In that position if you stress and only believe in transcendence. The Orthodox view following Hebrew Revelation does not believe that God is only transcendent. He is also imminent, and there is analogical predication. Analogy means that you can predicate on the basis of similarity, not a one to one correspondence similarity, but there's also dissimilarity. But we believe that God can condescend to speak to us, to make things clear to us.
So we don't have a problem with anthropomorphic language, and we don't have a problem with Theophanes. They think the two go together. But for the text that you're asking for. In Philippians Too, Paul says that Christ, who is and has the form of God equal to God Philippians Too, made himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a bond servant, meaning the form of humanity, coming in the likeness of men. He humbled himself and became obedient
to the point of death. Deathn't across, so he didn't surrender his divinity. It's a both and and not in either or, So there's no contradiction between the divine nature and the human nature. God is not opposite the world. God created the world, and he created the world and mankind in his image, in his likeness. Even the Quran says Adam was made in the image and likeness of Allah. Well, wait a minute, I thought, there's no likeness at all
to Allah. You see. So both Judaism and Islam have this principle in their systems, and then they grapple with it in trying to make sense of this when Christianity alone is consistent with the Hebrew revelation that the second person has always been manifesting and stepping into time and space. Why is it impossible for God? If God creates time and space, why is it impossible for him to manifest in time and space? Says who?
So even unless it like the second person of the God had manifest like, you know, as Jesus, Like, no, he.
Is Jesus, not manifesting as Jesus. It is Jesus.
That's Jesus, right. So, like when he's like walking around, is he as to all knowledge? Is he's still a mission?
Absolutely?
I mean the text here says that he is equal with God in John one. When John says in John one that he was walking around with us in the flesh. John says he was also in the bosom of God as he was walking around, because he never surrendered or loses his divine nature.
Okay, so, howcome in the Gospel of Mark, you know, he's hungry.
I think it's chapter eleven.
He's hungry, and then he sees a fig tree, and you know, he tries to go for fruit, but he sees that there's it doesn't have anything but leaves, And then he did how come he didn't know that there was no it was not the season on?
How come he didn't know the ap No, that whole point of that passage is an object lesson because he curses the fig tree because the fig tree is a symbol of Israel. It's not a lack of knowledge. He's making an object lesson for his disciples to say, you see this fig tree, how it has no fruit on it? The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. Israel no longer has fruit because it is barren because they're about to kill her Messiah.
Yeah, I know, I get that, But the text itself, it says Jesus was hungry.
So he's so if.
Jesus has a fully human nature and he willed to have that right. So, in other words, as a divine person or subject, when he assumed human nature, he assumed it with all of its weaknesses and imperfections on purpose to raise it, to deify it, and to heal it.
That's the whole purpose.
So he absolutely got tired, he absolutely got hungry, he absolutely got thirsty, he wept. All of those things are proper to humanity because he's he's fully human.
No, I get that.
So, but the thing is that, you know, he has the properties of human nature. But he's hungry, and he sees the fig tree, so he goes to find if it has any fruit, and that he sees it right, But then it doesn't have any and then he ends up cursing the fig tree because then he said that it's like it kind of represents Israel.
But he explains that it represents Israel.
Yes, yes, he explains that represents Israel.
But my point was that if he's hungry, right, and he knows that the fig tree doesn't have any fruit, just why doesn't he just go there and curse the fig tree?
Wise he like going there.
For fruit because in many places throughout the Gospels, the message and the intention is to show us his full humanity. Just like when he's in the garden and he prays to the Father, right, he says, let this cut pass for me, yet not my will, but thy will be done. In our understanding of that, he is intentionally subjecting his human will to the will of God the Father, because he wants to show us and to be an example
to us, that he really is fully human. And so he went through the whole range of human experience from being born as a child to maturing into a full adult. So our explanation, our exposition of a lot of these passages that it is absolutely intentional to show us that he's fully human.
I see.
So like I think it's also in the Gospel. Maybe it's Matthew and Mark Reigi doesn't know the hour, and I think it was John Krisostom who says that, I think it's like a form of expression. So would you quote it that same interpretation of that past.
Yes, if you read if you read Saint Basil's letter, I think it's two thirty five or two thirty six. As I explained in the debate, Jesus oftentimes utilizes this form of exaggeration or rhetoric where he expresses things in an extreme way. There's no one good but God? Right does that? Does he literally mean no one is good? So he means He's not good? And other prophets are good.
No, it isn't.
He's saying in an exaggerated way, there's no one good but God. So likewise, no one knows this but the Father, right, And that's Basil has many other examples. If you read his.
Letter, it's two Ory five or through thirty six. But there's a there's.
An article on this if you want it, let me find it now. Some people, some of the church fathers, expressed exposited it as a pertaining to the human nature. It can be interpreted either way, but ultimately it doesn't. We're not worried about it because their countless passages to talk about the son also possessing omniscions.
Right, Jesus knew all things.
He knew what was in the Thaniel John two, So we don't have a problem saying that. Yeah, you could interpret this as a limitation that was proper to the humanity. For example, in Luke, when it says Jesus went to argue with the scribes and the Pharisees in the temple when he was a young man. It says that he grew in wisdom and stature amongst God and in favor amongst God and men. So those are properties that could
only apply to humanity. Right, the sun does not grow in stature, Jesus, I'm saying the subject, the divine subject of the sun, does not increase or diminish his divine nature. Divine nature doesn't come in partition. It's not half. It's not the percentages Jesus in the fifty percent divine, fifty percent human, he's a hundred percent divine, hundredcent hum And so the passage in Luke where it says that he grew in wisdom and stature in favor, is applicable to
his human nature. And many passages in the scriptures are this way, where sometimes, for example, if he said, if he's doing a miracle, we said, the miracles are evidences of in demonstrations of his divinity as divine power, divine nature. Only God could change water to wine, only God could walk on water. But other passages demonstrated that he's fully human, crying, eating, and they're intentional. It's not that his divinity lacked, but as again, Philippians said, he willingly chose to be in
those states. It's just it's the same thing with the question of God answering prayers and reciprocity. How does if God, how does God answer prayers? If he's all knowing, what's the point of praying? Well, as doctor Bradshaw argues very lucidly, God willingly condescends to have reciprocity with his creek. So yes, he's all knowing, he knows what you're gonna pray. Well, then why is it because he wants us to have a reciprocal prayer with That's why cryptos.
Hello, Yeah, so I'm a Christian, but I'm in the classical situation where I cannot you know, I just said to conclude with what dogma would like to follow, you know, so how do I process?
What? What do you mean? What church?
What do you mean?
Yeah, like denomination?
What's your background?
Well, I'm Greek, so it's only Orthodox churches in hands.
Well, you got it easy. What do you mean?
Well, look, you know you're Orthodox, but you're right, because.
Yeah, you know, it's because I don't have a family background. So it's not really like many people have blind faith, even if it's.
True or not.
But when I go to the chess, I like the liturgy and stuff, but a lot of the times, you know, with many traditions, it's very weird to me.
You know, because of.
The additions not being in the Bible lend you know how like like the stuff Protestants say, you know, like that's going on through my mind and I have to look at every single thing like I cannot.
Okay, Well, like there's a there's a if you want to. The simplest thing I could think of is there's a three volume set by doctor Clark Carlton, The Way, the Truth and the Life, and it's it's three volumes, two of which are one again once against Protestantism, once against Catholicism, and one is for Orthodoxy. So maybe check that out would be a good place to start. That's the easiest kind of like three volume thing I could think of that would deal with that. So people asking I did
not say God is irrational or illogical? I said he's supra logical. That's what I said. So there's a difference between saying something is transcends logic and logical categories and saying that it contradicts logic and logical categories two different things. Boom again. I mean Muslims have the exact same issue when it comes to the relationship of all his attributes to the essence, and they've been debating it for centuries. Again,
we've covered this countless times. When they act like it's not a debate, there lie, it absolutely is a debate. I mean, you can go watch doctor Khalil and Jake debating this issue. So what do you mean it doesn't exist? And then they'll say she had, don't count? She had? Don't count?
It says, why don't she account?
What do you mean? And by the way, it's not just shea the other Creeds. Remember when this guy acted like he didn't know what akdah meant? So you understand we have totally different approaches to this kind of stuff, right, I mean, for Christians, we aren't really supposed to be deceptive right now. I'm not saying that there aren't deceptive Christians, of course there are, but I think it's much more acceptable from their perspective, at least in my experience, that yeah,
you can lie to Christians. Because I asked him explicitly what his akita was and he wouldn't say, which is being intentionally deceptive. Yeah, soon he's debated as well. Exactly the relationship of Allah to his essence is. I've got multiple books from various creeds of Islam debating it, and they act like it's not a debate. Now. When I brought this up on Twitter, I said, what do you miss? Not a debate? I kid you not. The answer was
from many many Muslims, Well, we all think Allah is one. Okay, So because you use the word one, right, well we all say all as one. See we don't disagree. Yeah, I know you use the word. The question is what's the meaning? And you guys have gone to war over this, So what are you talking about? Okay? QD. If he destroyed me, I want you to come on and I want you to give some examples of where he answered
my objections and destroyed me. For example, makes sense of Muslim Lantern's argument about Allah's attributes and the dependence relationship and his shirt analogy and how are their analogies when Allah is nothing like creatures? I mean, how slow are you guys to not understand this objection? And in the comments in the last few days, I realized they don't know what the word analogy means. They're literally saying he was making on that logy. Yeah, exactly, do you know
what the word analogy means? Likeness or similarity? So QD, where are you at, buddy, come on and debate. If you're not going to come on in debate, then just boot these people. It's not it's not a place for people to just spam gibberish. And in the comments of the Muslims who do think that Muslim lantern one. I've asked every one of them that I see, maybe I haven't.
There's tons of comments.
I've got to all of them, but I asked them, please give some examples of where and how he answered the argument and refuted me. And they don't. They don't have any way to explain it. They're just spamming stuff because they know in they sense that maybe this is a weak position. Boom, what's up?
Elogi Drek? Can you hear me?
Yep?
Okay, I just have a question regarding your Bible. Do you hold to the position that your Bible is infallible?
H yeah, but I don't know what you think that means.
I mean that it cannot contain error.
Well, again, I don't know what you think that means, because that can mean different things. There, we have it. We believe there are ascribal errors, sure.
Okay, are there contradictions?
Uh?
No, okay, can you flip to Monthew sixteen four?
All right?
What are what's your position on the Bible.
I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim.
Okay, And are you going to answer the Muslim dilemma first?
I mean, I'm just here to ask a question.
No, you're not. You're here to debate.
Yeah, I'm here to debate you on the Bible right now.
Yeah?
Okay, Well, but first we're going to talk about the Islamic dilemma. Can you do that first? Because you're going to argue the Bible's corrupt and has contradictions? So why does the Quran tell me many places to go to a book that's corrupt?
Okay? So is this how is this how like you deal.
With the contra I'm to say, I'm going to let me grant you that there's contradiction. Okay, there's contradictions in the Bible. So why would Allah direct me to go to a book that's full of contradictions?
Yeah? So you're granted me that there's contradictions.
Correct, for the sake of the argument. You don't know what that means?
Okay? So I mean if an atheist came to you, how would you deal with the contradiction?
Would you say, I'm going to argue tag I'm not going to argue Bible texts with an atheist.
Why can't you just defund the text without like simply, you know, like running to my book. I don't don't understand why Christians do that.
Well, you want me to believe in the Koran, right, not necessarily, you don't want me to believe Why are you debating if you don't want to believe in.
The Koran in the sense that I want you to become a Muslim? Is that what you mean? Or enough argument?
Of course, that's what I mean. Why would Allah direct me to so I'm going to grant you for the sake of argument that Okay, the Bible's full of contradictions.
Why would Allah direct me to a book full of contradictions?
No?
But I mean you're shifting. You're granting him for the sake of the argument. That's not not your position, right, I want to alter your position academically.
Okay, so alter it by explaining to me why I should believe in a book that tells me to look to a book full of contradictions.
Okay, we're not.
Just yeah, so you won't answer that, right, So no, no, Muslim can't answer this. Okay, what's answer?
Definitely?
What's answer?
What's answer?
Okay, I'll okay, I'll go go ahead.
Show me where, Show you where? What?
Show me where? It tells me to go back to a book with contradictions and to.
Follow that book does allah in many places? You want me to pull up the different lists.
Of the texts, Go ahead, please, all right?
M five forty six, two, two, eighty five, six, one, fifteen and eighteen twenty seven for example, this is your shotgunning.
Can we do one at a time.
You don't know these passages? They're well known.
They come up in every debate between Christians.
And muslim I agree, but we got to do one by one. This is called galloping. Can we do.
It's not gish galloping. Just you know these answers, You know these topics. You know this situation has come up for years. So I don't want to walk through every single passages. It will take twenty minutes to do it. Just tell me what the answer is.
Okay, which one do you want to go with first?
It doesn't matter go with any of them because they tell me to go to the prior revelation? Do they not?
I mean, I disagree, but I'm gonna.
Okay, what well? What okay? What do they tell me to go to if they don't tell me to go to that?
Okay?
Perfect, I'm gonna I'm gonna read you the verses you said, Chapter five, verse forty six crow perfect, Okay, no? Can can you hear me still?
By the way, yep?
Okay, I'm curious if you've read, like the verses that came after. I mean, have you read two verses that came after?
Yeah, I haven't pulled up right here? Okay, none of those None of those verses refuw the point that's being made.
In fact, they back it up.
Okay, let's see about that. So the verse you brought to to prove that the hard confirms the Bible, it goes as then in the footsteps of the prophets, we sent Jesus son of Mary confirming the.
Tora reveal What tora is that.
The tora that was revealed to Moses, thank.
You, And what tour is that in the seventh century, It's.
Not going to be I don't how do you know that?
Because we have supposed that says that the.
I want to know how you know that? You're You're had these assert that how do you know that?
I mean, there's many contradictions in the Old Testament.
So wait a minute, So now we're being told to go to a book with contradictions.
Like I said to begin with, where is it?
Where is it telling? Where is it telling me to go to this book where I don't really see that it's just confirming the book that was.
Again other passages to two eighty five, six, one, fifteen, eighteen, twenty seven will say that you can confirm will say that you can confirm this revelation by what came before. But are you telling me that before we do that? Are you telling me that all those words can be corrupted?
Yeah? When you say corrupt, oh means the Wait a minute, God's words says that the God's words cannot be corupted.
But exactly to understand you have to be you have to understand what is meant by that? Okay, okay, So the hold on makes it very clear that God's words cannot be corrupted. And what that means is that you cannot change God's decree. You can not change what's in his low head fold, which is the tablet with him.
Yeah, I know, so you're gonna apply it to the uncreated.
Right one second?
No?
No, no, can I finish? Please? I'm giving you my reasoning and you're cutting me off.
Because we've heard all these arguments a million times. They don't address the topics.
That's one ano there millions. You can hear it a month and your.
First time it's okay, I go for it.
Okay, thank you. So, according to the verse for bringing right, the Oran cannot be corrupted. Right, what this means is that you cannot change God's to creep and you cannot change what's in his preserved tablet.
Rather, what is being corrupted, According to chapter two over seventy nine, it is people writing something new with their hands and saying that it's from God seeking a fleet.
Yeah. And that text also presupposes that the Torah at this time is not corrupted. Do you understand that we have we have to listen, we have Torah and gospel. You understand that predate that.
Listen to me.
Do you understand we have texts that pre date the seventh century?
Sure?
I don't. I don't. I don't disagree with that yet.
Okay, but again this is so what text would they'd be understond In other words, we know what text they could go to in the seventh century to check it?
Sorry, repeat it.
We know we nowadays know already what text the Jews and Christians at this time in the seventh century had to go and look at we have those texts. You understand that.
I don't know how this relates to what we're talking.
About, because it because that's what they're going to look to. You're the slow What do you mean look towards? Oh you can? It says you can confirm the new revelation on the basis of the old and how could we do that if if Allah's words could be It does say that. Then the other verses it says that.
Can I please reply? Can I please reply? It's just like a monologue. Okay, I appreciate that. So the Quran, the revelation, I know that.
One second, the Kuran tells you to confirm it by the previous revelation. You just admitted that you just admitted that you already admitted that Allas. You already admitted that Allah's previous words can be corrupted. And you said that is the tablet with him. You haven't explained it. I let you talk. What was the explanation because you're not explaining it. You're just talking around and telling your stuff. Okay, what is the what is it? What is the what
is the unwritten tablet? That whatever? You said?
The uncreated tablet with Allaw?
It's it's it's it's the preserved And where is that? That's where he's at.
What do you mean so there's an uncreated eternal tablet with Allaw?
Did I say it was eternal?
Is all as is all A's Quran? Eternal? His speech? So he doesn't have so he doesn't have uncreated speech.
It is uncreated.
You just said, no.
Did you know that things can be generated into existence and be uncreated?
This is retarded. Something can come into existence and be uncreated. This is the stupidity of this stuff. And they have a problem with the eternal generation. Right, what does five forty seven say. Let the people of Gos of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. Those who do not, judged by what Ah has revealed, are rebellious. We have revealed it to you, the Book of Truth, confirmation of the previous scriptures, the very versus right here
that we've walked through a million times. We don't need you to make up new Exejesus and to say stupid stuff like something can be created that's eternal into existence, generate into existence that's eternal. So it's an uncreated creation, is what you're saying. Kings. It does not say that you can check the previous with the new. It does not say that. It says it right there in five forty seven, King, What's up?
Hey, what's going on?
Jay?
I've just been listening to you for a little bit.
Is this this is a.
Debate about religion or is it also about the sneak and Tate situation.
It's just religion, all.
Right, gotcha?
Yeah?
No, okay, no, yeah, I'm just I'm not hearing Israel right now.
That's fine. We're gonna move on the topic. Is Islam in those things? And I put sneak O in the title because I was on the sneak O channel debating Muslim lantern two nights ago.
Father Moses.
You want to say something, I'm Jay Kuran. We talk about today, but I noticed that you have not astrology as a topic. I want to ask you questions about the trology Koran that's not in the listing for you.
Well, there's an eternal, uncreated Quran that is with Allah, that's different from Allah, but it's also are. It's also a creature that comes into existence.
What about create eternal athrology as.
Well?
I guess since astrology is based on fatalism, yeah, we could say that Islam is in many schools or excuse me, Akida's creeds fatalistic.
I just want to ask you a question about topics you don't have listed on here.
Thank you, Joseph, what's up? Appreciate that, Joseph. I'm you think about this too, just from the bantage point of the seventh century hearer, right, So imagine I'm a seventh century Jew, are Christian, and I got saying no, no, the Koran is not telling you to go check this, even though it says very clearly in these passages.
That I can go check it.
Right.
No, No, it's not telling you that. It's telling you that there's a corrupt Bible. But there's a real true Bible, even though we have the existing copies of the Torah and the Gospels from the seventh century and earlier. No, no, there's a secret one that's not corrupt. Well, the hearers couldn't go to a secret one. You see how silly this is? How could I go and check? By the way, how many times do they argue that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible? How am I going to go to
the Bible when you say it's corrupt? This is how stupid this is. Then they turn around and say, yeah, it proves the Koran in all the places where it agrees with the Koran. This is how stupid this is. So I can go to a corrupt book to prove the one that's not corrupt.
You see that, I ask you a question.
One of the things that's come up a few times recently on Twitter here has been the issue of the ever virginity of the Theo Toko, which we obviously know was the firm by the Church fathers, was even a firm by Calvin and Luther. Are there other I know that there's some references in the Old Testament right of the gate that has been.
Yeah, Ezekiel forty four we see as our reference to.
The virgin okay, and there's are there other arguments or do we mostly just rely on the historical record and the fact like, look, this was literally accepted for fifteen hundred plus.
Years and is like was never really even questioned, well a lot.
So Jerome has an essay and I noticed in the Pomazanski book actually I was reading this last night. Pomazanski has a whole section on it as well, addressing the Protestant objections to ever virginity. So if people have a proto presbater of Michael Pomazanski's book Orthodox Dogmatics, it has
a really good section on this. This brief but the classic refutation is still Saint Jerum's perpetual virginity of Mary, and he deals with the Exegesus where they say, well, you know, brothers of the Lord, and then that she was the word till is a big deal, and he says that you know, Jesus says I will be with you until the end of the world. On the Protestant ext of Jesus, then we would have to say, oh, well, so Jesus won't be with us after the end of
the world. So the word till does not necessarily mean that after that it changes.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, that's that's the argument that I continue to use, which is like the children stack quietly.
Until the teacher arrived, Yes, exactly, and it's like, well then they didn't.
Or somebody said, the man on the desert island ate no food until he.
Died, and it's like he didn't eat a big meal on.
The last day of his life, right, Yeah, Yeah, Drum does exact same thing, with a bunch of other examples there, and that's in the in this essay.
I've got the essay pulled up here where he goes through.
Many of these and I can just google it all find it.
It's called Against Helvidius The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Jerome. That's about a ten page essay that Saint Jerome wrote. That's kind of like a perennial classic. But thank you for that, Joseph. Did you want to say something, By the way, I don't mean to boot you. If you want to keep talking, you're welcome to come back.
No, that's fine, Jay, Sorry, if I was not at the mic when you initially.
I've been.
I'm Catholic, and I've been trying to like interact with Catholic groups that perish again and one of the things that I have run into again is how like people seem to there seems to be no awareness of like that, how easy it is to fall into spiritual delusion or self delusion. It's like there's no and like Catholics are getting into I don't know if this is because of the Vatican Two or whatever, but like Bible studies and
subjecting yourself to the text of it. I've even heard people describe the documents of Vatican two this way, like you have to meditate on them and let them speak to you and sort of like it's almost like you're asking a text to take over your mind.
Like yeah, I mean that might be just because of the Protestantization of Vatican two. I mean that's uh.
You know, we focus and talk a lot, you know, about the texts and no stra tatan lemagentium relating to Muslim and Hindus and all that, but we can't overlook the Protestantized elements of Vatican Two. For example, the Novasorto liturgy was quite literally concocted with a bunch of Protestants,
so you know what I mean. So it's like the liturgy itself of Vatican two is written by a Lutheran an Anglican Banini who was a Mason, and a bunch of other you know whoever, So there's this protestantization that happened, and you can also see it in the official acceptance of Charismaticism from the Vatican post Vatican two, and those two components together. It doesn't that's a recipe for prelust for sure.
Yeah, And I the only reason I know about prelist is listening to your show. I had never even heard the word before, and i'd heard of.
I guess discernment of spirits before.
Right, that's something that discussed a lot in the Catholic you know, I guess the illusions or social theology. But they don't they don't get into like the the real danger. Like if you this this idea that you can open up the Bible and hit there's a thing. You know, you've probably heard of Alexio Didena, And I suppose there might be a or no Alexio Didena where you sit with a passage of scripture and.
Let it.
Impact you a certain way, and then I think it was invented in monasteries or something, but after a Vatican too, it became popular to do.
That in like groups.
Okay, yeah, I mean that that could be a recipe. I mean, I wouldn't say that there's anything inherently wrong with meditating on the passive Scripture, but I think it could be a recipe for, you know, something nefarious creeping in for sure. So I appreciate that we're to move on. But so there's a guy who wants to come debate, who's non denominational.
He's going to destroy me. I look forward to it, so.
I welcome him, and the link is in the chat, so please tell him to come. He's more than more than welcome. Here's the link again, and if you want to support the stream by a superchat, you can do so at the super chat link. I have to go to the little Lady's room. I have to tinkle really bad, so I'm gonna go sit down on the toilet because that's the traditional masculine way according to the Hideth, to go to the bathroom.
Just joking, but I will still sit.
Down in honor of Tristan. Tristan's here shout out to him. He's probably gonna leave now because I'm giving him a shout out, but I will sit down the toilet to pee in honor of him, and I will be right back with more of your challenges, questions and debates. And I hope my non denominational destroyer manifests and meaning in the sense of appearing manifesting demonic entities. You know what
I mean. But while I go t t while I go tinkle, I have a little bit of a message, and that is our show sponsor, which is chalk dot Com.
Please listen to this.
I will be right back.
Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to take your performance to the next level. Chad Mode is for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting the gym, invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. 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. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners.
And dyes.
Even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Only soyboys and Beta's guzzle blue dye and sucralose further tanking they are already low testosterone levels. Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok peasants' pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab made
caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose of chad Mode mirrors the caffeine 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 mog on anyone who opposes you Chad mode will give you a dominant and aggressive edge, like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the gazelle is TikTok Jim Zuomer macro gus.
All right, we're back. So uh now, who is the non denominational person that wants to debate? Do we know who he is? Let me check discord because maybe maybe there's something in here. Where's the non dnom guy, non denominator?
Uh?
Judah? Oh no, if his name is quote Judo, we know we got a serious Hebrew Israelite, Hebrew roots man. Here's the link. Where's he at? Yo?
Okay, he says, yo here you are, come debate dude, yo?
Yeah? Yeah. All right, So we're waiting on Judah to show up until he gets here. Let's see Midwest. No wait here he is hold on Midwest. So we're going to go to uh, we're going to get destroyed. Judah says he's going to destroy me in a debate. Good, I asked for someone to come destroy me. Please, you got on? Mute man? Yeah, cub, what's up? I'm mute. I'm mute man, Judah, you're on, I'm mute. Yeah, Huda, what's up. We're waiting for you to unmute. Mini's Mani's Yahoo, what's up?
Hello?
Yep, yep, Yes, where's my destruction? I'm ready for it, Come destroy me? All right?
So once yeah, you're eating.
Yeah, it's funny, right, it's really funny.
So the only reason I think you're wrong is because you don't read the Bible.
Oh is that right?
We literally just lectured through the Bible for the last two hours. All this doesn't.
Troll? Where is that funny? No bro, no bro, bro, boot him from discord when you're wasting my time with this nonsense. Oh, why you guys, somebody needs to get it back in the discord.
And like.
Dan, these idiots, see, this is.
Why we have the hard hand did in the in the old days, we had the iron fist rule in discord, and it needs to come back because these people just waste every time. And you notice that people they can't even talk, right, Like the people who come on like this with a bunch of damn food in their mouth, giggling, they can't even talk. There is a vibe on get the food out of your mouth, get the get the hot pockets out of your mouth. First, okay, swallow your
hot pocket and then make your argument. Hello, they done for the meter.
You Are you drunk?
Yeah, I'm drunk, even though I don't drink and I hate alcohol. Totally drunk.
You kind of sew in the intoxicated.
That's because I was impersonating the previous idiot.
Oh so I heard you. You just finished debating a sneaker and the Muslim Lantern. What's your after thoughts on that?
I felt like the clip that I put up of the seven minute section on the attributes was the worst part for him.
Do you feel like you got the better off the debate or on Yeah.
And I think the seventy plus percent audience reaction agrees as well.
Okay, yeah, interesting because the other site thinks you lost what you talked about that well.
As I said, I gave about twenty different options for Muslims to come explain where he actually made a good response or a good arguing, a good critique, and none of the people who I've asked that to have actually replied. So tell me where Muslim Lantern gave a good response or in what way his answer on the attributes was coher.
I'll be honest, I've just seen clips, you know, but I've seen that is why I'm just asking you your thoughts.
You know again, I mean I felt like it was a blowout. So have you seen the poll? Have you seen the poll?
Yeah, I've seen multiple poles. Some pools say you on, the other pools say you lost.
Well, this was the poll they created, right, The poll they created which they only wanted sneak Go's largely Muslim audience to vote in, ended up being Jay seventy three percent, Muslim Lantern twenty six percent.
Interesting. Yeah, the thing is what I've seen so far, I feel like Christian's sided with you, and then the Muslim sides with him.
So that's what I've Okay, Well, so that's why you have to actually watch the debate and see who made the better arguments and go and figure out. Now, go figure out whether.
He answered on the attributes or not, because that part was pretty comedic. Landon, Hey Jay, can.
You hear me?
Hey brother, how you doing?
I got a couple of things to say. I'll try to be uh those groups as possible, But uh, I play uh, I play music for a living. I started out in the church and all that stuff. Now I'm kind of doing find some fairly large like pop acts, but like that's fun fact for everybody, wasn't musicians. Most of the musicians behind.
Like pop stars and stuff like that that came from church, predominantly Black church really but man, like a lot of my co workers and stuff, I've just realized, especially since becoming like an inquirer into Orthodoxy.
And whatnot, these do It's.
Most of them, most of my like buddies who I play with.
I do not believe that Jesus is God.
And uh and you're saying they're like evangelical praise and worship people's everything.
Oh hell yeah, Well I live in Georgia, so it's like good, okay, it's outside of Atlanta.
I was like, six flags over.
Jesus is what they call, right, But they're all like they're like evangelicals who don't even know that Jesus's divining.
Is that you're saying, yeah, yeah, no, it's it's kind of terrifying, But I just I don't know that all kind of goes into Like I talked to a couple of the pastors that I had thought were cool to seek counsel from, especially since st firing into Orthodoxy.
Over the past year, and Uh. A common thing that's been said to.
Me is, uh, whenever I bring these questions up to these dudes, most of them will look.
At me like I have three ads. But the other ones will be like, I think there's a common uh desire for all of us to just want more, you know, and.
Which I just think is a stupid response because it's like, well, yeah, I don't feel like I'm getting I don't feel like it's not about getting things, but I don't feel like I'm experiencing what this whole thing is. So of course, ione, but have you ever heard people like say that that argument or that response that was a really my question. I guess like if there's a response to yeah.
I think it's very common for evangelicals, non denominational people to get sort of burnt out and to feel like they're not really getting anything out of that, and it has no essential connection with history, it's not rooted in anything. It's an authentic Yeah, I think that's a I would I would say that's actually the experienced probably a most megachurch non nominational people, because I mean this was some
years ago. If you look at the studies, it was like Pew research studies from some years ago, like megachurches have a really low retention rate. So they'll make these quote conversions, They'll have huge numbers of converts and church joiners or whatever, and then within two to three weeks the majority of them leave. So I think that's very common. But I'm not surprised to hear that Protestant Evangelical, non nominational megachurches are essentially abandoning basic Trinitarian theology and the
deed of Christ. Robert Hunter, I feel I frobatherly dike it. Feel free to chime in anytime you want.
Thanks. Yeah, that's we just brought that up the other day. I was talk with some prishioners because I forget how the megachurch was was coming up, and I just think about this, Like you said, Jay, its primary focus is common consumerism and entertainment. Yeah, and that's only going to last, like anything in life, for for a little bit, for a little bit, and then they find that they're not fulfilled, they're not changing, and they leave, which is probably why
you're seeing a high retention rate. To Another critique of it is it's usually associated, as.
You mean, a low retention rate.
Yeah, sorry, excuse me. It's also associated with like kind of a cult personality.
Yeah, the superstar pastor. Right, yeah, yeah, exactly. Somebody had a good.
Comment here something about megachurches.
Oh, many of the non denominational and megachurch stuff, as the commenter here has noted, are are openly like warming up to the skittle stuff.
Who was the first one that kind of one of the major guys.
Rick Warren?
Did I think Rick Warren?
Yeah, that was when the Orange County he was like one of the first guys, and you know, by Protestant standards, he started off kind of run of the mill, kind of right lower Orthodox, and then he started bringing in some wacky stuff too.
Well yeah, around the time that he joins the Council on Foreign Relations and then it becomes pro Obama. He does that stuff. Do you remember that wasn't I'm pretty sure Rick Warren? Right, So he when he writes Purpose Driven Life becomes this huge book selling hit. Then he joins Council Form Relations or right after or whatever right before, and then I think I think he was like pro Obama, which surprised everybody, and then.
It was really weird.
He brought in Muslim speakers.
Yes, and then he's like, oh, by the way, now I'm pro Skittle's marriage.
So that's when he flipped on that, which.
Is wild because if you if you know anything about you know, I don't know exactly what it is today because things have changed. But Orange County, California was always kind of a Republican, strongold right in a very blue state you have from Richard Nixon, and so I was kind of odd that he and bold that he took that move. But if his handlers said that's the way he's gotta.
Go, yeah, that's what I was thinking, Like, Yeah, they basically said you're gonna do this now, Rick. And you know that could have been because there's compremont, compromont or money could be either one.
Uh remember that one path who was that?
Remember that guy that got busted with He was w's George Bush's mentor pastor, megachurch guy and then he gets busted with meth and and three oh.
Four's remember that guy?
Now what was his name?
Uh, somebody in that chat will remember him Bush spiritual advisor, mega church, meth metha church, megachurch, meth prostitute. Yeah exactly, Ted Haggard, that's him.
Ted Haggard. So remember Ted Haggard.
This guy with this he's got that weird uh creepy evangelical smile. Let me pull him up here. Yeah, this guy. And by the way, it wasn't just meth. It was meth and male young young males.
Wow.
Yeah, accidentally shut down my stream here, hold on a second, let me pull it back up. So pulling up Ted Haggard was too much cancer for the stream. The whole stream collapsed here.
And then the other big one too is Greg Glory and the Harvest Crusade.
Remind me of what's this?
What's going on with that one?
So if any of you seen The Jesus Revolution with yes, yeah, yeah, and interesting enough about that film, it's I mean, it's supposed to be about pastor Chuck Smith.
And that's Kylary Chapel, right, that's COVID Chapel.
And so I guess you could argue maybe they really were the seeds, the kind of proto.
Uh mega, oh yeah, yeah, good point.
Yeah. So, uh, Greg Glory was the kind of protege of Chuck Smith. I went to you know, school with his son, and he started this Harvest Crusade is kind of a base name a Crusade. It's like totally on PC. But they would have it like the Angels Stadium, these huge like revival they bring in like Crystal Lewis, and I remember Mel Gibson came to one and it's just a big show. And then, of course is that.
When he was promoting the Passion.
Oh yeah, you're probably right, yeah, yeah, I remember the mega churches were inviting Mel Gibson to come talk about the movie when it came out.
Remember that, And then there's this big ultar call and people go up. So I think that's probably the beginnings of the megachurch because that was Harvest Crusade was prior to Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and someffing like that.
All right, let's see who's next now, guys, Remember it's not Orthodox fa Q Day. You can always reach out to your people doings for those kinds of questions. We're looking for people who disagree. Topics are Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, and then I listed some others Bible church history, Patristics, councils, Quran revelation, Evangelicalism, arianism called Hebrew roots, black hebeers are lights, all of those are on the table. So we're not
doing atheism today. We're not doing Orthodox catechists today. Theophilis, what's up?
You know?
I'm mute?
Did you hear me, sir?
I think I guess of the short quis I'm Orthodox, but I retally have been struggling in my faith because of the you know, it is like the Latinizer Ortholatinisers like you know, Jonathan Hill and Alan Brown and those guys. I wonder if you can comment on the conferensal to theseus and what it seems to play about infant damnation.
Thank you.
Yeah. I don't think it teaches infant damnation. I think it teaches the deprivation of grace, and the deprivation of grace does not entail damnation. This is why most of the Eastern Church fathers are pretty consistent in saying that the infant is not guilty of any actual sin. Well, if actual sin is what places you under judgment, what actual sin have infants committed? There is a deprivation of grace,
but a deprivation of grace does not entail damnation. So when the texts say uh, and I would say, read Paulazansky's book because father of Paulinzansky and is Orthodox Dogmatics, has a whole section on why we don't believe in the Augustinian doctri original sin. And again remember the Augustinian doctri original sin is premised on the idea, as we covered about an hour ago in here, the notion that all men are in atoms in an archetype. Right, So the doctrine is massive dam nata, and the count the
Carthage Canon does not say mouse damnata. It says that for the remission of original sin, that doesn't mean they have guilt. You can speak of the effects of sin as if it's the sin, okay, So an infant having the effects of adam sin can be called original quote sin. But that does not entail inherited guilt, and nobody teaches inherited guilt except for Calvinists. Even Roman Catholics have discarded
the doctrine of inherited guilt. So the only way that we would ever come to this position is if we keep in mind the Confession of Toscythius and those documents around that time, the other confessions. If you read the Norman Russell book on the Translation of the Palomite Synods. In the first chapter I think'st the introduction, it says that Docitheus reprinted and republished the Palamite Synods to show that they're reaffirming the Palamite doctrine. Palamas does not believe
that infants are guilty of actual sin. Okay, So in other words, it's not teaching Latin doctrines of inherited guilt. The promulgation of the Palamite doctrines by Docithius himself proves that he.
Had no intention of latinizing.
These people are all really making an argument on the basis of terminology and words. Even in the Pomazansky book he says it's not a problem to use the word transubstantiation, and what is it Doctheus also uses that term. It just matters what you mean. So all of these people hinge their arguments on word concept fallacies that this or that Latin term necessarily entails and implies all of the
Roman Catholic baggage or the Augustinian baggage. But again, you're not going to be able to find solace in Rome because Rome doesn't teach this doctrine. So this is silly ignorance from these people. If they want to try to go to Rome, well guess what. Rome has even said that limbo of infants, which was introduced to soften the Augustinian doctrine, that's not even something you have to believe in anymore in the Roman Gelic world. So this will tell you what I'm talking about here.
And I want to point out to you this is a part of a problem typically in the West. We talked about this abstractionism, and you have to understand that Orthodox season is a life, it's an etho, it's arch Theology is not an abstract, propositional thing that can be divorced from the life, all the way down to the
parish level. And I find it really interesting that when you're in the parish, when you're going through catechises, none of the your priests and there might be an outlier or some weird guy out there, but doesn't that say something that none does the priests are teaching this Just the opposite.
No, it's people who have no blessing to teach this stuff, and they're just running around the internet stirring out people and confusing them. And by the way, in uh, there's at least in the discord. We have at least two references to the liturgical documents which demonstrate that infants are not de facto downed. So even the liturgy tells us this. I can see if it's I know, it's pot in, it's pin in the mod chat. But let me see real quick, I can scroll back to it here.
I think. But you have to. You have to keep in mind that there's all kinds of demonic temptations, and the one temptation is you're smart enough to figure this out by the text alone, apart from a life in the church, apart from the catos and the parish life and all these various things, and you'll be the one that figures out the true theology. And everybody include and all your priests are all heretics. I mean, it doesn't that sound demonic? And that's what these people, these Latinis
are doing. They're out on their own, going thing through terry picking text contrast to the life and the consensus of the priests and the parish and the entire life is the orthodoxy, and they're going to correct everybody. So everybody should see that that that's clearly demonic. It's clearly a demonic temptation and these people phoning for it, and again, as Jade pointed out, no episcal blessing to teach whatsoever. So I don't I'm it's crazy that people will even
listen to these people who are not even credentialed. I mean, it'd be one thing if like, hey, look the credential they have, you know, a theology or philosophy degree, but they don't have a blessing. Tho would still be wrong. But these people don't even have any formal training or credentials, and they're out there and everybody online seems not everybody, a large portion or substantial seem to be get stepped away and deceived by these people.
So the Lenton Triotian and the Saturday Before meet Fair Sunday reads we should know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of Delight, whereas those that were not illumined by baptism, those born to pagans neither go to paradise nor Gehenna. And that is the Lenton Triyodian readings.
And then there is the Lord's.
Judgment on on baptized infants and their parents from the life of Saint Basil the Younger, and it reads the Lord looked upon them, the unbaptized infants, and was enraged on account of blindness, not against them, but against the parents. Then it goes on to say the Lord commanded a place of rest be created for them, and a very small enjoyment of eternal life, but not theosis.
Is the key.
So the speculation in the liturgy and in some of the church fathers on this issue is that they are not partaking of Theosis in the Escaton, but they are also not condemned, and so there is a potentially a place of natural felicity or beatitude. And I know that somebody's gonna say, well, that violates the statement in the canon that there's a third place. There's no third places. It's not a third place. It's a place of resurrection
that is not theosis. So it's the same place quote unquote, but it is not a partaking of theosis, which is only applied to those who are baptized in Christ and who live the life and so forth. So it's not an either or thing. And the other thing that these people do is they read these canons in a mechanical, wooden way, and try to force.
It into a Latin Augustinian framework.
And all you need to know is that when you go to Bishop Irena, when you go to Orthodoxy Elogians, whether it's Pomazanski, whether it's Mayandorf, whether it's any of the priests that are out there of Father Michael Little, whether it's anybody else, the clergy, the they're all telling you that it's not the Augustinian view. So why are you going to listen to random goobers on Twitter about what they are?
It's just silly, like it's not a.
Protestant thing where you go to random dudes, right, what would you say to that farther deacon, like who should we be listening here?
Anonymous Twitter profiles.
Yeah, that's exactly why the prescription is live a life in the parish. Now that doesn't mean that the priest is infallible, but that's the prescribed way you learn from the priest. And again you don't learn. You're warned against learning from people who don't have a blessing to teach. And like you said, there's this consensus. So if you remember, and I won't name the name, but there there was somebody who was struggling with the same think Augustinian original Sin.
And I said, what did you They came to visit the parish, and I said, did you talk to your to priests? You know you're you're a priest. If he says, well, no, because he's wrong, I said, well, did he talk to Father Russell, our priest? No, because he's wrong, I'm like, okay, so all the priests are wrong, and you're you're right because you were listening to this guy online.
I mean yeah. And these are people, by the way, who are usually like new right, not everybody, but in the case of the guy you're talking about, and in many other cases, it's like, oh, I was a Roman Catholic last year.
I just converted this year. Oh now I have this issue.
Yeah. Or I was a Protestant Calvinist and now I'm looking at the Orthodox.
You.
Oh, here's an issue.
It takes time to understand and study through these issues. They're not solved in a You're not going to solve a lot of these issues in a year, two years, five years, okay. It takes a long time to know and understand the complexities and the nuances of these issues.
And let me give you another.
Example of this if you go to the Roman Catholic website right Christian Vatican Bea and you look up the infant Limbo Dogma document that I'm talking about right here, approved by Ratzinger, Hope for the salvation of infants and those who die without being baptized. You will notice that
the document itself from the Catholics. Which is the stupidity of all this is that these people are actually saying that we ought to look to the Roman Catholic position, not realizing that the Roman Catholic position has evolved past the Augustinian position. This whole document is about how they don't accept the Augustinian position anymore, and that you can
hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants. Now, the document goes through the history of the question and makes all the points that I made that the Greek fathers typically did not think that unbaptized infants were necessarily damned or had any inherited guilt. It then goes on to talk about how Augustine is the first to really stress inherited guilt, the very thing that we always argue. So the irony is that all of the locus of these people's focus.
We ought to be listening to the Roman Catholics and the Latin Church fathers, the very Vatican people that they're looking to about this stuff. Make our point in this document.
And what's interesting, Like you said, it's not even a.
Roman Catholic mindset, That's what I'm saying, it's a Protestant mindset. Like well, I'm brand new, but you know what theology is. It's just an intellectual pursuit. And so I can just read through these texts and I'll show everybody else they're wrong. And but Orthodoxy doesn't work that way. Theology is not divorced from the ethos and the life and the virtues and a hierarchy, right, I mean this is it's ultimately Satanic. It's anti hierarchy.
Stephen, what's up? Yeah, I'm mute man, I'm mute, man, Stephen, I'm mute.
Ev thirty six dollars seventy four cents Orthodox to build the Old tradition as well support.
The truthfulness of the Christian claims.
Expound on this because I've seen some people ask how you know what the old tradition is or that it was kept. Well, we know that it's kept at least as possible, because the scriptures were not written down from the time of as far as we know, right Adam to Moses. So how was that revelation transmitted? Well, as far as we it was transmitted orally, and then it's written down at the time of Moses. We believe by faith according to divine revelation. So God can preserve something
in a written or an oral form. There's nothing that prevents God from preserving it. And then of course we would say that there's many places even within scripture that identify things that are oral or extra canonical or.
Extra biblical as tradition. So something that's an.
Oral tradition, by the way, also can be written down. So, for example, the liturgies are the best example of this. The Apostles didn't write in the New Testament what the liturgical worship is supposed to be. They complain about abuses, they warn about this or that, but there's no liturgical service in the New Testament. Well, God seems to care in Leviticus how people worship him, so how do we
know how to worship him? Well, I think providentially that the liturgies were not in scripture, so that we would have to go to the church, and that's in fact what happens is that the apostle in the various sees the Roman Empire create and draw up liturgies based on
Jewish temple and synagogue liturgies for the churches. So by default you have to look to tradition for something like the liturgy, and that's one of the easiest best examples of an oral quote unquote tradition that eventually becomes written down or or an extra biblical tradition. Other ideas, too, would be how we know what books are in the canon? For example, how do we know that Matthew the Disciple wrote the Gospel Matthew, Well, it's part of the church's
tradition that he did. So tradition plays a role in apostolic authorship, which plays a role in canonicity. Daniel Jay ten dollars, you should do the review on a debate with pints with a quinas. There was a Mormon named Jacob Hanson who debated Trent Horne on the Book of Mormon. I'd love to see you debate him on Trinity versus Tritheism. Yeah, I'm open to that. We haven't had any Mormons really
in the debate space that I'm aware of. I mean, I'm sure there is somewhere a Mormon apologist or something, but yeah, that would be interesting. I'm not opposed to to that directly. Ten dollars. What's the difference between the Greeks and the Russians, language, liturgical expression, different cultures. Noah m five dollars. If performing a correct baptism is enough
for a valid baptism, I never said that. Again, there's no rigid formula for this in a case by case basis, And everybody who's a sperg or everyone who's a.
You know, nerd, I'm not calling you a nerd.
I'm saying that everybody who has this Roman Catholic mindset, they think there has to be a one size fits all answer for this across the board. And one of the positives of Orthodox views of canon law is that we always strive to not have the legalistic spirit of the Roman Catholic Western mindset, where we think there has to be a one size fits all answer for every
reception into the church. So I don't have any problems saying that people can be received back into the church through purely through confession, or that the church can determine that if the Roman Catholic uh did it this way, they can be received through chrismation, they can be received through uh you know, vesting or whatever.
Like.
It doesn't bother me because I'm not trapped in some sort of legalism or I think that the Church has to abide by uh, you know, canons, as if there the laws are made for men, not men for the laws, you know, since the exact same spirit as the Pharisees.
Yeah, Bishop Maxham and I was with dinner with him his grace a couple of weeks ago, and we're bring this up exact, this exact scenario. And I was talking in class about it that think about in terms of secular law, there's like the rules and laws, the canons on the books, right, like this penalty or every judge has the ability to look at all the details. That's like the framework right from which they then moved to consider all the details and they can adjust that they
can suspend the penalty. They could, it's not breaking the canons to do that. And so Bishop Max and I were talking about this, and we were talking about what Saint Basil did when he decided that yes, we have this canon rule. But in this scenario it would be bad to apply that and lose these heretics, the utah Cans, and you remember the other ones too, and so in that specific scenario, Basil, in order to you know, win them over, we've decided to receive them through chrismation, not baptists.
That's a perfect example. That doesn't mean you throw out the rule. It just means that's the rule in kind of guideline which you operate by, and you can adjust that given different circumstances, because we're not parasitical.
Legalists, right yeah, I mean again, just look, the absertinity of the Romeancalitic position is evident in the fact that atheists, Muslims and Satanists can baptize you. So they divorce the notion of being catechized and given the faith from the baptism. Obviously we're speaking of adult tier. That's the Romecalolic position.
So all these people who want all this Latin stuff, this latinizing temptation, and understand that you're saying where that position actually leads to and what the actual rome Mecolic position is. And most of these people can never even tell you what the three necessary elements are to Romancalic sacrament, matter, form and intention.
They can't tell you what that means.
They don't, They're just they're just being duped by other ignorant people on the Internet on the basis of so called translation. But said people can people can be malicious in their translations. Miloslaw five dollars. What about a pockets stasis in Saint Isaac the Syrians view after Origin? So, as I just checked, he died before six eighty one, the Third Documenical Council in six eighty one is what gives the definitive condemnation of the Originist view of the
Origin's worldview. Okay, so there's an there's an Orthodox version of a pockets distosis, which is just means restoration. I've not read enough of Isaac of Syria to know if he teaches specifically universal salvation like Origin does, and that is condemned the Fifth Council, and that's condemned explicit. But the entire Originist system is condemned in the sixth Council, which is after one year after Saint Isaac the Syrian's death. So if he held to the Originist position, we would
just simply say he's wrong. And by the way, I noticed, Father Michael Palmazonski also mentions a couple other errors beyond just a pocket ostasis that Gregor of Nissa held. Oh, Gregor of Nissa held to the erroneous view of the ransom theory being offered to the devil, and that view is later rejected by many church fathers. So yeah, we don't have a problem saying that Church fathers can make errors. Many of them make errors.
It's a silly thing when Orthodox people try to have this position that the Church fathers.
Never made theological errors. But I mean, they mean well when they make this argument, but it's just simply not true. In Palmazonski lists many other mistakes. So we have a super chet here. Let me see where is it? Where to go? In Alan Siegel's book Two Powers in Heaven, there's a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ismael. Yes, I read this part about the way that heretics interpret
the multiple powers in Heaven, et cetera and Earth. This distinction is used for the Sofia doctrine in regard to gnostics. Rabbis asserted the distinction. Do you think there's an intermediary of sines and the essencerity distinction in the Second Temple period. If you read David Bradshaw's book Ariosol East and West, he works through the usage of the essencerity distinction by Philo and then by people in the first and second century. I don't know if I don't think he mentions any
rabbinical sources. He may, I don't remember. I can go look, but that's a good question. I'm not well studied enough on first and second century Rabbinic Judaism to actually know. Elias Mikias one dollar was the thirty second reputation of neo Platonic model of God, in which the one degrades into emanations. I have critiques of Neoplatonism on my channel. You can find those old videos. Matthew twenty five dollars, thank you for being mean to strangers on the internet.
Well, I seem to excel.
I guess at the five dollars what It's a good thing that you recorded the debate with m L because Snico's team muted you, and then I um muted you. Well, to be fair, though on my side of it, you can hear that Sneko gets a phone call, So I don't think that he was actually trying to mute me in the open statement. It muted because he got a phone call, and I did hear the phone rings, So I don't think he's not lying about that. S L I D eight B. Where's the Holy Spirit in the
Old Testament. I just did a whole talk on all of the theophany references in the Torah. Took about three hours, and many of those referenced the Holy Spirit. So I mean you could just go to a just use a search, do a Bible search of references to Spirit in the Old Testament, and you'll see all those references.
There's many.
I mean Moses lays hands on the elders and the Holy spirits. There numbers eleven Holy Spirit above the waters in Genesis, right, I mean, the Holy Spirit's all throughout the Old test does it? Probably maybe a dozen ish places, maybe more. I mean, we could look that up. Let's see, let's see there's a just just go watch my talk on this because we cover these now, we don't cover everything because I haven't gotten to the I've only done the Torah references. But the Torah, the spirits mentioned in
the Torah in many places roll six five dollars. What is worse Muslim's calling in and saying the dumbest things like the young created can be generated into time.
Into existence, or the brothers that say that Jews are not Jews.
I think that Jewish is not a Jew, because I think that's stupider than than what is being argued otherwise. Lerotheos Sliliakos eleven dollars eleven cents s Greetings, Jay, God, bless you for your work. For the Greek person that called an earlier, I would be willing to discuss this matter from Greek to Greek.
Send a message to me on Facebook.
His name is I I E R O T h e O s Erotheos Soliacos. It's a super Greek name. Five ninety nine. What do you think about Putin and kissing the Kuran? Well, I mean, have you heard me making a huge deal about oh, Putin's super orthodox? I haven't made that, So it's unfortunate. I'm not surprised. I think that's sort of the spirit of our age, is thinking that all the religions are kind of the same. H. But no, I'm not surprised by that. It's unfortunate. Robbie
heck Music five dollars. Why don't you consider Catholics Protestants? Actually?
Saint Justin Popovitch.
Argues that they are the first Protestants, so that if you read his book Life in Christ, that's the whole this whole argument of that European paganism and papism.
Chapters in that book make that very point.
Logan five dollars, keep kicking butt, Thank you so much. Rootner twelve ten dollars. What do you think about the Shroud of Turn? Is there anything that you take away from it? I never really have looked at this as a proof per se. I don't have any hard opinions on it. I'm fine with it being legit or if it's not. It really doesn't affect my theology or my
faith at all. But it's interesting. But you know what I mean, I've seen people, so going back to when I was a Protestant, I saw Protestants trying to prove with this, and then I would see the even other Protestants debunking it. And so I've seen this back and forth for twenty five years. So I just I don't really find it that interesting, honestly, But I don't have a problem with it. We went to it on our pilgrimage, although you don't actually get to see it when you go.
When you go there, uh, it's behind all these glass cases and you see a picture of what it looks like.
So I don't know.
I thought that was kind of lame.
But it's like a national treasure, yeah, they say.
Uh.
Father Vladimir said they display it like once a year, and that's because supposedly it degrades when it's exposed to oxygen or something.
So it was.
I found the experience to be underwhelming, honestly, but I was also sick with like one hundred and five degree fever that that probably played into it. Patty Dog, what's up? No, maybe an one hundred five. I probably had one hundred and two fever would be one hundred and five, I'd be in the bed, but I did. I had a fever. But what's up, man, J it's up?
Carry me?
Yes, what's up? You got a bad connection, bro? So again today it's for objections. I know people want to call in with FAQs, but we try to keep it to people who disagree and objective. What's up, mel, I'm gonna have to go pretty soon, so let's get let's get these last few in. Yeah, I would. I think the highest I've ever had is one oh four when I had pneumonia, and I did have to go to the hospital when I had a one o four, So now it is probably more like one hundred hundred and one.
I mean, I was, I was pretty bad. But what's up, man, mel, I'm you.
Hi.
Yeah, I just wanted to point something out about the Muslim dilemma. I think that they don't realize that when they say, oh, we believe parts of the Bible that.
Confirm the Koran, I could just easily turn that around and say the same and say, well, yeah.
I confirm the parts of the Quran that are in line with the Bible.
I know we're just had an impasse and that doesn't mean anything.
Yeah, that's a good point. You could you could argue it that way. I mean, and again, these passages are not ambiguous. We revealed the Torah. We revealed the guidance. Go to the Torah. We are ordained all this in the Torah again, five forty four, forty five, forty six, forty seven. Let these people judge, we have revealed it. Look at the previous revelation. It's all in these passages, and so so either way they go on the dilemma
like you're saying, it's a problem. But we could just flip it around on them and say, okay, so why can't I pick and choose out of your book what confirms what came before? And then they'll say, because the Koran is true, yeah, but that's what's in question. Yeah, yeah, yeah, great points, Thank you, Mely. This is actually a good point because people miss under that Muslims don't know how to debate, like ninety nine point nine percent. They don't
know what to do in debate. Like do you notice when Muslim lantern did his opening statement and he asked me a question in his opening statement? That's what you don't do that in debate, asking me questions like what you're okay now? But then when I start talking and responding, let's look at him talking, he will talk. He'll look at him talking interrupt. Uh okay, So but I mean,
have you ever done a debate before? You know, you don't start asking Q and A questions and interrogation in your opening statement, right, So it's totally out of out out of a cord. Why do they come to you for judgment when they already had the Torah? We revealed the Torah, and then they have to come up with this ad hoc nonsense of, oh, there's a secret Tora. It's not the Tora that already existed amongst the Jews
and the Christians. You see how stupid that is. Obviously, the hearers who are Jewish and Christian can't go to a secret Torah. It has to be the one that was revealed to them in their hands. Duh, this is so silly. It's it's like they it's this is so fundamental, and it's such a devastating point that they lose their mind and come up with all this nonsense. Oh well, actually it's all corrupted, so I'm supposed to go to a corrupted book. Oh and then then we see the
problem with that. They say, no, there's a secret Torah. How are the Christians going to go to a secret Torah? And by the way, what is the evidence of a secret Torah? It's just you're just asserting all these things. And by the way, we have Torah and gospels from the seventh century and earlier, and they're the ones that we have. It's not that difficult. It's a very simple point. Seth.
Can you hear me? Hi, Jay, Hi, father, and an As. I really appreciate both of you guys on you do. I guess my question is.
I'm coming from a Lutheran perspective, but I generally from what I've from what I've seen in the Orthodoxy. I was raised Baptist and I've just been kind of trying to read the Church fathers more.
My.
I guess my question is, I don't know how to reconcile certain things like I'm willing to conceive ninety nine point like percent of the theological points like the ES and senergystinctions.
I think it makes the Philly oquay make no sense.
And I think that is.
I genuinely do. I agree with that more so. But my contention is with something like.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council binding the consciences.
Of people to act to doing something that that could be idolatry. And I'm not saying that.
Is that is what it is, because I understand, but anything could be idolatry, right, so reading the Bible could be idolatry. So the fact that something could be abused has nothing to do with whether it's a legitimate principle that is binding. So if you read John Damascus's little book Defense of the Holy Images and the book by St. Theodore the Student Own the Holy icons both of those
are very short, small books. John Damascus's book focuses on the philosophical side of iconography, and the Saint theoord of the Studites book focuses on the crystological dimension of it. Those two books I think solidify philosophically and dogmatically why we would do it. And then the book I would.
Recommend, actually don't have to read the book.
Our friend Lewis made a documentary called Old Testament Worship and Orthodox Christian Orthodox Worship in the Old Testament Orthodox you Hata channel. It's a two hour hour and a half documentary. That documentary is a summation of the Williams and Anstall book, Hugh Wybery's book on the Byzantine Liturgy, and.
Basically it's just demist I'm gonna pull it up, man, Okay.
It's just demonstrating that the the liturgical worship in the Orthodox Church is literally derived from the temple and synagogue service, and because it's derived from that, it is a natural outflowing of having uh, having images of natural outflow of that, and.
That includes kissing and prostrating.
Before absolutely the Israelies prostrate before the temple and before the arc.
Yeah yeah, yeah, I mean I'm definitely aware of that.
Well, what I'm saying is that it's a holistic thing. So the the idolatry is something that's primarily and first and foremost internal. It can manifest externally, but what constitutes idolatry is not literally just the bowing, because we have in scripture people bowing before Pharaoh, bowing before Joseph, bows before Pharaoh, people prostrate before, bow before Enik andcuuse me before Elijah. So it's the interior disposition to believe or
think that created things are divine or uncreated. That's what Paul says idolatry is to ascribe to created things for divine nature.
In Act seventeen right, I visited an antiochid Orthodox church with a friend recently, and I was I enjoyed all of it, but there was the part where we got in line to kiss the icons. And I got in line and I was ready to do it, but then there was like this one tiny part of me that said, I need to be one hundred percent certain before I participate in this, just in case I'm in the wrong, Because I'm not opposed to other people doing it.
My question is the binding of the conscience.
Well, I mean, Luther had no Luther didn't have any problem with this stuff, So I'm aware.
And I'm not like a luther fanatic either.
I joined the Lutheran Church in lieu of my Baptist around because I said, okay.
Well, okay, I got it wrong. Well, you know I have I have two talks on iconography and the principles behind it. I have Lewis's documentary here pulled up. You can watch that, and that would be what I recommend. But those are great questions, and I understand you're not in a position that any of us haven't already also been in. I was Calvinist for many years, so I totally understand. I had the same sort of hesitancies when
I was going from Calvinism to Catholicism. Remember the first time I saw a relic, I.
Was creeped out.
But you know, after a while, it's not gonna be a big deal to at all. But yeah, those are the books I would check out. I got a few more minutes here Inspire. What's up?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
All right?
Hey, j big fan.
I just wanted to ask for some clarification.
I got kind of a little fight YouTube comments section earlier, and I was concused of strong your position and I really didn't.
Mean to I'm just ignorant.
I guess what.
Could you explain to me the.
On the concept of logic in God like logic or God being above logic?
Can you re explain that?
Right? So if you read Maximus, for example, he'll talk about the principles of the created order, like mathematics, geometry, logic. These are features and principles that are created now. They reflect the divine mind, and they reflect the Divine mind in terms of the uncreated low gie for those things. But we do not equate the laws of logic with God or with the divine mind. That's a Platonic position. So for example, Plato taught that universals are essentially identical
to the ideal realm. We don't do that. Maximus says, universals are created and they can perish. This is a specific distinction to Platonism from our position. So when we say that God is supra logical. It means that the Triad, the Trinity, and the mode of existence that God has is beyond anything in the created order. There are things that God can do and show us in the created order that are analogous or that reflect Him, but they're always pale and limited.
And that's part of our apathatic theology, is part of.
The notion of divine transcendence, that there's nothing in the created order that perfectly matches up to the unique mode of being of the Trinity. And that's why a lot of times you can see this very clearly when you enter into debates with say Muslims, who will utilize the logical problem of the Trinity. They utilize the LPT to try to say that, well, logic and analytical philosophy dictates that you can only count in one way or name in one way.
And we don't say that about the Trinity.
We say that in terms of the Trinity, we're counting both by division and by identity. You see, so you cannot subject God to being defined by the categories of the created order, because then what ends up happening is you get people who say stuff like Muslims do or like a Roman Catholic like or a Neoplatonist that if God is absolutely simple outside of time and space, et cetera, he can't be in time and space. It's a contradiction. It's a logical contradiction. Or by the notion of Ariscitilian
identity or whatever. Oh, God can't be a triad. It's a logical contradiction.
Okay, thank you. That cleared it up for me. Right.
So what we're arguing is that no God is above logic, and only in God could you ground the principles of logic. That's a different position than a rationalist position, which says something like God must submit to logic.
Okay, I think that's where I was getting confused. I like your analogy that used Jane, like if you were to write an autobiography or if he wrote any or created a piece of art, it comes from you and it reflects who you are. But certainly you wouldn't say it exhausts you. Yes, that there's a one to one correspondence, that that's identical what you create and what reflects you is identical to everything that you are. I always I appreciate that you do that analogy.
Yeah, that's I forgot about that.
That's a helpful thing, right Like if I if I write an autobiography, it expresses things about me, but it does not exhaust me. I am more than the autobiography about me. And you can say the same thing about anything in the created order that reflects God or reflects that divine mind. It's always going to be limited in its scope. And even even logic itself will note that there are certain things that are paradoxes and a lot
of that can't necessarily be solved, that don't necessarily contradict. Right, So like the tortoise, What's the thing? From Lewis Carroll. The tortoise and Achilles is an example of a logical paradox that shows that sets are limited, Logic is limited, propositions are limited. But even if they're limited and ultim ultimately end up being self referential, they don't become contradicted. Yeah, they don't become a contradiction just because they have these limitations or become self referencing.
And this plays into the Gurdell point.
But if you go back to the just look up the tortoise and Achilles and the logic paradox that Lewis Carroll sets up. You can see that it is a paradox, but it's not a contradiction. And I'm just using that as an example from even within the created realm, even within the domain of logic, there are paradoxes that occur that are not contradictions. Is that correct? I mean, you know logic better than me, father Deacon. Is that is that correct to what I'm saying?
Yeah, exactly, there's I mean, if you just break down the etymology of paradox, there's like a tension, but it's not a contract. I mean, contradictions are defined very specifically.
Yeah, a contradiction would be like, you know, denying a fundamental thing, like, uh, the dog is not a dog, right, so I'm denying the law of identity, right, that would be a contradiction. And to say that God, byas very, which is what we're told transcends logical categories, does not mean that he is a contradiction or that he's irrational. He is supra rational Thomas. So again, I mean for the people who are fussing about iconography, like are you ignorant of how the Jews worship?
Do you not know they had images? Do you not know they had images.
All over the place, They had an altar, they had an arc with angels, they had imagery all in the temple, and do you know they prostrated before the arc and the temple. You didn't know this? I mean you would call this idolatry because of your Protestant presuppositions. So your gnostic is your position. You think that idolatry is characterized by merely bowing and prostrating when multiple people in the Bible prostrate before other human beings, saints, patriarchs. You don't
know this, Jay Carino. If you're not going to come debate, then then you can leave like it's this is not the place for you know, what did the arc represent? Yeah? So, I mean it defeats your purpose if they're reverencing things that image Christ, just like an icon images Christ.
So shouldn't you stop kissing your family members if you're going to be consistent, because that's going to be idolatrous, right, Yeah, Well.
When they dedicate, when they dedicate the temple, go read I think it's a Chronicles first Cornlics twenty eight. I think when they dedicate the temple, all of Israel prostrates read both accounts, because there are two accounts of it.
In the Books of Kings.
All of Israel prostrates before Solomon and before the Ark and before the Temple. So I guess they're all idolatrous. Even though the cloud with glory cloud the Holy Spirit comes down, they're all prostrated.
I guess they're all idolaters. But you guys are just ignorant.
Man.
Look, go watch the documentary that we have here. Christian worship and the Old Testament. Everything that the Orthodox Church does literally comes out of the Apostolic tradition from the Jewish temple and synagogue service, except it's a Christianized versionwise Otherwise, again, guys, mods, if these people don't come to debate, if they're just here to spam, just boot these people. It's not a vehicle for you to spam your Protestant stuff for three hours.
It's an open forum. Offer to come debate. Let's see next Andrata.
This will probably be the last one.
I wan to remind you guys who had to show sponsor who is chalk dot com the best in supplementation. Head on over to chalk dot com and use a promo code J forty four life to get forty four of those off those great products that will help you to become toxically masculine. We support toxic masculinity and Chalk helps you to become toxically masculine. The Performance Stack is great for guys. It's a great pre workout synergy product product that they have. This includes a ton cut a
lee which boost test sauscerone. This includes the Action two point zero which gives you more energy, and of course the pre workout chad Mode, which is very strong. I recommend taking small doses of chad Mode if you're going to work out, or you will overheat and you'll lose it. So head on over there to Chalk dot com. Thelink is in the chat right there. C hoq dot com promo code j A y four four l a f E j A y four four l a f E. That is a subscription thing. You don't have to do that.
If you want just the discount, do it j A y forty JAY forty to get forty percent off that Performance Stack. I know you're gonna like it. I utilize Chalk on a daily basis, big fan, and they've been the show sponsor now for two and a half three years. So shout out to chalk dot com. We loove chalk dot com andrat what's.
Okay?
So I am a Catholic and I'm calling in to kind of just ask the question about, uh, the Orthodox position.
So I've heard one of the biggest Orthodox arguments that I've heard for Orthodoxy is that they maintain tradition and they do not change in the.
Midst of societal change. But my question is, I don't I think that some sort of change is necessary to kind of encourage people to worship, like, for example, like the church teach like, for example, the Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty.
Earlier in the.
Church church's history they allow the death penalty, but now they condemn it because now we have other ways of treating criminals and punishing.
Well, that just that just demonstra well, that just demonstrates the fallacy a round Catholicism because it was previously argued to be a principle of natural justice. If you read the Catechism of Trent, that's how they argue the death penalty. So what this actually shows is that the pope is above even the natural law right.
So I think that's a preposterous argument.
I'm not trying to be mean to you, but if the pope is above natural law and he can say that the death penalty is quote against the Gospel, you understand that that's not the argument that Francis makes. Francis doesn't say that it's merely a brutal thing that needs to be replaced with more humane means of imprisonment or whatever. He says, it's actually against the Gospel.
That's Francis's argumentation.
That's way out of field from the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent arguing that the death penalty is a principle of natural justice. So I would argue that, no, we do not need to change our morals and update our morals, and the Romancalllic Church just demonstrates its contradictions.
By then you notice the double standard here, right, because you guys will say that the Roman Catholic Church is the guardian of faith and morals of the Apostolic deposit But then it turns out, well, that can change when it needs to. So it's sort of like you guys allow yourselves the arbitrary ability to change whenever you want it to. Sell it. But then you'll argue against changing and trying to argue that your position is a maintainer of tradition when it suits you.
Well, the thing is is that you know the pope. Well, okay, I will kind of see that for the sake of argument that the.
Pope perhaps made the wrong decision and calling it a violation of the Gospel.
But the kind of what I'm trying to get at is not.
Necessarily the changing of the moral law.
But for example, the novus oidl and the changing of the Latin Mass and how the church changes, like how it leads the mass and things like that. I don't necessarily see how that's like a bad thing to kind of change how we conduct the mass in subtle ways.
I mean, yeah, I would say, you know what, if you want that, go for it. I mean, if you want clown mouses, you want the all the things that attend the novasorto, the puppet masses, the guitar masses, hip hop masses, go for it. My new approach to Roman Catholicism is no longer to try to warn them or talk them out of it, is just to encourage them, because I feel like at this point I mean, if you're really dead set on that, I say go for it.
You're you're choosing your own curse, so have.
Fun with that. Lex last one, if people don't have the discernment at this point, then I just say go for it. So yep, hey ja.
So I am Baptist.
But over the last few months you have basically all my pre suppositions are just faded into mid air, followed up on you know, your books, your suggestive books, and your reading list.
And that helped out a lot.
But my question today is about order of theology. It's something that you bring up in your videos and you talk about how a lot of Protestants have an improper order of theology, saying that they start from their soteriology.
Right.
Well, actually many of them, if they're Calvinists, will start from the Divine Decree and then work to materialogy. Yeah.
So I've noticed that's exactly right, and I think that's trying. What I'm trying to get at here is you mentioned that, like the Trinity is probably the first place to start, and then Christology and then everything should come out from the Trinity.
Yeah. Well, and it's not it's not accidental that the history of the Church providentially did that very thing.
Oh okay, all right.
I mean the acumenical councils begin with nicea and constantin uple one being Trinity, and you do Christ right, and then the all the successive ecumenical councils, even the seventh are all about Christology.
Oh yeah, That's what I was trying to get at, is what principle do we use to properly find like the right order of theology.
So would you say it's like a historical Well, I.
Think, providentially it's that. But I think just even in terms of divine revelation, obviously God and His and the incarnation are first. I just I think divine revelation presupposes and reveals.
That, okay, because it makes sense intuitive intuitively to me.
Also, yeah, of.
Course, yeah.
I mean when Jesus comes the majority, especially in the Gospel of John, of his of his discussions are about the relationship of him to the Father and the Spirit. I mean, that's we've already seen that. When I lecture through the totality of the Gospel of John, every chapter of the Gospel of John is a has references to the deedy of Christ and or the Trinity in every chapter. So that's the locus of John the Theologian's emphasis.
And uh, you know it's the most.
Quote trinitarian of the books, the Gospels. So yeah, I mean that the scriptures are our guide. Uh, that's where we're gonna start our theology. Now, how does Thomas Aquinas begin his theology? Oh, we've got five volumes of Zoomicundridge and telays based around philosophical speculations about simplicity and blah blah blah blah blah.
Where does John Damascus begin on the Orthodox faith?
Trinity?
First thing that he talks about on the Orthodox faith Trinity?
Cool?
All right, thank you very yeah man, thank you. Yeah, I'm gonna have to run. Thank you guys. Great discussions today, a lot of fun. Had some feisty, feisty Muslim talks. The beginning use of one dollar you help me convert from Islam. Muslims passed through Hell for certain amounts of time. I've heard this. I've heard some of them say that for like Christians and Jews, Hell is eternal, but for some people it's temporal. I have heard this is a verse in sur nineteen seventy one.
Let's see you're asking, I'm not sure off top of my head.
Let's look it up nineteen seventy one. So for those that are interested, I think Jamie, my wife is she's going to be doing a livestream on something. I forget what she says. I'm a conspiratoral I forget what Allah. Let's see, we alla truly know best. We truly know best who deserves the burning. There is none of you who will not pass it.
This is a decree.
We will deliver those who were devout, leaving wrongdoers on their knees. Yeah, I was. I was starting the Koran again the other day from the beginning, and it's it's interesting that it begins with eschatological things. So the Quran kind of begins talking about the end of the world and judgment and destruction. Sam Schmun has a great video, by the way, pointing out how which one is it. It's two, two and ten and eighty nine, twenty one to twenty three, and then the attending Hadiith eighteen.
Forty of Sahi Muslim.
I think all of that when you read those three, those two passages from the Kuran and then Hadith, they're literally cribbed, especially the Hadith word for word from Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six. Now, if we follow the logic of the Muslims who called in to begin with Platonism, all the neoplatonisms they believe is not from Plato and the Neoplatonists. So in the same way, even though Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six is centuries before the Quran and the Hagheith, h, no,
these are not cribbed. I mean, it's it's that silly, right, I mean, obviously, if it's word for word cribbed from Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six, and if this identifies Jesus as God and Jesus as a law, if Muslims are going to be consistent, then they have to recognize Jesus as God. Let me pull up the that was just something that popped in up that that's not related to this verse, but to this section. That's a separate argument. Let me find that because this is
actually a really good argument. Now, not every Muslim would't necessarily go down this route, because they might take a different route. Because let's see, how can I find that? Let me find this This was a really strong argument that Sam Chumun had. Let me find it. Won't take a second. It's in my it's in my history. Here, let's see. I got it pulled up on my phone. I think. Let's see. Yeah, here it is.
It's off of about luck, because that's what Jesus said he's going to do when he comes to judge everyone, including Mohammad.
Matthew twenty five thirty one to forty six.
Matthew twenty five thirty one to thirty six. This is Jesus speaking.
If you want to read versus puils or he has no doubt that Matthew is recording with Jesus.
This is not big gasps, right yep.
Now going to John John would be the cremation.
This is no funeral service. Johnazen Fratthey twenty five thirty one forty six.
All right, Matthew, Chapter twenty five versus forty one forty six.
I'll try this.
Again, bro this one second. I'm trying to sho.
I don't know what is about you and Hussey.
I'm trying to get this video. It's a really good argument related to this topic.
Here it is. It's thirty six.
That's Jesus speaking if you want to read Versus us or he has no doubt that nephew is recording with Jesus.
It's not good Mass was read.
Okay, there's the video.
It's Sam Schumann with God logic heated Muslim panics after Christian per Jesus is God? Uh from the ones I listed there. All right, everybody, have a good night.
Now.
You can also come watch Jamie do her live stream on twentieth Century six six six ed it awesome. See got