Part 1 OPEN DEBATE! Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Cults, Arians Vs Jay Dyer!

Problem, reaction, solution, cheetah ori, cheta ori, open form, debate. The topics are Remember to give it to the topics today, guys. You don't have to debate. If you want to, you can't. The topics are as listed last time, same topics. Bible, Church history, Batristics, councils, Islam, Quran revelation, Protestanism, Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, papacy, Arianism, cults, Hebrew Roots, Joe's Witnesses, et cetera, et cetera, Black Huber, Israelites, Yakube. All of these topics

Hey Jake?

Can you hear me?

Sir?

Okay?

So, first and foremost, I did see that thing that you posted about a seventh century for sure to you know that this song is true. On the traditional Islamic narrative, it's quite clear that during the time of the Sahaba or the companions themselves, there were true prophecies of the prophet coming true, for example, in the Quran. On the traditional narrative, the Quran openly predicts, or if the prophet only openly predicts, that Rome would beat the.

Persians, the Romans would beat the Persians in their war, that.

Certain people would die or pass away on top of the miraculous elements of Islam.

But that's not what the dilemma challenges, though it's not related to that.

I am making the point though, that they would have evidences to justify their belief in Islam.

But how does that answer the challenge about the Quran saying confirm the Qoran with prior revelation.

I would say that the Koran doesn't confirm prior revelation, so I would just totally reject that premise.

So these verses are not saying that you can look to the Torod and the prophets and all of that.

You don't need to look to the tour in prophets.

What I'm saying versus the verses say that, sure.

Right, and the uncorrupted versions and things like this, we would say that you can't. Right, there's possibly stuff within the New Testament.

Okay, so how do you know there's a where is the uncorrupted version?

I don't think there's a whole uncorrupted versions, but we.

Would say that our snippets, where is that that the seventh century christenrds you could look to?

So, for example, there are tons of verses that somebody would say that you can contextually argue, would talk about get a message, sorry, would talk about the Muhammadan prophecy within the Torah or within the New Testament, right that many Muslims are pretty sure you've heard have argued this, but they're usually not explicit verses either way.

So in other words, there is there do you understand we have? We have versions of the Torah and the Gospels and the prophets that precede, that predate the seventh century?

Right? I do know that?

So that refutes this idea that there was this other uncorrupted one at the time of the Quran that they could have looked to.

No, So the Quran, okay.

So the prophet himself, if you read the hideth corpus, have you read a lot of hidethur?

No?

Some not a lot, okay.

So the prophet himself clearly tells people that the Torah. He says, don't don't believe everything in the Torah, like he very clearly says, I believe, don't believe or disbelieve it.

Right when it comes to certain things that you read in the Torah.

And then you have Umar and Uthman and others that clearly say that when it comes to the corruption of the New Testament and the Old it's the text that is corrupted itself.

If you read.

Let's see, I can't remember the number of the hadith in particular, but it is.

In Sahi Muslim and Abukari.

So these are very authentic haidiz and they're widely transmitted as well.

Well. But what about the other hadith that say that it's impossible for the uh Tora to be corrupted or God's word to be corrupted. That's also in the Quran as well.

Right, Well, we come to the question of divine speech and it's corruptibility, I would say, in relation to the divine essence is incorruptible.

So a minute. So that means then that the that the Quran in time and space is also corruptible.

Right, somebody could have you know, if we didn't have an entire empire forging the book basically, you know, putting the book together, I would say, it's quite a possibility that certain things.

Could be nonpropetic in there.

The actual argument for the preservation of the Quran is basically that itself, right, it's not the.

Uh well, I mean you understand preservation itself doesn't prove anything.

Yeah, I would agree with that, right, But I'm trying to tell you why we believe the Kuran in particular is preserved. Right, That's why I'm trying to give you that justification for why.

We do have that belief in whole to it.

Yeah, but that's not what I asked you was on what basis? Then, if if all us speech and time and space in the written books can be correct, then wouldn't that undercut your view on the Kuran.

No, it wouldn't because as I just said, Well, you just said, but you just said that the prior words of a lah can be corrupted in terms of their historical instantiations in the Torah, right, yes, okay, but not the Quran.

I'd say, the Quran when it comes to a double standard, Okay, it's a totally different justification.

No, it's not, No, it's not. You literally just admitted that Allah's words can be corrupted in terms of their physical instantiation, but not in the Quran. That's a double standard.

Not really.

I would say that the reason why we hold that the Koran is preserved is because of totally different reasons.

From that, it doesn't matter that you have totally different reasons if you've already admitted that that Allah's words can be corrupted. Anyway, let's get to the neoplatonism issues. I thought that's what you want to talk about.

That's also true, okay.

So I would say that when it comes to you're a pistemology and your problems with a pistemology, neoplatonic keenology can just as easily justify the reliability to faculties.

As neoplatonic What did you.

Say, penology? Starting with the monad.

What but how does that? What does that have to do with Islam?

Within the Sufi and Neoplatonic traditions themselves, they clearly hold to neoplatonic theology.

Okay, why why should I accept neoplatonic metaphysics as an epistemic starting point?

Well, I would say that's necessary for intelligibility.

Why is that necessary for intelligibility.

The same reason you hold the news to be necessary for intelligbility.

When you feel, well, that's a that's a faculty. That doesn't mean that it provides justification because I believe in an element of the worldview existing. So what I'm asking is an epistemic justification question.

Yeah, I know, And you usually use the logos and news as a justification for faculty.

Those aren't justifications. The news is not a justification. It happened a faculty be a justification.

So you don't think that because God exists, that's why our factories are reliable, that's all what you believe.

I do believe that, but I have a basis. But I have a basis. I have a basis in terms of revelational epistemology, which is not what you're arguing.

So you don't argue that God himself, in his very own essence in nature would entail that your faculties are reliable.

No, Now, God's essence is unknowable, so we don't believe that at all. But I would argue that physics is justification. Revelation is the basis for metaphysics.

Okay, So you hold that because the book says so, therefore my faculties are reliable, or the tradition says so as well.

Now I hold that the transcendental argument gives me a basis to believe in the reliability not just of my faculties, but of the worldview as a whole.

Let me make this point.

So you would appeal to the transcendental argument to justify from scripture instead, right, not from necessarily your metaphysics.

Well, the transcendental argument is an argument for an entire worldview, so it includes the whole. It includes the pieces of the worldview too, such as divine revelations, such as universals, such as categories. All of those things are part of the world view. So one of the unique things about TAG is that it's a worldview specific and holistic argumentation. Thank you.

Okay, So.

Why couldn't write a Sufi or somebody like that use the same justification for the reliability to faculties.

Because it's not just an argument for the reliability of faculties. It's an argument for objectivity, universality, laws of logic, all those things which require a deity that is more than just a bear unity or a bare monad.

Why would you say that because this is now going to.

Metaphysics, because I mean, yeah, we can go into a pis and this argument can go in any direction. But if you want to take it in the metaphysics direction, that's that's fine with me. Because a unit bear unitarian deity uh is not. It cannot be of justification for why there's multiplicity in the world, how there's temporality in the world. If you're a consistent neoplatonist, you have to say the world's an emanation and not a temporal creation.

Well, I think that if you talk to Khalil, for example, I think you spoken to him. He thinks that the temporal world is actually created. And so almost every other play in this that the world, like you know, the universe that we're talking about here, is temporally created.

Well okay, but well some neoplatonists that necessarily do not know many neo We go to the history of neoplatonism right here, and we can talk about how the world that we inhabit isn't created, it's an emanation. Sure, they do not believe create. Let me so to make this very clear. Creation in our view presupposes an intentional personal god, the God of Monad and neoplatonism is not intentional, and he does not have a will by which he creates. And we can go to the neoplatonic text right here.

Okay, So when we speak about the one. I do agree that we only speak respect to intellection. Right, So when any ads, for example, kindness says that the One willing itself is how we get these types of like let's say the first intellect.

Right, Yeah, but it's not a personal God willing himself.

Now I have to ask that question, what do you mean by.

Right?

So this is one again, right. This is why I was making that points to you in the comments, is that we're not neoplatonists. The God of the Bible is the God who reveals himself in time and space. By the way, neoplatonic being cannot be in time and space. But the God of the Bible, in the Hebrew texts of the Torah, steps into time and space. They're Theophanes. They're not created angels. They're called Yahweh, they're called God,

I actually did agree with you that you guys are even though you do adopt certain platonic views and opinion, like, let's say, views on inherent hierarchy.

Okay, you're right, that was you and the other guy. That was a replied to the other guy.

Yeah, I do think that you guys do adopt, sir, in platonic views.

You adopt what you guys saw is like the good parts of Platonism, but then left what you guys thought contradict Christianity right to a degree.

But what like I was saying, like every one of that ecumenical councils ends up refuting some heresi arc who utilizes neoplatonic dialectics to try to prove their position right. So another element of this I'm not trying to shift, but you could say, you know, in a lot of this is not just Neoplatonism and much of the Greek philosophical tradition, the One, the absolute God, whatever we call it, it's opposite the world. Okay, we rejected dialectics, so we

I would say that when it comes to apatheticism, first of all, everything in a sense does reflect the divine attributes quote unquote right. But I would not say that everything in the world is gone. I'm not a pantheist or panentheist.

Right, I reject that type of view. That's what if you read almost any Sufi.

Metaphysician, like let's say Shake f Mettijenny Iven RB.

They'll all reject pantheon right, very explicitly.

So, yeah, I didn't think you were a pantheist, but my question, I guess would be so for us. In orthodox metaphysics, number one, the distinction between the attributes that are related only to the created order versus the attributes that are true from all eternity without whether or without a creative order such as love or glory. Those things

I would say that it's consistent because it's quite obvious that if you read Sufi metaphysics, we are necessitarians. Right, if you hold to ads, it does entail necessitarianism.

You'd agree with that, right, I think?

So?

Yeah, okay, So we would.

Say that, let's say the first intellect is a turnal, but we wouldn't say that the tip paroal world is eternal, right, so you know, like the entire hierarchy of platinism, right, yeah, and so we would negate that in relation to the temporal world, but in relation to like let's say the first intellect or Hakika Muhammadia, we would affirm that eternality.

So well, I don't really see.

Is the first intellect a deman in an ontological diminished status?

Yeah, it's dependent, right, and so have multiple deities? I would say that that's an impossibility.

Right For one, you just said it's dependent.

Yeah, it's dependent right upon the emanation of the One or the monad or God. But I would say, at the same time anything that this is like very classical plan is that anything that comes from the one is subbortinate to the ones.

So and so they don't have the same essence.

You can't call them God, right and side question, heret do you think that the Quran teaches this? I mean does the Koran teach ancient Platonic metaphysics? Is that? Does that what's really revealed in the Kuran? Are you there? You're muted?

Oh, okay.

So I wouldn't say explicitly because you can't have disagreements on how to interpret the Quran. But I would say that the death corpus and things like this do give credence to the view of the suit in particular.

You know, I'm saying where so all of this is obviously Greek metaphysics, right, And you're you don't think this is cribbed.

I don't think it's necessarily.

Wrong that we know to crib I didn't say right or wrong cribbed.

No, not really.

Okay, So you literally said her appealing to Plato and these texts, and you're saying that when the Qoran is written, right, Muhammad, who is illiterate, is not this is not coming from that.

Yeah.

I would not say that these ideas are coming from strict plainism. I just said revelation and revelation just corresponds to reality.

So so the so the revelation that comes centuries after Plato and these people is not getting it from Plato, even though it's you're literally sitting here appealing to Plato.

Yeah, I would say that.

Okay, okay, yeah, all right, anything else? So okay, so what what what if there's what I know you're saying that what Plato says, you can't call it god or whatever. But you just said that. I mean, there's an eternal second principle of intellect? How is that not two different things? How are you? How are you?

Because I think I justified I said why earlier?

Why in playing?

No, I'm asking your position.

Yeah, this is this is the same position.

Basically, but it's not from Plato. I would not say that's what are you appeeling to play?

I'm not actually appealing. I don't think that you just.

You just said okay, uh so, how do you believe in one God if there's these multiple principles of diminished ontological status.

Because the news is subortinate to the one.

It's not.

You just restated your position.

Yeah, I just stated the position because.

How is that consistent with How is that consistent with the claim that you only worship one God when there's multiple principles of dem nos ontological status that you're calling.

God because they don't have the same essence, like I'm only referring to the one, and how is it not because these are two distinct entities, like this is.

Polly is exactly Polly? That means many, Yeah, greetings from among something. Yeah, so it's all neo platonic argumentation. It's all directly from preda Plato. But it's not from Plato. It's not neo platonic. And there's multiple entities that are not poly multiple entities. Greetings. What's up?

Hey? Could you can you hear?

Uh huh?

Yeah.

So my question is about the phot schism. That's like my first one, and it's not really an argue. There's just a few concerns I've got with decent Orthodox position.

So, yeah, have you read the Varnick's book? No, I hope it actually so. The Varnick is the one of the most famous Uni eight scholars who basically goes back to excuse me, various Orthodox schisms and sort of regurgitates and revises, not regurgitates, revises the position of Rome. And that's why now Rome accepts these Eastern fathers as potentially saints.

Right, okay, yeah, right, well I'll suppose all you for.

You thought then, yeah, I mean he I would just defer to your own your own guys for that.

Yeah right, yeah, okay, that's enough.

There's also another book too that Congar wrote after nine hundred years, the touches on that from the Roman Catholic perspective, basically admitting that uh we we can. I mean, this is why Rome has changed their position. I mean, jomp All the second says you can revere these people as saints when they were heretics for centuries.

Yeah, yeah, no, that's that's good. I mean, I'll go look at that. It's that kind of answers my first question.

Already before you you can ask the hold on, you can ask the second question to the guy in the chat was talking a bunch of smack. If you aren't gonna come to debate, we're gonna beat you. So Romancaalic, dude Jay in the chat, come to bate where you're gone, Go ahead, Yeah, all.

Right, thank you.

So I've spent a lot of time looking at TAG over the last few months, and I think for a lot of people it's kind of like a revelation. You know, it's almost a Eureka moment because it's a new side of things that they haven't considered before, right, I mean, I think a lot of people use like natural theology straight away and they never even consider this side of things. So it's been like interesting to go through this, and if I my understanding of it, it's like a REDUCTI

It can possibly be you know, it couldn't possibly.

Exist will possibly be true.

So my question really is like, how can you insert gold into this? Because all the other world views are circular? Right, So if we use like an empiricis worldview, the impirsis worldview doesn't make sense because in order to validate.

The argument is not that all the other world views are circular in ours is not. The argument is that every worldview is circular. So it becomes a question of who can give a coherent account of the worldview. So, in other words, any worldview that posits self evidence or foundationalist principles, as any Roman Catholic natural theology based worldview would do, we're saying that that's not going to work. You're in You're gonna end up in some circularity even

Okay, so like every single worldview, including your worldview, is a circular one.

At base level, Yes, every worldview will bottom out at something that is self referencing. For everybody who's a natural theology self evidence proponent, their bottomed out ultimate principles are whatever they think is self evident. They're axioms, they're dosastically basic beliefs, and we're simply saying, well, that's arbitrary, and it's also inconsistent. It doesn't work with Chisholm's criterion problem,

Right, yeah, no, that that's a good answer, Thank you for that. My question then would.

Be, by the way, do you have the book before you go on.

The book? Which books are The.

Epistemology by W. J. Wood. It's a really good readable text on this and I recommend that one because the chapter on foundationalism is really good, like all the stuff that you heard me critiquing Rent in the debate, like it's in any standard epistemology text, right.

I will look at that was up to B. J. Wood.

Yes, yeah, his book's really good.

Yeah, thank you.

That's very.

Yeah. I mean that's kind of the problem.

You don't really want to go into the deep end and start reading things you don't fully understand, because you can, you know, it just kind of you know, it feels district.

Well, so the Green Bonjeour book on Epistemology is like a grad school textbook. So a lot of people who buy that find it very difficult. But I would say if you read the Wood book first, then you'll do better with the Boneour book.

Right, Yeah, that's that was useful. Yeah.

So my question then would be Why does your argument get kind of like a concession. Why does your circularity receive a concession? Is it because yours begins with something that grounds the transcendental categories?

Well, it's not a concession. Whereas we don't have to answer this problem. We're saying all worldviews are subject to fundamental circularity. So then the question is, well, then how would we prove any worldview. That's when it gets into coherence, that the worldview as a whole is coherent, has reasons for that worldview versus other worldviews. So we're not excluding ourselves. We're saying, no, we're also part of the same thing.

Right, And there must be some worldview because knowledge has to exist because.

Yeah, well everybody necessarily will have some basic beliefs in the three elements of a worldview, right, everybody will have some basic belief on metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology.

Yeah, okay, I guess my final point would what would you say to someone who would deny the existence of truanscendental categories altogether.

Well, I mean you could go that route, but you would be in an even more difficult situation because transcenal categories are the things that undergird the possibility of predication at all. So if you deny those things, you're in an even deeper boat of trying to figure out You're into deeper waters trying to figure out how predication is possible at all. I mean, in other words, they're not

Yeah No, that's that's great. Yeah, thank you for answer.

Yeah, I would say too, I'll try to remember to send you a couple of FDA's papers, because he also touches on these subjects very well. Let's see now, the dude talking smack in the chat? Are you here? I don't see who you are. Maybe you're this guy, young Catholic? What's up? Hello, so revel. If you're not gonna come chat, just get booted. What's up? Man? What's up?

I just had a question, not like a debate or anything.

You just wanted to ask.

I'm Catholic, by the way, but what's the Eastern Orthodox position on baptizing non Eastern Orthodox or rebaptizing in a sense?

Is that allowed?

Sound of the Catholic position? Is that only certain denominations have valid baptisms? What's the what's the Eastern Orthodox position?

It's a case by case basis on the decision of economya. That's up to the local bishops.

Okay, I mean, like would that be I mean, wouldn't that be like a contradiction that certain bishops?

Is it?

Under?

Is it the Eastern Orthodox disposition.

That the bishops have the authority to make the decision?

Yeah? The ultimate interpreters of the cannons and their application are the local episcopate.

Okay, I mean, I only had one question, So.

Okay, that's one. Appreciate it. Let's see, I don't know where so how can you join the The link is in the show description and it has literally been linked in the chat a million times. So where's the romancality? People are talking smack like they're the ones that I want them to come? Where are they at? So you'll have to tell me who you are because there's like twenty people, fourteen people requesting to speak, So I don't know who you are. Peter, what's up? Peter?

Can you hear me?

Man?

Hey, I have a question about John six forty. Okay, basically, I had a moment where I was looking at a picture of Jesus, and while I was looking at the picture, my spiritual eyes were open and I came to the realization that he was God, and I believe that he was God in that moment while looking at him. Is that in accordance with John six forty?

Well, I think John six forty is a text that obviously shows the deity of Christ. So but I mean an orthodox view, we don't typically rely on mystical experiences because we can fall into prelass so we always guard people against trusting in those kinds of things, not to say that they can't happen. But I wouldn't rest my dogmas or my beliefs on a personal experience like that.

I see you're saying, then, what would you what would your be a idea of what John six forty means.

Yeah, it means that Christ, in our nature, even though he's already by nature equal to the Father and has all the same powers as the Father. As he says in John five, he's saying that also in his status as human being, that he also is granted power in our nature. So essentially, the son of God, who is also the son of Man, now has in our nature the ability to raise everyone up and give them eternal life.

It says that everyone who looks to or looks on the sun.

What does that mean to you?

I mean's look in faith. I don't think it's necessarily literally saying that the physical movement of the eyes. It's saying look in the sense of look in faith. Ali Malik, you gotta unmute man, Ali Ali?

What's up?

Dude?

Kay?

Did you turn your mic on? We can't hear you. Uh, turn your mic on and come back and I'll let you back in. Uh fazlan Ahmad? What's up?

Yah h.

H Hello, I'm lord of it.

Be there.

So I can't hear you, man, what's up?

Yeah? Yeah? So I am fine. So so I have a doubt. So recently you.

Had a dibate to the Muslim So yeah, I have a doubt in Christianity, a doubt so yeah, doubt mean so so when you say the attribute of good, attribute of Elohim, So, what do you say about that one? Are they eternal like you talk about ISLAMO when it comes to Allah.

You took about that attribute of Almah.

So what do you say the attribute of Elohim the good of old New Testament?

I mean we say it's always been the Trinity. Alohim is a reference to the Trinity.

Okay, But what about the attribute of Aloheim like his speech, his system, his power, his love.

Yeah, that's what I was explaining in the beginning was that there's different actions in different attributes. So some of them are actualized or done from all eternity, like love or glory. Other attributes are attributes or actions particular and relevant only to the created orders, such as divine providence. God does not actualized divine providence from all eternity because

Create, Okay, but simply put together, like, are they created or are they uncreated?

His attribute?

Now, God has no created parts or attributes okay.

The uncreated. So like in Islam he said the empty the uncreated?

Correct, Okay, So.

That they are part of him or they are separate from him.

We don't believe that distinctions entail parts, composition, or division.

No, I'm asking they are within himself or a.

Well.

We believe in what's called the essence sentergy distinction. So they're distinct, but they're really him. It's a both and not an either or.

Okay.

But like as an example, when it come to Jesus, his attribute of court.

Jesus is the word of Court, so that is an attribute. So in the sense that Jesus should be.

We do not believe that it's an attribute. We believe that he's a distinct person or hypostasis. So he's the second person of the trinity, not an attribute.

But his speech is attribute. Right to the word of God is attribute of guoth. The wisdom of God is attribute of good.

Right, it is both an attribute and in this case a person as well, because in our view, the attributes have a manifestation that happens in each person in a unique way, in a unique mode. So the speech of God is not just an attribute. In this case, it is also a person.

Okay, then how about the wisdom of Gurt.

It is an attribute to right.

The scriptures identify Christ as the wisdom of God as well as both an attribute and a manifest and a person.

But there are so many attribuments, like the counsel of Gurth, the glory of.

Gurth right, and so my basis is what divine revelation tells us, not can I make every attribute a person? We don't believe every attribute is a person. What I'm saying is there are two different things going on here. One is the Trinity and then the movement of those attributes or energies in the way that they manifest or the way that they move. So, uh, you could say, for example, the Holy Spirit is the law of the

Okay, So what is your criteria? And so what is the criteria to attribute to become a person? Yeah? What what is the criteria?

Divine revelation is the criteria?

Yeah, the religion.

But as an example of you all, if I go to the word of court, so use a word of courde is a person also a no?

No? So the divine revelation, I mean, what's in it? For example, the Torah and the prophets. That's where we get the Doctor and the Trinity from. It doesn't come from Greek philosopher, It's not invented by Constantin or Paul. It's in the Torah.

Yeah, I got to that point.

But as an example of the same Bible talk about the wisdom of the glory of Court. So when it come to glory of quote, how you say that is not a person. How you get to that conclusion. The glory of God is not a person, but the right.

So if you read it, I understand what your question is. If you read Ezekiel one to ten, glory is a attribute but is also manifested as the person of the Son. So our starting point is not ninety nine names or all of God's attributes. We start with the person of the Father, the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit. Those three persons uniquely manifest every attribute in a unique way. That's what I'm saying. So there could never be new persons. We can't come up with

Yeah, I got that point, But what is your criteria like? Have an example?

I to the criteria is that divine revelation states and gives me the grounding first and foremost to begin the theology with the theology of the persons of the Trinity. So if there's let me let me explain that. So in the Old Testament, for example, we have Yahweh. We have his Angel messenger who comes in time and space, who manifests as his messenger, as his angel, as his face, as his glory, as his wisdom, as his word. We think that's the son, that's Jesus in the Old Testament,

Okay, but when it comes to the Spirit of Gurt Bible just moment, the seven.

Separate spirit trift.

So if the seven spirit of Court, then how can you end up in Trinity?

Now, the seventh spirits are said to be attributes or operations w are common to all three. That's not the same thing as the Holy Spirit. Two different things. Because when you look at the seven spirits, they're listed in Isaiah. So Isaiah says the spirit of Wisdom, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of fear of the Lord. All those are on the person of Christ because that passage in Isaiah eleven is about the incarnation. Those are common attributes that

But in the seven is spirit is spirit of Cody is mentioned the same spirit in Genesis, right, So you identify that as a separate person.

Right, But that's not right. So it's from Isaiah eleven and it says that the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him. That's the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit in the Baptism of Christ rests upon him. I know you don't believe this, but I'm saying that it's not inconsistent within our texts. So what Isaiah eleven is predicting is a Messianic prediction. Right, there shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse. That's David. Jesse's David's dad. So this is talking about the Thevidic lineage

Oh yeah, I got that.

But what I'm telling you, so the it's mentioned seven spirit, but the second spirit is the Holy Spirit, the spirit of court.

Right, It's just it's just a symbolic right, there's not seven attributes. It's just a symbolic number of perfection. There's there's other attributes that are common.

Like uh, okay, okay, okay.

So, but when it comes to the endle of courte, like I think in the Full of dismentioned angel Gabriel is the endle of code.

Angel. Angel is a word that just means messenger.

Right.

So in the Old Testament, when it's used, sometimes it's Gabriel, like in Daniel, and it specifies that Daniel came to Gabriel came to Daniel. Other times it's specified that it's Michael at the end of Daniel, for example, Michael the arch angel defends the nation of Israel. But in other places the Angel messenger and again it just means messenger

Okay, but just on explicit evidence side the angle of courde is Jesus.

I can say that again. I can hear you say that again.

Yeah, do we have an explicit evidence the New Testament say, Jesus is the angle of court?

Yeah, absolutely, Jesus and John five through nine identifies himself as an angel. In those chapters. He says that he's the one that appeared on Mount Sinai and the Burning Bush and Extodu three where the angel says I am that I am. Exos twenty three, he says that the name of Yahweh is in that angel messenger, so he's called Yahweh. And remember God doesn't give his glory to another. And yet here he is saying that this angel messenger

Johnny, they're explicit, right, No.

It's explicit. He explicitly says that he's the one that talked face to face with Moses. He says, no one sees the Father in any time. This is John five through nine. Right, John five, he says no one sees the Father at any time, and yet Moses talked face to face with God. Who was Moses talking to If no one sees the Father, Jesus is saying that he is the one talking face to face with Moses. And that's why he tells the Pharisees that you have to honor and worship the Son as you honor and worship

But when it comes like Moses to quote that the it is he did not talk with the glory quote.

Well, it says right. It says in Exodus both that Moses talked face to face with God. It says that no one can see God face to face. So the resolution to this dilemma is that Jesus is the face of God that talked to Moses face to face. And that's the argument used to making in John five.

You can't have the opinion, but.

I'm gonna move on. I'm not trying to be rude. It is really hard to hear what you're saying. So we're gonna move on to the next but thank you for those questions. With the next one, Uh, Welsh papist, what's up faith alone? Protestants call in If you the chat is not for you to spam to British ca enter, you're booted.

Amy Jay, Yes.

Sir, I just kind of just a few questions in regards to Orthodox biology.

I'm a Catholic.

I'm just curious about a couple of things.

Obviously, you would reject sort of the Augustinian view of original sin. The Eastern tradition always did, and I'm just curious as to why that is, because you know, like say passages like.

Psalm fifty where David.

Talks about you know, my mother, you know, bought me in sin, or say Roman spy for example. I'm just curious what is the Eastern perspective on passages.

Such as that.

Yeah. Right, the Augustinian view has bound up with his doctrine, which he's very explicit on. I give you all the references where he says that all men were in Adam as in an archetype. He says this in the City of God explicitly that means for him that not only are we in Adam in potentia, but we're also guiltilty of adam sin because we are in him as an archetype.

Thanks for that answers. So the next one would be when you by the way, by.

The way, before you, before you go to that. I just remembered I do have a three hour talk on this topic, going through the text of Augustine and others. If you're interested in in a longer version of this.

I was sure looking to terms sort of new to your stuff. So anyway, what was.

I ready to say?

Oh?

Yes, you had a discussion with the slimilantin yesday and you made a case for monarcical trinitarianism, which I've come across in say Saint Basil and the two Saint Gregor Cappadocian.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm just curious before them because just from my own personal reading of the Church Harvest so far, you just say, if you were to go before them, who else would you say?

Hell to the monarcicle?

Well, I think I think Ireon As teaches it. I think you can see an ignacious where he talks about the threefold structure in the church, mirroring father and Son. I think it's it's pretty consistent.

Uh.

The only the only time I can think of this really becoming confused is in the argument. So after Origin, if you look in First Principles, he starts arguing that what divine simplicity means is what Neoplatonists mean, and so after Origin you get a tendency. Even Augustine when he argues for philly Oquah, for example, he's basically cribs, you know,

Thank you.

I just got two more questions. Whether the next one would be in regards to the ic and creed i e.

The video quay. Obviously, the videokre was rejected in.

The East because of the manner and how it was placed into the creed. So obviously the one reason was part of the ecclesiology, obviously, but what was more the theological reasons for the rejection of the video qui as well.

Well. The classic text on this is the Mysticgology of Saint Photius. And then another I highly recommend even more than that one is the reprinting of Saint gregor At Palomas's book Apidictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, because what Palamas does is really build on the argumentation in Photius's Critique of the Philioquay and take it to the next level, so he gets way more in depth with Apidictic logic and argumentation, and those two books I think are essential.

Thank you.

Last question would be punny it up about Palomas in a.

Sense, Palamas is obviously the first won't be the right way to put it, the first person to really put forward the essence energy distinction.

No, I don't think that's true at all.

Well, I mean it is any right, I mean, is in a full disclosure, in full writing, so speA.

I mean that it's all throughout on the Orthodox faith. I mean John Damascus is Christology is all premised on the essen center distinction. Saint Maximus is a dispute with Paris is all premised on the essencenary. That whole book is based on the argument the s sentaristinction.

Did you say, what's his name name? Saint John and Damascus.

Yeah.

The third book of On the Orthodox Faith, chapter fifteen and on is all essencenrigy distinction applied to Christology. Say, Maximus's entire book Disputation with Piris is all based on essenceentarty distinction. So another what I'm arguing, what I'm pointing out is that essenceentary astinction is way more clear and perceptible in Christology even than it is in Trinitarian theology.

Just as well as small caveat question for yourself from ja bec as I'm aware that you were. You were Roman Catholic once upon a time.

Obviously what.

Convinced you of the essence energy distinction over say, divine simplicity is taught by the tomis like a quietness and such.

Going through a lot of essays and articles debating it. In Ergetic Procession had a about a forty page comment debate many many years ago where they were debating this back and forth. That was one of the first things that got me questioning it. I read Philip Schard's book Greek East, Latin West and the essay in there on the energies was really another thing that was moving me in that direction. I started reading the Cappadocians at length, and I noticed that it's not just Letter two thirty four.

Thanks for your time, Jage, Absolutely.

Yeah, well a remember this guy is when we had the two Thomas the other day, Colin, and we had this argument, what do we get Jewish Muslim ex to Jesus, They're worshiping an angel. The glory of God is an angel, a created being. There's no created God, there's no created glory. You can't worship creatures, you can't worship angels, and by angels, I mean created angelic beings. Can't worship Michael and Gabriel.

Let the bodies, the flu let the bodies.

No, that's not it. Here it does Aquinas and Sohmer on Bodies of God the paper by Richard Wilson here, that's a necessary read for illustrating this principle, this point, which is that the atomistic ads doctrine in terms of denying the Theophanes, which is explicit. Remember that guy that called him the other day that said, I don't think Aquinas denies the Theophanes. Yeah, he does. So no idea where you have no idea what you're talking about. This

Hi, can you hear me?

Jay? Hi?

Thank you for having me.

I recently discovered you and I've been waiting for this. I just have a question regarding predestination. I'm trying to piece it all together in terms of predestination.

God's knowledge, God's will.

And how does it come into play in our free will?

Right?

So the Orthodox view Orthodox view I believe right. So Orthodox Christianity does not believe in Calvinism, does not believe in a hard determinism. We believe that God is sovereign, He does know all things. But God has also created a world where there are secondary causes. So you can read book one of John Damascus on this where he talks about foreign knowledge. He talks about God creating a

Mm hm.

So I wanted to speak to you about what you said to Black Sufie.

If you remember him, he was on a couple of minutes ago he was talking about his neoplatonic view emanation from the one. So I heard you say that if the first Intellect or the Muhammed and reality, if it's eternal, that would make it a second God. But I just wanted to say, for Islamic philosophers and for Sufi's, we don't identify divinity with eternality or accidental necessity. For us,

It still makes it a creature. So we don't have multiple goods.

So now, but what you're doing is you're taking things that are elements of the created order, like multiplicity, temporality, and you're giving it divine attributes.

No, because, for example, necessity in the in the first cause in God is essential, right, but in the first Intellect is accidental, So that you know that shared necessariy.

Okay, let's let's get more basic than this.

How do you know that?

How do you know that it's accidental and versus necessary?

Well, we have knowledge of the essence existence distinction, right, So.

But where did you derive this knowledge? Is it from play?

Now?

Remember he said Plato, Plato, Plato, But it's not from Plato.

No, I don't believe it's from Plato. For me, I get my views from Evansino.

Where did he get them?

Well, we believe the essence existence distinction is the self evident truth because.

You can Oh, how do you know that's self evident?

Yeah?

I know you're going to run the criterion problem, but I don't accept that because.

Oh, you don't accept it, so your answers you don't accept it, Yeah.

Because I just argue for epistemic finitism.

Okay, how does that resolve the fact? How does that resolve the criterion problem?

Because the criterion problem assumes that there is a criterion prior to the first principles of knowledge, but epistemic finitism.

Shows that they cannot be a criterion player to the first principle.

Okay, how do you know that there can How do you know that there cannot be that?

Because epistemic finishism is true, so.

It's self evident because this other thing which is self evident, So you can just tack on all the things that are self evident.

Right, Well, eventually.

Do you have a response to.

So No, So, now what that exactly? I just critiqued it.

No, do you have a response to it?

No?

No, now you're changing it. Yeah. The response is that you just tacked on another self evident principle. You've missed. You missed the whole point of the critique. Yeah, you did. You just said no, because this other thing is self evident, because that is what you said.

Can I speak?

That is what you said, can I speak? Is that not what you said? This other thing is also self evident?

No, ethostemic phanatism has arguments for it.

And the argument was this other thing is self evident. No, No, that is what you argued, memorable, that is what you said.

The argument formic phanatism is that if we have knowledge of something, that knowledge can either be dependent.

And I said, how do you know that that's the case? And you said, because of self evident.

Well, we certainly do have knowledge of things, right.

I said, how do you know that that second principle is the case? And you said, it's self evident that principle. The second the proposition you just say You said, we know it because of this, And I said, how do you know that second thing you just said. And you said, because it's self evident.

Yeah, we know what.

Uh yeah, so the second thing is also the self evident thing is true because this other self evident thing is true. You did You're a selfist. You just said that.

Can I speak if we have knowledge of anything? Any given proposition?

Say X, right, how do you know that that's true? I know, I'm saying that proposition. How do you know that proposition is true?

Well, for example, tortological statements?

Are those not true?

Well, tautology doesn't tell me anything about reality and how it works in the world. So you can say it's true, but you can say it's true by definition. But I'm saying, how do you know that something true by definition is applicable? Okay, how do you know.

Because of epistemic finitism.

Because it's self evident. Yeah, so it's a circle. Good circle circle.

Epistemic phinitism is not circular.

You're telling me that, And I said, how do you know that? Then you gave this other principle, and I said, how is that principle? How do you know that principle? And you said it's self.

Evident because I don't.

My pestiology doesn't matter. I'm asking yours, forget my epistemology.

Yours because you just pre suppose.

No.

Yeah, so here he goes. He deflects away from the epistemic critigue to because you're a religion you think it's true. No, you didn't. You didn't answer. You said this other thing, which is self evident, falling into the very thing that it doesn't the very thing you think it answers, it doesn't answer, and then you deflect. Do you think your a position and self evident? I don't think my position is self evident. I don't believe in self evidence. So

All right, So I just kind of question this is a question that I just won't like, you know, I just want to give the benefit of the delt. You do know that the Sunnis do believe that the is uncreated, right, correct, So I just want to know, like they believe that Jibriel or Gabriel is a created being. So I just want to know, like how the uncreated words is like able to be comprehended by a creative bee and give to the mohamments.

Yeah, I mean I've asked that question many times, Like how do you escape this question when you say, like forty two and what is it? One to ten? Alla has nothing like the created order? Okay? Well, if all is nothing like it and Allah does not enter into time and space as many of them believe, then how does this message or these words of a law translate into the created form of the crime.

Yeah, so that's that's about argument, right, I can make that argument.

Right.

I just just want to get the benefit of the telt, That's what.

I just want to get the benefit of the delt because I just you know, I just have this you know, this argument. But again they say, like, you know, like you have this kind of ability to you know, you.

Know calmber Head the words the full line givee to my heart.

Okay, Well, saying that he had the ability to do it, it doesn't tell us how it's possible given their metaphysical scheme. So that's an ad hoc rescue.

They'll be all right.

And there was almost one other thing that I won't want to ask you that you know that the I think he's also been even like something called like fatalism. Right, everything is just like pre written by an angel.

Yeah. They believe in a hard determinism correct.

Yeah, So if that is the case, then why someone has to be a Muslim because one day suddenly I like him just like take over your mind, body and just.

Like you know, make you do whatever you like.

So I mean many of them are Yeah, many of them are occasionalists, which is even more extreme position that at every second Allah is destroying and recreating the world because there cannot be secondary causes. There cannot be creaturely causes, because for creatures to have causal power would detract from all a sovereignty. That's how silly this position is. But and it's also just goes back to like pagan fatalism. Now keep in mind, like what we're talking about is

Try again, So going just taking me off this time because I disagree with you.

No, I I removed you because you're not answering the question. You're just talking to circles.

Okay, but can I just say something at this time?

Justification isn't necessary because I'm.

Just giving an account.

How do you know what you're saying all this?

Okay, I'm giving an account. I don't need to justify it.

So you don't have to justify your account. That's why you're a sophist. So if you can you understand how silly this is. If you can do that, I can do that. This is so silly. I can give an account. I don't have to justify it. You do have to justify it because we're arguing in pistemology. Get out here with all the sophistry. Get on my nerves. It's crazy to do my back out. If you don't have to justify your account, I don't have to justify an account.

Yeah, what's up, Jake, yep? Yeah.

I wanted to ask you some questions, some problems that I have with Christiana that I'm.

Looking into it.

So I wanted to ask you about like Christology, So the human nature and the divine nature, how do you even reconcile those? Like, for example, the divine nature is eternal and then the human nature is created, So how do you reconcile Jesus being eternal and then also created at the same.

Time because of two natures? So he's a divine person who becomes incarnate. Is not a divine nature that becomes incarnated. It's a divine person with a divine nature who steps into time and space. How do we know that's possible because he'd already been doing it for all of the