Pt 1 Debate! Filioque, Protestant PSA, Lutherans, Papacy, Reformation Solas & More!

So it's so insane.

Bunker bunker, bunker.

Knocker.

I got married.

I got married to a funko who.

We got wedded.

Come joint in the subway, he shot, I.

Am married, I'm married to my func.

But do we get joined? Co write a sooner subway he shot.

It's as and biscuits and linerals. They come to to my whole life a spit watch other two. We have successfully cocked our block. We have successfully pretended to burn sage, which actually if you pretend to burn sage, it only banishes pretend bad spirits. Happy Christmas everyone, Eve on the real Christmas, not the fake Pope Christmas, not fake Papal Christmas. It's the real Christmas.

Eve.

Hope you got good presence if you did it, not my problem. Also, you can support my stream via what are called super chats, which are done through stream Labs. Stream Labs is the link that's pinned the top of the chat. You can also find that link at all times in the show description. Show description has all the links that help you help me to help you through supporting the show through all the varied and a sundry

Mmm.

But I'm sure that I have done things wrong. For sure. We could we all, so we could all be more loving. I need to lean into love. I'm gonna be a love slag, wen, That's all I'm trying to say. I'm gonna lean into being loving. I just it just makes me mad that everyone thinks that love, love and being loving is just acting kind of gay, you know.

Oh, it's like it's just talking like this. And and if you talk like this and you're solved and you're non threatening, it also makes you really spiritual. I'm really spiritual because I talk like this and I'm loving, and I pray all the time.

But no, I'm not talking about I ain't talking about crying on stream. I ain't talking about none of that. Well essays on Theologian Philosophy on Kindle. No, sorry, mine says for ten dollars. I didn't make that book. I don't even know who made the book, and I couldn't get it pulled down, so I just decided to sell it. So I don't know anything about it. I've never made a put a book on Kindle. I think I still turn call it what is on Kindle, but I have a publisher for that, so he does all that. I

As Brother Fresh? Here?

I didn't forget to unmute hey man, it's unrelated to the topic, but I just wanted to ask, Like I was watching Fish Dank and Sam mentioned.

That you guys are going to have like a podcast or something. Is that true?

Like, are you going to have a separate podcast or is that just like a gaslight?

Did you not look at my Twitter? Profile, it says writer for the sam Hidro.

Oh damn, okay, that's cool, right, excited for that? Man, I have a good one, all right.

Thank you appreciate it. Yeah, Like I said, I might have had had had a hand in the p O T y the party. How did I have a hand in the party? What's the party?

You say?

The party? No, the party? What's the party? Post of the year. I'm talking about sam Hi's post of the year, son, or might have had had a hand in that? How is that? I will leave you to speculate and think on that, son Jose. The way that the way it works is your question to speak. You come up, you unmute yourself. What's up?

Man?

Oh?

Hey, Jay?

What's going on? Had a quick question for you?

Also, Merry Christmas Eve to all the Christians that celebrate.

On the seventh, the true Orthodox Christmas.

The true old calendar Christians now.

The only calendar Christmas.

Okay, so kind of to the chase.

So, I was reading through the Old Testament, and I'm just getting through the New Testament. But in many parts in the Old Testament, through the Theophanes, there's many mentions of God and his hands doing this and his face being turned.

I think that was in Isaiah or Daniel and seeing the face.

Of the Lord in those kinds you're familiar with those, Yeah. And in the so I'm reading through the Orthodox Study Bible, and in the Orthodox Study Bible it says that these are instances of the preincarnate person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. So I wanted to know, like it just mentions in the Study Bible, that is to mystery. It's a holy mystery. But how can this be the actual face? Is it the face in a figurative sense, or is it the actual face of the incarnate Jesus Christ just

That makes sense.

It is the actual energetic manifestation of the second person of the Godhead in time and space, known as the Angel of the Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

Obviously it can't be a created face. But my question is just this, when I see the word face, it's not a created.

Face, so it can't be.

But is this the person of Jesus Christ that came just in a pre incarnate form. So it is the body in the walking Jesus Christ, but just in a pre incarnate form.

Yeah, there is some form of God that was able to manifest, just like the cloud, just like the fire, just like you know any of these other theophanies in the Old Testament. In fact, in Leviticus nine, the theophany of the cloud is called the glory of God. So yes, they are all energetic theophanic manifestations in time and space, and they really do show us the second person of the God had so in Jesus himself, and the Gospel of John says, I was the one talking to Moses face to face on mal Zimmer.

And this is all to say that it must be Jesus.

Because, as he says in the New Testament, nobody has feed nobody has seen the Father absolutely, so it has to be him, and it can't be, for example.

The Spirit.

I guess right, well, Jesus says to the Pharisees in John five, six, seven, eight nine, when they keep debating, he says, no one sees the Father at any time, But he argues that Moses saw God face to face, and if no one sees the Father, Jesus saying Moses saw me face to face. Is in that very chapter he says, if you believe Moses, you would believe in me,

Right, I'm yet to get there, but do you have time for one more question. It's just on the Coptic interpretation of Christology. So I understand there's a there's a

Maybe I didn't explain that correct, but.

Well it's halfway correct. So you're right that we argue that their position leads to and is a tertium quid. That's a new third thing, is what the phrase tertiam quid means. It means that it's not fully human, not fully divine. It's not the Orthodox position of a hypostatic union of the two that retains the properties. It's a new third thing. And part of the reason that they have that confusion, I also think is a lack of

Okay, cool, that's all I got. Thank you.

We've been doing a series on this too. I don't know if you have you seen the series.

What's the name of the series?

Oriental Orthodoxy refuted, I.

Must have seen it.

Yeah, it's just one of those things where you know where I look it up online after, you know, taking a look at some of these clips, and it's just hard to get a conceptual understanding.

Maybe I'm just too a low IQ, but no, this is so we're doing a long term series. We've only done two of them and they're like three hours each, So I would say start with our series and watch the first two. We'll be doing the third one soon. The only reason we haven't is that Kai got married, so he's on his honeymoon. Good for him.

But I'll kick it out when it comes out.

Then, well, are part one and two are already out? So you go to my channel and type in Oriental Orthodoxy refuted, you'll see part one and part two. But thank you great questions, Civic Crisis. What's up? And by the way, if you want books, you can request come back in. I'll tell you what books you want to get. But we also mentioned the books in the series.

For me to go ahead.

Sure, what's up?

Mean? Hey, what's up? I got like a few things to bring up.

Okay, now, for one, like, I'll just say you are very knowledgeable, and we probably I'll just say for certain we agree on a lot of things, even a lot of things that I've learned from you over the you know, past year or two or three or whatever, And so I do appreciate.

All these spaces you do and whatnot.

But so with people who are less educated so much but still have like a strong faith and stuff, you know, and education to the basics and whatnot. But you wouldn't would you wouldn't necessarily say that like like those people are less like lesser?

Would you?

Everyone is lesser than me? Is the easiest way I would put it.

Fair.

I'm just kidding, what do you mean lesser?

No, just like their faith could still be accepted with the same grace, right.

I mean, I don't know the parameters of people's individual status. I don't, and we don't really judge that typically speaking. Yeah, but I think what we do is we U go buy people's public profession and we tell people if we think that's wrong, that's that's wrong. So but I can't hider and say you're going to hell, buddy, Like I don't I.

Know that, No, problem anyway, we'll move past that anyway. So I am Protestant anyway, and you know, I like to join more of.

Your spaces in the future. I think we've talked in the past a.

Little bit, but so so again I'll reiterate that we agree on a lot of things, right, I think you would. You'd probably agree on that too, like such as like many things I could name that we would agree on.

Like I just said, I agree.

With most of the things that you say as well, so we can like acknowledge that, yeah, it's just.

Or you would accept a prize in saying that.

Well, yeah, But agreeing is not the criteria. Like the the way Orthodox Christianity works is it's holistic. So for example, I can't be like, I'm seventy five percent Worthox, but like thirty you know, twenty five percent of their doctions that they teach I reject. It doesn't work like that. It's a holistic package. So you can't be consistently like I'm thirty percent Orthodox, but I'm seventy percent Protestant. There's no graded scale. It's it's a packaged deal.

Yeah, of course, yeah, I get your points there, But generally we agree in the Trinity, we agree in like several different things.

Well I don't think we do. So no, we don't even agree on the Trinity. So I mean I think that you intend, as a Protestant as most like a Roman Catholic to profess and believe in the Trinity. But Protestants do not actually believe in the Orthodox doction the Trinity.

See, that would be something I'd like to dive into more. But first let's just uh, you know, accept that response you gave and whatnot, and how we'll just stand on that. So yeah, and that's you know, giving respect to that we do have things, even though you may think they're different, I think generally or similar. So one thing I wanted to bring up actually, and this is kind of why

Is very wide ranging kind of demographic.

Me I'm more of like a Nordic type ancestry, just so you understand, but anyway, it and I am American right for over one hundred plus years.

Of this type of years.

Well, my ancestry dates back to that type of Nordic Christianity and they immigrated here.

One hundred plus years ago.

Is what do you mean.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Lutheran. So you know, I'm and I'm also willing to accept the faults in that.

But anyway, it does appear with modern data that you know, not only Catholics and Orthodox. And just to also clarify, and you mentioned this too, like Oriental Orthodox Eastern Orthodox. There's a difference there, and you've been kind of posting about that.

Is that correct? That's great?

Actually kind of interested in hearing more about that later. But so it does appear with this data I've been reviewing. This isn't a gotcha or anything. Just want to get your honest feedback. These kind of demographics of faith Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Black Protestant, they tend to be, you know, at least fifty to one hundred plus percent more gay accepting than like white Evangelical Christians.

Kind of what's your view on that.

I don't think the Orthodox Church is accepting them gay at all. In fact, I mean you noticed the Orthodox countries are famously not gay. That's why they targeted by NATO in the State Department.

Yeah, you'd be correct in that, but I mean in the US.

No, I think that the Roman Catholic Church has notoriously, according to some accounts, seventy gay Norvusordier priests. Most of the Protestant churches are pro gay, so that's all well known.

Absolutely Again, I think you're correct about that.

But the specifically the white even those are kind of non Evangelical Protestants. But if you look at the Evangelical Protestants, it's different. It's you know, way less accepting of that gay marriagerect So what's the point, Well, it's just it does you know, looking specifically at the data, I'd be have to share it in the in the Purple Pale down there, but you know, it does say that Orthodox are fifty percent more accepting of gay than these white events.

I would have to do well comparing that with like Eastern European countries, uh in Russia, that would have to do with the Americanists and fluence rather than the Orthodox position.

You know, that'd be fair, but then the same influence would it would also be you know, onto the white Evangelical presence, but they tended to resist that or whatnot.

That's funny because the Evangelicals were the Protestants one hundred years ago, which eventually cucked to that stuff within time. And I think that if you look at the looking at your data here, if you look at the tendency of Protestant well, excuse evangelical seminaries, they cook over time too. In fact, Southern Babasiological Seminary just started pushing critical race theory and hired three or four different CRT professors. So

There is no The data exists without me analyzing it.

It's just that what is it supposed to know? That's not true because you're bringing the data for a reason. So what's the purpose of the data?

Well, it does exist without me analyzing it.

That is true, maybe not in your point of bringing it is what.

You know?

Just that this is the what appears to be the objective reality, which.

Is that you know?

This is the question I get when I ask this is what what's my point?

But I think that that misses the point of the data.

Okay, so you come from a whole you come from a Lutheran background. What's the Lutheran position on all that stuff?

Reject gay marriage?

No, that's absolutely not true. I'm not talking about Missouri sid, I'm talking about the mainline Lutherans, you.

Know, And that would get to a specific specificity of like what my denomination is. I will tell you my denomination rejects gay marriage.

So well, you started by saying that you're a hundred year proud you know, lu Nordic immigrant, and the mainline Lutheran Church caved decades ago to the things that you're trying to champion.

Here the main line one did I'm not exactly I don't follow that one. And I did acknowledge the faults that there are faults and willing to totally acknowledge.

And so by that, by that argument, you should become some sort of like independent fundamentalist Baptist. If that's the one that I'm not a Baptist, I said, if this is what shows us the true Church, then you should be a Baptist because whatever. So we're going to go about what the largest number of people in a denomination that rejects the gay marriages of the true Church No, it's.

Just that you can see the followers of the churches and see what they believe in, and you can see that there are some serious issues.

So we only judge it by and so we judge it by America's numbers. Is that right?

Well, we are in America, and we're in America.

What does any of us have to deal with what's true or false?

Well, we believe this is another thing back to what we also agree on. We believe that gay marriage is wrong, correct, and that's that's a truth. Now we can look at some of the peers that we have within these designated demographics of faith and we can see some serious issues there. So that's kind of what I'm kind of raising attention to and maybe get your feedback on that.

Yeah, I just don't think that the numbers of various percentages and denominations in America approves or disproves anything.

Well, I'm not trying to disprove, like you know, on a macro level of an entire religious belief, but just looking you.

Know more, is it. Let me ask you a question, is it possible for a cult Islam to be anti homosexual?

Well, I think anything is possible with God's.

Okay, are Muslims anti on the on paper?

That's pretty uh, you know, that's generally I would say no.

No, Sunni Islam is officially anti homosexual and anti gay marriage. So what are you talking.

About, Well, you're generally yeah, yeah, you may be correct in that, but are that would.

Be you know, wrong right now.

I didn't say they all are. I'm talking about numbers and percentages of the professing Sunni majorities of Islam on paper or anti gay marriage. So what does it have to do with what's true or false?

Well, that would be one thing that they have correct then.

For those that believe that, right, and so all of what you've argued gets you nowhere.

All right, that's fair.

But my point is that I'm not trying to, you know, make this macro argument.

I'm trying to make what's your point micro what's a micro argument about the point of the debate today is what's true and false? So your micro argument is kind of irrelevant.

Okay, well, thanks for having me up anyway, but just you know, conclude with like, my point of bringing this up is I just wanted to hear your feedback on for example, you know, more specifically, with what you are you know your peers? It's it does say here fifty four percent of Orthodox Christians believe in same sex marriage, So that would be an issue for you, I would think.

And so by that logic is long. By that logic is lom. It's true because Islam on paper has almost a billion people or more than a billion, who are professing to be anti gay marriage. So there you go. Good job, that's a fallacy. So good job with your fallacy. Any other arguments, Yeah.

I don't see how that's a fallacy, just.

Pointing out as data, but because the data doesn't prove anything, and there might be tons of factors as to why that's the case. And I use the Muslim example to show that your argument doesn't prove anything. Okay, so why should so hold on? So why should we believe Lutheranism?

Yeah, fair point, And I totally understand what you're saying, but I don't have that view that I'm trying to disprove all these other.

Things because so you brought an argument that doesn't prove anything to a debate.

Yeah, fair, I mean I did join just now last second, so I do apologize for that if it's a.

Little off, tokay. So do you have any other arguments as to why Orthodox Christianity is not true in your position?

Is? Well?

Like I said, I actually am interested in our hearing more about that. And you know, I've learned a lot from you about different things, and so a lot of things I think we would agree on.

Actually, let's go back to the first thing.

If you don't mind real quick about how why you believe that our view of the Trinity is different than each other here?

Well, simply put, the Orthodox Church has for over a thousand years explicitly rejected the Phillyoquay, and every major Protestant group, whether Protestant, whether Lutheran or Anglican, or Calvin, believes the Philly.

Oquay, so specifically the phillyoaquay.

And I mean, if you don't mind, I would actually ask you, do.

You know kind of Luther and Calvin and all of the Classical Reformation tradition, affirms the Augustinian.

I want to show off something that we're all proud of. I've got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just got this page up. We are just testing it out. You guys are some of the first people in the world to see it. I want to say, for my part, it's not philosophy want oh one. I think this is

Eternal double hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church famously for a thousand plus years, rejects that there is a double eternal hypsit procession. The Father is the sole cause in the trinity, and you cannot give causation to the Son because it's a unique hypostatic property that picks out the Father.

And why would you think that I disagreed with that?

Did you not hear what I said?

Well?

I did.

It just tended to not be in plain enough English for me to accept it on.

First because all a Protestant professing Christians believe in the Augustinian doctrine of the phillyoq waight ninety nine point nine percent, and it's the Lutheran tradition to agree with that.

All right, Is there anything that you would suggest that I review to better understand what you're The point you're making is because I'm just not getting it.

Yeah, we did a talk. You can find the podcast on my channel. It's called a Philly Oku Way history of a doctrinal controversy. That's a good place to start. And it's me Father deacin Annius and our buddy Lewis. So I appreciate your comments.

If you don't mind, just what is the root of it?

You know, what is the root of the Phillyoaks doctrine?

The difference.

Well, we would argue that Philioque messes up the trinity. It creates an imbalance because you get a diad where you have this principle of this power that two persons share, which is the property that picks out the father. The father can't give his unique personal property to the son, namely to be cause. So that's a diad. You would have a subordination of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit doesn't have the power to cause a person.

Oh well, I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is subordinate.

If he doesn't have the power to cause a person, then it's a power that he lacks that the father and the son share, so you subordinate him.

Hum. Yeah, that's interesting, And again I think that gets.

Into what a lot of people don't actually hear when they're growing up in Christianity. They like this is something that is more of a compla type of thing.

Well, it's not just the Philly okay. I mean there's a whole bunch of other things that Orthodox believe that obviously Protestants don't. So I mean, there's the doctrine deification, there's the doctrine of you know, the reality necessity of the sacraments, which Lutherans do believe professing to they at least profess to believe the necessity the sacraments, but we don't believe in a justification by faith alone, which Lutherans

M Okay, yep, that's great.

So two things in response, If you want to move on, that's cool. We'll just get these two things in response real quick. But I feel like this is a conversation that you know, obviously there's more research than you've done my part to understand fully what these differences are.

I understand some what you're saying. But so the two things i'd say is, like, you know, the thing is.

In my faith, I would be willing to accept that your faith is accurate, you know, as well as my own.

Right, that's like a difference there, I think that we have.

That's another fallacy.

So that's okay, you know, if you say that, that's fine with me. So the second thing is just totally separate.

I mean, Luther says, if you teach works, you had to teach a different gospel, and he believed understand that. So I mean you don't believe that.

They're both important, right, go ahead, Yeah, I mean faith and works are both important.

Right.

Again, that's not the point Luther. Maybe you don't believe what Luther's taught on this, I don't know, But I mean if for him it was a question of a different gospel. So Paul says, you teach different gospel, you're cursed. So you can talk like an ecumenist and make it sound like your positions better because you accept me, but my positions worse because I don't accept you. But that's a fallacy, has nothing to do with which positions were false.

That's, you know, a good point, but it's not what I was saying. Actually, I don't believe one is lesser or whatnot.

So but yeah, that's inconsistent because the traditional Lutheran Reformation position is that my position is a false gospel. So which one is it?

Yeah, and then there's that argument that.

You know, in the context of the times, things can be said that are but that's not really my point.

Okay, but you would understand that too, at the context of the times or whatever.

Okay, go ahead.

So anyway, I think we had a good discussion on that for now. But let me just ask you a totally separate questions. Do you partake in drinking?

Now? Call?

I do not.

That.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just a personal curiosity, I guess anyway. But hey, Jay, you know, it's been great talking to you. Happy New Year to you, man, and I appreciate it always hearing your spaces and being able to contribute.

I think one thing we can acknowledge.

Is in this data, I did share the number one uh faction of acceptance to.

All of this.

You know Satanism are the Satanists one?

So I mean, if you maybe closing thoughts on that, we have these atheists, pagan Satanists and like LGBT movement groups that are like becoming a massive religious base.

So what what what? What's the point of the alcohol course? I don't understand. Where? Why what's the relevance of that?

Oh?

Hold on it? The wrong button?

Here?

My computers I can wear Are you there?

Yeah, I wouldn't have judged you either way you answered, I was just generally curious.

But why nobody's I don't care. It's just I've never been asked that on his face. I'm just curious.

Why. Oh, perhaps on that one, you know, that unique question there, but totally irrelevant. Man, don't worry about it.

Thanks, man, appreciate it.

Rachel, Hey, sorry if I sound bad, I'm kind of sick. But I just wanted to quickly jump in and say that mister fed guy there who was bringing up the gay stats made a very simplayer in reading those statistics, which you kind of guessed and sussed out, which.

Is that when you look at the data he was referring to. I googled it found it right away.

It even the data itself in the report says it's basically just a reflection of the actual culture at large. So yeah, So if you look at Greece, the Orthodox there are more accepting of gay stuff or as. If you look at Russia or Eastern Europe, they're not. If you look at the Middle Eastern Orthodox.

Areas, they're not.

And that the numbers in the United States are exactly on par with the general population's acceptance of homosexuality.

So that makes sense. I mean, basically, wherever NATO goes is where you get get all this skittles. So but I thank him for bringing all his discussion that these are different arguments not used to this type of bringing the stats. I don't mind it. I'm not really sure how it relates to which positions are true, but it is relevant, I guess, to bring up the cultural influences of the face absolutely. Now I'm looking for people that disagree. So I don't have a problem with people asking to

How can you hear me?

I kind of hear it. Go by the way, impressions is not mean. I'm still going to personate people. It's not mean.

It's okay, it's okay. Anyway, I just have a question.

So I will be arguing from a more like skeptic I guess alien position.

You would call it alien?

Like an alien? No, like a and like what like Arien, you know, like you know, the stuff doing with the trinity and stuff.

Yeah, yeah, ok, yeah.

So basically you like to bring up this like transcendental argument right to when when arguing with atheists and stuff, and so basically it's it brings up the necessity of grounding like transcendental objects like reason itself. So basically you cannot reason without grounding reason itself. So so that's that's like a good argument, and I thought about it, But still I don't see how the necessity of grounding reason would imply a utrinity, right, because all this implies is

Work Platonism has fundamental problems which make Platonism impossible. But what does this have to do with arianism? I thought you were talking about arianism.

No, yeah, I just I just don't see how the trinity comes in, right, So from the transal argument and why it is necessary as a whole, like in the theology because you know, Orthodox Christians they said the things to fully as to other Christians as well. I don't see how that is necessary in the same way as the transcendental argument makes you know, reasoning grounding reasoning.

I mean I've addressed time, addressed, I have addressed tons of times. Just posted on my audio feed the response to it's called Universals Conceptualism and response to doctor ed Faser and I talk about how the argument is not just for grounding theoretical you know, logical entities or whatever. It's it's actually an argument for an entire worldview. So the metaphysics that are required to have language, universals, categories, et cetera, requires a specific type of world and universe,

I can see what they're saying, and I can sort of see your reasoning here, But at the end of the day, like I would have to basically accept because that is not an argument. That's just you directing me to read more about this stuff. So would you kindly provide me, you know, if some sort of a guide into like understanding this pillological position better, Like how would I actually go from the transcendental arguments to actually, you.

Know, transcendental categories that make knowledge possible do not exist in a vacuum or independent of one another. They all kind of go together. So think of all the transcendental categories in a big ball, and that they interrelate and necessitate one another. And that type of a worldview requires a world like the Christian position posits about God's creation, man's moral duties, providence, regularity over time, regular nature, identity

All right, but you don't see any other possibilities because obviously.

It's a holistic. It's a holistic argument, and so the other possibilities are not going to have the Christian trinitarian theistic position. They're going to have other positions that at a fundamental level, if you use, for example, change the deity that you're trying to use to ground the system like Platonism. You can't ground it in Platonism because Platonism doesn't tell you how there's any similarity to the realm of the forms to this realm, so you could do no grounding.

All right, Well, thank you for your response, I guess thank you.

Yeah. You can check out that video where we went into more detail. And I also did one called top ten arguments against the transcendental argument, which covers how it relates to Trinity, and I also recently put it up on my podcast feed, the one about phaser. Can somebody raise your hand? If you disagree, you go to headlline bye way. I appreciate your question, It's just that one's a really long, involved kind of response because I'm not knocking you that you seem like you're on the run

Hi?

So I'm not a Christian, but right now I believe that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have strong arguments.

But right now I mean more.

Toward Catholicism, because I don't know how to reshoot doctrinal development and the unity that he does.

And the what unity?

What do you mean? The how to refute unity? What does that mean?

No?

Like that the church is one I knew that, and the first millionaim there was autophalis churches, But I don't think that it was the best model.

Like why couldn't it evolve?

I mean it was not the First of all, it doesn't make any sense because an ecumenical council is what grants autocephally. So you're basically saying that ecumenical councils error if you don't believe in all cephalist churches.

No, I'm just saying, why couldn't it evolve to a bitter system?

Like right now?

Well, first and foremost, there is no reason to believe in the evolution of doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church itself has condemned the evolution of doctrine. An evolution of doctrine is a two edged sword, because if it can evolve to be a papacy, then it can evolve to be liberal or something else. So it's a stupid position to think that doctrine evolves over time. And nobody in the first thousand years of Christianity teaches that doctrine evolves over time.

But couldn't you say that the trinity or anation was also, No.

You cannot. No, this is a stupid argument. I'm not trying to call used to it. It's just a dumb argument because the council that confirmed the Iconodualism, the Seven Ecamenical Council, says it is not a development. It is an ancient Apostolic tradition based on the theology of the Hebrews and their icons and imagery and Sacramentalist principles. So no, you can't again to say that, as for example, Eric

I think you're arguing because of a Patundy and a Lamenta Lue, right, correct, But doesn't these documents say more about modern errors than just development.

Yeah, And what I said was it's a two edged sword. So because those documents condemned the liberal evolution of doctrine, it doesn't matter because the very principle is there that there is no evolution of doctrine. Supposedly, that's why Vatican one and statist cognitium argue that Vatican One was not an innovation or development, but it was there from the

Yeah, but I just want to clarify something.

So the Catholics think that the same papacy was un destroyed, like when Jesus gave the keys to put it was like the same as.

It is now.

Vatican Ones, Vatican Ones Posture Attornis, and Satis cognitum argue that the Vatican One ideas are there from the earliest days, believed by all without question. But because there's problems for that view, other Roman Catholics, like Cardinal Newman, say will

Two is, yes, but doesn't the liberal liberal development is in the category of the modern errors that limitably condemns.

Then you're rejecting Vatican two, which is the liberal development.

But like the Immaculate Conception or the assumption is not.

It doesn't matter because if development is admitted, there's nothing that guarantees that it's not going to develop in the liberal tradition. And I'm proving that by pointing to Vatican two, which is dogma, which developed in the liberal way.

Can you say, what are these liberal thing that Vatican two says?

How about praying with Muslims together because Muslims worship the same godd as Christians.

M I mean, yes, it can be liberal, but why could we just interpreted as a nice gisture like to make people more So.

This is the problem. So in the first thousand years, it's condemned and you're excommunicated as a prelate to pray in sects or synagogues with other groups. Post Vatican two, it's the work of the Holy Spirit. That's a contradiction. So that's the problem with development. Development develops into Vatican to Abu Dhabi Faith Center, where we're all worshiping the same God together, and you can't do it because it's condemned. It's a contradiction. How do you call crusades against Muslims?

They will say, like a content Domino, they will say that it was atended only on that period and not forever.

This is why you're I'm not trying. I'm really having a really hard time not being mean here because you just admitted that dogmas condemn the dogmas don't develop in a liberal way, and then you just told me the cantat Domino is for that period and not for forever. You don't see that as a contradiction.

Yeah, I see your point. I see your point. Yeah, that's all for me. Thank you for answering my questions.

Yeah, great questions. Yeah. And I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just really see you're of love, man, See you're of love, dude, chilling out fair questions. I understand. I've been where you're at. I had to work through the calg Orthodox issue for many, many, many years. So it's all good, dude, the man cave. I don't understand how that we get up to sixteen hundred. Is it something to do with YouTube? I don't get it, like it gets out. We got up to sixteen hundred, which is

Oh sorry, I didn't even know I was muted.

I was actually chatting with you, but you didn't hear anything I was saying.

Well that's why I always say I'm mute.

Yeah.

No, So I've been listening to the channel for a little while and you know, just to spice you know, some some things up, just to give some of my background. I'm an atheist and I just, uh, you know, I grew up in the church, and there are, in my opinion, you know, very reasonable.

Steps that I took to arrive where I'm at.

So, you know, I think, you.

Know, I love conversations.

I'm not a big debate person, but I have had interesting conversations with Christians.

I was in church for New Years.

So I'm not coming for a place where I think that Christians are bad people or anything of that nature.

I will maybe propose some of you know, a couple.

Of reasons why I ended up where I am, and I wanted to maybe get your viewpoint. I don't I don't think that will agree, but I think it may you know, lead to some interesting conversation. Right, So I'll just get yeah, I'll just get right to the point. So one of one of the you know, things that I started to think about, you know, when I was really studying the word, and I'm telling you I studied it was just the thought that God is perfect? Do you do you believe that God is perfect?

Yes?

Okay, so like everything God does is perfect?

Yeah, all right?

So for me, you know, I'm reading the Bible and God was perfect in the Old Testament too, right, So why what part of that perfection included drowning babies.

During the flood?

Like God's omni present, so he's like everywhere, he's like watching babies drown.

Well, God has the authority over life and death. So if you're going to say that's wrong, Like, on what basis is it wrong.

Because babies are drowning, Like drowning is a horrible way to die.

But the universe is a cold, meaningless series of determined causal effects, causal chains, Like, what's what's wrong with it?

Because you know we have things like natural disasters?

Right, we have earthquakes.

You know what I'm saying, If your view is true, why is it wrong? Or what does it mean for someone to be wrong? Why is that bad?

Because if I was perfect, I'd figure out.

It another way.

No, but I'm saying, if there is no God, what's the basis for saying anything is wrong?

Again, like the premise that you're you know, asserting that the hasc tod an objective morality view, we as human beings are trying to figure this thing out.

Okay, so the so if there's not an objective morality, then that's I'm.

Just if I could, I would take like ten seconds. So like century after century, right, I think we get a lot of things wrong. But if you look at how we treat each other to day versus a hundred years ago, twenty years ago, thousand years ago, I think we're gradually getting things.

Okay, so we're better than we used to be. What's the benchmark for what's better?

Just general happiness, general health?

Why does any of that matter? We're just meaningless cogs and a determined machine universe. What does happiness even mean?

Because in your view, I'm asking your view, Yeah, I'm telling I'm telling you because in your view, no, because you feel like God gives us a purpose.

Right, Well, there's also the principle I'm making a more philosophical point about teleology, and I'm saying that if the universe has no purpose, there's no purposiveness, then there's not actually anything that's all actions are equalized, they just are.

So I disagree because I feel like we all can give our lives purpose and.

Yeah, but you're a meaningless being in a meaningless universe, and so your petty little to oral subjective purpose doesn't mean anything ultimately. I mean, you can call my No, I mean is that your Is that consistent with the position?

I mean, you're you're calling my time that I spent.

With my family over the holidays and the joy that we had and the presence that I made and took.

In the big picture? Is that not true that in the big picture, in your position, it's beingless.

It's it's I and my family had an amazing.

This is all subjective. These are emotional appeals. That's a fallacy.

It's well, it's to you.

But my argument, no, it's not to me. You don't so you don't think there's a fallacies that's all subjective.

I think I think that us as human.

Beings are fallacy subjective. I think that So you're just you're not here to preach, dude. Can you debate or not?

No, I'm telling you.

Can you you're telling me. I'm asking you if if fallacies and the laws of logic or subjective.

It depends on the argument. There are this argument and the objective arguments.

Well, we're talking about what we're talking about, that's what I'm referring to. Obviously.

Yeah, I think there's an objective right or wrong between me.

So you made an emotional appeal bringing up your family at the holidays, and I'm saying that that's a fallacy, and you're saying that that's my opinion. So there's not fallacies.

I'll conclude my magin my argument is.

You didn't make an argument, you made a fallacy.

I will, I will.

I'm going to come now, hold on, I want to before you go on, I need to know if fallacies exist or if they're subjective. Yes, okay, So there's laws of logic? What are those?

Well, if I can, So.

You're not going to address the questions. You're not. You can't. You're not here to preach. What are there laws of logic or not?

Yeah?

Yeah, okay? And where are those? What are those in a meaningless universe?

If they're a verifiable truths and falsities and that we can test, those are very good gauges.

Okay, how do you test a law of logic?

Again?

Are we talking about morality or other things as science?

Okay? So you don't even know what you're talking about. You're not even you don't even know, You're like not even in the game. I'm talking about the laws of logic and what they are and where they are and how they're justified because you said they do exist.

Okay, where you give an example, because I had a very simple point I was just trying to close off.

With in ten seconds.

Well, you made a fallacy and I called out the fallacy of an emotional appeal when you started saying that, how dare you say that my time with my family doesn't have any meaning? And I'm saying, that's an emotional appeal, it's relevant to you today, and you're saying that's why I said, well, what a minute. You said that's subjective, and I said, no, an emotional appeal is a fallacy, it's not subjective. That's why I'm asking you if laws

What are they?

Where are they? What's the justification for believing those things in an atheist universe?

Well, again, like I said, I will grant you that there are laws of logic.

I'm I'm not well for questioned?

So what are they? How are they? Where are they? What's the justification for those in eight?

Can you tell me some examples of the laws and logic so I can follow what you're saying.

There's a point, all right, So like, if you're going to come debate, maybe you should have known about those things before you debate. That's not being mean. If you come to debate and you don't know what a law of logic is, you're not ready to debate, that's not me being mean. If you disagree, raise your hand and I'll bring you to the head of the line. Who disagrees? Okay, Monitor? What's up?

Dude?

Hey, okay, yep, I don't disagree, but can I have a question?

Can I ask why did you come to that now? Because I asked people specifically to come to the headline if they disagree, and so you like metal? What's up? See now we're back to fifteen hundred live. I don't understand what's a dog?

Hello?

Yes, sir?

Oh hey, sorry you said Monitor? I was just I didn't I didn't hear it was a metal ass foreword the wrong thing.

Go ahead, Oh you're.

Good, Thanks for letting me on. I've been trying to get on for a while.

You know, I try to be pretty proficient.

In my philosophical thinking, but for the most part, I guess I'm pretty adept in it.

So forgive me ahead.

Of time, your adapt or, inapt.

Or excuse me, okay, what I mean?

Okay.

So I've been attending an Orthodox parish for the past four years.

In southern California, and I grew up Baptist.

I went to an Evangelical university, Biola.

I'm sure you've heard of it.

It's pretty well known.

But I'm really trying to get to the point where I recently have kind of stopped attending because I really, m hmm. There's just some some qualms I've had that I just can't get my Protestant mind around.

Mainly in particular, I guess.

The the final authority that Scripture has.

And.

I guess most people I talked to at my parish they would hold tradition and the the traditions of the Church essentially as a safeguard for the interpretation of Scripture.

Do you see it as such as well?

I would say that'd be one element of tradition, sure would be one that would be one function of it.

Sure, Okay, I guess really it's my main My main qualm with it is ecumenical counsels are infallible in an orthodoxy point. And I don't really see how they are infallible.

Because ultimately, if they go outside the.

Bounds of scripture, then shouldn't they be held to Okay.

Well, first of all, they don't go outside the bounds of scripture, And in fact, in every ecumenical council they cite as the first level of authority divine revelation, particularly scripture, so scriptures almost always put first, and then they'll list arguments from tradition and church fathers, and then arguments from logic, so there's always usually kind of a tear system going on there. But the idea that they would go outside of or contradict, we would say, I mean, you can

And that's ultimately what I've had to come to terms with.

So what's an example of what's an example of an ecumenical council that went outside the buses war?

Well, I wouldn't.

I mean, I guess maybe the triumph of orthodoxy in terms of icon veneration being re implemented.

Back in to the churches of practice.

Right, So how would that be going out saw the bounds of scripture when you find out throughout all the throughout all the Old Testament that God tells you to venerate things like the arc of the Covenant.

Totally.

And I understand that that typeological argument, but it really doesn't quite hit home with me and my own heart, and I really wish I could get to the point where it does. Ultimately, you know, I don't see it happening.

I mean I do.

I watched countless hours, read you know, countless pages of books, and ultimately I feel like you can't really trace it back.

To the first century.

Ultimately, did they have the eu Christ in the first century? They did, Yes, sir, okay, was that revered.

More than it is now in Protestant circles?

I would say, yes, hold on, was that I'm just well.

I just mean, like it's it's revered.

Then, it's revered now. But I would say it has more of a it has more of a relaxed view nowadays than it did.

You know, like, no, no, I'm not talking about Protestants today. I'm just asking you if they revered, if they revered the Eucharist and believed in the real presence of the first century? Is that not a created thing? Is that idolatry? Would Wouldn't that violate the point you're making about the seventh the Council.

I guess it would. Yes.

So in Joshua seven it says Joshua torres close and fell in the arc, fell in on the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord him and all the elder elders of Israel. So they're prostrating before the arc. Is idolatry?

No, I don't think it is. But also the presence of God was.

In the ark at that moment, so you don't believe it is in the Eucharist.

So, but he's not president in the liturgy. I don't understand is he president in the bodies of the Saints or not he is? So where's the problem?

I guess the problem for me is.

I understand the logic to get to the point where you know the prototype when when you when you venerate the prototype, you're you're venerating Christ. Right, Ultimately I understand that, But as a practice, I don't see it happening in the first century archaeologically or historically.

Where's the Protestant Canada scripture in the first century?

That That's another thing I've been thinking about, truly, is I don't really I understand the argument that, well, where did you get the Canada Scripture?

No, no, I didn't say that. I'm not going to the canon argument. I'm specifically saying the argument presupposes that there would be some written proof or evidence of that in the first century, And I'm saying that Protestants themselves believe multiple doctrines that are not explicitly written in the first century documents or texts. For example, where in the first century is the Protestant or the second century of the Protestant Canada Scripture.

I think the Canada Scripture was already pretty well established.

Yeah, that's totally not true. Where did you get that idea? We name a church father in the first, second, or third century that lists the Protestant candascripture?

Do they need to lift it if they already.

You're just said that, Where was the evidence it's in the first few centuries or the first century for icon veneration?

Well, right, right, okay, I see, I see your thing.

Okay, name a Protestant, Name a church father in the first three centuries that has a Protestant cannon scripture, that.

Has a canon of scripture?

I mean, you have no that has the Protestant canon of scripture? Are you having a hard time? I'm not trying to be mean, but like, it's not a hard Can you name a church father for the third time in the first three centuries that lists the Protestant canon of scripture?

What do you mean by product?

I mean, have you actually read this stuff? I'm not trying to be rude, but it's like, I don't you've been You've been attending an Orthodox church for four years and you they're not familiar with any of those. That doesn't make.

Any sense, I am.

But what I'm saying is the Canada Scripture by the time it was established.

When do you think that? When do you think that was?

Third century?

Four? Yeah? Third century?

By who? What do you? I don't know what are you talking about?

Who?

Who listed the Protestant canon district? You don't know that the Protestants of a different canon.

Each Yeah, each father had roughly a different canon, but there were some that were there were books that were always maintained.

And so what church father in the first three centuries maintained the Protestant list of books name one?

I guess there is none.

Correct, So you're requiring for orthodox a position that a Protestant doesn't hold to themselves. So that's a double standard because there are many things that even Protestants believe that were not written as a dispute or a issue in the first, second or even third century.

Yeah, like justification by faith alone, essentially is.

Would be one of them.

Well that if you believe, if you read ELSI graph wasn't believed by anybody in the first fifteen hundred years. I'm not trying to be really but I don't actually think you have. I don't actually think you've looked into these issues, and I don't act. How have you attended North X Church for four years and this is where you're at? It just doesn't make any sense.

Well that's why I'm not christ made in essentially it is because I just really, ultimately, I'm not trying to say that you guys aren't Christians or you're wrong about.

These things, but you don't. You don't exemplify much knowledge about these topics at all. So what were you doing this for?

You?

Did you go like once every four years?

Like?

No, I go every week?

Okay? An I mean does the priest not know anything? Like he's just not good at katechisas or what?

No, No, they're absolutely great.

Kiss.

I What I'm ultimately trying to get at is I do not I ultimately think that I don't understand how scripture isn't held to a higher authority than the tradition of the church.

But do you understand that when you walk into the liturgy, the whole thing is scripture? So what do you? I mean, the readings are all scripture, So what are.

You talking about?

I love the liturgy?

Well, that you're you're introducing a false divide between the two things. So where do you understand that the Bible comes out the Bible comes out of the liturgy. Did you even know that.

The Bible comes out of the liturgy or it's made alive in the liturgyes?

No, it's literally determined to be what it is from the liturgy.

Wouldn't that and wouldn't that imply that the liturgy is prior to.

Well, what does Paul say in First Timothy? That's the pillar and ground of truth.

The church?

Right? Does he say the books the scrolls? No? Okay, So the Church produces the Bible and determines what goes into it. And part of the way the Church determined that was the electionaries. Electionaries are daily readings. The daily readings had a huge role on the Church fathers over the centuries, deciding by the time of Trollo and the sixth and Seventh Council as to what would be included

Correct, they do reject the Deudio canon.

Okay, so you're saying, come about the premiacy of scripture, and you're going you want to go to a group that doesn't even have all the scriptures.

Well, when I think about it, and when I think about it, logically, they had the book before they had the services. The books came before the liturgy.

No, that's not true. Totally wrong. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. If you read Williams and Anstall book on the history of the formation of Christian liturgical worship out of the synagogue and temple system, and even if you read a Protestant like Hugh Weybrew in his book The Byzantine Liturgy, the liturgy predates and precedes the the canonical list of scriptures. So you're absolutely wrong.

Maybe then it might predate the canon list.

How are you going to have solo scripturia without a canon?

Well, there was already established scripture before.

You're missing a point. It doesn't matter. I understand that certain churches might have had Paul's Letters or this or that gospel, but for sola scriptura to be true, you need the entire Protestant sixty six Books of the Bible, and even James White in his recent debate with Trent Horne, admitted that no, the Church of the first several centuries did not operate on a sol scripture of principle because they did not have the entirety of the Bible. Do you understand you can't have solos?

Yeah?

Okay, Well then that refutes your previous point.

I'm not even saying that all you need is scripture. I don't even hold to is. So I don't even hold.

I believe the Orderdrox Church does believe in premuscret that the scripture is is primary.

Okay, okay, okay, yeah, okay. Can we move on and can ask you one more question?

Okay?

So the Orthodox view of hell, I know that there are a lot of differing views on it, because I mean to say ultimately what the afterlife is going to be like ultimately.

But one of the.

Main proponents of what I've heard coming from my own parish personally, is that you know, the wicked and the righteouster are all raised, We're all going to get new bodies. Some are made for destruction and some are made for eternal life with Christ right and the same river of life that flows from the throne is like fire to you know what I'm trying to say.

You know I'm getting at You've heard this? Is that is that view held mainly because.

I guess, logically speaking, God, God's presence cannot inhabit or God cannot sustain I guess a place of existence for us in the afterlife where his presence is not so he can't create Hell, where he can't create Hell.

And sustain its existence. If his presence is not there.

And if you're going to believe that Hell is the absence of God's presence, then how can Hell be sustained?

I mean it's not ultimately determined by a question revolving around divine on the presence. It's more so a question revolving around Christology and the idea that Jesus assumed universal human nature, and that's why all men are resurrected. So all men are resurrected regardless of whether they're wicked or righteous, according to Paul and verse Crinian's fifteen. And as Christology develops,

Here Nasty Christ.

Yeah. So Aaron As also talks about recapitulation and against heresy. So this is the idea that Christ recapitulates everything that Adam lost, and Adam's sin didn't just affect him personally or his own physical body or his progen and it affected the entire universe. So there's a cosmic scope. Because man was a steward of all creation, Christ becomes the new steward of all creation. Thus the scope of the

Okay, Okay, that that's a nice clarification.

Sure, Okay, yeah, a new time man. I appreciate you coming on, and I'm sorry if I got a little uh testy there. It's just the the thing with the canon is a is a is a thing. I harp on a lot. It's just kind of a pet peeve of mine. So I'm not being rude to you. I'm always I'm looking for people who disagree. If you say you're disagreeing and you don't disagree, I'm just gonna be gonna be You're not gonna answer your question because it gets annoying when people lie and say that they disagree

Rick? Hey? What's up? Jay?

How you doing, sir.

Good?

Can you hear me? All right? All right?

Yeah?

My issue?

Well, yesterday I was listening to one of your I guess little whatever this is called, and I heard you say that if you're not a member of the orthodized.

Trop all on, just one second to the guy in the chat over here on YouTube, not you, Jimmy and.

The 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

Chat if you want to. Instead of spamming, you have to come to debate. So you're welcome to come and chat Jimmy. But to just spam the chat, you're just gonna get booted. So go ahead, man, what's upright?

No problem?

Yeah? I just heard that.

I think that if you're not an adherent to the tenets of the Orthodox Faith, that you know you're going to hell.

I heard you say that.

Okay, so what what are your parameters? And I'm not asking a question, this is not Q and A.

But I'm sure I'll be able to find something in your response, that won't give me an opportunity to argue against what you believe. But in terms of your parameters for sociology, what is essential for salvation according to the Orthodox Faith? According to your understanding, which I'm sure you're understanding is limited. I doubt you have in your mind the entire you know, canon of understanding from all the synods. But according to your limited understanding, what is necessary for salvation?

Do you have an understanding of all the synods?

No? I don't, okay, and I think no one does.

That's going to be part.

Of the logic which I understand you hold is pre eminent in terms of understanding your faith above other things. So, but let's just ask the question, if you don't mind, if you can answer it, what is essential for salvation?

Well, for example, there's not a one size fits all because we would say, as Orthodox that say, a retarded person or a child who doesn't have any advanced level of understanding can be saved. Right, So the Orthodox Church we baptize children then slow people as well, so they can be baptized and saved without extensive amounts of knowledge. I think Jesus says, you know to who much is given, much is required. So in those cases I would say

Okay, And when you say a mystical body of Christ, what does that mean.

That? Well, because the.

Mystical definition that kind of just.

For me that throws me off.

Like that's just that the ald term. It doesn't it doesn't ever to do with a mystical definition. It just means that the extension of the incarnation is the Church. It is the visible, institutional Orthodox Church, which is the continuation of His body. Say that same much, let me finish. According to Paul first Corinthians twelve, when he talks about the church at Corinthie says, you are Christ's body, eyes, hands, feet,

Yeah, with the contextually, what he was actually talking about in one Corinthians twelve was to not elevate one part of the body over another, that the entire body was essential. So I would cite you as being incorrect there on your contextualization of that scripture and ulizing it for the mystic body of Christ.

So you're a gnostic who doesn't believe in the incarnation that's what you're saying.

Now, I believe in the incarnation that what I said, and you're you're setting up a straw man right there.

Well, no, your your exidesis tells me that your position is what Protestant? Are you Protestant?

I no, I'm actually pre Protestant. I would be like Brien, you know what, because.

Heretic?

Okay, no, I'm not a heretic.

But there is no such thing as a Brian church doesn't Here's the.

Thing, this is, this is what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that the first century church you're you're not that you're a you're from what I'm not.

That that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as you have. You're not that there is no boer in church. You made it up.

Let me make it. Let me make another point.

See Rachel laughing. You know I sense that there is a lack of the fruit of this.

Okay, yeah, here we go. Yeah, well you should be thought of because you're ridiculous.

Okay, Well here's the thing.

All right, here's the thing.

See that type of comment, when you go into the ad homin and attacks, you basically rendered any of.

Your because nobody should listen to you, because nobody believes in a delusion on this channel. What I said, because nobody is gonna listen to somebody who believes that they're reinventing a first century church. That means you're in delusion. So we're not gonna argue with you. You're a waste of time, You're a delusion. That was not mean, that was correct. So notice how nice I was to that guy, answering his questions, and then he comes with this total quackery.

Man?

Oh, we got a philanthropists playboy, he's a mac daddy. He's gonna set us straight.

Yo, No, no, no, I have So I came across an argument from the Muslims I've never heard of before, and I'm curious your take on it.

His argument is because Christ, can you hear me?

Yep?

Okay?

Because Christ took on a fully human nature and he has that in eternity right, he's bound to it for eternity, he says. He said, how is that not idolatry because you can't separate the person from the nature.

Well, Saint Cyril addressed this objection. It's an objection that the story has had. And Cyril's answer is that the we're not worshiping the humanity for the sake of humanity. We worship the one Christ hypostatically united to the human nature that he took on. So it's the body of the god Man. We're not worshiping his body.

Okay.

So I said something very similar to that, and he kept on reiterating that because it's a property that the person has and we claim to worship Christ as a whole.

He couldn't seem to get past that.

I was thinking that it was probably just him having a lack of person in nature distinction is that?

I mean, I think that's part of it, But also, like the point of the hypeset of union is that the whole Christ is what's worshiped, not parts. And that's what ephesis reiterates against the stories, because the story says, if you worship the humanity, you're worshiping a man and you're an idolator. And so the response is that there is no dividing of the worship that we direct to Christ. The worship that we direct to Christ is to the divine person in his human nature, so that the subject is

And because he took it on, it wouldn't be.

Idolatry that And also Muslims are really in no better position because they can't figure out if they worship and if there's an eternal Qur'an next to a lot as well.

Right, Yeah, exactly, all right, that was it. I appreciate it.

Yeah, good question. I mean, the anathemas of ethicis if you read through them, they're actually that's funny, because that's I wonder if Nestorius, I mean, if you read even today's academics, they'll point out that Islam was influenced by Arianism and Astorianism and the Talmud and so forth and so on. So I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a connection between Nestorius's argumentation and what you hear Muslims make Ea Christian Ea, what's up?

Hello, m.

Oh hi, thanks for having me on. So my question actually follows from that. It's somewhat similar. So I don't quite understand the difference between the Eastern Orthodox position and Oriental or copted and regards to Christ's nature.

Okay, well that's a question, and I don't mind the question. But we're doing an ongoing series about that that you can watch on my channel. This is for people who disagree today, so you can go to my channel and watch part one in part two of Oriental Orthodoxy Refuted, where we spend about six hours addressing that topic, and we have many, many more installments coming. So I'm looking for people who disagrees, So raise your hand in the

You know what's up? Jay?

Hey, Okay, I'm probably going to disagree with you on one question, but can I just get this off my head first?

I don't know if you.

Saw Charlie Kirk talking to Michael Noles.

I heard they had a debate. I've not seen it.

Yeah, he was making a point.

He made it against Catholics, but would follow for you two, how we take Maccabee's but the Jews don't.

So why, Well, Jews don't.

Just Jews don't believe the New Testament.

So what That's what I said. But so yeah, so that's just a stupid argument.

It is a stupid And also, the Apostles site and utilize uh dider canonical texts quite often. The subtuo agent which the Apostles usually used, included the dider Ken.

Okay, nice, second, I want to know your take. I'm sure you've deep dived the Fatima.

Case. Like the miracle. You believe that was a real miracle.

I do not know.

Why.

Even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not we should follow it. I mean, what does Jesus say about signs and wonders? Wicked adulterous generation seeks signs and wonders. Every religion proclaims signs and wonders. Are you familiar with Mary's so called apparition at Zaytun?

No, I haven't heard that one.

So if you look up the Zytoon apparition in Egypt, this is the most famous recent apparition. Thousands of Egyptians saw supposedly the Virgin Marya appear over a Coptic church in Egypt and Zytune does that prove Coptic Christianity truth? Probably not know right, So Mary and apparitions cannot be the thing that proves the true Church. I do believe that the true Church will have miracles and things like this,

Right, but then those girls, like when the main miracle happened, right, there's like fifty thousand people or something that saw it.

Okay, Well, I mean there's around that many at Zaytun Egypt.

So I don't know what I'm saying.

The girls had like six encounters before that main one.

Doesn't that add a little more validity to it?

Well, I mean there were there were there were very famous fake news stories even prior to this. Look up the Great Moon hoax in the eighteen seventies or eighties. So because there's some news footage or a newspaper claim out of Portugal, I mean one hundred years plus years ago. Look, how is that proof that? I mean says, who, how do we know that?

No, I'm just I'm just saying they talked about before the actual big event happened. They were saying a big events can happen. That's why people were waiting there.

Yeah, but that's exactly what would happen if you're going to stage an event like that. Have you looked into the CIA's history of staging these kinds of events.

See this where we're going to disagree.

Well, I mean, you can believe or not believe whatever you want. You're saying the CIA doesn't stage religious events.

No, I mean, well, I haven't heard actually anything about religious events, but I know CIA is fucked up, right.

So I covered Michael Graziano's book, which is right over on the sheltered a whole talk on it where the CIA was discussing staging the Second Coming under Ed Lansdale. During the Cold War, CIA famously staged the Chupacabra vampire stuff in the Philippines to in this situation, the Hook Rebellion. They staged religious miracles there. They've staged stuff in Latin

So what do you think then.

By the way, I'm not saying that the CIA stage Fatima. There was no CIA at the times. Also, some idiots gonna say I'm saying I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that there have been a known large scale religious forgeries and frauds that have existed for centuries and millennia. It is not without it is not outside of the pale of in my view, the Western establishment, even at the time of Fatima, to stage that type of an event.

Okay, I see that just another kind of on topic here, So then would like when Paul talks about testing the spirits, could it then could they then fake a religious experience that like aligns with the spirit, So we really wouldn't be able to tell like like at all.

We'll take magic Gory for example. I mean, if magic Gorey is a fraud, then that has duped millions and millions of Roman Catholics and you know Pilgrims, and so what do you, like, what do you mean by aligning with the spirit? I understand, Like I'm.

Saying like like false lights, like for example, like muhammad Cave, Like if false lights come, we're told to test the spirits to make sure they're actually from God, not like a devil of light or something.

We don't even know that this was actually some miraculous event. It could be completely whole, wholesale staged.

No, I'm just saying hype like off Fatima, Now, like could we ever know then like if they can stage the event to line up with what the spirit would hypothetically, Well.

This is what I'm saying, is that the New Testament I think, tells us not to go by signs and wonders.

Like, I'm just like if a spirit comes to you, unless I'm misinterpreting it, like I say, like a light light comes to you posing as an angel something right, right, right, You're supposed to test that spirit?

How although how do you do that?

Maybe like ask stuff that would line up with the gospel.

I don't know, Like, well, that's what I'm saying. So we already have in Deuterami thirteen, deuteronymy eighteen, and Galatians one the answer to the very question that you're raising, which is, if there arises among you a prophet, a dreamer of dreams, signs, and wonders, and it does not come to pass, then you know that they're lying, and you don't follow whatever they're telling you to do because the Lord is testing you. The same type of statement

So what's the because I'm just kind of looking into Fatima, Now, what's the third secret?

Well, this is another I would argue, this is another reason why it's bogus, because you can spend the next twenty years going down the rabbit hole of the trad cat madness of the third secret, where who knows it's anybody's guest because supposedly it was hidden and the popes didn't want to reveal it publicly, and then supposedly under John Paul the Second, it was red but it was nothing, but the trad cats say, jump all the Second covered it up because he wasn't a real trad and they

Yeah, okay, that seems I know. I was trying to go and it was just too deep.

Apart, you'll never get anything. So trust me, I was in the tradcat world, wandering in this hall of mirrors and smoking mirrors for I don't know ten years. And by the way, has everyone forgotten remember when what four years ago Lofton and everybody they were making videos that remember Roman called world was going crazy that Francis is concert creating Russia to the Immaculate Heart finally, finally, And I did multiple videos on this because I said, guess what,

That makes sense, I mean, yeah, so the couple things came true though, right, like the World War two prediction or no?

Well, I mean so so what so we were even if that were the case and it wasn't staged. So what it's it's like a sixty thirty percent. So you so what three out of three, out of one, out of three, two out of three. I mean this says. This says that you got to be like one hundred percent, Like you don't get like a sixty percent prophecy, you know, a good try, you know, certificate of good merit. You were almost a one hundred percent profit, but you're only

Yeah, all right, love that.

It just was kind of freaking out, like, uh, I don't know what was all right? Uh first off, kind of conspiratorial mindset here. Uh. I guess we'll just thank Alex Jones for that one. And uh uh you know, I guess the first thing I would disagree with would be, uh the perpetual virgin thing. Not that I really not that I don't want to. I don't want to put too much stake in this because I really I don't.

It's there for me.

Are you contestants disagree with the Catholics and Orthodox?

I know, we know, but uh, the word can mean just relative, distent relatives and cousins, so it doesn't it does not necessitate a biological brother.

And I think that was kind of the the baseline for Martin Luther to Uh.

No, that's false. Did Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity as did Calvin? So that's Falseome?

Well, no, no, no, no, I was I was stating, you know, the agreeance with that from your standpoint, he did believe in a perpetual version.

Correct.

Uh you know that wasn't really a Protestant belief until further down the line.

Correct.

So yeah, Now I got another disagreement here.

Kind of having to do with the whole Uh. I noticed that first off?

Maybe a segue here, I'd like to reiterate that, you know, Martin Luther, I don't think he really had any ill blood. I think he Actually, I'm not one hundred percent on this, but I do believe he tried to do some reunifications and restructuring with the Catholic Church. I don't know if that was pre him being excommunicated or not. And then I also believe in his later days, and I could be wrong, but I thought he tried some sort of reunification with the Eastern Orthodox as well.

I mean he wrote some letters and there was some contact, but there was not any attempts to have reunification. I mean later Luthor. I've read a lot of Luther. I went through a phase when I was a Protestant. I read about six or seven of Luther's books. There was a there was a period where he kind of reached out. But later Luther gets really sort of adamant about things like Solofide, and he was not interested in Orthodox position

Right, and so on.

That big separation from the Catholicism is stim some other disagreements, like purgatory. Obviously I don't believe in purgatory.

Well there were the doors. Doesn't believe in purgatory.

So, oh, that's right, Okay, Yeah, So when I was briefed on the two different other sects when I went through a confirmation or whatever, and I'm not very devout anymore, but I still read a lot and long story short, when we were talking about him, I remember very little, but it was more or less described as the.

Lesser of the two evils.

Between the initial start of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, the Great Schism.

We briefly touched.

All of that, and so, like, I guess I forgot that. So what about prayers to the dead? Is that a thing for the Orthodox?

I thought the Saints, so we don't believe that they're dead. We believe they're alive to God. And if you read Revelation five through nine, John season to heaven on the Lord's Day. So he's in the liturgical worship, he's officiating the altar, and he interacts with the Saints the angels in heaven, and they're doing the prayers in heaven for the church on earth. So it's community of saints. It's not talking to the dead.

I guess I was maybe I got that mixed up.

I thought I thought the talking to the saints thing was a praying to the saints to be the mediator or whatever.

I thought that was.

Called communion of saints and it's the idea that the Saints intercede for us.

Okay, Yeah, No, I thought there was specific like prayers to purify the dead or whatever in the Orthodoxy tradition.

I thought the Catholics did that too.

I'm not. I mean, we pray for the dead, is that you're talking about?

Yeah?

Yeah, the people who are newly deceased are prayed for in the liturgy. Correct. That is an Orthodox and Catholic practice. It's in the Book of Maccabis too. It's a noble thing to pray.

For the dead, Okay, and the meaning that's why the you know, the Protestants, don't you know, follow that. You know, I understand that Luther didn't really kick it to the curb as far as all those additional looks. However, he did when he did his translation or whatever.

I know he did explicitly later he later explicitly said that he does not like those books because they afford the Catholics proof for their doctrines. So appreciate your questions. Man, We're going to move on. Look for people who disagree. If you have an argument. If you'd like to pose an argument against me, if you'd like to raise an issue, you can have a floor. You can argue for as long as you like. Raise your hand. If you are in the quay. We've got eleven people waiting, so let

Okay?

So kind of argument and a question, But how do you have a personal being in procession? So you know, the sun is begotten, but the Holy Spirit proceeds. But they're both personal beings. And as far as I understand, the procession is something like a breath from God.

So no breath is just one of the biblical analogies for the person of the Holy Spirit. It's not intended to define his procession. Procession is the particular personal property that picks out the Holy Spirit. So what's the question?

So wouldn't that make.

Wouldn't that make the sun and the Spirit, you know, indifferentiable?

You cann't really tell them apart. No.

In fact, the Unomians raised this question to Basil, and Basil says that that there's a distinction between generation and procession. We know exactly what that distinction is. We do not know. So there's a lot of elements that we're not told in Divine revelation about the person of the Holy Spirit. And Gregoro Nuts I think is Gregory nat Sanzos says that in the Escaton the Holy Spirit will be more known than he is in our era. So no, so

It.

I think it stems from the idea that the only way to distinguish persons is relations of opposition or something like that, or you know, one comes from the Father, the other one can only be distinguished if he comes from two. I mean, this is totally stupid if you think about in terms of theological augmentation, because it's a subordination of the Holy Spirit to try to distinguish him by not having something that the first two people possess.

The procession from the son, I mean, we would say the procession from the Son to the Spirit is not.

It's not exactly the.

Same procession as from the Father through the Son.

Well, that's even worse because that means that there's partition in God because the Father contributes something to the Spirit that the son, that the Father doesn't contribute something that the Son does. So what the Father spir rates fifty percent the Holy Spirit and the Son spirates another fifty percent. That's again, that's stupid because there's no partitions in God.

Well, it would it would all all the procession would come through the Son the Spirit.

Okay, does the Father generate a son whole and entire?

Yes?

Right, So when the Father spirrates a spirit, is he not whole an entire? Yeah? Correct, Then there's nothing that the Sun could contribute to the existential existence of the Spirit. Yeah, I mean it, well than that refutes Philqui. That's from that's an argument from them.

That's at the very end of my.

That's from the mystic Gadia. I'm literally just repeating mister Gauji arguments.

So you said that in a.

Particular saints said that in the future we would know more.

Is that what you said?

I believe it's Gregory, not Sanjus who says that the it might be one of the it's one of the Cappa Docians. It's either Nissa or not Sws. But in the asketon, more of the personal character of the Holy Spirit would be revealed in the asketon because in this dispensation, this era before the Esketon, we have limited ideas and details about the person of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament and in Church history we have several I'm not saying there's no details. Jesus tells us many things

So you're saying in the afterlife will know more.

Yeah, as the text from Paul says that I see through a glass darkly, but then I will know fully.

Okay, all right, yeah, those no.

Those are fair questions, Shay, fair questions on that though. Those are actually common objections from people in the West to the Orthodox doctrine of the procession. But if you read mystagogy and then appudect to treatise by Sangraa Palamas is really it's actually just building on the mystagogy, and it takes the arguments to another level. So most of the arguments that are in the mystagogy are one solid,

Can you hear me?

Yeah, yeah, hey there, Jay, I recognized you from one of the debates that you had. But uh, but Jake, I met a physician and Daniel Hakika Chu. Yeah, nothing specific about those debates, but I was curious, you know, from an overview standpoint, what are some of the theological differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic and the Catholic Church.

So I was just interested, maybe in your words, what what are some of those key differences. And and one other.

Question I had in Islam, the Virgin, the Virgin Mother Mary, may peace be upon her. Uh, she had no husband. Uh, she had no physical husband. So I don't know, maybe I read it wrong or seen it in videos that she did in fact have a husband.

In some Christian traditions.

So maybe if you can speak supply to that, if that's true.

Well, I mean in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Mary was betrothed, she was not married in the sense of any sexual relations, so we believe she remained a virgin. Catholics believe that as well. Many Protestants used to believe that, but there are Protestants are all over the place, so there's maybe some groups that believe that something else happened. I mean, many Protonants believe that she had relations with Joseph, but we do not believe that she