I'm married to a buncle pap.
Oh oh, we got better to conjoined in a subway shop. Oh oh, I'm married to a bunco.
To a buncle.
Amnin man, we got better conjoined in a.
Sub Oh yeah, what's up y'all? Welcome everybody. It's another live stream, another open for him. I don't know why I was getting a double feedback loop there, but we're gonna go ahead and just get into it as usual. I'm a little late. We're on dire time, which the Hodge Twins said was ethnic time, their joke, not mine. I would never make such a horrible gracist comment ever, ever, ever, But hey, I'm have black. What can I say if
I show up thirty minutes late. I'm just being who I am, And if you call me out, you're racist. So chew on that bigot. Welcome everybody. We're gonna be opening it up here in a little bit. There's the link. Let me start this dumb ass Twitter space for all these dumb asses to come in here and make all their dumb ass argus. Miss yeah uh, there we go. Gotta hear that sweet Elon music. They hear that sweet Elon remix the met more the Elon remix and the
Meat More Meat More. Yes, of course you need esoteric Hollywood through you need all of the esthetic Hollywood series.
My my, did I'm not include the I didn't include the damn stream Labs link?
Mom, Mom, let me get you out of the Strength the Strength Labs. By the way, I'm in joined my reading of Max Blumenthal's book, it's a good compliment to the other texts in the series, as we noted. So I'm about halfways through now. I wish I wish rid Bond hadn't backed out of the debate. But it is what it is, you know, as the book, as the Boomers say, it is what it is. It was what it was. Bloomer wisdom cliches, Member wisdom cliches, y'all like those?
All right, here is the super chat link if you want us to support the stream. I tried to make the topics broad, but sometimes that's kind of a mixed bag. By the way, the I think the Hodgewins gave me an inward pass, but many other brothers have also giving me in word passes. So but I'm afraid if I use it, the system won't recognize the past that I have. You know what I mean, Like, if I go on Piers Morgan next week and I try to use it, I don't feel like they're gonna let me use it,
you know what I mean. So there's the uh, the link if you want to support the stream right there. People. So I woke up today to people saying, when you going to debate thoughtful lds or I'm like, dude, I've already debated that guy. What do you mean he he came on and was one of the stupidest much of nonsense arguments that we've ever heard on here. Now the problem is, just like with Derek Brows, I don't know which one of the clips, oh there it is is
that person. So if we go back to here, this was a weird profile with an alternate name Derek Brose with a Z, so I don't know if that's a fan account or if it's his account, but it had like one hundred thousand subscribers on Twitter, so I'm assuming that's his account. But it was the biggest bunch of gnostic nonsense I've ever heard. But here is the Derek Brose clip. People said, well, where did you debate with
Dereck Brose? Okay, right, here, and I don't know which of the Mormons is the thoughtful Mormon dude or whatever his name is, but it's not even a big account anyway. So here's Robert Gerr. Here's that wild Mormon chick that called in. Had a just almost schizo level rant of nonsense. It didn't even make sense what she was saying. Here's another Mormon. Let's see if it's this guy. Maybe it's this one. It is a fallacy. Can you can you tell me what a fallacy? What's up?
Papa?
No, that was a different Mormon because that was a recent stream. That's a different Mormon recent stream. Uh, Robert Gerr. Again, maybe it's this guy. Let's see if this is the right Mormon. There's another one, Thomism. There we go, the smartest Mormon Thalmism, a lot of stuff like that. Okay, I don't know if this is the right one, but I'll give you this one. And then there's another clip here this Mormon.
Yeah, I remember.
The t or is that the same guy? That's the same question and my friend saying that you but okay, I think this is him. I think this is the right guy. So for all the people asking when and where did you argue already with I forget his name on Twitter, but it might be this guy. I wish people just use their name so we could identify them. Everybody's got these stupid ass handles that are Mormon thoughtful mystic sixty nine, Like, I don't, dude, just tell me
who are you? This is him because it's the same logo. So this guy, I've already debated this guy, and I think it's that clip that I just pull this one. I think, so here's the guy looking kind of weird here, and I let's let's hear him talk and then I think we can figure out his voice. But it's it's the same logo in his channel that I think was on his.
Twitter presented what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints actually believe.
No, we didn't, because your own church changes this position. Your changes this position historically. So uh, let's see if that's the same guy.
Trying to get an understanding of the what do you call it, the monarchical treated carrying?
That doesn't sound like the same idea, does it.
You like that, but it's like you had other things that you want to debate about Mormonism or w.
And how do I know this well? Because I am one. And if you are not a Latter Day Saint, you need to be aware that Jay Dyer and people like him are misleading you. And by the end of this video you will see why.
You see.
Jay Dyer is one of those internet apologists known as the Ortho Bros of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he was invited on the Hodge Twins podcast to give his take on Jews and Muslims, but at a certain point become rotation veered into a discussion about the beliefs held by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, or more commonly known as Mormons.
Now, I remember as a little kid, me and Kim was playing outside and these woman kids came to our house on bike said that white shirts and black tyes, if I remember correctly, and they went, Mama, whenever we want to talk about God Jesus. My mom election in the house, right, she's very religious. So me and my brother's outside playing, and then I heard my mama, cause get the fuck out of my house. Ristians right got you? And I said, what happened, mama?
You said?
They said, I'm the I'm a descendant of Cain, and that's why my skin is brown.
So Mormons belief, Now this is specifically one of those teachings that as we saw two calls back, we had former Muslims in here. The Mormon Church has distanced itself from so the pre existence of soul. Now, I think they still believe in pre existence of souls, but they distanced themselves from the older Mormon prophet teaching of the pre existence of souls, leading to the people that sided with with the rebellion against God being cursed to have
dark skin. Right, even Mormons believe in the pre existence of souls. That you weren't created at your conception. You existed before, okay, and so the reason that you have black skin is because you send in your previous life. It's oh yeah. They believe that black people are the ones that followed Lucifer in rebellion, and so the curse was to be born as black.
No, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord, for he do with that which is good among the children of men, and he denieth.
Yeah, but this is not even talking about their secret doctrines which the Mormon that called in said, it's from the Book of Abraham, right, And he said, that's where it talks about black people can't be in the Mormon priesthood. Right now. This what Mormons always do is they don't talk about the actual teachings to normies. They act as if they have the same kind of basic ideas as the rest of Christianity. And they always base it on
word concept fallacies and equivocation. Oh, you believe in Jesus being divine, and you believe in the Godhead, so do we.
But they mean totally different things, right, And I'm trying to find the actual text from actual Here's Abraham, the Book of Abraham, which is a forgery, by the way, And let's see in the Book of In his book Church and the negro Lds, writer doctor John Lewis Lund cited David O. McKay from nineteen forty seven giving a lengthy response about the fellow students that were perturbed about the question of Negroids not being welcomed into the Mormon priesthood.
I know of no scriptural basis for the priesthood for negroes, and I believe, as you suggest, that the real reason dates back to our preexistent life. So here's one of the Mormon leaders, one of the Mormon so called the Allogians. I don't know if he is one of the prophets LDS President David O. McKay, So that's pretty high up. Such a statement carries significant importance because McKay referred directly to the Yell Scripture of the Pearl of Great Price,
where the Book of Abraham is found by itself. Verse twenty six might sound vague and confusing. It says Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly throughout the days. And then it says, even in the reign of Adam and also of Noah, his father blessed him the blessing of the earth and the blessing of wisdom. And cursed, but cursed is he that as pertains to priesthood. So this is saying that
the sentence of Cain cannot be Mormon priests. And as you saw, it was because of quote their previous life, their pre existence. These Mormon leaders felt that Abraham won twenty six was a key verse when it came to denying the priesthood to black people, and so doing verse twenty six is put in the context of denial. Since the Lord appeared to Cain and converse with him many times before Kin killed Abel, Cain must have held priesthood.
God said to him, from this time fourth, it shall be that the father of lies he shall be called Perdition, and the Lord curse Kine with severe cursings. This is not the Bible, this is their stupid made up book. On those cursings was placed a mark of Cain, which mark would be carried by his posterity throughout all generations. This mark was Cain's black skin, according to the Pearl Great Price LEDs. Theologian Hunter went on to say that the greatest curse of all was the cursehood of black
skin and not having the priesthood. Hunter insisted that Joseph Smith himself identified black people as the descendants of Cain. In Nauvoo in eighteen forty two, the brethren were discussing whether the Negroes or the Indians had received a worse treatment from whites. The prophet Joseph Smith said, the Indians have greater cause to complain of treatment of whites than
Negroes or the sons of Cain. Therefore, it is due to the teaching of the Pearl Great Price that Joseph Smith and the other leaders for bay Maid black people from the priesthood and noticed that it was due to the sin in the previous existence. So this is their stupid ass theology and it's based on the pre existence of souls. Here is Brigham Young, the second LDS President, Brigham Young. The curse that remains upon them can never They shall never hold the priesthood nor sharing it until
all the descendants of Adam have received the promises. Why Mormonism cannot recover from the Book of Abraham? Right?
Why more people left Mormonism over this issue than almost any other.
The Book of Abraham.
What is this tiny, unassuming five chapter book that definitively proves.
That Joseph Smith was a fraud and a false prophet of all the different books.
In Mormons true. Now, remember this is the book that we just referred to the other day due to Posh pointing this out to me, and then we had the former Mormon who came on for about twenty minutes in the livestream talking about the Book of Abraham. It's obviously a forgery. It's not anything to do with actual biblical figures. It's just old Egyptian funerary texts that Joseph Smith bought Charles.
What's up? I'll give you guys this video, but this guy is going to be just saying the same stuff that Posh said and that we said on the other stream the other day. So I'm not gonna repeat all that. What's up, Chuck, I'm mute, Chuck, I'm mute. Chose a spliff? How come people don't I'm mute, man, I don't get it. Maybe Twitter's not working right today, Chuck? Did you not turn your Chris Smitt I should say, did you not turn your mic on? It's like nobody's ever used Twitter
spaces until they come to my Space Bohemia. What's up?
Man?
I'll give you guys this link to here if you want to read the full article on the Book of Abraham right here. What's up?
Oh?
What?
Oh?
What's the topic?
I kind of the topic is all the things listed in the topic description? Oh shit?
Okay, So I would have a question because I'm deciding right now right now.
I'm a catechumen.
And the Orthodox Church, and uh, I am pretty said like I'm not the church hopping. I'm said, I'm becoming Orthodox, and this next to your getting baptized. But I had a question because I saw an Orthodox priests say that I cannot if I am Orthodox, I cannot.
Pray with Catholics.
And I have a lot of Catholics friends, and I one of my friends actually.
Is a Catholic priest, and you know, I like Catholics.
You know, I'm from I'm from Prague, so there's it's a Catholic.
You know city. Liking them doesn't equate to being able to celebrate liturgically with heterodox groups. That's the teaching of the first thousand years of Christianity.
Yeah, I guess my question would be like about the prayer, Like if I pray with Catholics, do you think that's bad?
Like just like an outside the church, you.
Might get permission in certain circumstances to do that, but in general, the problem is that it suggests that we have the same faith and we're all good and it's just not true. That's why the agree. I agree, But I mean, yeah, I would just like take a case by case instead of trying to like find out one size fits all situation, because there might be situations where
you know you need to go to a funeral. I'm sure your priests would give you permission to go, but you know you could privately pray or something like that and not have to join in or something. Maybe vain. What's up?
Man?
Would you say that they are disabled if their descendants of case?
That was so bad?
I'm sorry, Oh I get it now. I had to think for a second. I don't I am not opposed to wordplay, so I don't find your wordplay offensive. Vein, I commend you.
I just thought it was fun.
Yeah, no, it's okay. Is that it just one little bit of wordplay.
Yeah, I didn't want to take up time.
That's all right, thank you for that wordplay. Now, guys, you can support the stream through super chats, through a stream las especially YouTube doesn't take a cut if youse stream labs. The link is pinned in the show description. Rolph Stakes became a member for fourteen months? How many months I have to subscribe before you to drop the next biggest cringe corps banger about Jordan Maxwell. Well, the problem is if I do it Jordan Maxwell song, nobody
will get that or know anything about it. But maybe I can find some time. I don't know, mister who cares five dollars? What do you think about the patriarch meeting the pope? Not much. I mean these kinds of things happen all the time. I'm not a fan of either one of them. H Brozi, five dollars. I'll make this joke for you, Jay Jay is on now. Ah, Brozzie is a black dude, so he says, Jay is on inward time. He is truly one of us. I have the pass. There you go, an actual brother gave
me the brother pass. So let it be known henceforth and forevermore. I shall not be able to be canceled given that the black community has given me honorary pass being half black. To use the words top jacko maattic ten dollars. I was at boot camp for three months. My phone just came back to me. What did I miss? Oh dude, Oh my gosh, what did you miss? I don't know if I can make it through this whole
Mormon video. Let's just invite the Mormons to come. Well, what you missed was I completed esoter Colli WITHOO three that will be shipping in about a month. A month and a half. I did a podcast tour throughout LA and Vegas that was pretty hype. I did whatever debating the fraud, not so erudite, and I'm sure all of you saw the clip. Once again, Jay Dyer is vindicated, and I wish more people would just have faith that when I say stuff, I'm probably know what I'm talking about. Now.
Every now and then I get things wrong, all of us do. He's infallible except for the Pope, just kidding. Except for the Universal Orthodox Calogy Church. No one else is infallible. And I told you guys that aerudite I could tell, and Father Deacon as well. Ken I think attest to this, who's more advanced in philosophy than I am. If you study philosophy and you've done it at a graduate level, you can very easily detect when somebody is faking it, when they're a sued pretending to know about
a subject that they have no knowledge of. It works to dupe dumb people like the Destiny audience. Many of them fall for her her stick, which is to spout out a bunch of terms that she reads on chat GPTWO right, and I knew in the midst of that discussion and I'll just play this one clip here to remind you from my team. If you go to my TikTok, you'll remember that I asked her a more more than once on the second eight hour day that whether or not she had read a single text that she could
recall the name of, and she couldn't tell me. That tells me that she's a suit And she just repeats what chat GBT tells her. And in the discussion, I even said, I guarantee you she just uses chat GPT. And this is what like zoomers and younger millennials like, they think that intellectualism, academia, being scholastic is literally just putting on the front of it. That's what they think it is.
Go ahead, that's a good point.
Well, Dave. Dave Smith said this to Tucker the other day that the left and liberals and these kinds of people and these younger people, they think that as long as you pull off being looking like an intellectual or talking fast, then you're intellectual.
Do you think that's because I mean just kind of given the kind of relativistic and realistics kind of cultures that they live in, that everything's.
Just appearances exactly.
Yeah, yeah, but have you appredictically derived from your categorical imperative a sort of kind of dialectical Uh.
Yeah, there's a contra distinction between the superposition of the newmena and the phenomena in the Kantian deontological status of normativity. It's like you just spout out.
Words, yes, my brother, Now would you say that is per se at intra or is that an n ray dionea dialectical derivation of h.
What what?
What should I say? Or in other words, uh, descriptive.
They're just like, yeah, they're like the Waynes brothers, right, remember the skit on in Living Color? When Living Color, Yeah, when one of the more the Waynes Brothers is he's in prison and he's just he just misuses big words to sound smart. That literally all of them are that guy. So listen, here's me asking Arad to just name one book which happened three times in this nightmare day of eight hours of this nonsense acting what you know? You could you name one philosophy book that you've read.
The Five five Dialogues by Aristotle the Plato Republic.
There's no book the Five Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic.
Those are two books that I've read, So the Five Dialogues as yet?
Or do you would just want to be in that to try to.
Get one philosophy book from any philosophers.
One philosophy book, it's your public.
Did you read that? No? So I asked her to name a book she read, and she named a book. Well, I didn't read it, but okay, now let's listen to Destiny do the exact same thing. So noticed she's literally just female Destiny. Watch. Okay, can your name when you read it?
Off the top of my it's been very hard to like read like full books and read a whole person books.
What's your first book? But you're read what's trying to think of a joke.
Game?
The game? Yeah? Okay, go hilarious culture reference? He okay, continue. So Destiny couldn't name one book. He's reader couldn't name one philosophy text that she's read, not just a text that she's read.
I love that she mixed Xeno Xeno's Republic.
She said Aristotle's Republic.
Oh did she?
She said five Dialogues ariosotol Republic.
My god, I heard her say Xeno's Republic.
To be all up in there, because when you come to debate, you know what you're talking about. Could you name one philosophy?
Read uh, five.
Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic.
There's the five Dialogues by Aristotle Plato Republic. So just gibberish, right now, what was the point of all that. Let's see what these bros over here on this podcast. I'm not familiar with these guys, but shocker, in the midst of a debate, she's actually using chat GPT, which is exactly what Father Deacon and I have been saying. The reason that a lot of people don't want to be on video or in a live debate is because they
want to be able to use chat GPT. And what do you know, this total sued fraud not so erudite is caught doing that very thing.
And then it switches over and oh brother, what is she fucking doing? This is like the IRA, very delayed and impact. Right, they're good things, but they're delayed and impact.
Hold on, she got But we didn't even need to have this visual confirmation that she does this because we already knew that the way that she talked and the nonsense that she was spitting out, which is why she couldn't name a single paper or a single book by any of the so called authors that she's familiar with. Is because she's just regurgitating what Chad GBD spit out
at her. And she was at a huge disadvantage when we got into the studios at whatever and Brian was like, no, we don't need to have your Apple computer over here. So she actually wanted when we first got there to have her computer, and she got really nervous when Brian said, no, you can't use your computer in a live debate. And if you guys can't see it, like maybe you can
see it on the videos. I don't know. But the entire time that Jim Boberus and I were sitting there with her the first day of the second day, like her hands were shaking. That entire time, she was so nervous and so scared because because it's it's fraudulent, and it's not wrong to call out people that are complete frauds. People are saying, oh, you were you had a milt down in that debate. No, no, no, it's to show it to demonstrate whether it's her or the destinies here
in general, they're all frauds. Destiny couldn't name one book and therefore he's not educated. So all these people are like their deity, the deity of the SuDS is Ai and chat GPT, and it's very obvious. It's very easy to spot when you are aware of this kind of stuff. Anyway, moving on, enough of that, but I am glad that that came out because I told you guys, she was a total phony. Caleb, what's up? Hey, j Yo.
Hey, So basically it's nothing about what we're talking about topic wise, but like probably you get a lot. I'm kind of inquiring of the Eastern you know, Orthodox realm of things, and.
I'm just kind of.
It's just as that basically the Euchrist and also.
My confession and stuff like, I'm.
Not my mind around why people that aren't baptized take Eucharist if they do everything else besides you know, being in the church.
I don't you cut out? What's the question? Just ull down the question? W you're cutting out?
Yeah?
Can you hear me a little bit better?
Yeah, just reset the question.
Yeah.
So basically the question is is if you're not baptizing the church, you obviously then can't take the Eucharist or you know, do any of like the sacraments, And I'm just it's kind of confused on why that is just because you're not baptizing the church.
Well, baptism is the entrance into the church, is the right of initiation, So why would you be taking up Christ when you're not initiated yet. So there's just a logical order or two in the way the New Testament presents the sacraments. Chuck, what's up?
Bellow?
Hey, hey, real quick question. What do you think about the Belluman Bellmont Declaration.
I'm not a fan of that, Well, so is it?
The reason I'm asking is is it?
I have a Catholic friend and he was he mentioned and basically was coming from a position where he was saying that, you know, this is why Catholics have this innate ability or worldview where they're gonna.
Happily, it'll be nice to you.
But the Eastern.
Orthodox is they're they're much more not aggressive. But I get the way he put it, was trying to steal converts. And he was like, I don't know, I just is it not binding?
I don't really know the terms, but is it.
No, it's just a it's no different than like any other you know, inter religious academic conference or statement. How could how could it be binding? I mean, we're not papists to where there's this issued, you know, execa theater statement and everybody's bound by it. No, I'm not bound. I mean if the if the MP makes a mistake, we're not bound by it. I don't have to agree to that. There's no infallible MP, there's no infallible EP.
So I think I'm not faulting you, but I think it's a papal mindset to think that, Well, don't your patriarchs make bad statements at times? Don't you have heterodox patriarchs at times? So how is that any better than the Catholic position. It's a difference between a systemic defeat the same type of problem in another system that's not
a systemic defeater. If in the Roman Catholic Church you had say a bunch of American bishops that were super ecumenist and liberal and saying heterodox things, that wouldn't be a defeater in the Roman Catholic system, if the Bishop of Rome was Orthodox or ECU mean, the Bishop of Rome was still orthodox in the little O sense. But if the Bishop of Rome begins to teach the heterodox things. That's a system level defeater because it denies Vatican One.
In the Orthodox Church, if all the bishops are decentralized and one bishop says something erroneous, it's not de facto heresy because it's wrong. It's heresy. I mean, it could be heterodox, but it requires a senat or some condemnation of the statement before everyone is bound by that. You see what I'm saying. So it's two different ecclesiologies where one problem might not be a system for the other system. But I don't understand why people. People just can't grasp this.
I'm not talking about you, but like no one seems to be able to grasp systemic level defeaters. If I have two Roman Catholic dogmatic teachings that contradict, that's that means the system's done. It only takes one one contradiction between two different statements. And that's why you see the romancalolis and scramble to try to say, well, it's not infallible, it doesn't really count, or we can reinterpret it this
way right to make it work. It's not that is not going to be a problem in the orthodox position, because we don't have the view that any individual bishop or patriarch is infallible or can never teach error. And I just don't understand how people can't get this. Is it that difficult to understand that one problem could be a system level defeater for one system and not for
another because it's a different system. If we had the position that the patriarch gets or the EP or the MP were infallible, then it would also be a defeat for our system. But we don't have that view. So it's like no one can It's like they can't conceive of what an internal critique is designed to do. Now, as to your Catholic friend's statement that we're stealing converts, we don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is half of the church. We don't believe that it is the church.
So the Church is a single, unified, communal entity. It's not a divided entity for the last thousand years that hopefully we can heal and bring back together. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church. It is, as mark of market EPHISI has said, a para synagogue. It is an extra ecclesial entity that operates more like a cult. It's not as bad as Mormonism, but it is many in many ways similar to Mormonism, because the Pope can just revise and restate and redefine things to make this
system unfalsifiable. It's just it's just it's like the Mormon said when he called in the other day. So the reason I didn't go Catholic is like I didn't see a huge difference between the prophets that had new revelations in the Mormon sphere and the pope and his new execa theater teachings, right, whatever they may be. It's just really weird that it's like so hard for people to understand a systemic level defeater.
Yeah, just a comment on that, I would say to the guy, like, think about it.
Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople for three years before he was condemned.
Would we have had to have been an historian?
Yeah, Like that's where I go.
It's like, how do we solve it before was clearly.
Right, and even Cyril didn't immediately lackt like you know that the idea was to have a council right to deal with that church wide issue. Z. What's up? But thank you've been in a team for a good point.
Any of me. Yep I said a question about transcendental arguments, if that was all right?
Yeah, FDA's here.
Yeah, So I came across this critique about transcendental arguments, and it was essentially that from a skeptical position, all a transcendental argument can do is show what you ought to believe, not what is actually true.
Now that's the very strou position. So we agree with Barry Stroud's critique of transcendental arguments. But the transcedental argument for God is different because it's a systemic level argument. It's not just a transcendental argument.
Right, what would be like the meaningful difference between those.
Because transcendental arguments can only show what ought to be the case or what works within some conceptual scheme. But the transcendental argument for God is a precondition for the possibility of any schemes.
Right, Okay, I got it.
Yeah they were They were just arguing that, like from a skeptical position where you wouldn't have access to that kind of thing, it was hard to show.
How your mental state related to the world in that sense.
Yeah, we actually use that argument. So when we get people that come on and say that all I need to do is show that the other positions are incoherent. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that your position's true. So you need a stronger presentation than that to get epistemic justification.
For example, in the Manion paper, he points out that just having a systemic coherence isn't even enough, because maybe it just appears to us that our worldview or our schema is consistent, but how do we know that it actually applies to the world. And that's precisely the type of critique that Manion makes of why you need more than just the appearance of coherence or rationality.
Oh, thanks, Manu Chef. Anywhere I can read.
Up about them?
Yeah, the Manion paper, Russ Manun's.
Paper, Okay, thank you man.
What's it called for? The Deacon father digging? Are you there? I guess you had to step away. It's a revelatory theism. I forget the full name of it.
Yeah, what's up, chair? You know I got a question on evolution. Is that under the topics?
I guess?
Yeah?
So I So I've been thinking about your the argument you made that death doesn't enter the world before before the fall, And so I have a friend who brought up the objection that, well, if if if there was no death, how did any animal that was a carnivore?
How did the already answered this? And that's because the entire structure of the world changed after the fall, so they were not they were not eating animals prior to the fall. But thank you for that question. Just read you could even if you don't want to read the full Genesis Creation Early Man, which has been reprinted, you could read First Created Man by Saint Simeon Blessed Chungas. What's up Eastern Orthodoxy? Ten rons, what's the difference between
begetting and proceeding? Sam Basil says that there is a difference. We know what the difference is.
We do not know.
But if you think that this is somehow necessitating the philioque, then you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that there's a relation between the father and the son, that is not the relationship between the father and the spirit. But what the nature of the difference is, The Cappadocians say, we do not know. So this is apathetic theology, and all you need to distinguish the persons is their relationship to the source, the Father. That's all you need. You
don't have to define the difference. In fact, no one can to find the difference.
What's up, man, can you hear me?
Uh huh?
All right, So I'm Catholic. I'm been Catholic for about a year, and I'm kind of new to the whole Christian world in general. Recently, I've been really liking your videos, especially the ones on deconstructing movies and storylines. Before I was Christian, I really liked like Slap Boys, I Can
Crawl Young, and the kind of deconstructionist stuff. And anyways, I heard you say in one of your videos that when you converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, you said something like you were freed from something about Thomism, that you didn't like Thomism.
Or you found it kind of like.
Burdens some or not coherent or something like that.
Well, I mean, I was very interested in into Thomism for most of my and I thought it was this great, elegant system, and then I realized that it has problems and I was able to eventually just admit that it's a failed system.
So I'm curious if you could in a short word maybe describe what is the major problem of Thomism.
Thomas Aquinas teaches a reductive identity thesis notion of what divine simplicity is, which essentially undercuts the trinity and the incarnation and the reality of uncreated grace. He teaches that grace in itself is a created thing, all of which undoes the reality of our salvation and glorification.
So I know, okay, I can't just all of that, but I'll try to reduce it for my brainlet status. But so I know that there's major distinctions between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, like theologically like essence energies distinction, and maybe some of these.
Ryan Rome teaches that via the denial of the essence inner distinction, grace is a created reality.
By the essence energy distinction, Grace is created reality by.
Rome's denial of the essence energy distinction. They necessarily then dogmatized their position that the grace that we partake of is itself a created reality.
Okay, I'll research that more on my own.
And I have a broader question to ask just about sure Catholic Orthodox split because I heard you talking to that Orthodox guy from Prague about how Orthodox are not supposed to, you know, pray with athletics.
I mean that sort of makes sense to me because you know, I would not go pray in a Protestant church or something like that.
Right, I'm wondering this the vibe between Orthodox and Catholicism come down to, like these theological issues like essence energy is distinction or is it like more of a historical political split.
No, it's theological, and everybody who thinks that it's political is sadly mistaken. I mean there are political elements, geopolitical, historical developments that resulted from it and contributed to it, like the Carolinians, But the essence of the fissure is a totally different triadology, a different doctrine of grace, a different doctrine of sacraments, a different ecclesiology. I mean, it's totally different.
Okay, Yeah, I'm just I'm just kind of learning the song.
Yeah, I mean, I would say, go back through a lot of the old, you know, videos that we've done on my channel. You can find a whole host of stuff that will cover that stuff. But yeah, I welcome the questions. I appreciate that. Devon what's up.
Hello.
Uh huh, Hey, my name is DeVaughn. I. Uh, I am a Protestant.
Uh.
I want to say I appreciate your videos and the work you do. It's really kind of opened up a whole in the world for me. I never really had any sort of access to the Orthodox paradimonds I started watching your videos.
Uh.
But uh I so, I think one of the biggest light.
Bulbs for me was the distinction that you pointed out between individual certitude and normative authority. And I'm trying to make sense of how to deal with that tension when
they're in conflict. And so maybe I'm just maybe it's more of a personal question, but how how have you dealt with that on your journey and making sense of all of this between what is considered normative versus individual certitude and responsibility to the truth and what you feel like maybe you'll be help responsible for personally, you know, before God. I don't know if that makes sense.
I mean the two I mean, I'm not meaning to be flippant, but I mean the two things are pretty obviously different. Things like me and my own personal journey coming to certainty about this or that doctrine or this or that position is a different question from is there a historical group of people that can bind people's conscience? Those are two different questions. So I mean, I think I will be held accountable for all the stuff that I talked about and my life like everyone else. Maybe
I have more culpability responsibility because of the audience. Okay, but I guess I'm not. Are you confused on the difference between these two things. It's the difference between do I know what the institution says? Versus is there a Supreme court that interprets the constitution? They're two different things.
I get what you're saying.
Yeah, Yeah, I think as I've tried to sort through some of these things and try to understand the historical church more obviously as a Protestant, a lot of things come into conflict with what I've been taught, right, right, So yeah, I'm just trying to make sense of like there's this tension there between you know.
What, I'm certain about it.
Let's put it this way, right, Let's put it this way. Set aside the issue of personal certainty. It's a fact that historically, when the Reformation happened, the Reformation, even though they wanted to have some notion of elders or bishops or whatever, whether it's Anglicans or Lutherans or Presbyterians. The fundamental idea that is necessary to the Reformation is write
a private interpretation and freedom of conscience. Write a private interpretation is not do you read the books and interpret them. What it means is no one can bind me to their interpretation, Okay, okay. And freedom of conscience meaning that my conscience is not bound by any external authorities telling
me what the word of God means. Yeah. That is irreconcilable with the way that the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity operated, where you do have a recognized, visible authority structure that can bind people's conscience, and that no one is granted the right of private interpretation. The right of private interpretation is not can I interpret the text myself? Of course everyone has to. But the difference is that for an orthodox person you interpret them the way the
Church tells you to interpret them. For a Protestant, there's no authoritative church that can bind my conscience. That's the difference.
Yeah, okay, And can I ask one more question about tradition? So I'm trying to sort through because I really appreciate this. I mean, honestly, I feel like allowing tradition to help me interpretscripture as actually give me a lot more freedom to think about these things more clearly. But is there is there a hierarchy of tradition or different degrees of authority dependent upon the source of tradition, i e. The councils versus I don't know, you.
Know what I mean, Like, I mean, a council would A council would have more authority than some you know, individual saints speculation. That's why we hold the councils above Augustine's on the Trinity constant and up one out ranks Augustine's trinitarian speculations on you know, on the Trinity. That's why we don't believe the Philly okuay okay okay cool.
And so is the first seven documental councils kind of are at the top rung or top tier tradition.
There's nine authoritative universally received councils, not seven, but eight and nine. Well, eight deals with the rejection of the philioquay, and then not nine deals with the acceptance of holamite essen syner distinction theology so technically speaking, most of the Christology is summed up in the first seven, but eight and nine are also you could call them universal, pan Orthodox received synods, so they're all authoritative.
Okay, okay, I think, can I one last question? What are the like epistemological means that you use or maybe the churches determine whether something's infallible versus not infallible, that that sort of thing.
Well, there are general principles like we're gonna believe that the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council or divine revelation is what's infallible, but there is no there is no Roman Catholic list of all the infallible things. It doesn't exist. Then none of the positions can give you that. Rome doesn't give you that either, by the way, not that you're tempted with it, but a lot of times and when I say that, Roman Catholics say, oh, look he
doesn't have it. No one has it. There is no list of all there is no infallible list of the infallible statements. For example, scripture is inspired. Okay, yeah, and then you've got the liturgy as another aspect of divine revelation. So it's I think, functionally impossible to list all of the infallible statements in some infallible declaration. So what you do have is the direct experience in the Orthodox Church
which will lead you to those things. But there is no extra extra sensory, juridical perfect list of these things. They don't exist.
Okay.
So is there a distinction between infallibility and divine revelation or are those to the same.
As the same thing?
Uh?
No, I think they're distinct because divine revelation ceased with the depth of the Apostles. There's no new divine revelations, and every every cult is premised on there being new divine revelations that are binding on the public, and thus some new prophet. But we are told that the faith once we're all delivered to the saints, and so the totality of the apostolic deposit. When John the Apostle died,
that's it. There's no more new revelations. There's no more uh apostolic deposit that can be added to what the ecumenical councils are doing, even though they don't have it. They're they're in errant, they're not making mistakes in their interpretation of that revelation. They're all they're doing is interpreting the apostolic deposit Okay, cool with that, Okay, and we
would say that that interpretation is infallible. It doesn't like the Council of Ephesis didn't make errors, like Voice of Reason says.
Yeah, okay, cool, Well, I appreciate you, thank you v.
But I would say too that there has to be flexibility as well, which some people fall into this mistake where they think that, well, wait a minute, you said ephesis can't err. So that means that everything Ephesis says is equivalent to divine revelation is an infallible That's the canons are infallible. Canon law, by its very nature, has to be flexible and cannot be equivalent to divine revelation. It's church law. It's not the same thing as divine revelation.
I think you have to distinguish these things or else you'll end up in absurd positions. So a lot of times when I bring this up, rigorists act like I'm being some kind of modernist liberal and oh diar doesn't think the councils are infallible. Well, if you look at the complexity of say, when Richard Price, you know, translates the councils. There's a host of documents that are part
of the councils. There's letters from bishops, there's opinions that are given, there's debates, there's dogmatic statements, there's confessions of faith, there's Acts of the Council. Okay, they're not all equivalent, and Roman Catholics will go through those. It's the very thing ubi brought up in the Voice of Reason debate. Roman Catholics will go through those quote mine and look for anything that supports Roman premascy and ignore what the
document actually was. What a leegate giving his opinion that binding on the entire church, unless you presuppose that it can't want papal supremacy to begin with. So you see how silly. This is the same attitude that the Roman Catholics do when they mine the councils for papal stuff. Psycho rigorous point zero five percent online Orthodox people will mine the canons to find some way to call everybody a heretic and apostate a modernist. When you literally cannot
follow every canon, it's it's just insane. So there has to be some degree of flexibility with church law. And by the way, whether you're Orthodox or Roman Catholic, both believe in a degree of flexibility for canon law for church law, Father, deacon, what would you call this like even civil law operates this way where not everything is black and white. You don't just follow the letter of the law. There has to be flexibility with the interpretation
of law, and that's why you have judges. Are you there, follow deacon? Right there, We can't hear you, but maybe maybe you're out of a no, maybe there's no signal where you are agent zero. Yeah, there's economia and a crevia, right, so there's precision as well as flexibility. What's up?
Hello? Hello, Yeah, Hey, what's up?
Kay?
Hey, hey, I have a geopolitical statement.
I believe that's it.
Okay, so it's about your previous dream.
About because I called it, but my call dropped about is.
Tiny mustache Man a tool?
Yes he is, and he's currently being used as one, particularly as you know you covered in these online groups like MKU and the Order of Nine Angels and all that stuff. So I think these people kind of like young and dumb getting into this stuff. I don't think they realize what it kind of leads to, and that they could end up a dupe in something a lot more nefarious and terrifying. And it's also being used as a tool on the left to obviously kind of degrade the conservative movement.
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Sure, I know we know for sure within the Satanic groups that they utilize that tiny mustache men aesthetic and ethos right to a degree. And I would not be surprised if it's not used on a broader scale with people like Yay or whoever. Can't prove that, but it wouldn't be surprising.
Yes, I totally agree with you on Matja.
I think it's also used as a type of weird culture war syop.
Right.
Yeah, yeah, appreciate that. Now people are saying, it doesn't matter whether I'm here or whether I'm at the other place. I've had the two different internet companies come out twice, excuse me, at both places, probably here, probably ten times, and it doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter how many times they change the hub at the neighborhood. It doesn't matter, nothing matters. It doesn't you can't get
a business connection here. I've tried everything so the people that wind and complain about the Internet, there's nothing else I can do. I'd have to buy a studio and it has to be in town somewhere to where you could get like a studio or like a business level internet connection. I've had them replace the whole line at both houses. It doesn't work. There's nothing that Exfinity comcasts or any of those things. They can't do anything. Yes, So in order to get you don't understand it, guys,
I've called them I don't know how many times. In order to get business fiber, you have to be in city limits. It doesn't matter if I use the Ethernet cable. None of that matters. It doesn't get It's not even better.
Can you hear me out?
Yeah? Would you like to comment on law and how law works? That it like even law in the secular sense. You can't understand it as like a totally black and white spirit of law thing.
Well, again, one of the things that I think that is either influenced by or.
In terms in.
Roman Catholicism, remember we were saying, is thoroughly Cartesian. And I keep noticing this kind of this this theme, don't you. So it's kind of mathematical certitude.
And but yeah, look there's nothing in life that's that's really like that other than mathematics. But yeah, law.
Again, you have rules, and you have a precedent do you appeal to? But the judge has to use and what's really interesting, what do we always say virtue epistemology. The judge has to use their discernment.
Yeah, whether this applies, but they have a rule, you can it.
They have a precedent, they have something that goes so they're not just a whimsical you know, make it up as they go along, judge. But it comes in different degrees. They can apply that in different that there's nuance and stuff like this. So it's really strange that and you
see it is an orthodox too. It's not just Romancholtics, but I think people who convert to Orthodoxy you can have that that kind of ridget everything has to be I have to have a list of the infallible stuff, and then like everything in the council has to be infallible.
That and it's just.
That's not even what it's about.
It's not about getting an infallible Cartesian list of.
And what do I call it.
It's abstractionism.
It's like, congratulations, you made a cartesian abstract, mathematical dungeons and dragons game in your head, Like.
That's not going to save you.
It's not going to heal you.
And these people are just you know, algorithm worshipers. Like, I don't know what to say.
He's not talking about tag He's talking about the people who think that church law is somehow like divine revelation. And it's the same attitude the Pharisees. Right if you think about if you go back and listen to the debate that we had with Dale, a Protestant. It was me and doctor Branson versus Dale and some of his Protestant buddies. If you listen to that debate, doctor Branson makes the point that the way that the Old Testament Israelite system was set up was the same structure as
the way the Orthodox Church is structured. So you had like a group of you know, Leevites, or a group of sages or rabbis. The rabbinical system comes from Ezra, for example, and it's their job to interpret the law and come up with the right interpretation and to judge between the parties. You see this with Solomon, for example.
That's why Solomon's always talking about judging wisely and not taking a bribe and and so forth, because he's trying to set the principle that Father Digging just outlined of a virtuous judge versus just some sort of weird obsessive legalists or some sort of weird you know, letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
Right.
You find that throughout the way Solomon judges and speaks. So that's in the law itself. Now, when you get to the Pharisees, they're a great example of one extreme where they engage in all kinds of misuses of the law, as Jesus points out in Matthew twenty two to twenty three, et cetera, where they highlighted the smaller matters and neglected the weightier matters of the law, so that lets us know there's obviously weightier matters that matter more than the lesser,
weightier matters. They would focus on tithing small amounts of spices and whatever, and they would hate their brother, right, So it's like, what's more important whether you love somebody or whether you tithe mint and Cuman? Right, It's like it's backwards so they would engage in all kinds of
skullduggery to bypass what the law actually taught. So that's one rigorous type of extreme misuse of law that Paul is quite often in the New Testament disgusting and rebuking and Jesus too, right, But you can also have the opposite extreme, which was the Sadducees, who basically were superlibs, didn't believe in anything like angels or resurrection or souls, as they were naturalistic. They were the libs, and Jesus calls them hypocrites too, but he has the most extreme
condemnations actually of the Pharisees. It's actually worse to be some kind of legalistic law worshiper or authority worshiper, right, And I would say that you in Rome, for example, you get this tendency where Roman Catholics worship authority and they worship laws, and that's just really the whole spirit is contrary to what the New Testament I think is teaching when it comes to Christ. I mean, how many times did Jesus say that the apostles are not to
lord it over one another. The apostles are not there to act like kings and lords, and the very thing that the Bishop Rome becomes like the ultimate example of that. He's the king of kings and emperor of emperor on the emperors, on the world, in the world. I mean, that's insane. How could anyone like read the New Testament and think that the way the papacy acts in terms of Middle Ages is anything like the way the New Testament tells, you know, bishops to be. And I understand, yeah,
there have been. I'm sure there were corrupt bishops. You know, in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Order. There's plenty of corrupt bishops, and Orthodox bishops violated the ancient canons if they went into battle. I understand all that. But it's different in the case of the papacy, precisely because the papacy makes itself the de facto god on earth, and no Orthodox bishop could ever do that.
The wait, what was the question about pat.
The tag question was how would you respond to the Barry Stroud critique that transcend arguments just show that something appears has to be the case logically, but doesn't mean that's actually the case. Oh yeah, And I said, well, we would agree with.
That, Yeah, exactly. We use Barrus Stroud's argument.
So we've just got to.
Get them to see see the problem is that people are operating within all the autonomous epistemological categories. So they're just thinking, well, they're just doing another thing that I'm doing.
So what makes that argument better?
You have to see the radical disjunt that there is no solution of it, the agrippas trum trilemma Barry Stroud. What Verry Strouds points out, it's true all of these skeptical challenges is absolutely right.
That's why it's calling to a radical different way.
You can't do it.
You cannot do it from your position within the space of reason alone. I'm an autonomous first of all, because you're not a position to know. Oh the way, I don't have episdemic standing is what Russ's mannion. And so the one who is in a position to note, because he created the world, he knows somebody who creates something that stands over and above their creation is obviously in.
A position to know.
Yeah, yeah, JD has a good response to that guy's question. Five dollars. Tag does not simply argue that people need to believe X is the case it argues that it requires that X is actually the case. Yeah, that's the argument. It's two different layers of argument or levels of argument. Thomas Miles has a great point too about system level defeaters. The decentralized autocephalis layout is what saves the Orthodox ecclesiastical system from the system level defeat that Papism is subject to.
Exactly perfectly stated. Now, good luck trying to get a Roman Catholic to understand that basic point. Thank you, Jay and Father Deacon for all you do. I'm sending you love from Father Josiah's parish, Ao ten dollars, Thank you, Ao, appreciate that Brian ten dollars. I was newly baptized underneath the EP And I learned that some Russian Orthodox churches don't recognize as sacraments. That's not true. I've never heard that the every Russian church will still recognize the sacraments.
It's just that the two are not in communion, which has happened many times. I bought a house here. I don't know where you mean here? What challenges will I face? I don't where is that? Should I visit us or with Orthodox churches? Honestly, dude, I don't know your situation or what's going on. It's just I mean, you can you're not. I think that's father Deacon off On points out, like you're not penalized by visiting another Orthodox church. You're free to do that. You don't have to get permission
to attend another Orthodox church. Andres Palomades became a member Aristotle five dollars. Did you know that Derek Mythvision and doctor Malpass got together and they had a cope session about the spankings that you gave them? Well, actually, I don't know that to be fair, because the Malpass debate didn't actually ever finish. I wouldn't even call that really
a spanking. He ended up wanting to just debate whether or not Aristotle's retortion was a transcendent argument, which I don't really care whether it is or is, Like, what does that have to do with whether TAG works or not? That's where he wanted to spend most of that discussion. But I think Derek Mythvision is just super low tier, so I'm not surprised about that. Henry two dollars, here's a big super chat. How big of a super chat do I need for you to call yourself, goy, I
don't think it even requires super chets. Eb jay, here's get a better Internet. Sometimes it drops to one frame per second. Yeah, I'm aware of that. What do you want me to do? So you'll notice right now it says stream health is excellent, and then it'll drop down and then it'll come back. I've never been able to solve this issue. Like I said, at both houses, I've had guys come out ten times to work on stuff.
I've also tooled with the OBS frame rate settings and the stream rate settings and maybe I just don't know what I'm doing, but I've never been able to get it right, So I don't know. Maybe maybe somebody who knows this shit better than me can come figure it out, because I don't know what else to do. Like Adrian five pounds, here's a wild affirmation. Is bitcoin prop to in order to purposely collapse it in the USA? I don't think that makes any sense because it's decentralized, all right.
I mean again, just think about the Orthodox Church. That'd be like saying the Orthodox Church is growing and they want it to grow because they want to secretly then collapse it and take it over again. You're missing the point and the power of decentralization. So I mean, I think if you really wanted to look for a possible way that bitcoin could be no longer decentralized. A's like if somehow you got like all the mining under one conglomerate.
Maybe in that way it could be manipulated or controlled. But if you think about it too, like, no one has an incentive to collapse it. If you've got two trillion dollars right now of people's money across the world in bitcoin and it's decentralized, you would have to get everyone in on the dump and the collapse. Why would I want to dump the majority of my wealth if I have a huge portion of my portfolio and bitcoin, it just it would be It makes no sense. So
I don't think that's a plausible scenario. And I think if you read about study about bitcoin, you'll see that that just really doesn't make any sense. Now, I mean, if everyone got on something centralized like ether, and the whole world in America started running on some sort of fiat eth system which is centralized, it could be controlled. Even if ninety percent of the bitcoin is held by one percent of wealthy people, they don't have an incentive to dump it.
Yeah, but have you thought about the quantum computer.
No, I've never heard of that, which doesn't even exist. By the way, It's like, what if one day, like quantum bigcoin takes over and it destroys the existing big cooin. It's like, well, okay, what if one day an asteroid destroys the earth? What are you gonna do with your bitcoin when the asteroid destroys the earth? What are you gonna do? Are you gonna argue with me when we're all destroyed?
I mean like, yeah, oh one, I won the argument. We're all dead?
Yeah, right, I want to vindicated. Everyone's dead. Connor became a member What's Up? Christopher Scott at five dollars? What's up? Even though a lot of wealthy people have a large amount of Bitcoin, they still don't control the network. You don't understand that. That's why it's decentralized. Cardano is the only decentralized network. Okay, yeah, sure, I don't. I don't. I'm not. I mean whatever, I'm not gonna have this.
Have you ever heard of them?
Uh?
Have you ever heard of ledye coin?
Well, Hall Old Knights send a super chatter two dollars, and he says that Father Deans is half Lamanite. What's that? That's one of the people groups in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites. Oh say, he says, maybe you should be Mormon if you're half Lamanite.
Yeah, and them half?
Uh?
Was it half a quarter net one?
When I sent my how tall are you?
Six foot?
That's a quarter You're not you gotta be tall or not to be one half net one?
Yeah, that's right.
Uh, let's see, let's talk God. Five dollars poured a funk go in the pot watch it is dire on that time he got theological riz. I don't know people try to When people try to rap about theologies to me, it's always cringe. I mean, I don't I appreciate your super chat gainer Zilla ten dollars. Do you think it's consistent that Protestants will say that the immediate successors of the Apostles subverted Christianity? No, what would that be consistent? I mean, Jesus says very clearly that the gates of
Hell would not prevail against the Church. And I mean it's not just Matthew sixteen. If you look at Daniel two Daniel two predicts that when the Messiah comes, his kingdom is set up, it grows into a giant tree, and it takes over all the existing kingdoms. Right, So what empire did Jesus die under? And was his kingdom set up under the Roman Empire? And what in three hundred years his kingdom took over the Roman Empire became the Orthodox Church. So it's predicted throughout the prophets. It's
not just predicted in Matthew sixteen. How many times does Isaiah say that the gentile kings and queens will come into the church? Okay, well what church did they come into in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth century. It's not the Protestant one. Protestants will say that the Holy Spirit guides them to the invisible Church. Yeah, that didn't exist, right, that's the Protestant vehicle that they invented to bypass the Historic Church, which proves that they're
not members of the Historic Church. Where do any church fathers teach the invisible church doctrine? Nobody, not even Augustine teaches the invisible Church doctrine. Nate five dollars, the clip of not so aerudit doing her degenerate hand motions, and your face when you saw it was hilarious, like what just happened? That's that's because it was genuine. Scott G five A's I just watched I hypocrites video on Glenn Greenwald. Dear God, that's horrendous. Do you mean Glenn Greenwald's take
was horrendous or I hypocrite? I have not watched it, so I don't know whose position was horrendous, Eastern Orthodox Journey or you already did that one. Let's see. Scrolling down, h Brosy says for five dollars, choppy internet is actually based the chat needs to stop whinting. Yeah, that means they're trying to shut me down. Dude, they're fighting me. Green bear five dollars. If you were to debate a Roman Catholic on geopolitics, what would the resolution look like? Uh?
I think the way I framed it was, what is a better explanation for the actions of the papacy in the last century? An infallible divine terrorism or geopolitical power block influence? Because the way I would argue that is, I think that the geopolitical power block influence is a much better explanation than supposed divine guidance and infallible kerorism,
because again, like people don't understand. I remember when I was a trad cat, when I first started reading a lot of like a you know, trad stuff, and a lot of stuff about Vatican two. The first thing that you'll encounter, which by the way, you can actually see Tim Gordon's kind of at this stage where you know, he'll cite AA one, O two five or whatever it is that supposed you know, KGB infiltration of the Cavic Church. And I remember reading that back in the day and
I thought, oh, yeah, that's what it is. And then he'll cite ALTA indeeda oh yeah, the Mason's infiltrate the caloch Church and and all of that is partially true, so it's not totally wrong, but it's like, okay, some of this is partly true. This is a puzzle piece. But it wasn't until I got into doing grad studies of studying espionage and psyops and that kind of stuff reading the whim Hoff book where you really start to realize, oh, so the CIA it was all up in Vatican two,
and yeah, there's a Jewish role as well. If you read Gordon Thomas's book, he argues that the Massade wasn't really influential in the Vatican until John Paul the Second, which seems plausible. I'm not saying Massad controls the Vatican, but I'm just talking about different networks. I think the CIA had a much stronger foothold in the Vatican way prior to John Paul the Second. But I mean, you've
got normy books and critical books. Whether it's Kaylor's book or whether it's Paul Williams's book, one's critical of the CIA, one is pro CIA. They all admit, like absolutely, John Paul teamed up with the CIA to win the Cold War. In fact, Kaylor argues that one of the key signs of the victory of the West and the Cold War was the not just the John Paul ali Aga assassination attempt, but various stuff like photoshops that John Paul the Second
took that were arranged CIA photo ops. Right, and then if you look at the Bush Malta Gorbachew Bush, John Paul the Second meeting at Malta, that's a huge concluding meeting of the Cold War, setting the stage four where we are now, which, by the way, amazingly Again, I have some pretty pretty stiff criticisms of some of Max Bluementhal's chapters. But the chapter that he just covered on the neo conservative takeover via net and Yahoo's so Net
y'aw wrote this paper called clean Break. So after the assass nation of Yitsuk Rabin, the Lekuds wrote a paper called clean Break, which was to make a clean break with the pro plo pro piece attitude that like Yitsuk Rabin had, and then they brought in this seven Nations
plan that General Wesley Clark famously talked about. Magically, the Big Nine event ends up supporting all of that, All of that has been That's the other puzzle piece you see to understanding the wasp Zionist alliance that characterizes the Cold.
War and.
The state of foreign policy after the Cold War entering into a designed and planned war on terror. And so Max Bloemhald's book is great for that, but I have again he's he's two leftists on things like nation states. He seems to be quasi socialist. He thinks that geo engineering isn't real. I mean it's so it's like I have some criticisms obviously in that book, but there's also a lot of really good details. They're good information even though there's criticism. So we'll be getting into this. I'm
almost halfway through the book. It's really good overall. But Connor began to remember, what's a Christopher Scott? Since five dollars, thanks Chris, let's see gainer Zola says for ten dollars, you misread my question. I know that Protestants are inconsistent. What I mean is a quote fully consistent Protestant. I don't know what that means. Do they affirm the immediate successors subverted the Church? Well, I think in the Protestant
world you have a range of views. So the only people that I'm aware of that believe in a complete subversion would be Seven day Adventists, Mormons. They're not Protestant, but they're they have the view that the Church was the Great Apostles. He happened right after the Apostles. Maybe Baptists think that, but what's called the classical Reformation or the quote magisterial Reformation, which is a retarded term. But Luther Calvin Zwingley, those people, they believe that the Church
didn't apostatize right away. It just got subverted and infected. But there was still true Christians, right. Calvin and Luther would say that there were true Christians in every century.
Right.
So really it's only an a Baptist that I know that are quote Protestant that have the view that the church immediately fell away. That's a classically Anabaptist position, radical Reformation position. Felt it snake ten pounds. Will you be doing other shows again? I'm sure I will. I don't know as of yet what other shows are doing. What about the whatever podcast is that once a year. I have no idea. It's up to I mean, I all, I just when those people ask me to do shows,
I'm like, okay, we'll see. Brian asked me to debate Dasha, and I just I don't think Dasha wants to do that. I asked about it and she was like, oh, I'm getting married, and I never heard back. So I don't think she wants to do a debate on there. And plus I don't know what we would debate. We'll just have the same I don't think she's a feminist, so I don't know that she would want to debate feminism. So The problem is that there's not many people that
will debate feminism. So you know, basically you got to get you know, basically Andrew just has to scour the internet to find like the most insane feminists that are willing to debate feminism. Can FDA interpret Wisdom of Solomon?
I don't.
I don't know.
It's an odd question. Are you able to interpret? Brother Dickon? Somebody asked a weird question.
It was like a.
Can you interpret the signs?
Yeah, it's like the Matt slick with Babe. How come you don't want to go to any Bible texts. That's because you don't like the Bible. You're scared of the Bible, or else you would be doing.
Matt, the Bible is a Protestant book. I ain't going there. I should have just I should have just trolled them all more autistic.
I kept I basically kept Remember I said I was handicapped and a wheelchair or something.
Like that, and he was like, well, I'm autistic, and.
No I forgot.
And then what was weird is like I've traveled around the country and like people were like, I thought you were in a wheelchair.
I thought you were serious I'm like, yeah, but now you are, right now, you actually are in a whelchair because broke your ankles skiing. But or as they say, snowsurfing. People have forgotten. They don't know that you had a debate with Matt Slick. And what was funny about it.
Was that.
The Protestants all were like, he's scared to go to the Bible, and what Father Deacon was doing was trying to debate him on epistemology, right.
Yeah, because i mean what was going to happen is all right, we'd go to the Bible and just like anything, Well, that's not what the verse means. You see the versus, it's the persecuted scripture.
I mean clearly means what it says, and it says what it means.
And it means what I say and not what you say.
And then I'm like, well that that's going to get into prior kind of presuppositions of like well why you reading the text that way? Why are and these kind of epistemic And I'm like, well, let's just save time, like why are we going to go?
And this is all Protestants do. They just quote my scriptures and create.
The do the fallacy of tech, textonomy, contextronomy, taking stuff out of context.
And I'm like, this is so stupid, Like I grew up as a Protestant.
I know that's what you do.
It's just like he who matches the most Bible versus wins.
And then we could just supply our hermaeneutical principle here, and which is hilarious. If it's so clear and obvious, why do you have to have hermaanutical principles to guide you through?
Is it brought that up? And number two, if it's.
Persecuted scripture, if it's so clear, like, isn't that a worst argument for you?
Like, then why are you so retarded to get every verse wrong? It's so clear?
So I have to read to you. I have to read this to you. This is from the Book of Wisdom. Wisdom is a gift of God. Reflecting on these things and considering in my heart immortality lies in kinship with Wisdom, great delight, in love of her, unfailing riches, in the work of her hands, and in associating with her, there is prudence, fair renown, and sharing with her discourse. I went about seeking her for my own. Now I was a well favored child and I became. I came by
a noble nature. Rather being noble, I attained an unblemished body. And knowing that I could not otherwise possess her unless God gave it, this too was prudence, and to know the gift that she is, I went to the Lord and besought him and said it with all my heart. You're supposed to interpret those texts for the deacon.
Well, first we're going to have to go to uh astronomy and the blivements.
No, but I'm seriously this guy sent a super chat and he said, would you ask for that? I don't know why he said, would you ask mister kool Aid's please ask for that? You can any us to interpret what the personification of wisdom is in these texts? And can you I got to use the restroom, so could you exposit these I'm.
Looking at on the screen?
What is it?
Wisdom?
What wisdom? Eight nineteen to twenty one?
Listen a nineteen?
I just pop it on my personification of wisdom like a woman wisdom.
That's a crazy task, like on the fly.
I just have to.
Go through a text. And nevertheless, when I perceive that it could.
Not pain her.
Well, I'll do it right here.
That's talking about autonomous epistemology right there. H.
It was at that point wisdom was also the gish she was, so God.
Gave it her to me.
I prayed unto the Lord, and he besought me.
Let me see.
It ends at twenty How far am I supposed to go here?
H I figured it out. I'm supposed to go before that that.
He's about the room. So it's just the wisdom passages in wisdom.
And yeah, he's obviously talking about autonomous pistemology.
I'm not joking when I perceive that I could not otherwise obtain her except God gave.
Her to me. Right. So the personification of wisdom is in one sense the divine energy of wisdom. It is also the Holy Spirit, and it is also Christ praying about his unblemished, immaculate body. Yeah.
Yeah, that's what it looks like.
All right, That was it.
That was the ex Jesus right there.
But there is a notion of what twenty one is showing those alpa faticism and humility.
Yeah, exactly that.
You know, it's a divine energy, Like you don't create wisdom, you don't obtain it on and as it says in Matthew and elsewhere, if you exalt yourself, God humbles you, and if you humble yourself, God exalts you.
So that seems to be true. And then yeah, it's true.
It's thoroughly trinitarian as well. In that passage, I would say, we've got Christ and the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit as well, and the Father and the Father.
So yeah, that's a pretty good ext to Jesus. Thanks for it.
Yeah, Aristotle says, for this is the actual aristotol ten dollars. Do you remember that in your Derek myth vision debate he prophesied that he would have five hundred thousand subscribers by the beginning of this year or last year, and the people would move towards his teachings. Yeahought, I remember that. Adrian. There were interesting events happening in Romania and Poland. They have to do with the recent elections. When it concluded,
all the extreme left rhetoric flooded online. Yeah you mean that or Jescu being arrested and told that he can't run. And yeah, in fact, I've been I emailed multiple times with his people and we were going to do an interview and then as soon as we're gonna do the interview is when he he the court banned him from doing interviews. So beyond that, I've not heard what the update is, although I think Lord Voldemort mentioned the other day an update, but I forgot what he said is
going on. So I don't know about Poland though. But yeah, NATO doesn't want anyone who's not fully controlled by NATO to thank you to have elections. Of course, Ea five dollars. You definitely bring in a whole new audience if you talk about seven day adventism. Nudge nudge. Uh, yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure we would. Why don't some seven day avenues call in a debate? I mean, maybe I should put that in the title. I always forget when i'm listing different cults at to put that in the title. Let's
see Jordan five dollars. There's a saying that if you don't use it, you lose it. Keep those passes. Noah m five dollars. Ask Jamie if I can use her tallow like a lip bomb. She said, yes, you can. I work in a cement factory and it seems like this stuff works great. Yes, let's talk God. No, already did that. Let's see noah m five dollars. I don't know if you've covered it, but there's a big stink being made on Twitter about this. What's the this? You
mean Francis meeting with the EP. I mean that these kinds of things have happened all the time. What about the situation with Metropolitan Tikikos being disciplined for requiring that a woman undergo corrective baptism to get married. I don't know anything about it. She was already christmated top jackomatic ten dollars. We did him, Jake need him three dollars.
The fallacies of reification and anthropomorphism can be good tools in addition to your tag work by critiquing God being too apathetic or too imminent, which, in order to avoid necessitates Yes, it's an interestinction. Okay, Yeah, that's interesting. Anthony one dollar? What's service between you? Oh? We already did that, Big Iron ten dollars. Thank you for recommending readings Space Trilogy. I finished it. Do you have any similar recommendations? Should
I read Wmberto Echoes? I wouldn't read Romberto Echo. He's his stuff is atheistic, nihilistic, postmodern Satanism. I don't know if you mean, like in general or just in terms of fiction. I mean there's a lot of good fiction. I mean, look at the recent fiction text we've covered. You know, if you haven't read Lord of the Flies is a good one, Childhood's End. You know, these are all just depends on what you're interested in. John underneath your Space I commented an AI image illustrating a system
level defeating critique an AI image? Can you pull that up? Not for one dollar, dude, I don't understand what you're saying, arisol five dollars. We already did that. Tain't nothing ten dollars. I'm sorry that if you already covered this, But are you debating the Mormon guy thoughtful faith? He's yes, he has already called in. We already had an exchange and what he said was completely stupid. But I don't remember which of the there's probably ten more clips now that
are out there. I just don't remember which one is him. But he's we've already had an exchange. Christopher Scott five dollars, Uh, honest, diecast ask father Deacon if he would rather have an alien to work for him or to work for him? Father deacon. Okay, he must have stepped away. Let's go to the calls. We've got a lot of people on the line here, Godhead, I'm mute, god Head on you?
Oh sorry, sorry? Can you hear me?
Ye?
Huh?
Go ahead?
So can I Can I come back to you in just ten seconds?
Okay? Do you want to just wait ten seconds with so I'll read another super chet Brian. Five dollars is the Catholic dilemma of them refuting the first thousand years equivalent to the Islamic dilemma. I think when I talked about Catholic dilemma it was just contradictions. I would say, in terms of basic structure, a contradiction in Islam would be similar to the contradiction in papism. Sure, gainer Zilla, now we already did that. Bastion ten dollars or Oca
parish is just as good as ro Corps parishes. It just as paris about parish, man, I would I would say, check them all out. Lean five dollars. Does the Eucharist save? I mean, it's part of salvation. There's no singular thing like, oh it's just baptism. Oh, it's just the Eucharist. So it's just the like all of these things are part of salvation, because we're not Protestants who have like a reductionist idea of salvation as just like a one time
event where you, you know, said the sinner's prayer. Jesus says you got to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Correct, what if you don't know about this? Again? Too much is given, much is required Aristotle? No where did that gainers ten dollars? I think a fully consistent Protestant would have to concede that the immediate successors such as Clement Ignacious Aeronaeus subverted the church if they Yeah, I mean
Protestants are never fully consistent. How about that? But the Anabaptists will argue that Clement Ignacious and Aeronaus subverted the church Lean three dollars. How would you debunk Sevendy Adventism by going to the standard reputations of all the other sects and cults, like there's no new revelations. Ellen White taught that she was a charismatic prophet and she got
new charismatic revelations. Well, if there's no new revelations, that immediately cuts out all sects and cults that teach new revelation, whether it's Mormon, Muslim, or Seven of Day Adventists. So again we've already done link these streams on the canon of You understand, guys, it only takes like one argument
can cut out all the cults and sects. You don't have to refute every single cult and sect individually, because if the canon of Scripture is determined by the Church, that undercuts every Protestant sect or cult, you don't have to do all ten thousand of them one by one. That one cuts them all out because they're all derivatives of the Reformation. If the Reformation is false, those are also false. I'm not trying to be rude to you, guys.
It's just like it should be obvious that if the Reformation is wrong, all the sects that come out of the Reformation are by default also wrong, if it's a question of fundamental issues like the Canada Scripture and so forth. So we just had a live stream on charismatic cults right here, heated debates, charismatic Pentecostal stuff right here, six hours right there, that will also, by necessity, by default, also undercut Seven day Adventism. So would any debate about
the canon. So that's why you don't have to do every single cult one by one.
They're not gonna just ask about seventy advenus. Yeah, can we get the same people in?
Like my stream is your stream? That they've asked the same thing too. And I was like, it's kind of a weird question because I mean, the critiques that we would have of any heterodox theoretical applies to Seventh Day Adventism.
And I think the question I mentioned to this individual, the question.
Displays kind of a Protestant acumenism assumption in it, like, well, what's the good stuff?
How do I put this?
It's something that a Protestant would ask, So, what's wrong with Seventh Day Adventism?
Right? They don't understand the system level defeaters again.
But it's like, it's not like.
How do I put this?
It's not like there's something unique that like, I mean, I guess you could dig in and try to find some weird thing about.
Uh, well, look, if there's no new profits, then any system built on a new profit is canceled out right.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to yet. Well, I would say veganism, there's a.
Well they're vegetarian.
But yeah, right, that's vegetarian.
But an easier like because they're just going to try to argue stupid stuff about that, Like why not just say that, first of all, seventy avodes and believes that the Church apostatized in the first second, third century, so that would violate Matthew sixteen and the promise at the Gates of Elle will not reveal against the Church everybody. Pre Icia teaches the same thing as post and Icea.
You can go watch my live stream with Inspiring Philosophy on that where we talk about the pre Nicne teaching and the post nice teaching on the Trinity and episcopacy, all that kind of stuff is there.
I mean, it's just a weird question to me, Like it's the question, what is it uniquely that seventh Day I don't that just have a problem that doesn't.
That all Protestants?
Yeah, he says, my mother is stuck in the church and she says that there's a secret truth that this church has and everyone that goes against it is satanic. Well, I don't think I'm going to be able to logically argue with your mom on that.
Man, You're not going to be able to you have to blackmail her.
John says that's a joke. John says, were one dollar? You missed my last stream.
Lab Okay, I think you guys can have me.
Go ahead. What's up, Godhead?
Yeah, how's it going?
How's it going?
Jay uh and.
And co?
Yeah?
So yeah, I just want to say, hey, you'll or your take on trinitarian morganism.
It's such a tongue twister.
Monarchical trinitarianism basically, yeah, is that what you subscribe to?
You just out of interest? Yes, I'm a believer as well. I am Protestant though, and I think your Orthodox, aren't you?
Yes? Okay, well so yeah. One thing I would say is like, if you look at the original Nights in Creed, it's right there. Athanatians teaches that the Father generates of his nature an identical son, identical by nature, and he uses the Greek term for generation there versus creation. So that is monarchical trinitarianism. Where you have the Creed, for example, the Niceno consert polity Creed says that we believe in
one God, the Father. We believe in the Father of lights, right, So typically the one God is referred to by the Cappadocians and by the creed as the person of the Father. And that's monarchical trinitarianism in its most simple. There's a sole source that is the Father. The Father is the source of the Spirit and the Son.
Yeah, you see that bit what you just said about. I know you're mentioning about the Father being the sole source. So I think the question for me is if the Father is unorginated, you know, how can the son and spirit be coequal and colternal? Because yeah, I sort of feel like with this this idea of should we say trinitarism monarchia, the Father is somewhat seen as.
He's seen.
It's quite for me a little bit too distinct.
That means two distinct. I mean we just follow the teaching content, one which is Cappadocian, which is that the Father is the sole cause. That's what is his hyposthetic property. He's picked out as fount, ark, source, and arka, et cetera. Those are all terms that are his hypostatic property to pick him out as the source. Hence why Jesus in the Gospel says that his God is the Father. So even Jesus has a God which is the person of the Father.
But the Father also in Hebrews one calls Jesus.
God as well.
Is that right? That's because God is not a term that has a single reference. It can pick out a person, you can pick out the divine nature, you can pick out divine energies, and it can also pick out humans, angels, and demons.
Okay, So you obviously subscribe to Father's Son, holy Spirit being as.
You know, equal equal in nature, not in role.
Okay, So do you believe you know, I'm sure you obviously believe that the Father's unoiginated the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Yeah.
Right.
Oration twenty three of Gregory nosanzeis where he talks about this, and he says that the Father is on originate, the Son is original.
What about in Michael five, verse two, which implies that you know, the quest is, you know, eternally existing John one Verse one's two.
Yea, none of we believe in eternally begotten son. There's no beginning in time to his existence. So there's nothing about monarchical trinitarianism that thinks that the Son wasn't eternal. He's eternally begotten, as John one says, he was always in the bosom of the Father even when he was incarnate, you.
Know, you know, do you know one thing?
I think one interesting thing is that it can somewhat appear in a way that it's I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on is this somewhat because there's some arguments that this is somewhat modalism and in disguise because modalism.
How would it be modalism when it's almost always critiqued as subordinationism and arianism. So maybe you're confusing. I think you're confusing modalistic monarchianism with monarchical trinitarianism. Those are totally different things.
No, no, No, it's more like it's more about somewhat the risks, like basically dis over emphasis on the Father.
I know, I know that this is not different modes.
In the Orthodox there is no emphasis on the Father. It's just not true. The entire liturgy, the entire service, the entire ethos is fully trinitarian. There's no emphasis on one versity the other. O case, Okay, I would just say go at ten Orthodox Church and you could see if that's the case. But if you're looking for a fuller treatment of this. Doctor bo Branson has an entire
lecture series that's on the channel GM. Just type in Monarchy the Father Bo Branson, you'll get a five part lecture series which goes through most of these types of objections. But go ahead, go ahead and make your point.
So you know the bit about it, you know, come on so late in the day.
So for us, I'm in the UK.
So if you look at for example, John one, verse one to two and he Brews nine, verse eighteen, Kelly, the Son and the Spirit are co eternal.
There's nothing about monarchical trinitarianism that denies the eternality of the Sun. He's eternally begotten, as nicea One says. So Athanatians talks about the son being eternally begotten and receiving his existence and his essence and his hypostasis. Everything that he has he receives of the Father. Right, as Jesus
himself says in the Gospel of John. None of that entails that there's any form of ontological subordination, or that there's any sort of diminnition, right, or that he's not eternal, right. I mean, have you not heard me argue with Muslims for years. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude to you, but like I literally go through all those texts when I'm arguing with Muslims to show that the Old Testament teaches that the Son is eternal, the Son
is the eternal God. It's just that the word God doesn't have a single reference.
Yeah.
No, I've heard you debate wanted two individuals, you know, Muslims and so forth. Sure, I think the other thing is, I mean, what's your case for implying origin this begotten and proceeding because I know obviously you don't subscribe to feel okay.
Basically, well, again, if you read the Cappadocians, everything that we say is literally what Basil teaches us, what Gregor Nazianzows teaches, and as orations, it's what Gregor Nissa teaches and against Eunomias, like, all of what we're saying is just literally repeated verbatim from them, and they had as their chief opponent Eunomius. Right, Eunomius is modalistic, you know,
Unitarianism is precisely what they're geared towards opposing. So I don't see at all but I think that they're perfectly consistent with what Affanatius taught because consound number one is building on the eternal beginning of the son that's pronounced in the original original Nicene Creed that the cavedotions then build on. So again, I just don't understand at all where there's any emphasis over instants on the father or subordination to say that there's a role. It's just like
a king and a son. Right, if you think about a king and the king has a son who's a prince, they have different roles, but the nature that they possess is equal. Right. The prince has all the same authority and power as the king. He has the same nature as his father, the king, but they don't have the
same role. And that's why Jesus is always talking about the Father as the one that's quote greater, not in essence but in role, and as the one whom he submits to, whom he obeys, whom he derives everything from. So it's actually the Mormon or seeing the Muslim position, which thinks that if the son derives his existence and if he's not un originate, that he's somehow lesser. But if you watch the debate between Jake and doctor Branson.
Doctor Branson demonstrates that it's just a logical fallacy to say that