Part 1-OPEN DEBATE: Sneako's Islam, Skeptical Atheist MELTDOWN, Catholicism, Protestantism

The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the All right, what's up to all you dorks, all you nerds, all you players, pimps, hustlers. Welcome to another open forum. Back in

the saddle, back in my throne, back on my purple throne. I got my espressos, I got my sassy attitude, and I got a bunch of goofballs ready to go, a bunch of goobers. We took a two week. It took two weeks to drive to Vegas and back. That was longer than I thought. It was a little rough, but it was also fun and a lot of adventures old. In one adventure, we had a

nice three or four hour road debate. Uh and for some unexplained reason, just like when Alex was on his spaces Elon's space Twitter space thing caused me to have a bizarre lisp. I just want everybody to rest assured. I did not suddenly turn into a skotls man. I do not have I do not. I don't have a When you heard me get baking and dsh gywas because of your telephone. It was not because I. I guess, no worries. My beautiful golden baritone at all times. Voice is still here.

Ladies, don't worry. It's still there. It's not gone. Before I met Jamie, girls would say, I like your voice. You have a great voice. I guess I'll take it. I thought maybe I have better looking qualities elsewhere, such as my fabio hair, such as my amazing cap muscles. Who knows, who knows, But I guess if voices all I got, that's all I got. So that's why I can't let the voice slide. I can't let people be thinking that I get up here and have a lisp. Hell no, hell no. All right, before we get

into it and open it up, we'll have a little brief analysisization. Welcome everybody. Look at that. We are already getting big numbers over here on YouTube because I haven't strained. I ain't strained in a week strength in a week. I ain't strengthed in what two weeks? But I did get to post. By the way, many of the Perfect Guy Life sam Hi clips, So if you didn't watch the PGL, many are saying it was the best, their favorite PGL. Very glad to hear that. Excellent reviews.

Very cool beans. I know a couple of the One of the clips got over two hundred thousand views over on dollar stream. That's good news. Anyway, our Vegas event was a blast. I did multiple live performances. I'm sure some of you noticed this. Let's see if I can pull up one little clip before we get started. People didn't know what to expect. They didn't know. They didn't know that you get a live performance of at least three songs. I would have done more songs, but my my Matt kept

freezing up, which was really bugging me. But what are we talking about. We're talking about live performances of funk O Pop. Okay, right, you know what I mean. You know what I'm saying. Yes, you did hear correctly. It was the majority of the audience clapping correct, yes, correct, Not everyone. There were multiple boomers there who were mystified what the heck, what's going on? Can y'all see me? Uh? Did this looks like this thing out here froze or something? I think we're good?

Are we good? Are we good over here? Can y'all see me? Okay, we're good? Yeah? I just hit Okay, we're good. Yeah, no cap best performance all time exactly. Thank you. Shout out to the people in the audience who know what's up for real. By the way, there was multiple songs. I did Matthew McConaughey's song live. I did Jordan Peterson rap song live. All of that. Thank you. Someone acknowledges that I am important in the audience. I appreciate that. Now

before we get to the topic, I do have to laugh. I didn't believe this was real. It is real. So one of the cardinals responded and roasted Michael Laughton. Yes, you heard me correctly. I must confess I have often waste time follow a program reason theology. Michael lofton this man, big little beard, he should hide tattoo. He speak like theologian. However, he's not the elogian. This is this is really And then the best part is at the end, after the roast. I waste time with

nonsense of Michael Lofton. No more minutes wasted, mister Lofton, Uh, waste of time. I invite everyone to stop spending their time and money on him. This this is real. Yes, you heard me correctly. One of the cardinals roasted Michael Lofton. And I was skeptical and say this can't be real. But when you go to his Twitter page, it's linked right

here boom roasted exactly. Now, if Eric Obarr gets winto this, better watch out, because when he hears roasted, he just thinks of peanuts and or hams and or any other type of food products that might be roasted. So you know it's not roasted Michael Lofton bringing ibarra to the trough. It's roasting in the sense of jokes. But nobody in that's fear understands jokes anyway. All right, let's get to the first point, which is that a couple of my video. I did a brief video and it got quite a

good amount of views before we open it up. Here we've got atheist man. I think that's gonna pop on even though it's not atheists Day. This man debated Pagot and he's I wanted to debate you, and I said, well, i'll tell you what you can comp on this live stream. Even though it's not a it's not atheist day, I'll let you hop on here. Or he's a skeptic or something. Anyway, he'll be on here in a little bit, I guess. So today we're going to go through a

further clarification of my one minute video that refutes Islam. And we're gonna do the clarification because this helps us to understand exactly what the Quran says. And no, we've not even had we had one Muslim correctly state the hypothetical. He was the first one to do it in the road debate that I did the other day where I have a weird lisp, thank you Elon. But

up until him, we had no one able to state it. So we're going to go through the multiple passages in the to the Quran that talk about that you're supposed to go to the Bible, to the tore up to the Gospel to confirm this new revelation because this is again kind of the ultimate reputation. So we'll start with two and there's not too many of these. I'm gonna go through them and hopefully we'll see won't take that long. We'll hit each one of these and then we'll open it up. So first is two

seventy seven, No, not six two. I'm married to them. By the way, we had a great live event. We sold over our target in Vegas. We had a great presentation from Isaac Jimbob did great with his stand up. I did some quote comedy, cringe court music. It was a blast. Jamie did a great pre and then I did my geopolitics conspiracy presentation. All right, First one is do they not know that Allah is

aware of what they conceal and what they reveal? And among them are the illiterate who know nothing about the scriptures except lies, and so they wishfully speculate. Woe to those who distort the scriptures with their hands, and they say this is from Allah seeking a fleeting gain, Woe to them from what their hands have written, Woe to them for what they've earned. Some of the

Jews claim this and that. And now notice that this is the first passage that is usually brought up, and it does not say that the Bible itself is corrupted. It says that illiterate people, Okay, Now, if they're illiterate, as Sam ch Munhoffen points out, how are they going to rewrite the Bible and corrupt it. This is talking about illiterate people who don't know about the scripture, and so they speculate on it. And it says woe

to those who distort the scriptures and say this is from Allah. It does not say, when we compare this to other verses, that the scriptures themselves actually were twisted and tainted in terms of the written texts. It says that illiterate people are distorting it and rewording it for their own gain. Furthermore,

the other passages state that the texts are not corrupted. So if you wanted to read this passage, it's as if it was saying that that the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted, then it would contradict the other passages as we will see. So notice it's illiterate people, not literate people, writing up new verses and making up new texts. So the next one is three. There is no God worthy of worship except Him, the ever, living in the all sustaining. He has revealed to you a prophet, the Book in

truth, confirming what came before, as he revealed Torah and Gospel. So notice Torah and Gospel are equivalent to the revelation given here, supposedly, and it's confirmed in what came before. So the proposition here in three one to three of the Quran is that the new revelation is going to be consistent with what came before, and that will be one of the ways that we know,

we recognize confirming it. You see next is three forty eight. Mary wondered, how can I have a child when no man has touched me? An angel said it will be. So Allah creates whatever he wills. If he decrees the matter, he simply says, be and it is, and Allah will teach him writing and wisdom Torah and Gospel. So notice the assumption here in the Quran is that Jesus, the virgin born son of Mary has the understanding and wisdom of the Torah and the Gospel. Does it say that

Jesus's message or presentation or understanding what's corrupted? Now, Remember, Muslims will often say we accept Jesus, we accept him as quote Messiah, even though Messiah is a Hebrew term from the Hebrew Bible makes no sense in Islam. There's no notion of what Messiah actually means in Islamic theologist just said to be something that they accept. And remember that Jesus says, of course, for in many places throughout the Gospels that God is his father. Many places in

the Old Testament, Israel calls God father. God calls himself the father of Israel. Stter so God has seen as father. Jesus refers to God as his father. This shows us that Jesus is not in continuity with Islam, contrary to what the Quran says right here, because Allah has no sons. Islam is very clear that there are no sons of God. Allah does not have any sons in any sense, and therefore Jesus cannot be preaching the same deity as Mohammed views Allah. The next one, and then we'll open it

up. I see Jake is here, so we'll go to him if he wants to hop on here in a little bit. There's not a whole lot of these passages that I'm going to work through. I'm doing this because when I'm made the one minute video, a lot of Muslims kind of popped on and they always have the same two or three responses to this where they say, ah, but you see the Bible is corrupted, and the Koran says

it's corrupted. Now, notice that the Koran actually said earlier, right in the previous example, No, no, you have to confirm the new revelation with what was prior. Okay, Torah and Gospel will confirm Quran. We all saw that right. The next one is four forty four. Have you a prophet not seen those who were given a portion of the scriptures? Yet they trade it for misguidance, and you wish to see it you and wish to see you deviate from the right path. Alla knows best who your enemies

are. Ala is sufficient guardian, He is a sufficient helper. Some of the Jews take the words out of context and say we listen and we obey. So notice this is going to be similar to one of the other passages about distorting with their tongues. Right. It doesn't say that the text itself is distorted. It says that some of the Jews, not all of them, some of them took some of the words out of context and said we listen and we obey. And then it goes on to say Allah condemns them

for their disbelief, Oh, you who were given the book. This is all us speaking to Jews. Right, believe in what we have revealed, confirming your own scriptures before you see that there four forty seven. Believe in what we revealed, confirming your own scriptures. You say that. So the very challenge that we keep saying is the challenge in the Quran itself. You can confirm what's in this supposed new revelation with what came before. The next

one is five. Then, in the footsteps of the prophets, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. You see, this one is a kill shot because we have many existing Torahs and gospels prior to the seventh century. What other Torah or Gospel would there be other than the ones that the Christians and the Jews possess. Okay, now, this is saying that Jesus in the first century, excuse me, was

sent by Allah and that he confirmed the Torah. Nothing about the Torah being corrupted, nothing about the Torah being made up, nothing about their being a quote true Torah that only Muslims had access to. Right, that's all the conspiracy stuff that they go to four, which there is absolutely no evidence. We gave Jesus the Gospel containing guidance and light confirming what was in the Torah.

So notice there's a chain of confirmations here. Even the Quran assumes that Jesus confirms the Torah, the Gospel confirms the Torah, and that the Quran will be confirmed via the previous revelation forty seven. Let the people of the Gospel, the Christians, judge what Allah revealed in it in the previous text, the previous texts you see, so five, forty six, and forty seven again very clearly enjoining Christians and Jews. Here are Christians to confirm this

quote new revelation by what came before. Now, the whole point of all this is that the prior revelation does not confirm the Qoran, is totally contrary to it. And we all know this because every time we have a debate with the Muslims, and we've debated all of the top Muslims except for a Hijab who has yet to accept the debate. What do they all say, Ah, But you see, the Koran is what corrects the Gospel in the Torah. But now wait a minute, you just pull debate and switch.

You flipped it on me because the Quran says, I can check this new revelation of the Qoran against the old revelation. And from the perspective of a juror Christian, we are not going to listen to new revelation if it's inconsistent with what came prior. That's why Dounonymy thirteen, did Rymy eighteen Galatians one

all say that the more recent has to be checked against the prior. Now, if you're a Christian, then we, by the way, we automatically out of hand reject all of this because there are no new revelations after the death of the Apostles. But even if there were, it wouldn't work because just like say Mormonism, you would have the same problem here that just as if you talk to Mormons for any spate of time, they will say, ah, you see Joseph Smith is is he's in line with the Bible.

We agree with the Bible. Okay, well, then I'm supposed to judge the new revelations with what came before. Ah. You see, Joseph Smith corrects where the Bible made mistakes. You see, So you see there were errors in the previous revelation. Now you've got to follow the new revelation. But wait a minute. You just said that you're in in continuity with the previous revelation, correct, Okay, Well why would I not reject you if

the previous revelation is inconsistent with the new revelation. Oh you see there's errors in it. Oh where are the errors anywhere? That disagrees with Joseph Smith? So you see the point you see, Oh, this is this is a ridiculous bait and switch. It's preposterous. And again it even says, let the people of the Gospel, the Christians judge what Allah has revealed if

it's consistent with Torah on Gospel. Okay, well it's not. It's very clearly not, because every Muslim, when they encounter the countless passages that deal with the Trinity or the deed of Christ, automatically arbitrarily say, oh, those are all the corrupt ones. Oh okay, So basically we confirm the

Koran with the Bible when the Bible agrees with the Koran. And they don't understand how silly this is the only one that we had so far who could restate the hypothetical a couple of days ago on the live stream, the first one one out of I don't know. It's eight hours of Muslim debates, consistent Muslim callers, and only one of them could restate the hypothetical. And he said, oh, well, you have to interpret all this with the hadiths. Oh so I can't just read the Quran. I got to read

it through the lens of the hadiths. And the hadiths say that the Bible's corrupted. And I said, well, wait a minute, though, would a seventh century Christian or d you hearing this know to interpret it through the hadiths? And he said, yes, eh, not true. The hideth are about three hundred years later, so that's not true. So that was the best answer that they've had so far. But even that was ridiculous because he had to pretend like the hadiths and by the way, what seventh century

christianer are you hearing this? Would be? Like, Oh, so I'm supposed to go check it. Oh but wait a minute, I have to interpret what you just said through these hidiths. I mean, it's just ridiculous. All right, next one, we've got a couple more ten thirty seven. It is not possible that this Quran has been produced by anyone other than Allah. Well, I'm glad that the Koran at least told me that it's not possible, because that means that proves it, right. It's literally not

even possible that anyone else produced it. In fact, it is a confirmation of what came before. It is an explanation of the scriptures that came before. You see that. And then the next verse is kind of funny because it says, oh, if you think we made it up, then produce one sura even like this. That's an that's a kind of funny challenge, right, So like the proof of it is to say, well, just try to make one even like this, Just try to produce one sura even

close to this. You can't even do it. So that's an odd flex, but it's there in the corona. Let's see, I forgot one in six. This one's pretty good too, six one, fourteen. Oh, profit should I seek a judge other than Allah? While he is the one who has revealed for you the book the truth that is perfectly explained those who were given the scriptures Jews and Christians. No, it has been revealed to

you, So do not be one of those in doubt. The word of our Lord has been perfect in truth and justice, and no one can change his words. Now, wait a minute. If Allah revealed the Torah and the Gospel, then how do all these goobers then turn around and say that Allah's words have been perverted in the tour in the Gospel, are not really the words of Allah Allah anymore? Uh oh? No one can change his words, though, But remember there is a revelation in the Torah in the

Gospel that's Allah a Law's word, but it's been perverted and corrupted. But wait a minute, no one can pervert and corrupt Allah's words. You jail silly these people are. This religion is ridiculous. It's literally not even.

What happened was a bunch of Arabs, who many of whom were illiterate, heard a bunch of stories that were partly things like the proto Evangelium of James, the Testament of Abraham, apocryphal texts, Talmuitik texts as is now well known, legends from the Talmud, some elements of the New Testament, some elements of the Bible and the Old Testament, and elements of Nestorian Christianity. As the Cambridge Companion to the Oxford Companion to Islam admits in the origins of

Islam. And if you understand that that's what it is, it then makes perfect sense why, for example, the chron mixes up a bunch of details in multiple Bible stories. It gets it all convoluted. You can tell it's people that we're hearing stories and we're writing it down. They got to confused, for example, thinking that Mary is part of the Trinity, or that Christians worship monks. Very bizarre stuff. And then I think there's six one

point fifty four. We're almost done with these. Additionally, we gave Moses scripture completing the favor upon those who do good, and detailing everything as a guide and a mercy, so perhaps they would be certain of the meeting of their Lord. This is a blessed book that we revealed, follow it and be mindful. So again affirming that the Torah given to Moses was given supposedly

from the same Allah revealing of the Qur'an. And you'll notice that there's no mentions here of the texts that were given to Moses or the original texts being corrupted. That's something that Muslims have used as an argument many centuries later to try to deal with the obvious total inconsistencies between the biblical revelation and the kurn Let's say, I get one more one or two more nine thirty two. They wish to extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will only allow

his light to be perfected to the dismay of the unbelievers. He is the one who sent his messengers with truth and the religion of truth, making it prevail over all others, to the dismay of the polytheists. So this is talking about, all right, the pet the prophets previously, Jesus, Moses,

et cetera. And again it states that the revelation given at that time was correct and was from Allah. Now again, nowhere do we see any mass mentions of it being twisted and corrupted the text itself, the Torah and the Gospel texts, you say, and the couple instances of it being corrupted. It has to do with the way that quote Jews twisted it with and it didn't even say all of it is that some of the Jews twisted it in there with their tongues. Let's see sixty one. This is the last

one. I think. Yeah, they wish to extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Alla will certainly perfect his light, even to the dismay of the unbelievers. Nobody minute. Do I do that one? Yeah? I did that one. Okay, did we do three? Seventy seven and seventy eight? I can't remember if I did that one either. But this is the one that they often reply with as proof that the scriptures are corrupted. But when we read the passage, you'll notice that it doesn't say that at

all if you read the context. Indeed, those who trade Allah's covenant and oaths for a fleeting gain will have no share in the Hereafter Allah will judge, will neither speak to them, nor look at them, nor purify them. On the day of judgment, they will suffer a painful punishment. There are some among them. It doesn't say all the Jews are all the Christians. Some among them who distort the book with rewriting it, No, with

their tongues. So their explanations and interpretations of the text are distortions. To make you think that the distortion is from the book, But it is not what the book says. I kid you not. This is the passage that they all go to to try to say that the Bible and the Torah are corrupted. What does it say right there? It says the book is not corrupted. It says that their explanations of it from their tongues are a distortion. Is that clear to everybody? So that's the full list of the places

in the Kuran. I mean, there might be some more that I'm just not even aware of, but that's the ten or so that I've found so far where we are enjoined to test the new revelation with whether it's in continuity with the Torah and the Gospel. And the assumption of the Koran pretty clearly is that when you go and do this, you will see that we're teaching the same thing. Well, of course it's not the same thing, obviously, but that and if that is the case, that's pretty much an ender

for Islam. I mean, the hold of the revelation rest on this being the case. And if this is not the case, then Islam is not true. So that's why this is such a strong argument. Now we have Jake, if he wants to hop on, you can come on and we'll have a discussion here I know that you were a interested in having a discussions out on Islam. We can go back to Islam after this if he's able to come on and Jake had a discussion with Pagoe. I've not watched this

full. I watched a little bit of it, maybe a few minutes of it, but they can you hear me? Hey, thanks for having me on. Sure, how you doing? How was your pageot talk? I thought it was fun and you tell me. I mean, I've gotten different responses. It was. It was cool, a little unfulfilling, but I haven't I only saw a little bit of like a couple of clips because we just got back from like a two week road trip, so I haven't seen much of it. So Twitter space is audio only, right, I don't

get to just got my camera set up. Okay, you're on my channel, so you can clip this and and do whatever. Okay is this being recorded or yeah, we're alive on YouTube and over here on I'm pretty clueless. So I reached out to you, Jake, because I had, like it had to be like fifty sixty something, like a lot of people saying, hey, you got to talk, You got to talk to Jay Didier

okay. And so you know, because my conversation with Jonathan Joe, the purpose of that conversation, the reason I set up a call, the reason he spoke to me is because I wanted to ask him questions about the work he does with symbolism, you know, that's his thing. And then we get into the call and he mentions Christianity and I couldn't help myself and I was like, you know, do you really believe in that? Can I can I ask you about your views? Can I push you on this a

bit? And I said, you know, Jonathan, I know this is not something that we said we would discuss, but here we are like can I can I go into this? And he said, yeah, go for it for sure? And so that's why we That's how we got into that conversation. And you what, what, I haven't had a chance to look at your chamit. What do you focus on mainly? What's your topics? Yeah, so basically the question I asked him that I want to ask you is I agree with you that there's a lot of value to be gained in

practicing religion. I think we live in a world where it's difficult to create a system of morality and ethics outside of religion, and there's a lot of value to religion. Okay, I think people should practice what they want to practice. That being said, I still think it's appropriate to say, well, hold on a minute, that the stories the Bible actually happened. But again, I want to make it extremely clear to the listeners. I'm not

saying this is so silly, you shouldn't practice religion. I'm saying there's a value to religion, and it's a good question to ask, how do you know the stories happened? And I think you can live with I think you can be someone who practices religion or appreciates religion, but doesn't believe in the you know, the Bible work for where it's so really my question is just how do you know that the Bible, like the stories of the Bible actually

happen. Question. Yeah, that's a fair question. I tend to argue the transcendental argument for God's existence, and so it's kind of like it's a logical argument that's prior to logic at all, or the doing of logic, or any knowledge claims at all, because it deals with the preconditions of knowledge.

So it's it's kind of like I would agree with you that we're not going to settle the issue of like what things are possible or not possible apart from what types of things we think are possible within our worldviews or our paradigm. So ultimately, for me, it's kind of a worldview question where we end up saying, well, the only way that I know what's possible is based on some kind of metaphysical assumption from the outset, and in order to

go about that we end up having to do worldview or transcendental argumentation. So that's kind of debating things that at a fundamental level, And the challenge is this that if the Christian God does not exist, then knowledge, metaphysics, and ethics becomes impossible to justify or make sense of. So I usually flip this argument and say that the way that I know is that without that God, existing knowledge in terms of justified true belief wouldn't really even be possible.

And so God becomes for me, in my argument, the necessary grounding for the possibility of knowledge, logic, ethics at all. That's the transcendental argument, and I think it's the strongest one by the way. I want to the other thing, like I feel like I could have done better. In my conversation with Jonathan Joe is like, I don't I want to concede to as many points as I possibly can, because that way I don't detract. I really have one singular point and I don't want it to get lost.

And I feel like with religious debate and conversation, you know, the arguments often get tangled up because there's so many layers of understanding that we can get to with these conversations. So let me concede as much as I can. You know, you make it so God exists, right, I have no problem with that. Why not so God is? Let's say God is real and you know, and that that explains I think whatever you were saying about,

like the ethics or something. So again, let me ask the question, how do you know that the stories of the Bible actually happened because of the transcendental argument? That's my That's where I start from. So and I don't know if I followed the argument. I think what your argument is saying is like because of some things that we see in the world, like I don't know, like patterns or something that therefore the Bible I'm not following,

like what's the argument. So, the form of the argument is X is a necessary condition of why why Therefore X. The argument in terms of how I explicated is that if God didn't exist, then there would be no way to have justified belief, that is, to wait, a way to ground our knowledge in terms of epistemology. And so because we do have knowledge, or we appear to you know, exchange information and have conversations, and we use language and meaning and numbers in math and all that, uh, then

knowledge appears to exist. And so therefore, in order for knowledge to even be possible requires some kind of ultimate absolute, some kind of ultimate principle, and namely that is the Christian God. So the Christian God does the work of grounding as a kind of in theologies called divine conceptualism. So meaning language, all these things are only possible, and it's in the sense of justifying their existence and their and their jay. Maybe I'm fucking stupid, I'm not

understanding. Let me try to read it back to you and then you so uh So, the essence of what you're saying is like, look, you're not You're not trying to prove the Bible stories being true from first principles saying, Hey, Jake, look, here's the evidence. Here's that it was

true. What you're doing is the reverse, which I think is a reasonable approach to take, right to say, Like, I want to think of an analogy, like if I if I can't prove something like if I, okay, if I find a dead person with a bullet hole in their head and I can't find the gun, I can infer like, hey, this person probably got shot in the head because now there's a bullet hole in my head. Right, so it's possible for us to infer cause the relationships.

So I don't I don't fault you for but but I really, like I don't know if it's because I haven't slept enough. Like so you're saying, can you say your argument in like one sentence? Like, so you you think that the essence of what you're saying is you think the stories of the Bible happened because of some way that they're manifesting themselves in reality. I'm just not clear what what you're really saying, Like, yeah, I mean right.

So again, it's a specific type of logical argument called the transcendental argument for God's existence. Right, Yes, and it posits that before you can even do the type of question that you're asking about about what's possible in terms of miracles or Bible stories or whatever, that there are prior questions that we all have and assumptions about what's possible that have to be debated and discussed first.

So in your worldview, you would, as a skeptic or an atheist or whatever your position is, Agnosta, you would assume that, well, it just doesn't seem like those things are possible. So at the outset, you and I have different accounts of what things are and aren't possible metaphysically speaking. So the point there is just to say that I don't think we do it all. If I told you, hey, man, like my grandma rose from the dead today, you'd be like, nah, man, no,

she did it. Like, let me see eence of that. I would bet that you and I j have the same understanding of what generally is metaphysically possible. Well no, But because my ultimate governing commitment is the Christian paradigm, yours is not. So. No, we have fundamentally different accounts of what things are and are not possible. Would you believe me if I told you? Right, now my grandmother rose from the dead today. No, I would not. Why not because it's very unlikely? Right? Because

why because it violates what you know about physics? Right? No, it's just it wouldn't It wouldn't be likely just given a common sense account of what things typically occur. But your so the whole argument. I think you've missed the entire argument. The argument is not settled by particular claims about this or that event in our lives. It's a question of paradigm's as a whole. And you're reading everything. All the evidence that comes into your brain or whatever,

is read through your worldview, through your paradigm. And so you say, your assumption is that certain things are not possible or very very unlikely, but that that has nothing to do with whether or not you can give an account for these things as a whole. So do you believe that there's objective truths or that knowledge is possible? I don't define those terms. And and by the way, I I don't want to. I'm not trying to. I don't want to, like outright try to refute what you're saying or try

to kind of push you to a corner. I really am genuinely at like trying to understand what I saw. I mean, we've heard, you know, skeptical claims a lot, and I don't. I don't have a problem with you bringing forward sort of the skeptical claim or an argument. But the point is that this is a much deeper issue than whether or not it's possible for something out of the ordinary to happen. So let's say that your grandmother did appear to you know, come back or wake up out of the coffin

or something like that. I mean, you would probably assume that even if that occurred, it wasn't a miracle, it was some sort of like, you know, weird phenomenon that we haven't studied or understood yet or science hasn't given us an answer yet. Right, So, even if someone rose from the debt, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the supernatural is true, even in

your in your in your worldview, right. Uh No, I mean if someone rose from the dead, I would be a believer, man, I would say, Wow, that's pretty good evidence that something's going on here. I would in that instant, I would I would try to find it religious. Well, don't you think that? So there's a lot of claims of this in the world, right, and most skeptics is Mike, Okay, can you hear me? Okay, yeah, I can. It's like good

because I got this like this sure microphone. I don't know if it's coming with the audio on Twitter basis, it doesn't really give me an option like to you sound great to me? So do what you sound great? Yeah? Oh thanks man? You should see Okay. So anyways, so you're saying, so, I mean, there are miracle claims all the time in the world, and most most people do not accept them. They most most of the time they will say, well, there's probably another explanation for that.

And you don't think in the case of your grandmother you would you would look for another explanation. Yeah, So if I saw it, then I would say a lot, it's pretty remarkable. If I told you my grandmother rose from the dead, hopefully you would not believe me. You would say, dude, I don't believe you. That sounds pretty unlikely. Well, that's why, that's precisely why this issue can't be solved on what people's claims are. And it's a yeah, and so that's why it goes to the

paradigm level. That's the whole point of the transcendent argument. So let's look then, you know, I was saying like, oh, I don't understand the transient's argument. Let's drill into the transcendent argument. So I'm going to say what I understand about it, and then maybe you can elaborate a bit and we can have a substand conversation about this argument. So the transidentence argument is an attend from you is that we understand the divinity of the Bible or

of of Christianity based on the causes of that source. So based on it's not the causal argument in reality, So what so I guess what? So, so let's let's just dig into that. So what is it about the world? So the transit argument is prior to the teleological argument, is prior to the causal argument. It's it's before all of those because it's an argument about the possibility of arguing at all. So it's a meta level argument.

Are you familiar with like meta level arugmentation? I just yeah, I just think it's well, maybe you didn't understand it first, because I'm not trying to be rude, but like, let's understand it first. So what is your worldview. First, by the way, I don't know you know what I actually On principle, I'm gonna stay away from many of those terms because I don't think they're helpful in this context. In fact, I think they

detract from the point. I think a big problem with these religious arguments is you have people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson who, because of their own ego primarily are kind of rambling and trying to intertwine these complex terms. I'm going to use as simple terms as possible and as few words as possible to make my points, because I think that is at the crux of a powerful argument, and I can I can very concisely describe how I understand reality without

the use of any of these more complex theories. Right, So, I what do I believe? I believe we live on planet Earth and it is round, and it orbits the Sun. I believe that we have an intact system for discerning truth about What would that be? Yeah? So hold on. So I believe we have an intact system for discerning truth about generally speaking about science and history, and we sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes we fuck it up, and sometimes details are wrong. But you and I both agree.

I don't even have to ask this. You and I both agree that largely speaking, our global societal understanding of history is true, right, neither of you. No, I have no idea what that even means. That's just appeals to generalities that I don't even know what that means. I'll be

very specific, She'll be very specific. Both you and I agree that claims of the fact that the Mayans had a thriving civilization, that there was a Roman empire, that rosen fell, that the Mongolian Empire, that Christopher Columbus sail across the ocean, all of these are historical accounts that we have created as a society and understood. And I'm going to make the bet, and please tell me if I'm wrong that you believe these things that you believe George

Washington was the first president. That you believe Christopher Columbus healthy cross the ocean? Am I correct? Or? Am I incorrect? Yeah? I don't have any significant reasons to doubt those things. So let me respond to this. So the reason you're not downing those things is because, like myself, you agree that through the methods that as a society, as a world,

we've discovered that the Egyptians had pyramids and the minds had a civilization. In Christopher Columbus hilth corossoation, we trust those things because we know we know that we have a great system for understanding historical fact. It's not a perfect system. Now, pretty good. Now, now we come to the problem here, do you were don't? Here's here's the question you were. Don't you believe that we have a really good system? Really, so you're confusing.

So it would help to take an epistemology class, not being a rude person by saying that. But you can assert the things that are commonly held, but that doesn't tell you that you have the right theory of a pistemology or the right theory of knowledge. That's another type of question. So you're confusing the pragmatic account of what most of us believe or what we think by common sense, which is not necessarily wrong. But none of that can tell you

whether you have the right theory of knowledge. But I'm asking a very simple question, do you believe you're You can ask that question, but it's ignoring what I'm raising, which is epistemology and your theory of knowledge. So you can't just keep appealing to commons to consensus, because at the level of epistemic

theory, that's a fallacy. Okay, So I'll grant all that. So here's my question, and it's a yester no question, And if do you, Jane Dare, think that we we meaning America, society, the world, whatever, do we have a system for discerning historical truth that works? Do we have a system that works? It works for certain things, but it can't tell you the right theory of epistemology. That's the point. I feel like invoking these terms is okay. So in other words, you don't

want to go into philosophy because that would be the problem in philosophy. But I want you to answer my question. Do you think we have I'm answering your question, but it's such a low tier type of question that you're not familiar with what epistemic theory is. Do you know what that is? Yes? What is it? What? What? What is your theory of epistemology epistemology is? Are you googling it right now as the notion of truth in terms of epistemic notion? Are you? Did you google it to read it?

I googled it because right, So you kept, so you're not even aware of what the issues are. The question was what is your theory of knowledge? Not do people believe things through common sense and consensus? Do you understand that consensus is a fallacy? Consensus is a fallacy? Sure? Yeah, that that that can be a fallacy if everyone leaves one thing. Okay, So so your epistemic theory was grounded on a fallacy because you said, well, what we know is what we commonly, what we all know,

what american in the world has. I'm asking a question, do you do you think that's a two quote way? What's it? I don't know what the So you don't know what these are, So why are you trying to debate these things? You don't know the basic fallacy and you're pushing back and asking other questions. You know, No, the question was about epistemology, and you're asking me another question, which is a two quote way. So

so I then I apologie is if I if I ignored your question? So what your question that I heard was your questioning me about whether I want to know your theory of knowledge because you said we know, we know, in fact, you said it twice, we know that this is the right approach to how we have knowledge of history, and I'm saying that that is not adequate and doesn't work for grounding your epistemology. That's another type of question that

you can't just appeal to consensus. Yeah, so I don't know that. So let me try to answer question. And have you had a basic philosophy class. I'm not trying to read to you, but I can tell that you haven't. Uh huh, I have you have? But you didn't know what a pistemology was. I don't. I don't know the definition as you're okay, but you would learn that if you had a philosophy class. I had to agree in this. I just haven't. I just don't think it's

relevant of this specific question. So epistemology is not relevant to the question of debate. Okay. It's been a while, so the theory of knowledge? Okay, so now I remember what it been, gotcha? So now I remember what I learned an undergrad about amismology. I am with you. It's an ontology and it's you know all these terms. I just look to be honest, I don't think right. So you're going to go back to appealing to avoiding the question. Right, You're going to go back to appealing to

your basic question. That's your question. Your question is what is epistemology? Wow? No, you said that we have a basic way for discerning truth, and we know, and we know you said it twice, we know we know, right, And I said, how do you know that that's the right criteria for determining truth, that that's the right epistemic criteria? How do I know? But I don't think you want to be asking that question.

And the reason I don't think you want to be asking that question is because if that's a sincere question, then you're calling into then you're calling into question everything we know about reality. You're not even aware of basic of philosophy. Okay, so if you're going to have a debate, you need to know the basic terms democrity, epistemology, the study of epistles. Like that

girl said, I'm mute, dude, memocrity, I'm mute. If you want to support the stream, you can do so via the super chat function. Just hit super chat link that takes you over to stream labs memocerty. Do you not want to talk from a point of view? What's up? Topics today are Islam, Judaism, and I guess atheism. If atheist and agnostics want to come on. If you're not familiar with basics, please don't waste my time. Sneako's Islam, Judaism, Roum, Catholicism, Papacy,

Protestantism, here roots, gnosticism. What's up? Do you hear me? Shame? I do? And good good. So I just wanted to speak to you about something that you talked a lot about a few weeks ago, pertaining to Sneako's like alliance for like the current like distant right wing. And I don't know if it's appropriate today if you want to talk about something else. I mean, the topics are Islam, but is it relevant to that?

Well, I just want to know your opinion about this. I just think that this whole alliance that the right wing, specifically that dissenter right wing, is trying to have with the Islamic community in the West, I just feel like it's kind of like self jeopardizing because I mean, let's just be

honest, what Islam promotes. Even if you talk to like the less radical people in Islam, a lot of the things that they promote and believe in is just completely incompatible with Western thinking and just Christianity in general, and especially makes no sense when when with someone like Nick Fuentes is friends with Sniko despite the fact that he's a Christian. Yeah. I mean we talked about all that at the last dream. So what's the point. What do you want

to get to? Yeah? I just want to know if, if in your mind, would it be in the right interest to try and not on this kind of alliance and instead Yeah, I think it's a waste of time. I don't understand what the people think they're going to get out of that, but I appreciate your comment there, Rowena, what's up? Got on you? Okay? I'm going to jump in and talk about Ireland and where we are in our space because they they played us first, They really played

us first, and neither flooded our country with people. I want to put it that way. But religion is the game that's being played. That's the game of chest here. Okay, right, thank you for that. Memocerty, what's up, hey, jam I need my coffee? Memoker, do you want to talk or not on you? Could you make me a double shot coffee? Thank you appreciate it. I don't understand what why does this

guy keep coping hopping on here. I don't want to talk putting a bunch of a bide in the crap up here, Mario, it's to me, Mario, there we go. What's up, dude, talk uncle with what's on your mind about his alm. I just want to know your view in terms of what do you think it is closer to the Christian view in terms

of view of the word do you think Saclerism or Islam is closer? Because I have the impression that although Islam is quite that, I'm not quite sure anymore if given the current situation of our society, we wouldn't actually be better under some sort of Islamic views of Like, it seems uncertain me that I have today right wing young girls in France, like eighteen nineteen girls posting pictures off in Agia telling well, this is our Christian society against completely covered Islamic

women, And I have a lot of people in the Christian births say yeah, they're right. I'm like, yeah, but I mean, you're not going to get this righteous society with Islam. So I don't know why people think they're going to get that. I mean, Socrates gotta on. Mute un mute Socrates. It's my first time on Twitter spaces, so thanks for bringing me on. I'm actually Jake's friend. I was hoping to hop on to try to help help bridge that. But yeah, okay, so what's

what's uh the epistemic answer? Yeah? So, so you were talking about the transcendental argument, which is that God is necessary to even have a foundation to have some kind of truth or understanding. I've I've heard of that. I've never gone to that argument in detail. I understand. Okay, so what's the answer on a histemology? So so I'm not clear why you would need to have some kind of other entity, So so forget all of that.

He said that he wanted to go with like a common sense approach to epistemology, and I said, how do we know that that's the right criteria truth? Mm hmm, Yeah, I wouldn't. I wouldn't rest on like a common Okay, what would you rest on? I would I would rest on I mean, I guess it depends on how far you're trying to prove.

If you're saying something like history, what happened in history? You could go with what's at the level that's verifiable, right, and so that's why I ultimately, yeah, I was, I was saying, Ultimately, it's not a question of historical claims. It's a question of world views. Yep, yeah for for me. So so for me it's conceivable, like I can imagine a world in which there is no God, but also I can have knowledge. Well, it doesn't really matter whether you can imagine that or

not. What we needed is an argument, Well if if it's if it's possible for that world to exist, then it's not necessary for God to attend. I'm I'm not sure that it is possible. So what what is your account of knowledge? If God doesn't exist? Give me, give me an account of knowledge, like a formal account. I mean, I have like a I. I I believe that I have memories. I believe that I have things that I that I believe to be true. I believe that I

exist. There are things like you know, statements I can make. Are there are there moral absolutes at all? Can we know them? I wouldn't. I wouldn't say that I hold moral absolutes? I guess, so are there any absolutes at all? Are there any absolutes? I mean, I think. I think there's things that are that are defined. So things like logic or arithmetic or parts of math are defined that I think are are simply

true. Okay, and on what basis should we well, on what basis do we believe that those things are simply true given given that they're defined. So if you have anything I defined is true anything under sorry to say it again, So just defining it makes it true. I'm asking what makes it true? Well, it's something isn't X isn't true because X is defined. So you said it's defined. That's what my question was, Why why does that make it true? No, So within a system that's defined, you

can have things that are true. And is that the criteria knowledge? Why why would we accept that as our epistemic criteria? As are as our epistemic criteria. I feel like there's a there's some particular meaning that you have. Yeah, like the criteria problem. You're not very familiar with the criteria problem. No, I'm not from the criteria. You're a philosophy man. You've got a philosopher as your profile picture here, and you're not familiar with David

Chism or Roderic Chism. No, I've never heard that name. Okay, what it's called the criteria problem. So the question is how do we have knowledge without presupposing a criteria of knowledge? And if we said that we have a criteria of knowledge, then we already assume that we have knowledge. So it's it's a classic problem and epistemology. Okay, can you can you give like a little bit of just a sense of what you mean by a criteria

of knowledge? What would be a criteria of knowledge? What what gives us the grounding for true versus false beliefs or propositions? Right? Okay, okay, Okay, so that's that's perfect. So so so let me clarify what I'm about to explain. Isn't the only thing that I consider knowledge but within a subset of things. Okay, But and the question, but you're not

understanding the question because it's prior to you just asserting these things. The question is how do we answering the question is how do we know that that's the case. Well, you haven't heard what I answer was. It's not going to matter what the answers are because you're not answering the criteria question. You're just stating a position. Well, I'm I'm giving. I'm giving a preamble to my answer to the criteria question. Do you know what the preamble or

is it going to tell us why we ought to believe it? Or is it just more assertions? It's it's the opposite of an assertion. It's it's giving you more of an explanation my worldview. The degree to which that is that telling us why we ought to believe it? Or is that just an assertion? It's not an assertion? Okay? So why ought we believe it? Why ought you believe something that isn't an assertion? Your position? Why aren't we believe your position? Stop playing games? Well, would you like

to know my position? Yes? Okay? So my position is that within a system that has definitions, there are things that can be true based on those definitions. Assertion by vaxium one and axiom assertions, assertions, assertions assertions? Where where's the ought why we believe this is the case? You said you weren't going to get just give me assertions. You said you're going to tell me why we ought to believe it? Why ought you believe? Okay?

So taking a pistemology course and stop trying to be a dork and sound like you know it all. Go lord, what's up? I'm mute, go laud, go loud. Do you want to talk or not? Honest? Like? What why do you wait here? If you don't want to come on? Old w old time religion? Oh well, w yo yo? Can you hear me? Can you hear? Yes? Sir? Hello? Yeah? What's up? Man? What's on your mind? Hello? Hello? Alright? So can you hear me? Yes? Sorry sir? All right, sir, I've heard you talk. I hear you breathing a

lot. Okay, awesome, come on, breathe at me, pervert. It's not like a pervert calling a woman is. I'm joking, man, you don't have to run away. Go lord, what's up? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes? Sir? Very sorry about that issues. So I understand this is a little bit outside of the topic today, but it's come up, the epistemic criteria problem. It's been a been talked about a lot. Uh. I was just curious, what, Like, I understand that I have a BA in philosophy, I did not study epmology.

I understand there's like rationalism and skepticism and just broadly those those kind of schools, but I was wondering, like, what's the orthodox answer to that? Because I just obviously I went to a So I have a whole lot of if you want to go watch the fuller podcast that we've done. We've done probably ten podcasts on the Orthodox view of epistemology. We believe in a holistic

view. Right. So the point, the whole point of all this is that philosophy, secular philosophy, atheist philosophy, materialus philosophy is a dead end. It doesn't get anywhere, and it can't even answer the possibility of knowledge at all. So the solution we argue is a revelational epistemology of the entire Christian world being paradigm, which gives an account for how knowledge is even possible. So it's not an argument about this or that specific claim, because it's

about ultimate commitments, ultimate authority, ultimate principles. It's our whole paradigm that's at issue between an atheist and a Christian. So you used right, Okay, So you use tag to establish God's existence, and then from there we have a revelation to carry forward, right, Because it can't just be any God. There sometimes specific content. Yeah, and I think that the Christian deity, and not just a Christian duty, but the entire Christian paradigm actually

answers many of these insoluble classic philosophical dilemmas and problems. Whether it's the criterion problem, or whether it's the problem the one the many, whether it's the question of universals, the debates with the nominalists, whether it's objective ethics, you know, all of these kinds of issues, the problem of an identity over time, whether it's the question of the existence of the self, whether

it's you know, induction. All of those classic philosophical problems aren't problems if the Christian worldview is the case, because we have a basis to believe in the regularity of nature. We have a basis to believe that, you know, man has dignity and ethical norms because he's made in the image of God.

There's duties, man has free will, et cetera. And when we begin to remove those principles, when we throw out things like tellos or causation, et cetera, et cetera, we have worldviews that begin to break down and destroy the possibility of knowledge. And a lot of loadsier people don't understand the difference between you can have knowledge and know things. That's different than giving

an account for and given a justification for that knowledge. Okay, so people think that, well, I know things, and you're saying that if all my agies, I can't know anything good. No, that's not the argument. The arguments that you can't give a justification for the knowledge. Cipher mister Anderson, can you hear me? Yes, sir, Yeah, I think

you're about your kind of answering my question. I was going to ask, but I'll just ask it again anyways, So you seem to believe that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview and that there is some sort of revelation that can happen through the study of some sort of what I'm sorry, let me

let me just restateation nor revelation by studying Christian doctrine. What makes you so sure that studying Christian doctrine doctrine is the only way to get that rather than I don't know a Chic doctrine or whatever, and I'll take my question off. Yeah, No, that's a fair question. We have critiques that are pretty consistent for any kind of unitarian or diadic position or dualistic or Astrian type of position. Platonism is a type of a dualistic position. You could even

argue Aristilianism ends up in a kind of diad dualist position. Those positions are so metaphysically deficient that they break down at a very basic level and also make knowledge impossible. So the rest of the argument. If you watch the talk that I did, for example, critiquing doctor ed Faser, I just posted a video I think on my timeline here on Twitter about why the Trinity is necessary. That's a specific, unique type of Christian metaphysic. When we get

to the Trinity, the auction of creation, x Nilo, etcetera. All of those things are also part of solving or answering this dilemma or the dilemmas in the history of philosophy. So yes, Platonism unitarianism also failed to achieve that. OLW Trevor, do you want to on? If I'm a nitwit, you should be able to call in. There's the link right there. Jethro put the link for you, so feel free to call in. WELW want to try again? Sorry? Is my technical issue fixed? I can

hear you? Can you hear me? Uh? Yeah? So I just want it's first quote, what your problem is with classical foundationalism and the Roman Catholic approach to apologetics. I mean, I probably covered it one hundred times, so if you want a fuller treatment, you can watch one hundred of the different critiques we've done. But I mean, classical foundationalism is a position

that's self defeating, it's contradictory, it's inconsistent. It posits things, for example, self evident truths, and then it will oftentimes appeal to other things to back up self evident truths, which means that they're not self evident, which means that it's circular, which is the very thing that foundationalism rejects. It's not sufficient in terms of answering the post Enlightenment challenges to foundationalism. It just reasserts itself over and over and over as if there's no problem or no

issue. So it can't really address skepticism. It can't address the criterion problem of Chisholm that we just referenced about twenty minutes ago. Okay, So then I would ask, like, how does the Transcendental document specifically like get to the Orthodox gods and not absolute divine simplicity that I'm a Roman Catholic. I believe in Well, the absolute divind simplicity is anti trinitarian first of all, so like it not consistent with the trinity. So why would you believe in

absolute devind simplicity if you want to be a trinitarian. No, because you can't make distinctions within God. You can't make that as sense energy distinction. Well, that's cool assertion. But if you can't, if you can't make distinctions in God, then there's not three persons I read recently. Oh, you're read since energy distinction was made in you didn't even you didn't. That's a really good argument. Have you? Have you read basil is He in

the fourteenth century? All right? So letter two thirty four is that? Is that the fourteenth century text? Right? So why are you trying to argue stuff you have no idea about? Honeybo un mute? Hello, hey Jay? My question if you posted that presupposing an entire ideological paradigm is the only way to make sense of the world, isn't that in itself roots and in assertions? No, it's it's explaining what we all do. So you could theoretically disagree with that, but you would be I think in a tougher

position trying to explain that we the humans don't do that. I mean, you would be basically back at kind of a foundationalist or an evidentialist position, And so then I would just level the critiques of self evidence and foundationalism. But how is that not an assertion? It's part of an argument. But that's assertive as well, right, Yeah, I'm not critique. I'm not saying that the previous guy can't assert, but he never told us why we

ought to believe that. Rather than just asserting it, I don't just make assertions. I also tell you why you ought to believe it. Yeah, but what you ought to believe you do on the basis of the criteria that come from the ideological paradigm that you presupposed. Yeah, but that's why it's a holistic comparison to paradigms. You can't escape that. Everybody's in that boat. I don't know that sounds like assertions to me, but I think so

again, you didn't understand anything I said. Why did you leave? Are you there? Yeah? But I mean you don't understand the difference between an assertion and why you ought to believe it. I don't know exactly right. So again, maybe you guys should learn like some of the basics. But you guys, you guys are gonna come and have these arguments and argue with me and voice these challenges. It's like, dude, take go spend I don't know, put the fucking video games down and watch an epistemology course or

something. Rolex, Rolex, I'm mute. Hey. So my question for you, Jay is specifically on Islam. So I was watching some Christian apologetics debate with Muslims, particularly the one with a rule on speakers corner, a rule from speakers corner. I don't know what that is or who that is anyway, go ahead, okay. So I noticed a lot of his argumentation

is based on how Mohammad himself is a fictional character. So I found this interesting because from my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he was a historical character. Like according to like scholars, like you know, doctor Michael Penn, he in fact was inspired by you know, Orthodox Christianity, which makes sense at the time. You know, is Mohammed, Yeah, No, he's inspired by Nestorian Christianity. According to like Oxford companion

Okay, John Damascus says that too. If I recall, Pelican says that too. I see, because I thought the way that they, you know, prostrate and like the praying seven times or five times a day was taken from early Christianity at the time. Yeah, No, Storian Christianity and influenced Mohammad pretty clearly. And I'm sure that they were doing a lot of those practices in the in the Church of the East and the fourth and or excuse

me, in the in the seventh century. I see. So I guess my question is that, you know, do you think he is a historical record? I think you answered that already, And man, I don't. I don't. A lot a lot of people want to have these like Jesus never existed, Moses never existed, Muhammad never existed. I don't. I don't really even get into all of these historical evidentialist debates. You'll notice that almost everybody wants to keep things at the level of debating unverifiable historical things.

So I don't. I just don't even worry with that because almost everything that I ever do, whether it's debating Muslims or atheist or Roman Catholics, it's systemic apologetics. I focus on systems and whether there are fundamental flaws and contradictory things at the base root programming of the system. If the systems fall apart, then I don't care about anything else, and nothing else in that system matters. It won't matter historically because the systems is false. And that's why

system level apologetics. System level argumentation is so much stronger and so much more forceful than getting into all of these disputes where people say, well, this group claims this miracle, and this group claims this in history, and what about this claim and that claim? And it's a never ending spiral and cycle of claims. And I'm not saying that evidences don't matter. It's just that

they have a place and ultimately what we find out. And I think if you argue and debate for twenty plus years, you start to realize that everybody interprets their information and their evidence is on the basis of the paradigm. So ultimately it's always just about what our conflicting paradigms are. That's why I always focus on that. So I don't have any I mean, is it possible

that Muhammad didn't exist? Yeah, I just I guess that's possible. Maybe he's a conglomerate, maybe he's a bunch of different sectarian group people coming together, or maybe he was just a dude that flopped over and was possessed, as though some of the Hadiths say he thought he was possessed. I see no, Thank you so much, Jake. And the last thing I want to ask you was, would you ever go on like George Jenko's show here?

He's been doing a lot of Christian content and I think, I mean, I don't, I don't know who that is, but who is he? He's one of those guys that was with Logan Paul for a long time, but he has that platform for like Christian speakers. I think Cliff was on his podcast recently. And yeah, I mean, I'm pretty I'm pretty open to I mean, I don't usually turn down podcasts unless they're just really weird, bizarre, creepy or whatever. So I'm usually pretty open to that.

So I'll have to look into who he is. That boy, what's up, dude, there's a zillion podcast I can't keep up with everybody. I don't know who all the people are. That boy got on. I'm you man, what's up? Thank you guys for the super chats. We've got a nice thousand here. Alo. What's up man? Hey, it was up. I'm sorry. Pastor Randy Balls, how are you doing? What's on your mind? All those videos to my buddies, man, thank

you they're great. Yeah. Hey, well, uh yeah, my wife and I have been attending Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox church near US for a few months now, and uh yeah, yeah it's been great. At first I was the one that was kind of like going headstrong in it, and now my wife has kind of gotten on board. And uh, I guess as time has gone on, I started wrestling with and I also I grew

up nominal became more reformed as I got older. But now I find myself wrestling with the uh soteriology, Okay, because sola fide was one of those things that as a Protestant, as a reformed guy, that was something that was like a great comfort. And I feel like to a lot of Protestants that look at Orthodoxy, that's something that they wrestle with because they're comfort in

solo fete. And so I'm just curious, like, how do Orthodox Christians have any sort of comfort and when they consider the end of their life, what does that look like, because it doesn't seem like there's something tangible to do that with. I mean, the purpose of the sacraments is to give us comfort and to give us assurance, like you know, the absolution and communion are means of that assurance of being in continual communion. So that's the

purpose of those things. But I mean, even if you're a Protestant and you admit the possibility of self deception, which every Protestant I'm aware of believes that even if you believe in quote once they'd always saved an assurance of salvation, like I mean, you you still they they will still typically admit the possibility of being self deceived. And so there's not you're not really even in any better boat if you accept the Protestant doctrine of assurance of self. So

yeah, that's fair, that's fair. So I guess there's a lot of clarity. Well, I don't want to say clarity. There's a lot of presumed clarity in the Protestant Reformed world about you know, what happens when you die. And then from what I've talked to the priest at the parish, I've been attending, you know, the the afterlife and what happens it's it seems kind of unclear, and I guess in a way that's kind of fair that it should be maybe unclear what happens. I think the Orthodox Church has

a pretty fairly clear doctrine of the intermediate state. I mean, you could read The Soul after Death by Father Sara from Rose, which is a pretty good book on that. Roger Hass, what's up, dude, But thank

you for that question. Hey, hey, so one question is when you talk about, uh, what was it transit the transcendental argument, would that fall under presuppositional apologetics corre Okay, okay, So that's just one question, just trying to get some categories worked up and then being a Protestant when so there, when it comes to sociology, specifically Calvinism, when you look at the so there's you know, one thing we could do is look at the

biblical texts that speak to it, and there will be versus that Protestants will interpret or understand in this way and the Orthodox will interpret or understand it in another way. But but just from a from a more of a practical standpoint of of how it how it works out in the life of a believer.

Uh, what are the things that that like that jump out to you just like there's kind of like an Orthodox he has like a centi largical architecture, and the Calvinism has this this architecture and you kind of interact with it in

a certain way as you go throughout your life. What are the what are the things from a practical standpoint that you that that jump out at you as the biggest differences or or and there may be so many of them, but even just just as a just as a way to interact around that subject, like even just one or two of the things that that you look at as an Orthodox person and say, well this, this wouldn't work because or this

I struggle with even understanding Calvinism because of this, or or how they would work this out? Or do you do you do? You know what I mean? I'm a little lost. Are you just saying, like, can can you summarize what those questions? Okay? So like I could say, what is like what do you disagree with about Calvinism? I mean you could answer it, well, you know, the church fathers just disagree with it,

and that's it. Or I don't. I don't. That's not how I. I don't usually say, oh the church fathers disagree, I mean, I give well, I don't. I don't. I don't. I've not listened to I appreciate you and I and I've been tuning in more and more, but I don't have a a deep bank of episodes that I've listened to to that I can go back to about how you would respond to. Right well, let me just say, let me just say, I got you. Yeah, So right now I got pulled up to really good talks

that we did. One is a little briefer. It's an hour talk that we did called the Air of Calvinism and Protestantism. That's a one hour podcast where I laid out those issues. Then there above that is a part one of a two part three hour, four hour talk on the fuller critique of Calvinism. So check out these podcasts if you're watching on YouTube. They're right here Calvinism Refuted and then the Transfigured Life podcast where we got into critiquing it

there. So there's two parts of that first one hence the number one, and then there's a one hour one here. So those are good places to start. I also did another critique with Cotel right here Calvinism refuted JDR Hotel. This is another two and a half hour talk. This one goes beyond just materiology and Christology. But ultimately the big issue I think that seals the deal against Calvinism is Christology, because if Calvinism fails in terms of Christology,

it's over right. So I'm always searching for like the most systemic level destructive argument, and I think for Calvinism it's Christology because if we're if we're basically saying that the sun is damned and we're having to posit, what would amount to anti trinitarian stuff? I mean, this is ridiculous. By the way, So we got people over here in the YouTube chat. I don't know where that guy what they got whining the whole time for like an hour.

Dude, come in debate, Like why are you sitting here whining in the chat? Informed consent? Come debate, rumman, cavolxs where you guys at come debate. The link is in the show description. It's a Twitter X space you call in. Every time we do this, people are mystified, like they have no idea. What do you call in what is Twitter? Like nobody, We've been on this for like eight years. What do you guys do it? Like? Where you guys been? It's like the boomers

that would be like, what's a live stream? Where you got my minutes and music? I'm a little sassy today, Dimitrio's make it quick. I gotta go t T to a little girl's room here in a second. I'm your king LSR. What's up dude? Hello, Yes, sir, I had a follow up question because I know that guy was unaware of the letter two thirty four Saint Basil in my I'm sort of in a weird spot right now between Catholicism and Orthodoxy because like half the Orthodox positions to me makes sense

half the Catholic positions. So it's a weird spot. But I want to ask, I've been in that spot, so yeah, so especially the philosophical ones, like that's why I call himself a business team counts, like because the Philosophy foundation wasn't that that totally makes sense to near with the dux side. But like, well, let me say first of all, what I would recommend to you and to that guy if you go over here to my

YouTube channel on the very bottom you'll see, uh the metaphysics talks. But in that list of talks if you click on it, I lecture through the entirety of John Damascus is on the Orthodox Faith. Okay, John Damascus, especially in book three, he really utilizes the essence sentergy distinction most clearly in Christology. Okay, two wills and two energies in christ presupposes and is predicated on the essenceentergy distinction. For Christology. You can't have a correct Christology without

the essen sentergy distinction. That six Council actually affirms this explicitly. So when John Damascus is writing on the Orthodox Faith, he's looking back on the Sixth Council and it's essence synergy distinction argument. Take in Christology from Saint Maximus against

Piros, and he cites it multiple times, especially book three. So this is ultimately it's just absurd to argue that it's stupid to argue that the assen sentari stinction is invented in the fourteenth century when it's the basis of the Six councils ugmentation. Yeah, because that's that's the kind of thing I've been running into before I get to my actual letter, my actual question at letter two

thirty four. I'll make it brief, but that's what I'm running into, is the idea that well Mark of emphasis agreed when they were like when they speak about the essence energy distinction, that he basically says to the lens. Yet we're in agreement there, but it's really the filioqui that they depart. He doesn't agree that, No, he doesn't. That's not true. Yeah, it might be just something I read. There's a theory that you know, neo Palmanism is not even what Paul must believe. You know, I'm

sure you're aware of this. I mean, doctor ticon Pino just put out his PhD thesis on this topic. Everybody in the Orthodox world has read it. I mean, yeah, that's a separate thing. But in wow, is it a separate thing when that's it's on that very issue? What do you mean? No, I mean, it's kept to my question on two

thirty Oh, okay, go ahead, Yeah. Yeah. So, uh so two thirty four seems like strong evidence because not only does Saint Basil says to say, you know, in the first paragraph speak about the actual essence an interestinction, he goes on to say that if one considers this two we actually I can find the quote. It's not it's not even just letter two thirty four. That's just a very clear statement of it. Okay. So

I mean it's if you read all the Holy Spirit. The argument that he makes is that the Holy Spirit has the same energy as the Father and the Son, and energy signifies nature. Therefore he has the same nature. It's like literally the whole argument of on the Holy Spirit by Basil. If you read if you, if you read hold on, if you read against You, excuse me. If you read against Unomius by Basil, he makes arguments on the basis of the energies of the Spirit. If you read against You

Unomius by Sant gregan Nissa. He also argues many many times in the book. It's like eight hundred pages on the essence inary distinction basis. So anybody familiar with the Cappadocians and who has reading comprehension, has read the context. I'm not talking about you, it's about the Roman Catholics. They would know that the whole locus of the argumentation is literally premise on the essencenary sinction.

It's stupid. In fact, Saint Cyril says in the Two Letters Toistic Census, he argues the essence inary distinction there to explain the Eucharist, Like, what are you eating in the Eucharist if it's not the body, blood, sohole and uncreated energy that's present there. Okay, So Romancalitics believe in the real presence. They don't believe it's the essence of God. They don't believe that it's They probably are going to argue that it's a created accident or a

supernatural created substance, whatever route they want to go. It doesn't matter because ephesis has already settled that it's the uncreated energies. Saint Cyril argues consistently that it's the energies that deify the human nature of Christ, the same energies that deify the Eucharist. How could that be if there's no essence initistinction. And if you read the debate between Palamas and barleyon, the whole debate shifts to

what are we participating in? And that's a much easier way to refute this. Because Roman Catholics can talk all day long about formal distinctions and scodism and this and that, Okay, let's set all that aside, and what are we participating in because if it's an uncreated light that we're taking up, or is it a created light? And by the way, the easiest way to refute this is if you go through my Theophanes lecture. This is my new

way to approach this whole question. The Theophanes, clear as day, especially in Leviticus, say that it's the glory of God that's present in those manifestations. Well, that's not a creature. Unless a ro Macalochys wonist say that's a creature. This undoes their whole ads doctrine. Yeah, I am familiar with the sort of Franciscan halfway of participation. But I see what you mean.

Okay, but what are the Theophanies? Yeah, I see what you mean, because if if if one were to posit that, yeah, look at the strongest case in that because they have to be completely God without being as essence exactly. Yeah, and it multiple times over, especially in leveticas it says the glory of the Lord appeared to all of Israel when the when the cloud comes down. Okay, is that a creature? Is God's glory

a creature? God says he doesn't give his glory to creatures, right, so I guess and no, and no Roman Calolk, by the way, believes that it's the essence of God. No, yeah, that's true. Uh well, I guess my what tends to happen with these patristics is, and I will check what you've referenced beyond what I've already read. But what tends to happen these patristics is one will attempt to read like, say, it's letter two thirty four in the light of ads and say, yeah,

that's what Taylor Marshall did ten years ago. Yeah. Oh, I'm not even a ware that he commented on this, but yeah, so he So one would try to read it in the sense that you know, this is speaking of this is how we know God. So it's simply an act of the intellect. You see what I mean? Right? But see, the argument that's made is that, especially the Cappadocians and Impelmas later on argues that the same distinction between the persons is the same distinction, but the level of

distinction is the same as between the persons and the essence center distinction. Yeah, that's that's because usually the report that I see made is that well, we can make real distinctions between the persons because we affirm that each of the persons are identical to the essence, whereas with the essen Centergy distinction, we're saying that it is really distinct. So how is there not a higher divinity

that both are identical to you? See what I mean? It's literally no different than the doctrine of hypo in hypostasis, which is that the divine essence

in endwells each of the persons fully. So if you say that parachorsis and that the divine nature exists in the mode of the persons that have it in the trinity, it's identical to the same position of saying that God is fully present in every one of his operations, and his operations are really distinct, So that there's literally no difference in the metaphysical toolkit and explanation that's used. And by the way, that terminology again is not even the terminology of the

Fifth and sixth Council. If you look at the Fifth Council when it argues about in hypostasis, it uses the notion of the divine essence being fully present in each person without diminution separation or division. And so the same argument and principle is applied in the medieval disputes, in the Byzantine disputes with the energies.

So just as the divine essence can be fully present in each of the persons without diminuition, division or separation or hierarchy, as you said, so likewise God can be fully present in every one of his energies without separation, dimunition, or division. That's why even Maximus makes this argument about the energies where he said that he says God is indivisibly divided amongst his infinite energies.

This is a famous Maximus quote on the energy. So I wasn't even speaking in the case of hierarchy in the sense that the essence is the higher divinity. What I meant is that I see the argument brought up which I can't really answer, and that's why I'm in a weird spot. Is that if the essence is God and the energy is God, do they necessarily positive divinity that they both possess that are not identical to either. And the same way that you know, Father is the essence, the Spirit is the essence,

the Son is the essence, but they're not each other. Stated again, what's the question? Sorry? So what I mean is that the essence we would agree that the essence is God, and so are his energies correct, yes, but they're distinct from each other. So in the way in the in the ADS system, how the oneness of God is maintained with the persons is that they're each identical to his essence, yet not identical to each other.

So if the issue with the essence energy distinction that I'm troubling to go through is the fact that if God's energy is not his essence, there's a real distinction, as you put it, as real as the persons. What is the divinity that both the energy and the essence share you know what I mean, or not even share, but both can be identified with. Well,

the energy is manifest and proceed from the essence. So as Bezil says, for example, again going back to his proof for the full deity of the person's spirit, he argues, that energy signifies essence, so it proceeds from that essence. But that doesn't mean essence act. It's persons that act. Persons with natures act to do this or that thing. So maybe the confusion is coming with the Roman Catholic idea that person is identical to nature.

We don't believe that exactly. John Damascus says that the root of all heresies is to confuse nature in person. So the distinction here is again we would actually argue another type of distinction and say, yeah, actually nature and person are really distinct, as are the persons amongst themselves, as is the as are the energies from the essence. All of those are quote real distinctions for us. They're all that they're all the same. You wouldn't say that the

sun is the same thing as the divine essence. Well, again, there's there's an is a predication, and it is of identity. So the son has the divine essence because he receives it from the Father. But no, we do not reduce. This is a reductionist, modalist move to reduce person and nature. It's just another it's just another mistake of absolute divine simplicity.

And let me show you how that's an impossible position. If God is reducible too, if the persons are reducible, too identical to the essence in a strict identitarian sense, then how do you have one hypostasis entering into time and space and the other two not. Yeah, that the incarnation always seemed puzzling exactly because an absolute divine simplicity being who is pure act, reduced to his own essence as pure act, cannot be incarnate in time and space in one

mode, in one person where the other two persons are not. It undoes the incarnation. That's why in the Suma, Thomas says that we have to predicate that any of the persons could have become incarnate. Correct, And that's false, that's totally that's absolutely against orthodoxy because Jesus says that no one has

seen the Father at any time. If no one has seen the Father at any time, who are all these theophanies throughout the old So in other words, we're just totally divorced from the Hebrew Bible, which is the crazy part. Well, well, I think he's saying could not necessarily have, but I don't see how. No, no, no, no. But again, the argument, if you read John five through nine, the argument Jesus makes is that no one ever can see the Father. The Father doesn't become

incarnate. So who was Moses talking to on Mount Sini? Nexcess thirty three, who is Abraham eating a meal with right And Jesus says in John eight that I was there with Abraham. Oh no, yeah, I hold that right. The was the Christ he cannot hold up. Yeah, yeah,

so I think. But if you want a specific text, I think probably the best at this point on that issue would be the I mean, you could read Penos text, it's pretty complicated, but actually the Palamite Synods have been translated by Norman Russell uh and I just finished reading all four of those

a couple of months ago. That's a good thing to read. I would read John Damascus is on the Orthodox Faith, particularly book three, because you'll notice if you read book one on the Orthodox Faith he does positive usen sentergy sinction, but he actually in book three, when he gets to Christology, he lets the rubber hit the road by applying the energies in a very precise, much clearer way in Christology than what we see just in talking about the

trinity in chapter one. So book three is really key, particularly chapter fifteen, because if you read book three fifteen, that's literally where he starts talking about the energies in Christ. He talks about even the dif cation of the flesh of Christ via his uncreated immortal life. Well, now what is that? That's not the divine essence? What is it? Now? I've also, in many, many times on Twitter put up the quotes from Aquinas. Where have you seen? I think it's Dave Veritati is the work, but

it's in the Ralph mcinnery collection of Tomistic stuff. Have you seen where Aquinas deals with John Damascus's essence indistinction and rejects it. I think I'm familiar when he says we have to take he posits a heat. Right afterwards into the objection, he posits some that we have. I think Augustin was clearer on this. Something along the Well, do you know who he cites? No, probably he cites Mymones. Yeah, he said. He says as as

a rabbi. Moses says God can't have real distinctions because that would mean that God has accidents. Okay, but you see energies and energies are not acts. But that's relevant because he's explicitly arguing and rejecting John Damascus's essence intistinction. That means us that lets us know that Aquinas understands John Damascus to be teaching

the essenceistinction and that he rejects it. So every time a Roman Catholic goes and tries to re reword John Damascus as if he's teaching some sort of only conceptual distinction for the energies as preposterous. By the way, how do you participate in a conception to be deified? Is it new conceptions deifias? Or does it? Is it the uncreated glory of John seventeen that Jesus came to

bring. Yeah, I mean to be frank with you, when I I, mostly through Jonathan Pejo, was very close to converting to Orthodoxy because it made more intrinsic sense in like I thought the essence energy distinction was. I was like, oh, this is a really cool position because it's it separates

the quote unquote monotheistic fates. You know, yeah, right. But but then what I ran into is I just couldn't respond to the you know, the polytheism, those kinds of objections, and I'm you know, I'm like, well, maybe this couldn't been the faith of the Apostles because it was YadA YadA, Yada's Well, if you read if you read Bradshaw's book Arisol

East and West. The first three chapters deals with this notion of what the Cappadocians considered divine simplicity to be, and they don't first and foremost start with the Plutinian Augustinian Originist definition of simplicity. So if you read Platinis Origin and First Principles Book one in Augustine, they all have a very platonic neoplatonic definition of what simplicity is and must be. And for them, it's pretty it's pretty much cash out as no distinctions. So it's an absolute unity with no

distinctions. That's not that's not the move that the Cappadocians make when they argue the triad and why it's not three gods. For them, the first principle is that God is not acted upon. God acts, but is not acted upon, and then they move to things like that he's not composed, he's not in time and space in his essence, he's not changeable or passable, right, And they do that because they argue that no triad is how we begin with God. We don't begin with the order of theology from the divine

essence. We begin with the person of the Father and the three the two that come from the Father, and that it's revealed that he is one. Right, So we don't begin with essence. We begin with the Father. The Father is the source of unity, not the divine essence itself. We don't know the divine essence, right, So that God is one, well, that God is one is revealed to us through there being one Father. That's why the creed actually starts with unity in the person of the Father,

not the divine essence. We believe in one God, the divine Essence. No, exactly. So it's monarchical trinitarianism. And if you follow through consistently, if you watch doctor bo Brandson's lectures on an article tranitarianism from the Capitocians, it will lead you to the essen centeris stinction because it's not premised on assuming a metaphysical simplicity that we then have to figure out how there's distinctions in.

It starts with the person of the Father as the principle of unity, as the capit Doocians say, and then it moves to the triad revealed via the energies. So it's a totally different order of theology. Yeah, I see what you mean. It's almost like because it's almost like you're speaking of Plato's divine architect and then seeing how there can be the Trinity with you.

Now, that's literally where so when Platonis defines simplicity, and it's the same literally, the same definition used by Origin and First Principles and by Augustine and on the Trinity, and also in Confessions, it's literally that it's the Platonic idea of what simplicity is. And that's not what the capd Doceians do.

They don't say if you read the Rodi Galwitz thesis, which I did a whole lecture on Raetagalwitz basically just goes through all the church fathers prior to the Cappadocians and then focuses mainly on Basil and Basil's idea of simplicity, and he points out that like the it's it's the essence center. Distinction is the only way to know God in Basil. And would you chalk that up to the historicity being that Christianity was more, you know, aboriginal to the Greek world.

Whereas Augustin himself even admits that when he reconcile Neoplatonism with Christianity, that's when he converted. I think that's part of the picture. But I actually think that, as doctor Bradshaw argues in his in his article and essays, no, it's actually Hebrew. The Orthodox position is faithful to the Hebrew revelation because the acids entergy sinction a lah, doctor Bradshaw, is what's in Exodus.

No, no, no, that's what I mean. I just mean that Christianity, like literally through Paul, moved to the Greek world, whereas the more western world of you know what what at that time was Roman, France and Italy. Oh, I see you're saying, yeah, yeah. Bradshaw has a good point on this where he argues that in Greek there was actually more terminology and toolkit to make the distinction between essence energy and that in Latin they don't even have that toolkit, so it didn't make sense to them.

Yeah. All right, Well, I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I'll definitely No, those are great questions. Yeah, definitely check out those things that I mentioned there to appreciate those questions. There. Let's see, welcome father Deacon. Let's see, so it's an open discussion. We got an atheist coming on, Father deacon or either I'm mute FDA area there can you I mute Hello. I can't hear anybody

so far. I'm gonna have to go to the little girls room. So if you would just everybody hold on a second, I'll be right back. Do watch this wonderful, beautiful ad that I have for you, guys, and that is our show sponsor. That is the Bazed Awesome company that you see me wearing here across my chest. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af,

There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad mode stands out from the crowd

by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine

made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose.

Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy, alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant

in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a limited time massive discount, Elevate your workouts and supercharge. Um. It was the best one

ever, okay, And a lot of the talks are about this. In fact, I think the star of the conference was doctor Nathan Jacobs, who's written with doctor David and he basically gave a whole breakdown of where Western or where the West went wrong with their theology. Started with Augustine. We went into the christophany, everything you were saying, and he went into essence,

energies, distinction. How this resolved the problem. What was really amazing about what he did is everything that we've been saying for years, and these are difficult concepts, he just broke down layer by layer and a really approachable way of you know, why did they come up with created grace? What happened tying into Greek philosophy? Why did they come up with this Augustinian divine simplicity? And what kind of impact that had, and then ultimately tied it into

why is their notion of anthropology's faulty? Good? Yeah, the thoryology everything, like the whole history of the collapse of Western theology and its problems in Rome. He just went through the whole historical in philosophical analysis of in a way that people who had never even heard of it got it. Yeah. I mean, let's just look at how removed from the actual text that system

is. Right, Aaron lifted his hands towards the people and blessed them, and came down from the offering of the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offering. Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle meeting and came out and blessed the people. Then the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering on the altar. Then all the people saw it, and they shouted,

and they fell prostrate on their faces. So notice in this text very clearly that the theophany here is called the Glory of the Lord. So it's not created and no Roman Catholic believes that the divine essence is in time and space, and they don't believe that it's created. This is an ender for that

whole stupid position. And as I said a thousand times, and as that guy that was just on here realized if you heard him say it, like, if you have a problem with this with the Theophanes and the Old Testament, then doesn't it stand the reason that you're also going to have a problem with the incarnation because it's just another type of theophany. It's one hypostasis in time and space. The other two hypostaces are not in time and space.

And so this whole absolute divine simplicity, reducing God to his essence and to pure act literally makes this impossible. When they reject the position of God in time and space or the uncreated in time and space like this, they don't even realize they're undercutting their own incarnation position. So it's stupid what we brought

up to. So during Q and A, after he explained this, I went up because we had two philosophers that were able to talk about this, and and the Q and A were able to draw a connection to this is precisely because the Muslims are stuck in the same paradigm. Yeah, that they end up basically saying, why do they have a problem with the incarnation? God can't enter into space and time, he can't be and so that was

an interesting Yeah, they're more consistent if God. If God is an absolutely simple essence and he's reduced to that, then an absolutely simple essence doesn't come in the time of space. And Muslims are more consistent than Tonus. Yeah, great point. Also another great point too, is it destroys the notion of the trinity too, because we went into a discussion about and you see this in the Reformers, because there was also a critique of Calvins Wingley and

all these guys at Athos. They don't have the monarchy of the father right, and so they actually have to say that essence is Yes, so detached essence apart from person is the cause of the persons. I actually, yeah,

you'll love this. But the Deacon, because I just read in this Uh So we were on a two week road trip and I got the chance to read probably three fourths of this book The Cambridge Companion to Western Mysticism and Esotericism, and a couple of chapters dealt with medieval Latin mystics, and I didn't actually think it was going to be that interesting. I thought it was

gonna be kind of weird and boring. But no, it's actually very relevant to illustrating this very issue that medieval Roman Catholicism was constantly struggling between, on the one hand, their mystics and the pension that the mystics had for quote, union with God and then being condemned by the Church because of a positing a quote a real union. And I'm not saying those mystics were Orthodox, but they were actually hitting at one of the points that an absolutely simple essence

can't give, which is real participation. So the mystics were critiquing the scholastics and reacting against it, but that what they were searching for is what orthodox he had. I'm not saying they actually had it, but they were looking for something that was a problem because it's like, well, wait, a minutef God's is absolutely simple essence. I can't be united to him. I can only be united to him by analogy or by a participation in some creature

that's analogous to him, created grace or whatever. And so what happened is the medieval mystics in the Latin Church tended towards pantheism, ecstasy, henosis, and the notion of a flight of the soul away from the body, towards Neoplatonian union, right, so they had to constantly they were going back. It's dialectics what I'm saying. You either get this pantheistic emerging into God with meister Eckhart. Who are the medieval mystics here to talk about this a Regina,

Meister Eckhart, Jean Garson, Nicholas of Cusa. These are all mystics who are unsatisfied with scholasticism. And while they're not getting the essence indistinction part right, they're looking for a real union that the created grace doesn't give them. Isn't that interesting? Yeah, we just discussed that too. It's like for the West, that's the only way you can go h dialectics. And

not only that too. What was really interesting, it was incredible all the haters, right, all the people pushing Penal's substitutionary atonement are stinning original sin. I mean, we covered it all like I would have been great for

them to hear. And why Augustine in the West all the way going through even medieval times and Scholasticism couldn't get the whole will and like this back and forth between Pelagian it's like, well, Augustine's wrong on this, but if you try to correct now, all of a sudden you're a Pelagian, right.

And they had no kind of paradigm to resolve these problems. The entire history of the West is just going back and forth, falling into either one of these kind of dialectics, like you said, with either this kind of the mysticism and kind of collapsing intomonism, or or dealing with uh ceteria. Sorry,