge, that didn't happen. And the suggestion of having me appear since at that time it recently made the video and icon veneration, right, it was all it was fresh, and you know, the whole thing on this, the whole debate start because of Ortland's video and icon veneration and so and so forth. A lot of

people actually suggested, I think it's even ratio the Transforms post. A lot of people suggested that I shall appear and this shall happen and I shall be on that, you know, And I didn't get any return from Trent. I didn't get any return from Ortland, and I didn't think that round table will happen even with Craig. I think not even with Craig. They're trying to do this, So I think I think that goes to show. I mean, I'm well, it's well for according to a lot of people.

I am a very bad person too, even though I don't think I've done anything to justify it. And it works because with like normy people, that kind of pushes them away from like looking at the material that I present. Basically, So I think that is definitely cut part of smear campaign that is an actual to YouTube people do it all the time, like the whole smearing stuff to avoid people from engaging specific groups of people. I understand that.

So I don't think that's really going to happen anytime soon, not just with icon veneration, but with basically anything, because frankly speaking, I think a lot of Protestants are afraid of actual proper dialogue and they want dialogue in their dialogue in their own terms. But once you enforce your own terms to other people, that's not a dialogue. That's a monologue with h with just a monologue or allowing the other person to speak at times they want him to speak

in certain ways that they want him to speak. So that's that's my generale take on a lot of these Protestants, even Roman Catholic people, even some Orthodox people. To be honest, right, it's I think the preferred method, especially with people like us with you and I j is smear and then push them away. These people are crazy, they don't they won't let you

speak. They're they're horrible people. Let them, you know, stay in their echo chamber, which is ironic because we're the ones that want to talk, right, we don't want to stay in. But yeah, it's just an excuse. It's obvious that it's an ex use. I mean, there was going to be a roundtable that Trent suggested a year ago on apologetic methodology, and nobody wanted to do that. So I mean I did, and

like David saying he did, and uh, yeah, nobody. Nobody wants to do that because they you know, it's just you know, I think if if you're confident in your position, like you're not worried about having these kinds of discussions, you're not worried about new information, you know, shaking

your paradigm or something like that. But I think that people that are not confident in their positions or they're they're wavering, they're they're scared, they're afraid that they'll end up looking bad or something like that, and so you know, they consistently use the excuse of well they're mean. Well, the only times that we've been quote mean is when you know, we have to deal with actual, uh you know, subversive and ridiculous people who are malicious.

And so the fact that we deal with those people in a firm and also satirical way is I think the proper way to handle these people. Now, there have been past instances where on blood sports which were not formal debates, it's just you know, people acting ridiculous on the internet. Yeah, so what if I, you know, made fun of somebody in a in a non formal debate, and then they take those examples and say, look, all he does is yell at people, and that's not true. There's like

twenty debates where nobody's yelling at anybody. Everything's perfectly civil. But it should be transparent that these are just excuses because they don't want to deal with the people that would probably present the best case and so you know they're gonna they want to stay in a little bubble of people like Cameron from cuting Christianity or

whatever. Yeah. One thing I want to adv it like this is this is a general principle that I just generally apply to things like interactions online and things and it's kind of like a it's based on my experience, and it's a self it's a respecting self. Respect and respect about this kind of thing. I typically, even if they want to debate me, I don't engage with people who unjustifiably smear me and attack me, because why would I want

to give these people platform? Why would I want to legitimize If you're going to do something like that and you want to have me all, you better make it work for me. So maybe if you have a decent audience and allow me to speak to a lot of people, maybe okay, I'll let that slide. But that's kind of the way I look at things because I think it's just a smart way to look at it, because at the end of the day, I don't want to legitimize people attacking my personal life or

attacking me as a person, or making up lies about me. It's just I don't want to legitimize such a thing. And I think that's just a natural thing to do. But and I understand why, Like you know, people like Ubara, they might not they might want to stay away from me for the same reason. That's fair enough, right, But you know, that's that's just kind of like a principal thing, at least for me.

So I want to note that before I move on to the five Dollars to chat from Max and By Jay has a different style, He has different you know, he views these things differently because we're different people in regards to kind of like have you look at debate challenges and stuff like that as well? So, um, that's something that I will, I guess we'll like to note as well. Max the Confessor five dollars super chat um, he has

been reading Bootius beautiful poems. Any good Orthodox commentaries on him? I don't think there are any, Um, I mean I have one of his books. I don't know about commentaries. Yeah, I think I think with boti Is it's like I mean, isn't he's the one. It will be kind of like a commentary of a commentary. But I guess if you're asking kind of like the Orthodox take on Bois, I always confuse Boots Saints Bede,

I always confuse them. But he wrote consolations of philosophy, and so he's you know, basically an attempting and sent this between Augustinian theology and other you know, Aristotle, other theological or philosophical traditions, and so I mean he is I think a saying in the Orthodox Church. But yeah, I think, I mean he's I don't know about commentaries. Yeah, uh yeah he is. He's he is a saint in the Orthodox Church, right, that

is true? So yeah, I'm I'm afraid of You're not going to be able to help you on that front, uh, Max, But appreciate the five dollars super chat um. Let's see what other people are saying. Well, I guess I could kind of. I mean, this was I didn't I did not expect a lot of people to kind of support So I'm kind of like, I'm kind of shocked. But at the end of the day,

I mean, it's it's it's very cool to see this. One thing I kind of wants to ask you, Jay, and and I could answer this question before you answer, It's like, what was it saying that made you like not a not something in Orthodoxy that made you say, oh, I think this is wrong because of a rational reason. But what made you like ikey? Because from me, and this might sound really strange because I'm like, I'm the icon veneration guy at these these days from the Orthodox camp.

But icon veneration was kind of strange to me when I first became ortodox. I kind of looked at it and it's like, how is this not like this kind of this kind of looks suspicious, but I guess I'll do it kind of a thing. But like stuff like that, right, like not something that's like rational like ration, like you're opposed because of some rational

reason. But right is something that you that it took some time for you to get used to, because I think a lot of people have that, and it's very normal because a lot of people are not used to ortodox Christianity. Um, you know, my path to Orthodoxy was different, so it wasn't It wasn't really like that where I had to adjust to things that were really odd. I think because I came from the world of Roman Catholicism, it was different. So most things in Orthodoxy weren't that odd to me.

I'll say two things. So my when I was Protestant, the first time I saw a relic, it was weird because in the Protestant world, you're not used to that, and you kind of it kind of seems odd to you. And the first Roman Calory church that I went to had a relic of Saint Jerome, and I remember, you know, I was curious, but I was also weirded out the first time I saw it. So that

was the thing that it will always stick in my mind. And then when I became Orthodox, one thing that was unique that stuck out was getting used to standing up in the services, and you know Russian Orthodox services, you're going to be standing for two or three hours. So that was odd, I mean, just because the last time that I'd gone to I mean, I