Pt 1 Debate! Donnie Darkened Refuted, Winemoms & Dispensationalism

The bottom.

All right, welcome to another open forum. We're going to be discussing any debate topic relating to the topics listed above. If you are a dispensationalist, if you are an Evangelical, Protestant, Roman, Catholic, Hebrew, roots, Islam, any form of Aryan, Modalist, Unitarian, oneness, any of those are open subject as well. I didn't put atheists, but atheists can come and debate as well if you like. So pretty open tonight. Finish my third Hollywood book tonight.

We're gonna have open debate.

The way this works is if you have not been in here, if you hit request to speak, you will pop up. I'll give you the microphone and then you can talk for as long as you want. If you're making arguments, if you know what it means to make an argument, that of course helps. It has been arguing it means that you present some thesis with supporting evidences or some sort of logical argument. Otherwise we'll stick to theology and church history as well.

FPV.

Keep in mind too, I'm a little tired because I stayed a really late finishing the book, so I'm not totally one hundred percent awake.

I woke.

I woke up kind of early to finish a little finishing touches on it, so I'm.

Kind of out of it today.

But that will give all the opponents a little bit of a handicap. I'll have a handicap for the opponents. P f PV flight Airborne get I'm mute.

Barely.

Are you calling me from the airplane? Yeah? Can you hear me? That's better.

I'm sorry they connected my truck.

My name is Stephen.

I'm I'm typically an evangelist until I met your channel in sam Humun, and I recently become a catechy because

Now, I don't believe in I'm not.

A follower of Roman Catholicism, but you know, I follow up underneath my priests, the priests that I have now. But I'm just wondering, what do you think about that or do you know about it?

I know, I have no idea what you're talking about. How does that relate to the cult in the Woods.

Yeah, so I'm trying to give them evidence and then this evidence popped up and they're like, well, if you're supposed to be going to the Orthodox Church, which I am, then why are you not going to the Roman Catholic Church. And then they showed that to me, and that just you know, and then they showed news articles and I was like, wow, I'll get back to you about that. So I thought that I would hop on here and ask you if you knew what I should say in response, Well.

I mean my first thought would be this sounds really outlandish and dubious. The point is not can you find evidence in the early Church for the Bishop of Rome having a first among equal status or a raised status canonically speaking?

The question is where does that? How does that prove? Vatican One.

The burden of proof of the Roman Catholic when they argue that infallibility and the Patrine Sea and all that was there from the earliest days, as Vatican One says, is that they have to prove that. They have to prove that the teachings of Vatican One were there. Otherwise they have to prove that a doctrine of all and that's self refuting, right, I thank you for your time. I only had that one question.

Mm hmm, yeah, I mean I don't.

I don't have any personal issues with Cameron anymore. But Cameron is a committed evidentialists, which means that he thinks that you just prove an argument by piling up suppose that evidential claims.

But of course Christianity is an.

Entire paradigm and it's not going to be proven or just proven by any single piece of data because everybody interprets data according to their worldview, so I highly doubt that there's any such thing as Peter's palm which proves the papacy. It just sounds so outlandish on the on the surface. Greg I.

Hello, Jay, Yeah, how you doing.

Hey, what's up?

So?

I saw recently you were talking about the law of identity and that God is required for the law of identity to exist something like this. Maybe you could explain your position a bit if I haven't summarized to the.

Being of God, who he is, the divine mind. The attributes of God function as the grounding for logical categories like the law of identity. The divine sir, you could be of the divine being descried mind omni categories like omniscience. That type of a being is the only type of being that could function to ground something like a universal law of identity.

Okay, well, okay, I'm not going to say if I was right now. I just wanted to ask you ask you that and I'll think about it, maybe comment on it in a future space.

Thank you.

Jay. Mm hmmm, Joseph, it's open form if you want to pose a question.

Jay, tired, you're cutting an outlets. I can barely hear you, dude.

Yeah, Yo, we can't hear love.

We can't hear.

You, Noah? Is that better?

Coming out and coming back in?

All right? Yo? Can you hear me? Now?

Come out and come back in?

Man or I don't know. Walk to where you have a good signal. It's up and for him. If you'd like to come on and chat about any of the topics listed, Zionism, Christians, Zionims, I mean, dispensationalism, Evangelicalismosis, and Hebrew roots, Islam. They're all on the table tonight. I guess atheism as well. Not really focusing on atheism tonight, but if no one else calls in or has a comment or question, we can do that. I thought we'd get some more of these goobers coming in here, but

Ahead, go ahead, mil Hello, yell, what's up?

Hey Jay? Thanks for thanks for picking me.

But I just got a quick question, real quick that I'm trying to understand a little bit I'm going.

Back and forth with one of my friends, and I hope it's okay if I just asked the question.

Don't have a debate topic, but trying to understand the essence energy distinction a little bit better. And I've talked to some of my friends who say that the energy is God and that's how they'll talk about it. But it's I know, the energy is a thing, and the essence is obviously the essence of God.

So uh.

Any energies are operations or actions.

Just like if you were to work or do an act to build a house, you are fully present in every one of your actions. They proceed from you as a as a human being. Their actions proper to human nature, but you are not identical to the action of building a house. So in the same way, God's actions are fully him, He's fully present in them, but he's not reducible to or identical to.

His actions, right so you, So then we would say that his energies are not him, right.

They are. They proceed from him in the same way that you're working. Is what proceeds from you. It's an it's an energy proper to your nature. So in one sense, it is you, but another sense, it's not isomorphically reducible to or identical to you.

M So what does that mean, like isomorphically and all.

That reduced to reductionist identity?

Okay, gotcha?

Gotcha?

And would it thank you?

I appreciate that, and then would it would it be right to say that?

And again I'm just learning, right, So this is gonna sound hot, probably, But is God hidden in his energies? Is that a stupid thing to say?

Now? The phrase theology of hidden ess is sometimes applied to the essence. So God is unknowable by essence. That's called apathetic theology. But he's knowable by his attributes or energies, which Basil says in letter two thirty four come down to us. So the energies are cataphatic, that is, positive attributes or attributions that are knowable. The essence of God is apathetic, unknowable.

Okay, okay, all right, Jay? Well, hey, I appreciate your partner.

Thank you? Yeah?

Good questions? Do you want to try again? Joseph?

Is that better?

Yeah?

What's up? Jay?

So I got a couple questions. So I saw when you were doing a debate. I watch Sam Shamon a lot could you just expand if you don't mind, I have a couple more questions so you can be short. How does Catholic lead the modalism? I was born LDS. I go to Trinity Church now since twenty twenty three. I've spoken to you before, So can you, because I'm obviously you know, can you explain how Catholic leads the modalism?

The Fourth Latteran Council defines God as identical to his essence and his existence. So God just is the divine essence, and the persons are also said to be by Quinas and other theologians identical to the divine essence. So while Catholics are not explicitly quote modalists, if they were consistent with their doctrine of divine simplicity as outlined at the Fourth Lattering Council, they would lead that.

Would lead to modalism. So that's the argument that we make.

Also, the Catholic teaching on participating in creative grace is an outworking of the same idea. If they didn't believe in an almost modalistic idea of divine simplicity, then they wouldn't teach creator grace because the whole reason they believe that what we partake of in salvation is created is because God is absolutely simple and you can't partake of him.

Yeah, the church cap Trinity Church today and it's obviously artist and ex Catholic.

I hope would you be.

I've only been on my journey, you know, I can't.

I can't understand you, dude, can You're you're cutting out?

I can't. Your questions are coming through Sean Malicon in your mind.

Yeah, so I'm not Roman Catholic.

I see you as more of like the Orthodox, more of as brothers as enemies. So I'm just wondering exactly, Like, I know your criticisms are like surrounding the like papal infallibility and uh a postive apostilistic succession, But you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, and considering like the Catholic Church's history of being more based in reason and the Orthodox Church being more based off of like the mysteries like how.

You came to your decision at become.

Orthodox.

Well, I mean, yeah, it's simply but if Catholic, if Catholic dogma contradicts the Catholicism is not true, I would disagree that Orthodoxy is somehow based in quote, mysticism over reason. I think that both East and West have always tried to balance it out, and the West eventually failed at that. So the Orthodox Church is not based on mysteries per se, unless by that you mean the mystery of the Trinity. But if the papacy contradicts augmatically, that invalidates the whole system.

Are you there.

All right?

I guess yeah, thanks, I'll take that into considerate reason. Just I find the Coffelice Church had more like.

A history.

Uh Like we just talked about a Queenes.

And uh, you're cutting out, man, I can't. I can't hear any I find like come back out and people come out, come out and come back in tadlaw, are you?

Uh so?

Man?

So, I have a degree in philosophy and I've written a book on Christian metaphysics. I'm from the Oriental Orthodox tradition, and I wanted to ask you what your understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Christology.

We're currently doing a multi hour, multi part series which we've completed two parts of on that very question. So I agree with the positions that are outlined in the Fifth Acumenical Council and in books like Saint Cyril of Alexander in the Christological Controversy by mcguckan. So if you want to take a look at those books for the recent to part one in part two that we've done on Oriental Christology, those would be my positions.

Okay, just quickly though, do you think that do you think that Oriental orthodox aremnophystes?

I agree with the councils that we hold to, which do say that your theology would end up in that even if you disagree that your president confession holds up.

Okay.

So the reason I'm asking that is because you just said, for example, that Orthodoxy focuses more on mysticism as opposed to reason when it comes to the.

Divine and say that that's what he said.

Oh okay, all right, find them.

Brenda, you get what I mean?

Man?

Hey, what's going on? Ja dude? Hey?

Man? Two questions?

First question, when are you going to have that Tom Coom single come out on iTunes? So I can I can listen to a while I'm working?

Well, I guess you're downloaded. Now nobody seems to like that song. That's my least popular cringe course song.

But I'm glad you're all right.

Second question, I kind of went down a rabbit hole.

So I've always been raised as a Christian Southern Baptist, kind of got out of the church, dabbled in things here and there with like listening to stuff you do. But I went down a rabbit hole about Israel not being like, well, the Jews in Israel not being God's chosen any longer because they gave that up when they crucified Him and forsake him and denied the Kingdom of Heaven. And the Christians are the new Israel.

Yeah, it's just said multiple times in New Testament Clarer's day.

Is that like the case is like, is that how it's being twisted that we should like go along with Israel because their.

God's chose what was called covenant theology. So people have this idea that somehow the promise of the having it to Abraham or to Moses was only in reference to a historical nation of Israel, which that's one element of it. But if you read Galatians three, it's very clear that the seed capital s that fulfills the promise to Abraham and Genesis twelve, fifteen, twenty two, and seventeen and twenty two is the capital seed.

Messiah, he is the ma seed.

Excuse he is the seed, and then everyone that's in him is by extension the seed. Romans four and Galatians three argue this clear as day, which there should be no debate about it. And the other point is that the nation state of Israel is divorced in the New Testament clear as day, citing texts like Hoseiah and the Book of Revelation and Jesus's prophecies about the seventy eighty destruction of the temple in the Book of Hebrews.

Okay, wow, I'm gonna go back and listen to that explanation. But it just seems really strange, like I've been told one thing and just follow along.

What well. Jeremiah thirty one, He says that this new covenant will be unlike the Mosaic Covenant. So where is this new covenant? What is this new covenant? Wherein the law will be placed on everyone's heart, wherein the gentiles will turn to the Messiah, There will be gentile priests, there will be incense offered all throughout the world to God,

I'm mute, Donnie, I'm mute.

Donnie discerned. We're waiting on you, man, what's up? Go ahead?

Hello?

Hello, Hey, Sorry, I was having you a littleish.

I couldn't hear anything.

How's it going, Uh, Jay, very good to finally be able to talk to you.

I know you had me blocked for a little while.

I wasn't really sure I had seen some of your stuff. I like a lot of the stuff you say, but I did have a couple of questions for you regarding this topic. So I just for some background, I would not consider myself a dispensationalist, a supporter of the government or the nation of Israel in its apostates state, but I definitely want to see get a feel for what your view is about I guess the eschatological nature of

Yeah, I think that's what Paul's teaching in Romans eleven. And at some point whenever the schatological you know, in times are Paul predicts a conversion of the Jews in mass in some way.

Okay, okay, we would agree with that.

My next question would be, do you believe that it was God's sovereignty that led to Israel scattering and that you know and that this the regathering of the tribes of Israel and Judah in nineteen forty eight, was part of God's plan was under God's sovereignty.

Well, everything is under God's sovereignty. But whether that is necessarily some fulfillment of biblical prophecies, I don't know about that. I mean that remains to be seen, depending upon what happens. But I don't think that there's any promise to a secular nation state that is in some way a dual covenant theology.

Yeah, I would definitely disagree and disavow with dual covenant theology. I don't really know many people that actually hold to dual Covenant that say that there's a separate covenant for Israel.

Well, I mean a lot of dispensationalists do.

I would say, I would, Yeah, you're probably right. I haven't really heard that set a lot the dual covenant theology. Every every dispensationalist that I talked to, they say that they reject that.

Well, I mean most, I mean the last two days of debates that we've had with people, almost almost all of them who come in here defending that position believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is specifically still in force for the Jews.

Okay, would you say that in the in the end times, would you agree that the nations unite against the City of Jerusalem before Christ returns to reigns.

Now, the New Testament city of Jerusalem is the church, Paul makes that clear. Galatians four.

Are you talking about New Jerusalem? Are you talking about.

If that is the church in Galatians four, which is a present reality, which is the Orthodox Church?

Okay?

So you wouldn't make a distinction between the millennial kingdom and Revelation twenty and the eternal state in New Jerusalem and twenty one.

Now the Church is the kingdom, as Jesus says at Matthew sixteen.

So you have a more of a millennialist view on this.

Where my favor post millennialism, but many Orthodox are also omil.

Okay, So you would say that Christ is currently reigning right now in the ultimate sense.

Well, I don't think anybody believes. Anybody believes in the ultimate sense because the resurrection and the Great White Throne judgment haven't happened. But if you look at every reference in the New Testament to Psalm one ten instead of my right hand until it make your.

Enemies your footstool, what do you think that's a reference to.

The Millennial king The millennial kingdom would be no.

No time in the New Testament is referenced in regard to some specific redemptive historical event in the New Testament, which one?

What was the question?

Every time Psalm one ten is cited in the New Testament, for the most part, sit in my right hand until I make your enemies your foot stool, it's a reference.

Sorry, sorry, yes, yes, yes, yes, right hand?

So so so when so?

When? So?

When God? So?

When God makes the the world Jesus footstool.

You don't believe that that's I'm asking.

You a question. You're not listening. I'm not trying to me mean.

But again, every time that Psalm one ten in the New Testament is cited, when it's when the New Testament writers cite that psalm about sit in my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool, they reference it in regard to a specific New Testament event. It's the ascension, right, The ascension happened in the Book of Acts. Okay, so the ascension is when he begins to reign. That's why Daniel seven is a prophecy of his ascension. Sit at

And nations. That's the ascension. It's not the other world.

Yeah, I agree.

I agree that Christ is reigning in an already sense, but there's also a not yet sense where she will reign.

That's we agree with that.

Yeah. Yeah.

But the already that is the Kingdom, is the Church. And that's why Matthew sixteen he says to Peter, you are the rock upon which I will build my church, and he says, I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Yeah, equating the Church to the kingdom.

So it's not y, Yeah, I would I would agree that because.

Well, I would say that the body of believers, as Christ price is the head and the body of believers and make up obviously his body.

Christ have a visible body or does he have an invisible body?

Does Christ have a visible body or an invisible body? Yeah, sir, it's a spiritual it's a it's spiritual in the already sense where the body of believing believing Christians make our.

Own body, his actual body when he's walking.

Around his body, when he was walking around. Yeah, I mean he he was, he was, he.

Was yes, right, right, Okay, is it one?

Is it one?

Is it one?

Oh?

Yeah, we are one with the body like That's why when you know, when when Jesus asked Aul, you're.

Missing my point though I'm saying. What I'm pointing out is that the singular visible structure of the Body of Christ is identical to the historical singular visible.

Structure of the body of the Body of Christ.

That's why Paul equates the church to the continuation of the incarnation and the body. He says in First Corinthians. Is Christ divided? He says in Ephesians. There's one Lord, one body, one faith, one baptism. So the Body of Christ, the Church cannot be divided. Therefore it is not existing amongst thirty thousand different sects.

I think the thirty thousand numbers a bit exaggerated. I think Mike Winger did a did a video about that where that's based off of a lot of Okay, Well.

Whether it's five thousand or thirty thousand doesn't matter.

Well, I would say I would say that, you know, so would you say that only the Orthodox people who are members of the Orthodox Church would inherit the Kingdom of God? Yes, I would really disagree with you there, But that's okay, that's not really the direction.

Well, how many bodies does Christ have?

Though body?

But that doesn't mean that that that body is divided among you know, denominations.

Right, I mean.

You have to believe it is.

Well, it's it's about faith in Christ, right, you know, it's about it's.

About they have faith in Christ. But they're not trinitarian count.

Well, of course not. But that's not measure.

What's the measure for heresy?

The measure for heresy would be something that contradicts the clear teachings of scripture, like I would consider you know, I would consider full I would consider full preterism of heresy. Because they say that Christ already returned. I would say that there's no normal say that denial of the Trinity is a heresy because again it's not.

Where the doctor formulated the Doctor of the Trinity.

Who formulated it I think it's less about who formulated it. We can read it into the text. We can even read it in the Old Testament. We could see the Trinity foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

We don't need you're missing point. I'm talking about the Second Ecumenical Council where they dogmatize the Doctor in the Trinity.

And I believe the Holy Spirit was working through that, But that doesn't mean that they're now the You know, so.

The Holy Spirit was working through them, but they were wrong.

The Holy Spirit works through a lot of people in error, don't you know. We're we're still flawed, right, We're not. We're not We're not.

Was it wrong when the church was determined?

The canon.

Was determining the canon? No I I I agree with the canon.

But what I'm saying was the Holy Spirit wrong? Was it was to error?

Why would the Holy Spirit be liable to error?

It's so the church is infallible.

No, I think you're missing my point.

When determined?

The point is it's less about.

When was the canon determined?

Here's my point.

So you're not going to answer this question because it would refew you. When is the Canada Scripture determined?

I feel like you're trying to put me in these boxes, and I just want to I just want because.

It's going to refute your presupposition.

No, I think besition. Listen, I'm not a good not.

A debate tactic. It's the end of Protestantism.

Okay.

Where was the canondi scripture.

Determined in three in three hundred, right.

Three hundred?

The canon?

What church?

What church?

Father?

Council in the year three hundred determined the candas scripture.

The canon of scripture a council of I see it wasn't that.

Yeah, you don't even know when nice it was. It's three twenty five, yeah, around three hundred. And it didn't it didn't determine the cannon. So you don't have anything any knowledge at the top.

Listen. My point is this, don't we don't know.

You don't have any knowledge of the topic.

I I know about the council that I see it. I knew that.

Well, you didn't even know the date of the canon. You didn't even know when it was.

I said around three hundred. I didn't say three hundred exactly.

I feel like, next up, Honey Badger, I'm mute, honeyback on mute.

I'm sorry.

I didn't realize you called on me, you know. So this is a great conversation. But at the same time, I really don't like these debates so much because I believe that we should try to love people into the fullness of faith.

So just lay it there.

And also, like when I kind of like when I walked in, you know, and I saw the title evangelical, why do you.

Think the debate is contrary to love?

When Paul apa, No, no, no, no, no, that's a that's a very good point that you're right.

So as a woman, you're just simply saying that you don't get good feelings from it.

So no, no, no, no, no, sir, that that's that's not what I mean at all. No, what I mean is is that we like, we're here to love people into the fullness of truth, you know what I mean.

And so in other words, like, it's nothing contrary to that in debating.

So are you just here at home police, or do you have an argument?

No, I'm not trying to tone police at all.

You're literally tone police. What do you think that is?

No?

I actually like, please please hear what I'm saying.

Okay, So, first of all, you know, like where I walked in, you know, you were kind of unpacking the difference between Jews and Christians in general, right like that that was what I heard. And so first and foremost I would say, if we can get onto a foundational moral principle or like a foundational Christian principle, is that you know, the Jews were God's chosen people, but they still had a choice moving forward.

After Jesus died.

Can we start there like you died and resurrected?

In other words, so in other words, there is no akin to Christianity, you know, like in terms of any you know, like any Ebromic religion.

That's all infest to be a Catholic. But the Catholic Church has changed that position. So which one?

You know?

Actually they have not, they have not at.

All they have. Have you read? You're going to keep interrupting. This is why you don't want to debate. Have you read?

No, sir?

Yes I have. But but please let me.

About the Jews.

I'm trying to relate to you.

I say, a debate stream and you're saying things that are wrong.

What does say about the Jews?

Okay, say about.

You, sir? If I can say what and I'll leave this.

I will claim to have read it.

I will leave this, but you haven't read it.

I will leave this. I will okay, I will leave this with you.

I try to understand people on their terms and then give my best argument.

I was trying to you didn't have an argument, you claim no, I was trying to make a clown of yourself, Like.

I'm sorry, Like if you're not going to listen to anything I say, I'm just saying.

You're a drunk wine mom. I'm trying to argue that you.

Are.

You guys hearing this right now?

Did you read at.

Hearing this right now? I'm not like serious.

Everybody's laughing at you.

Yeah, you can insult me.

All you want to stand, you on your terms, and all you have chosen to do is insult me.

You can't debate. Why are you debating?

Well, you know what, you know what? God bless you, sir. I thought we would have a good content and I asked you a question.

But no you can't because you won't let me ask you a question or even allow me to get to know you. You're not even on the time and where you're coming from and appreciate you where you're coming.

From and then and then kind of understand by your knowledge and wisdom.

That's it. That's it.

I'm sorry that sort of back to the phronsie Boss Jay, you know what, get out of here, Samson, I'm mute.

Hello, Yes, all right.

So if your position is that the Orthodox Church is the only church, is it possible that there are people in the church who are unsaved.

Yes, it's a mixed multitude, as the parables say.

Okay, so there are it is possible to be in the body of Christ and be unsaved.

Yeah, you can be in the visible uh member, you can be a visible participant in grace and lose that grace. So the aschatological reality will will remove all of the people who don't have the vestiments. It's like the parable of the the marriage Peace, where Jesus removes all those who do not have the garment.

Okay, So so you're not in the church if you're not saved.

Okay, I answered your question. This is too stupid.

Well no, I just I justin.

He's the dude that wanted to come to debate.

Where do you go.

Tectonic la Hello.

Yeah, yeah, I have a neighbor who is a secular.

Guy, But.

How do I say this?

When that thing in October happened in twenty twenty three, he was quite inflamed, and he's like a bench Shapiro Jordan Peterson.

Guy, where does that come from?

He's not even Christian.

I don't know what you're talking about.

October of twenty twenty three, yeah, October seventh.

Oh okay, yeah.

So you know, like, if you're a Christian, you know it could be understandable that you could fall into the trap of Christian Zionism.

But he's secular.

What is this?

He was, like I said, he was very inflamed when it happened.

Okay, what is it?

What's the.

Well? I don't know what your what their point is? Man?

Dan, what's up?

I'm mean, yeah, I.

Think at all the Orthodox churches are the same, like Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox?

Is it all?

No, they're not. No, No, they're not.

Okay, it's just wondering, so what, like, what's your position on that? Is there one that's theologically wrong or Rememberical Orthodox Catholic Church there's only one of those? Okay that that was my question.

Shown I can't hear anything I'm gonna leave and rejoin if anybody.

You can't hear me.

Oh, no, I can hear it now, weird, Go ahead. Yeah, Like I said last time, I'm a big fan. I am a big fan of yours. But I'm not as well studied as you and most of the people talking here, so you can correct me here.

But I have questions about.

The links between Vatican to John Paul the Second and then the Cold War. You have to in my understanding. I know, I know what you do, but that's why I'm asking you. But I would in my understanding of things, not being informed otherwise by you, which you will inform me now of. But otherwise I would understand it to be a part of the Cold War. I would understand that John Paul the Second was a part of the

Otherwise. Yeah, I've done talk to this. What about it? Oh, I've never heard those parts of it, So I'm sorry, that's funny. I don't to apologize. I'm just telling you that. Yeah, we're I'm familiar with it. The audience probably isn't familiar with that. But anything else could you speak about?

What?

Why? Why?

We obviously was the geopolitical strategic position to it.

And went off has an entire eight hundred page book on it called Timeline Magazine, John Courtney Murray and the American Proposition. It's about the doctrinal warfare.

Program is a book called the Doctrinal war.

The book is called what. I just listed it as what's up? Justin Hello, Yeah, what's okay?

Sorry?

I didn't know how to immute.

This is my first basis, Like questions, does the Bible talk mentioned h denominations?

You know?

And where did that come from?

Do you know?

I don't know too much about it? Like why is one? Why is Catholic?

Protestant? Why are these?

Why is Christianity divided?

So why isn't it just it's not divided?

The only authentic Christianity is the Orthodox Church because it's the same theology and teaching of the first thousand years of Christianity. So where are the other ones come from? Are they all like Satanic? I mean well, I mean the Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church in ten fifty four and all those crazy groups split from the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant split, so it just kind of goes.

From there because we got Lutheran all these So I was raised in the Worldwide Church. You God, I don't know if you're familiar with that one, but it's basically like.

They used to be anti Trinitarian. They believed in.

Garner Ted Armstrong's anti Trinitarian British Israelite theory.

Yeah it's a cult. Yeah, I think so too.

So yeah, we weren't allowed to celebrate holidays, and we couldn't eat pork and all this Old Testament and it's just like, as I got older, I just felt like this doesn't make any sense, right. Plus my dad's a preacher in that and beat the shit out of us and my mom and everything else, and so I kind of shied away from it.

But it was like.

I was just always wondering how it got so fractured, and how do you think we could just bring it back together to we just fucking get along, because if we don't learn to get along all right?

So again again, well, like I said, the Orthodox Church is the true church, So there is no like creating a new superchurch that blends all the churches to get along. Like people have to come to the ORTHORX church. That's the only way out. Barrabas, Oh my gosh, sure we go another judios in heretic? What's up?

Its literally names of Barabbas? Are you there?

We can't hear you.

Can here? You did, Samuel, I'm you.

I love Jada. Are you doing.

How's everything?

Yeah?

Everything as well? I'm gonna sure if you were calling me. We had a fascinating discussion about your your epistemic foundation, I think, with you and father and a nice about two three months ago.

I begarly remember that.

Yeah, yeah, indeed, I had one to ask, what is your position on natural theology? Do you reject in totality? Do you believe they are epistemically deducible truths they are embedded with in reality?

I mean, you could go watch the Trent Horn debate for my views on that. I don't have the energy right now to stay at all those points in that argument.

Okay, sure, but no I don't believe in natural theology.

Okay, sure.

I want to ask what would be your definition, or at least, how would you differentiate between properly basic or non basic belief.

Well, I don't think there's a lot of debate about those positions. They, I mean, people who are foundationalists kind of accept the common idea as to what properly basic, proper basicality is. They think that there's some form of self evidence. But since I don't believe in that, what does it matter? What how I would define them?

Okay, I had just been mildly curious. I reviewed that debate, and thanks for having me.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be rude.

It's just I don't like, I don't have the energy to go into like no, it's reversing all the that type of stuff when it's not really the topic tonight.

Mean, you got on you.

Hello.

So I just had a Unitarian tell me that Christ says that the Father is greater than him. How do you respond to that?

Yeah, I mean we responded to that probably five hundred times in all the Muslim debates and interactions that you can find online. Something can be greater in different types, in different senses. So Christ's father, God, the Father is greater in role because the Father is the found cause and source within the Godhead.

He is greater in that sense.

But he's not greater in a metaphysical sense, just like a father is a cause of his son, but that doesn't mean that his son has any more or less human nature than his father. So just as a son can be subordinate to and obey his father, it doesn't follow that the son therefore is ontologically or metaphysically less than his father. So all anti Trinitarian arguments hinge on greater necessarily being some metaphysical claim.

That makes perfect sense.

Thanks Nina, you have to do you?

Did you call on me?

Yes, ma'am, what's up?

Thank you?

Hi Jay, I have two questions for you. My first question is do you believe that Catholics are heretics? And I'll listen to your response. And my second question is do you believe that there will ever be a possibility of union between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Thank you.

I believe that Catholicism is a heterodox religion and profession. It's a parachurch, Paris Synagogue. It does not have the race that it pretends to have. But I don't make judgments on every individual Catholic because we're not told people's individual salvation or destiny. But we can judge in the public sphere a confession of some entity like the Catholic Church same way I would say a Protestant profession as heterodox.

Okay. And secondly, what is your opinion on the hopeful reunion and reconciliation between the two as John Paul the second said, the Eastern and Western lungs of the church.

Well, I mean it doesn't make any sense because the Eastern Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics of the Uniates, do not profess many ecumenical councils that the Roman Church says to

Thank you very much for answering my questions. I would love to ask more questions in the future.

Well, you can ask them now if you want.

Oh well, everyone else has been pretty unruly, so I appreciate what are the questions.

We have the same sacraments, correct, the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Well, I mean loosely speaking, we have the same loose number of them, right, but not necessarily the same views exactly.

So I was going to ask you what your view is of the necessity of the sacrament of reconciliation and confession before receiving the Euchrist.

Oh yeah, I mean this is not a position that differs between Orthodox and Catholics.

Yes, okay, thank you. I thought that was true. Also, in terms of your marital sacrament, how would you view the overall theology that differentiates Orthodox from Catholics.

Again, there are commonalities there because we do, loosely speaking, share the first thousand years of Christianity. But I think that eventually the Roman system, for example, began to detegrade marriage when they started forbidding married priests, which they always accepted until after Trollo. So after the Seventh Council, the West begins to forbid there to be married priests. We think it's a huge mistake that the West stopped giving

I really appreciate your time, Thank you. I don't want to take up all the time. I'll free someone else up. Go ahead, George, nice to meet you.

Jay uh huh.

Likewise, cut talk.

Now. See that was a Roman caln woman who was civil and a pleasure to talk to the half drunk, phronsial woman in here earlier was insane. Go ahead, katok, Hey, how you doing?

What's up?

Man? Do you think questions? So let me make it quick.

Do you think Christianity will ever come to owning the leadership of a state like it's used to, or would it just remain confined to an institution called church.

I don't know that the church ever owned a state, but I think that you can't have Orthodox Christian states.

Again, sure.

In what context?

Not an ownership, but owning a state to lead a group of people.

Again, I don't know what you mean owning a state.

I mean again, have been confessional church state relationships for the majority of Christian history, so yes, there could be Christian kingdoms again, but that doesn't mean that the Church owns the state. There are two if you are you familiar with the double headed business the symbol, no, it's a classic symbol of Byzantium, and the two headed eagles symbolizes church and state working together in what we call symphonia or harmony. So that's the ideal setting, but it

I mean, man, hey, guys, So I had a question dovetailing off that Roman Catholic lady who was really nice. I grew up Roman Catholic. I'm no longer a Catholic, but I'm searching. I'm searching for an Orthodox order church. But either way, I want to know how to defeat the Catholics on the concept of Mary and how they went off the rails with Christophany by not recognizing it being logos. So I just there's any points I could have to you know, have to fight Catholics back on.

Why their Mary worship is just so bogus.

It would just be helpful in some of my discourses. I mean, I did a video that's about forty minutes where I went through just the entire biblical argumentation for the Orthodox position on Mary. I think the Roman Catholic position in the last several centuries has just gotten into a lot of speculations and introduced new terms like co redemptrics, which can have a lot of things read into it.

Yeah, and so yeah, I'm the feast of the door mission. I I've heard, I have heard some of your stuff on that.

Right.

So you're saying the Catholics extreme emphasis on her lack of sin or you know, her inability to sin, whereas I think the orcandox position is clearer that it makes role Mary's roles the theotokos, the bearer of the divine logos, more compelling.

Sure, go ahead, fodin.

So I was like our father Russell here always says in Orthodox she she's not the great exception, she's the great example. And that just kind of summarizes it all, doesn't it.

I love it.

Yeah.

The Greek word, right, theo toko is a home of God or like I don't know if I'm on that house in God, like the home the dwelling place of the womb. That's what the logos was incarnate, not her, not like it was just she was her womb was chosen.

Now, but we do think that she was raised to be Queen of Heaven all of the forty five and Revelation twelve. So if you look at song forty five, you'll see the queen stands next to the king and the gold of Ofiir. We think that's Mary the Queen Mother. And that's a Messianic psalm. So that's an important thing to understand that we do not have a low view of Mary, but we don't have the extreme view that Roman Catholics.

And we do believe she's sinless in terms of her will and actions that even prior to the conception that she said yes. And that's why I said, she's the great example not.

Uh what was the word I used?

I can't remember the rule.

Almost she's not it's not she's the example.

Of Yeah, she's the great uh not exception, right, as if she was given almost a different type of nature that she couldn't sin. But she's one of us, and she's the great example in which she said yes to God and everything, all her actions and and will, and so that that's a big difference.

Well, what doesn't sit right with me is so at my I was married in a Catholic church or nine years ago, and the priest asked my wife and I if we wanted to have a statuette and a blessing to the Fatima, to our lady of Fatima. And I had no idea what that was at the time. Obviously I learned a lot, but like so basically I had a prayer and something going on at my marriage ceremony for maryan apparition that I had no idea about. So

So thank you guys. Yeah, good questions.

Jay, When you all the kind of fanaticism and fascination with all the apparitions began.

Well, I mean it's the eighteenth No, it's a no, no, No, it's wharer than that. I mean, it's really began after the Schism, because you have a lot of Renaissance and Medieval era monastics, especially the Franciscans, who start having in this extreme emphasis on the visions. You've got a whole bunch in France, You've got a whole bunch in Ireland

I'm mute, Jacob, you gotta I mute?

Yoh Jay? What's up?

Yes, sir, Hey, wanting to say that I listened to your Sopranos analysis and I really enjoyed it, especially the impressions.

Thank you that that one seems to be a favorite of the movie TV buff.

Yeah, a lot of fun.

Okay, So I would like, I'm a Protestant, would like to offer a syllogism and then have you critique it.

Okay, Well we have a philosopher here too, so he can help. Yeah, okay, yeah, that's you. Oh okay.

So it's having to do with predestination. So God knows all things. Some people are damned inevitably, therefore God predestined.

Yeah. The mistake is assuming that the knowledge of the thing, knowing the thing makes God the cause of it. So the analogy is missing the belief in secondary causes, which is central to Christian theology. Okay, Also I.

Would say two, there's uh, there's a category category air in terms of time and the applying chronological time in human categories to God. So when we say pre right or post, these are chronological categories that really don't exist for God. Sam Augustine says, He's an eternal now. So this is ties to Jay's point. The reason why you can say predestines and he knows is because he seen you do it in his now. There's no pre or

You're reason If I know that my neighbors are, you know, planning to go rob a bank, and then they go and do it, my knowing of that does not make me the cause of it. And that's just an analogy

Also, notice that what's implicit in the premises and the kind of the framing of that syllogism is occasionally yeah, so there's a lot of errors that are that are implicit within.

Why did you call it? He's saying that it could lead to the Calvinist and Islamic position of occasionalism. Occasionalism is a position that there's no secondary causes and that God is the direct cause of every single event. In fact, it's so extreme that not even one thing causes another thing. So in other words, one billiard ball hitting another billiard

Also knowledge, knowledge and truth, because if you think about their arguments and their positions exactly the same as a determinist materialist, in which case, if everything simply caused by God in order to preserve his sovereignty, then there's nothing true or false.

They're just events.

And second of all, anybody that knows anything knows that even if you could get to truth, if you could establish something like that in a worldview, certainly being caused to have a true belief is not knowledge.

Yeah, and I would say too, like in the in the Muslim position, because Allah is the best of deceivers. One of the reasons that they would come to that conclusion is precisely that he's the direct cause of every evil and deception in the world, So that would make him the best of deceivers, as the Kuran says.

And furthermore, and this applies to the Calvinist model as well, because even the elect can be given over to a reprobate mind. And if God's the cause of all things, then he could cause you to believe that calvin Is sounds true and it's in fact false, which is a defeat for Calvinists.

That's pretty simple. But the theater for Islam too, and people have actually argued in academic papers that that's a way to refute Islam. G H was up, Hello, mister direc can hear me?

Yeah?

Okay, all right, so.

The gentleman, a couple of callers ago talking about, you know, the Christian state had something to do with that. I know that's not exactly the calling card, all right, So you know, I've I've been a listener of yours.

Uh.

You know, I understand that you're a monarchist, but do you believe that there would have to be sort of a.

Ground swell.

Of conversions to Orthodoxy in a given area order for that to be viable.

Yes, Is that a fair assessment of your view?

Correct?

Okay, Well, I guess I'm mean exploring that. I mean, if hypothetically, in a country, even just a region of a country, there was instability and there was a vanguard party, you know, of people who were committed Orthodox monarchists, who had the blessing of the local clergy, even if the majority of the population was an Orthodox, would that be wrong to you know, seize power.

I guess I don't think any Orthodox clergy would do that unless they were moved or prompted by some sort of infiltrated you know, infiltration of some you know, CIA or FED group or something like that.

That's the only way that would happen. Uh.

I've never heard of clergy talking about taking up arms to overthrow a government.

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily frame it as that, But there's a vacuum, and you know, we could have a Fukuyamas liberal state, we could have a Marxist state, or we could have an Orthodox state if we mobilize fast enough.

You know, if that sort.

Of question, I'm going to move on ming again.

Hello, I think I'm in I was just wondering if you've read The Rise and Fall of the Papacy and if you think it's a good book.

Uh, who wrote that one?

Craig Krublia.

No, not read it? No, so fire? What's up?

Hello?

Jay?

Can you hear me? Yeah?

Yeah, I'll try to make this quick because I know I'm on a lot, but I have a few friends who are atheist and they have this like line they almost kind of repeat, and I'd be happy for in and Eyes to weigh in on this. But universalism is kind of like a hell they want to die on where they say Christianity can only be true if universalism is true. No, I know you've engaged with this in the past, but like, how should I really like persuade someone right against universalism.

I've never heard this argument that atheists think that Christianity necessitates universalism.

I've never heard this.

Are you familiar?

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not true.

I'm to say or that they're not an argument just like it's a weird line of argumentation for an atheist to say, like your position has to be this.

I can kind of speculate generally how they argue from kind of almost like a theodicy or something.

I'll say this much.

I don't mean to interrupt at all, but like what I usually hear is that they don't think.

It's like fitting with a just God.

Right, Like they see, how is this like the most horrific idea ever conceivable, as like Chris Vernchins puts it, and they think like, well.

If Christianity were true.

Then like I'm just going to drop this whole hell concept. Right, they don't think it's compatible with omnib benevolence. Now what should I say to really talk them out of it?

Because well, I don't understand why we're supposed to be bound by the claims and assertions of an atheist as to what Christianity must mean. They need to demonstrate why that's the case, Why does Christian theology necessitate universalism? And usually they'll probably appeal to something like well, it's just not fair. Well, the position is not that God arbitrarily picks and damns people. That's Calvinism. So maybe they're responding

So I was just gonna say, too, they're going to take all these words good, armory, benevolence, justice, and they're going to have their own meanings of it that they're going to try to impose on. So, like Jay was saying, you just question them on that, like outside of an Orthodox paradigm, how are you going to be able to justify those and define those properly?

Dan?

What's up?

Hey?

Jay, I'm here to debate about some stuff that I don't really know anything about.

So I'm here company because pretty much everybody last three days we've done that.

So yeah, No, I just had a question. I heard you were going to get together with Sam Shamoun and William Albreck. Is that still happening?

No, because nobody in my circles wants to interact with William Albreck, And so what I suggested to Sam was one on one, separate presentations because I also do not have any interest in direct interactions with William Albret because he's such a slimy, ridiculous character.

Okay, but did you like to bring any of his arguments here? I'm happy to address them.

I don't even know what his arguments are. I like to watch. I like to watch when he probably face Protestants. But it's I just thought that it would be cool to see you and him in a room. But I didn't know about the slime. I don't know if there's any is there anywhere he can direct me to that would show me that you know, he's.

Not He gave he gave Lofton my phone number, and then Lofton sent.

Me his phone number.

Oh wow, okay, Chase, what's up.

A mute?

Chase?

Yeah, it took a second this time. That's funny.

And I heard unmute and I was waiting for it to like connect. I just wanted to say, I remember. I think it was like a year, maybe a year and a half, maybe even two years ago. William Albreck was in a chat on one of Jay's streams, literally challenging him to a fight, saying J ways like one hundred and fifty pounds, soaking wet, all this stuff and just talking about beating up Jay and it's just funny.

Yeah, and I shot at it and then he said he never said it's he's a completely liar.

Yep, yep, And it's just it's just funny. It's That's all I wanted.

To say, is these people are goofy, non serious people. He never threatens people. He'll threaten their worldview, and I refute it. But William Albrick, did you see Brice in the day?

Will I will spile with you anytime. Let's Fox, Let's Fox.

Yeah.

Wait wait, wait what da is?

Wait?

What dad is?

So when Bryson loses it debate, he wants to fight basically.

Yeah, I just wanted to bring that up.

That's all I got. I'll pop out.

I just wanted to all. Brick's just a goofy person.

Yeah, I'm surprised that really anybody think. But I think a lot of people don't know, like any of the background. And you know, it's just like Lofton. I think over time, Lofton eventually became his own worst enemy. He ran everybody off and because he was so nasty, like what does he get? Like, I don't know eighty fifty people on his live streames. I haven't kept up with him, but I mean, nobody talks about Lofton anymore because he's his

Leonel.

Hello, Jay, how's it going?

What's up?

Man?

Hey?

So, I've been a Christian for about five months, and I understand the criticism of a penal substitutionary atonement because of the divine will. So I was wondering, if the atonement's not substitutionary, how does atonement work in Orthodox theology.

Well, it depends on what a person means by the phrases, because you could argue that Orthodox Christian theology has a form of substitution and a there is a legal penal component tument to it, but it is not the Protestant doctrine, because the Protestant doctrine, if you're consistent with it, is anti trinitarian because it says that the sun was damned in order to take the penalty for us, and it's a purely legal transaction, which is not at all didn't

All right, Do you have any recommendations for books on like iconoclasm.

Yeah, I would read St.

Theodore the studites little book on the Holy Images, and I would read John Damascus's book Defense the Holy Icons. Both of those books are very small, they're not very long.

It's up and for him.

If anybody wants to request to speak, come on to debate. I ask you a question, present an argument. Feel free to do so. You can have the mic, just keep it to the topics, keep it to argumentation. Larry, I'm.

Yes, sir, uh, this isn't really on topic day, but Uh, if I'm a Christian, I've been one for a little while, and there's a question that's been bothering me.

Well, if it's not on topic, what's up?

Why do some people claim.

Alex what's up?

Man? Hello?

Hey man, Hey, what's up? Quick question for you. So I was talking to a Roman.

Catholic and he was trying to tell me that ascribing potentiala to God is giving God a future, which violates God.

Being outside of space and time.

I'm just curious your rebut to that.

No, it's giving God free will, meaning that God doesn't have to actualize every possible world or every possible thing that he knows of. So if God really has free will, then he's free to create. And in that sense, there's

And did the introduce a change.

Okay, cool. And they also they also like to say that because God goes from you know, not actualzing something to actualizing something, that to them seems like an imperfection in some way.

I don't I don't understand that.

Well, I mean, yeah, if God is perfect and his existence and operations and actions are identical to his essence, then there can't be creating when before that there was no creating. So that's why it's called the modal collapse argument, because the modal collapse argument leads to the idea that there's an eternal emanation of creating, right, gotcha? Okay?

And then one last thing, real quick, I didn't know this. I just figured this out talking to a Roman Catholic. They say that there's no real distinction between the persons in the essence.

Is that that is correct?

Yes?

Thomas Aquana says that, how is that not? Just like, well again, it should lead to modalism, correct, Okay? Well yeah, because they're heterodox. So we've had this debate probably a thousand times for.

The last ten years.

Anybody else is upenfmous you want to come on to ask a question. Topics are evangelical dispensationalism, Zionism, Catholicism, Hebrew Roots, Muslims, Calvinists, non denominational Mormonism, Mormonism. Anybody want to come on a hit, request to speak, and you'll be given the microphone and you can make an argument, you can ask a question, you can do whatever you want. If you disagree, if you agree, just keep it to the topics. Please.

It's not catechumen f a night.

So if you have disagreements, if you have comments, osmotic, I'm your.

Hey, what's up? Jay?

Hey? Father?

Than I is yesterday you had you had a conversation with that fellow and he was speaking about, you know, kind of stationalism. And then you would also mention something called the Milner Circle, which I wasn't familiar with, and.

I was kind of wondering through a tragedy and hope and through the Yowan Roti books at least that ran the British Empire, Lord Milner, Cecil Rhoads, Lord Rachel.

Yeah, and so like is you know, what's the what's the Is there like a Jewish involvement in the you know, because it's like the dual Covenant theology kind of playing a pretty significant Uh, you know, it's carrying a lot of weight.

Yeah.

I mean we've covered that every time it's come up in the last three days.

Yeah, okay, yeah, but yes.

So Lord Rachel was a Jew and he was behind the Balfour Declaration. Correct, Anthony, anybody else, that's open for him if you'd like to come to the head of the line. I wish that wine mom will come back in here, that drunk wine Mom.

She was fun.

All right, Anthony, you're having a hard time connecting, so come out, come back in. So it's open for any dispensationalists. Anybody else. We'll go to sidekick Johnny and then too.

In defiance.

Hey, what up, Jake?

Can you here?

Sir?

All right?

I just what's what you guys have been talking about. I think there's a lot of listeners not aware the book got called The Armageddon Deception by Michael Sullivan.

I'm not familiar with the book. Well, it talks.

About why why they can't be peace in the Middle East until we figure out what's wrong, and with the deception of the Holy Land and all that good stuff, but goes into the whole seventy a d stuff, And I just think your listeners would I'll.

Take a look at that. Appreciate that. Raven Naws. I forgot Tyranny will go to you next. I'm mute, Raven Naws, do you want to talk?

I'm mute.

Got there yet with up? Hello? Yell with up man ud all right, moving on cool.

I just didn't know if you've ever heard of Jacob Hanson.

Don't think so.

Who's up He's been getting.

A little bit of popularity with he's a Mormon apologist. He would did the little full circle with that atheist kid cosmic skeptic fella.

But he's one that's kind.

Of probably I would say top tier for Mormon apologists, which isn't just saying too much. But I'd be interested if you would challenge him on the debate.

Well, he can come in here if you'd like to, and you just send him the the link to come debate.

Raven Naws, what's up?

Un mute? Nobody knows how they do a Twitter space?

Are real? Camine?

I mean, hey, Jay, I got two questions.

So the first question is pretending to like uh Zionism?

Is so?

I the church that I'm in, I'm in acquired for orthodoxy right now and the church.

That I'm leaving.

Is I got onest modalism and stuff like that. Besides that, they're like hardcore Zionists. And I asked them like, well, do the Jews have salvation? And I don't know the exact verse, but they say where our salvation comes from the Jews? Like our salvation is of the Jews, and they pretty much that's their foundation.

Yeah, but that just means that because Jesus is the product of the entire Old Testament period, that he is the source of that salvation.

Gotcha?

Okay?

Cool?

And then the second question I have because I was not debating, because I'm not I can't really be an apologist for Orthodoxy yet, but this is against my Catholic friend. He was saying, well, Orthodoxy doesn't have that much of an outreach when it comes to evangelia, you know.

Like I can go check out Ubi Petris's videos. He's made two videos on that topic on what Orthodox evangelism is. So a lot of Protestants equate quote evangelism with whatever goofy nonsense that they do. That's not what the Orthodox Church conceives of evangelism, as it's much more in depth and more you know, it's a three year catechumen, a period anywhere from one to three years. So tracks and yapping on the street corner is not evangelism, all right, sop, And for him if he wants to hop on, if

That guy's ridiculous. Uh, Ryan, what's up?

I'm your.

What's up?

I just wanted to discuss with you. The Council of are the Synod of Black Grene twelve eighty five, the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, why do you want to discuss that?

Do you think that it's somehow adverse to the teaching of the Philioquay?

I mean, that's the purpose of the councils to refute the philioquez So yes, in a what way?

Are you being serious?

Are you joking? What do you mean? In what way?

Like?

The entire council exists to respond to the Council Lions.

So what do you mean?

Well, it says very paricle shines from and is manifest.

Called that's called eternal manifestation. That's a rejection of the dual dual eternal procession.

How is that?

That's literally the meaning of the council and its purpose. It's called the Orthodox doctrine of eternal manifestation. And the purpose of explicating that by Gregory of Cyprus was to refute the Council of Lions in the West teaching of double eternal Hypostidic procession. You could read Crisis and Byzantium by Papa Doocus's whole book on it. Are you familiar with the Palamas's book on this topic.

No?

Not, so he wrote Apidictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit. The whole book is about the theology of this council and it calls the Latin doctrine from Satan.

Interesting. So do you think that the fact that you have four popes that are saints is a problem for you?

Or why would that be problem?

Do you think that those popes did not see themselves as popes?

Again, are you the guy that called in here before with absolutely no knowledge of these topics trying to argue with me on this?

No?

Why would the Orthodox Church believing in multiple There's far more than four popes who are saints in the Orthodox Church. There's probably dozens in the first thousand years.

Why would that be a problem with the Orthodox Church?

Why don't you have a pope today?

Oh my gosh, Yeah, you are that guy. We have fourteen of them.

Yeah, do you know what a pope is?

Are you trolling? You can't be serious.

I think you're trolling.

Yeah, I'm trying.

I know. I bet you money. I know the Roman Kelly position better than you two. Yeah, I mean, do you want Vatican One's definition of the papacy. Yeah, exactly.

Let's go what does Peter mean?

Okay, what does Peter mean?

Good job, dude. This is that guy who was in here last time doing the same stuff.

You know, you know each bishop is Peter.

He's this is the guy doesn't know anything. He thinks that if we think that there's a pope that where Roman Catholics like, it's that he did the same thing like a few months ago.

So it's not it's not even worth You can't get anywhere with that guy. He's almost like misfit patriot level stuff.

So because he literally did exact same thing like six months ago, all right, it's hoping for him. If you're a Christian, Zionist and evangelical, dispensationalist, a Roman Catholic, a papist, Hebrew roots professor, if you are a Muslim, if you are a charismatic Pentecostal, you can come to the head of the line. A geomancer, a geomancer, a divant, a divener. If you're a necromancer, a sorcerer. If you play Dungeons and Dragons, you go to the head of the line.

All war Hammer.

No, when you put I'm saying like when you put in the title like Muslim, Islam, Tate, Evangelical, Zionism, dispensation, like you get some wild ones. Same thing happened when we were talking about icons Remember that we were talking about iconography for a while and we're getting like the crazies. That was awesome. Man, I forgot about that now I know.

Out of this.

Group, here we go, here's our civil Roman Catholic aion.

Nina.

Yeah. When I wanted to speak to you at the very beginning, one of my questions was, is there any way you can narrow the title of the space, actually, because I wasn't sure what the parameters were. So, you know, it might be that people are just they're almost overwhelmed sometimes when you have too many choices, you know, how that is, you don't know how to focus in on what you really want to ask or say, So I don't know, random thought that maybe that's what's going on.

Now, now we've covered this, I've lectured on the entire history of.

This whole conflict.

I'm sorry, I think I.

Have a YouTube lecture on this topic. We've covered this topic for the last three nights extensively, and tonight's topic is not about modern nation state of Israel. It's called Christian Zionism in the sense of dispensationalism, because many Evangelicals are dispensationalists who believe that there's some sort of covenant that's dual or separate or continuing to exist for the modern a.

Fust nation state of Israel.

None of that has anything to do with the Christian covenants in the sense of Jesus being the fulfillment of those covenants. The history of Hamas and Israel and all that is a big, long rabbit hole, which again we've we've done separate topics just on that. But no, I would say this is a false dialectic an Orthodox Christian, if anything, is concerned with the two percent or so of the Orthodox Christians in Palestine.

That's about it.

So, and I think there are also Uni eight Palestinians as well, and they are persecuted by the Likud side of the state of Israel.

I See, okay, well with has no.

No, I'm just I'm in agreeing with you that I would we would not be pro Hamas at all, Savio.

Yeah, hey ja, this is a quest question regarding dispensationalism, regarding the verse that most of these Gubers bring up when they bring up first Tessalonians four sixteen, where it says, this is a time in which believers will meet the Lord in the ear.

What is the orthodox interpretation of this?

That's just the second Advent. There's no reason to think that there's that in any way, is some delineated quote pre tribulation, rapture moment. The quote rapture just is the general resurrection.

At the end of time. Thank you.

Yeah, no, that's actually a great question because like you literally have these Protestant evangelicals who like read all of this stupid John Hagey Schofield Darby's system into like a few verses, I kid you not. Like one of their other verses is that I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day and I saw into heaven. I was

I want to add too, if you go to.

Uh you see.

Him pull it up real quick.

One will be working in the field and caught up. Right where what that's actually talking about. That's not even about the end time. It's talking about your death, your individual death, that which is what we should all be focusing on. Right That one will be working in the field and then caught up means they'll die. You'll be dead, and the other one will be left behind. It doesn't mean that there's a rapture.

The wait a minute, you said left behind.

So you're teaching the left Behind series from.

One is working in the field?

I think it's in Luke, but it is in the He does mention like the days of Noah. And that's why people assume that the Days of Noah refers necessarily then to the end of the world. And there could be some aschological context because yeah, first That'thonius does say that we will be caught up in the in the clouds to meet the Lord. But it's it's a reference to the bodily advent of the second Coming.

Wow, Jay here here you are wrong again.

It's Matthew see there.

Well no, it's in lou too, So.

Well, okay, is it?

Okay?

Then two men will be in the field, one will be taken in the other left, two women will be grinding the mill. I mean, the most obvious. Watch therefore, for you do not know what our the Lord is coming. So I think you're right. I think it's talking about immediate death, and there's an eschological element to that. But obviously two men working in the field and one's going to you never know you remember, you fool, your your

Yeah, the the Luke passages.

Where's the Lake passage. That's not what I'm looking for. Let's see, I just had it pulled up here.

I think it's probably Luke twenty three.

Let me find it.

Let's see Luke Luke twenty seven.

What does that one say.

Luke twenty one seven.

Cause that text just says that many men's hearts will be failing for fear, looking at the signs, the powers that heaven will be shaken. They will see the Son of Man coming, glory and the clouds. So maybe maybe maybe it's Luke's Oh it's Luke seventeen. Excuse me, where it says the same passage in Matthew about being taken.

Let me pull up Lo seventeen seventeen thirty four.

Says two men will be in one bed, one shall be taken, the other be left. Two men will be women grinding, And they say where will that be? Lord, wherever the body is that the eagles will be gathered. So he says, remember Lot's wife, Yeah, oh, I see, Yeah, this is the because he talks about the days of Noah and Lot's wife. All the evangelicals assume, oh, well, that's the end of the world, right, because they think

Remember it says in.

Joel what one and two says, I will pour out my spirit upon all fleshs in.

The last days.

And if you look in the Book of Accent Acts two, that's interpreted to be Pentecost. So Pentecost is the last days, because the entire church era is the last days.

Ronaldo, I'm you, Ronaldo, I'm mute. Do you want to talk? I guess not.

All right, it's open for him for any of the related topics of dispensationalism, Evangelical Zionism, Roman Catholicism, Hebrew Roots, Mormons, Muslims, Calvinists, Protestants, Papists. I can't even remember all the groups. If you'd like to make an argument, if you'd like to hop on, ask a question, you can just keep it to the topics. Please. We have multiple, multiple people not keeping it to the topics,

If you're.

A Mormon, if you're a.

Hebrew Roots, black heberus Alites, where you all at, Nathan Hines.

I'm mute, Nathan.

It's mystifying to me when people don't know how to work the spaces, like it's no one does this.

I don't understand.

Like I see spaces going on NonStop all day on Twitter and people don't know how this works. You just hit request to speak and then you unmute.

Nathan. Do you want to talk? You have to unmute.

Oh I'm sorry, my apology, sir. Hey, look man, I've been listening to you for years on Alex Jones, and I just want to let you know that I really appreciate your education, prowess and your whole just everything you say. I'm just like I just nose dive into and I appreciate you, man. And my thought process is this whole Muslim like nightmare that's been going on over in Europe for the past like fifteen years that it seems to

Yeah, I think I underestimated the usefulness of Islam to the global elite, and they would flood the West, even America with the Muslim So, you know, only in the last say, six years of debating Muslims extensively, have I really understood a lot more about Islam and how just preposterous it is.

It's just it's just such.

A low I mean, I'm being nice when I say it's like a low IQ cult. I mean you have to be really really do just like last night's evangelical zionis that you have to be equally as dumb like that guy to believe in this stuff because there's just so much historical, biblical evidence against any of it. I mean, we had Muslims for six hours a few months ago, none of whom could restate what a hypothetical is. And I'm not trying to be mean, And you can call

You know, Trinid did not make sense more God than one, you know, this kind of stuff. So I don't know what to say.

I mean, and I say that because, like it should be obvious that if the Quran says that you can confirm the Qoran on the basis of prior revelation, and the revelation contradicts the Koran, then the Quran is false, right, because the prior revelation takes precedence over the new revelation. But the new revelation contradicts the prior and then Muslims can't figure out why that's a circle or why that's a contradiction. And they can't even I'd say ninety nine

I think ultimately it is spiritual.

It's hope and for them, if you have a question, if you have a comment, if you'd like to make an argument. If you disagree, you can come to the headline. Anyone that disagrees comes to the headline. Hit request is being to bring you up, and you can make an argument.

You can ask a question.

Do it all. We're looking for anybody who believes in Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Dispensationalism, Roman Catholicism, Papists, Muslims.

Black keeper, Israelites, Hebrew roots. Uh.

If you believe in om Shinriko cult out of Japan. If you believe in Jim Jones's People's Temple, you can go to that line. If you believe in Heaven's Gate, we got any heaven Marshall Apple White followers.

Were they actually somebody told me they were actually vegan?

Is that true?

I don't know.

That's a good question, Okay, I bet Rock would know. Do you want me to ask Groc here? Groc does all of my theology for me? Like, yeah, that's right. I don't even have to think anymore. I think, thank you, Grok, thank you Groc.

I just literally asked him.

I'm ready for the audible version, so I don't even have to type anything. I can just ask him Heaven's Gate I believe in?

Did you say vegan or vegetarian?

I said vegan, but okay, I don't.

Might have been vegetarian, did have Evian's Gate? Believe in vegetarianism.

Let's see what Grox says.

According to Electronic Elon Musk, they do not explicitly center their beliefs around vegetarianism as a court doctrine, but it did emphasize detachment from the body. Some of their beliefs and practices hint at vegetarianism. For example, the final meal together before their mass suicide was a non meat Wait, no, it was meat, consisted of supposedly turkey pop pie.

Of course it could have.

Been like like beyond meat or something.

I don't know.

You should ask Groc if Grock's planning to do an abomination of desolation?

Whatever say?

Can you lay out for me a John Hagen prophecy chart which which predicts the end of the world and exactly on what day?

Oh yeah, I forget, I forget about Bahai. I remember the Bahai faith that's behind we did have. We did have one Bahai guy calling one time.

And the Moonies. Aren't there any Moonies?

Left.

Do they still exist?

I don't know. Oh, mooneyes, did you know did you hear the whole fracush yesterday for the deacon with that guy we were debating. Yeah? Did you see that? He was reading the notes and it said to th h that someone gave him and he thought that was too theologians when it was second this Lennans, Oh yeah, I joked with my wife. I'm like, did he just say

In the midst of the debate. I didn't catch him.

I forget what it was, but he said something else that didn't catch, but that was pretty wild. Anybody want to come on here, request to speak, and you'll come up to the head of line. If you want to ask a question, you can. I guess we just open up to any topics since nobody else seems to be coming on. We still have about four hundred people, which is bigger than my X space is usually good. Any questions, comments, disagreements.

Damon, Hello, yes, sir, Hey, hey Joy, how are you? I found you? Do like you and Sam's debate on fresh and fits. Sorry, but I'm basically I'm in a country called Bermuda, and we don't have any like Orthodox church, and I grew up non denominational. But I'm basically trying to explore, you know, which denomination I want to choose, but there's no Orthodox Church here and I know you're Orthodox, And what do you suggest I do?

Like, yeah, that's a good question. In fact, Tristan had to deal with this.

Tristan has had to travel I think eight hours to get baptized by a Serbian priest in Ecuador or north of Ecuador. So you might have to reach out to the nearest Orthodox church and be catechized through the priests remotely and arrange a baptism, which they will do. And Tristan is a shining example of that.

Skeeter.

Oh, and then my phone messed up.

What's up?

Man?

All right?

So I wanted to first just say, you know, I enjoy all the videos, but with my parents who are Evangelical, you know, Christian, and I am orthodoged Uh. One of the biggest things that was talked about last night with like what a Jew is? They usually say it's the whatever the Rabbinical Jews say. So they say it's usually matrilinal descent, right, you know. And I said, then what do we do about Messianic Jews? And they're like, well,

How would you.

Without going too deep in the theology, I guess, but like on a surface level, explain that the because my dad always makes it an argument instead of like just a discussion. How would you, like, surface level explain that, yes, there are Jews, the true Israel is the Church without like I guess something that might be a conflict.

Well, there is a conflict there, because the that's the only one that counts for anything. So I mean, that's Paul's point is that even though they might be still able to be called Jews in the sense of Abraham's biological descendants, their enemies of the Gospel unless they repent. So there is a conflict there, and there's no way to remove that conflict without removing the cross which christ where, which Paul says, is an offense to those who disagree Christopher.

Man?

Congratulations on that freaking SmackDown yesterday?

That was hilarious.

Second theologians, That's like, was absolutely ridiculous. I didn't even catch that the first time.

That was I also think that when I said Apostolic college, I thought he was joking, But upon review, I think he really thought I was saying, like the Apostles went to college. No, yeah, he thought you were dumb.

He was thinking this guy's an idiot.

And yeah, he didn't even know what the term epistolic college meant. That is so funny.

That was That was a good little Everybody was just riffing on that joke right there.

That was hilarious.

That's gonna that's gonna go down in the history books.

Did you see how mad he was today with all the crazy stuff he was saying.

He was so mad and he's just coping, right, And that's I wanted to ask you about Christian Zionism because I am a catech human in the antiochan Orthodox parish, and I came from an Evangelical church that was heavily Zionist, and something that I never even knew when I was going to that church was that the things in the

Is that a relevant point? I would actually say that if you get the book by who's actually Jewish scholars. Name's Peter Schaeffer, and he's actually one of the many modern Jewish theologians who has admitted, for example, that the Old Testament is not Unitarian, that it teaches a multiplicity of persons in God. Schaeffer has a book called Jesus in the Talmud, and it's an academic text from Princeton.

So that's all true. But the thing is that