Pt 1 - EVANGELICAL CRASHOUT! E-vangelicals Vs One True Church

bell this want me take it? Please don't make me feel Please? Please please, Bro?

me out, we got ap calling me out. We got, of course, interesting silence from God logic when a lot of people are asking him, Hey, why are you sending people to synagogues?

David Wood they're open Zionists. And why is that Well, because they cannot accept the teaching of the Orthodox Church that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church. And as I said the other day, of course this is a stumbling block. They want a Jesus that doesn't direct them to any church. They want a diy Jesus that allows you to kind of make it up the way you see fit. Oh you don't like this or that doctrine, well, then craft your own fake rhythm church.

then says that we have to join Orthodoxy. Yeah, but what I did that was so horrible was to ask any of these people to defend their doctrine or version of the church. That's that simple. And I thought of a kill shot today, which is another kill shot for all these people. Can you name any single person that was a parachurch or churchless apologist in the first millennium? Name one? Oh, there isn't one. Because this is a thoroughly Protestant idea that you can divorce Jesus from his body,

from his church, and from his sacraments. The entirety of why people are convert are converted is to live the life in Christ. And so I'm going to recommend that if you never read this book by Saint Nicholas Cabasilas. Everybody should read this because he's a I think fourteenth century in me. And if you're wondering why my copy is not marked up, it's because I read this in two thousand and seven and I gave it away and I bought a new copy recently, So that's why this

one isn't marked up. But I have read it, and it gives you a window into what was the attitude of Christianity in the fourteen hundreds in Byzantium. And where you're gonna notice is it's exact same attitude that you get in orthodoxed Christianity today. And that book is about our participation in the mysteries, namely the sacraments. That is how you live the life in Christ. You don't live it by a mental assent to a new bunch of propositions.

Oh I was formerly believing in the Quronic propositions and now I believe in the Bible propositions. No, no, it's a life lived sacramentally. None of these people promote a sacramental life. Now they might say, oh, well, we believe you could do whatever you want. Yeah, that's just as bad. That's even worse, who ever thought or gave the impression Again, name a person in the first thousand years that taught a church less apologetic. There's not one. It doesn't exist.

In fact, we're going to look at some quotes today that demonstrate that. We're going to see the attitude of the church throughout that time period, and you're going to notice that low and behold, the Orthodox Church has the same view. Let's start with the Creed. And we all know the Creed says one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we know how the Cappadocians interpreted that. They interpret they're the ones that helped author that section a Constantine

one and added to the original Nicene Creed. Well, here's an icon, and this is the icon commemorating the fathers of the six Ecumenical Councils, the first six before the seventh. And you'll notice that there's nothing Calvinists are Lutheran about this. And when we go read the councils, there's nothing Calvinist

or Lutheran about these. In fact, we saw last night that the Canons of Nicea, for example, talked about the Eucharist, talked about excommunication, that talked about the threefold office of presbyter, deacon, presbyter, bishop. They talked about, uh, the offering of the Eucharist as an oblation of sacrifice, et cetera, et cetera. And I want to call attention to another fascinating thing that almost nobody talks about, and hopefully with the epilogue is included

here let's see. Oh wait, maybe it's at the end. Okay, yeah, here we go. So this is a local synod. We're just using this as as one example. And Gangra is like three between three twenty five to three eighty. So right after Anicea there was a local sin I called the Council of Gangro. And we're going to notice something interesting that Protestants never want you to discuss or never

talk about. So after all these canons was by the way, many of them include canons that are very similar to what you see and I see obviously there's canons about monastics living a life of virginity, canons about the priesthood. I think there's canons about the Eucharist as well. I'm going from memory, if anyone shalking in marriage, letting me be anathema. So you had the Gnostics still promoting tations type views I think, or somebody else's views. I think

Tation ended up condemning marriage. But look at the epilogue. So after all the canons, and by the way, notice the fasts and the feasts. If anyone condemns the feasts of the martyrs in the liturgy and the commemoration of the saints, let him be an aathema. You see Canon twenty. So this is right after Nicia. The local Synat of Gangra is excommunicating heretics that would condemn sainthood, martyrs, commemoration

of martyrs, and thus by extension their intercession. Now this is the pet doctrine that gay pe Uncut incessantly talks about as if there's no patristic evidence, even though it's right here in the Council of Gangra because they're commemorated in the liturgy. Now, what's the epilogue. This is one of my favorite parts. And I remember when I was a Protestant and I was trying to grapple with this back in the day. I had a hard time with

this one. It says, thus we write not to cut off those who wish to lead in the Church of God in aesthetic life. But who want to carry on a pretense of asceticism. So this local synod, which is still a very prominent local sent on in the early Church, it was actually dealing with radical asthetics, people that wanted to eschew all marriage. Right again, the thing that Paul says, you know, there will be false teachers coming and they

will forbid marriage. And so this is still going on in the three hundreds, and that's why this local senat is dealing with this. And it goes on to say, these people exalt themselves above those that live simply and against the scriptures and the ecclesiastical canon. So notice right here, by the fourth century, there's already an understanding of a connection between the interpretation of the scriptures in church law or ken in law. So there is no diy. Everybody's

got their scrolls and they're doing private interpretation. Like goober, Protestants think, there is the scriptures and then there is the canonical ecclesial legal interpretive that the church gives. We admeyer virginity with humility, and we have regard for continents. But you can't take an extreme view, is essentially what this says. Now, let's go down to the bottom here,

because this is the key point. We approve the gathering together in the church for common profit, and we bless the charities done to the brethren and to the poor according to the traditions of the church. And to sum up in a word, we wish that all things that have been delivered by the scriptures and by the Apostolic traditions be preserved in the churches. Why would this early on the Council of Gangra say this because they weren't

solo scriptura. Yes, there is a high view of the scriptures, but there is still not at this late or at this early stage, a universally recognized Canada scripture. And yet how are they preaching the gospel and existing as an institutional, skiple hierarchical church. Oh, because of Apostolic tradition. The Council of Gangras says it right here. And as a Protestant, I had a hard time with this passage. I didn't know what to do with this. I'll show you. Look,

here's my church Fathers set. This is the seven Ecumenical Council's volume. As you can see, it is worn down. As you can see, I did actually read it, and here's my notes back when I was a Protestant. Uh oh, why are they talking about Apostolic tradition as part of the paradigm for the scriptures? Uh oh, this was hard for me. Now let's look at another synim around the same time, and we'll review a couple of the nice

Seene ones too. Now, when I was a Protestant, the only thing I could come up with at this time when I was challenged with this one, was well, uh, this one is a local council, so it does doesn't really count, says who if you're a Protestant. The local council's not counting. Also applies to the ecumenical councils not counting, because you can pick and choose what you want of

those as well. So we come over here and I'm showing you that the reason that church law matters is not whether or not the church law is quote infallible. That's not the point. The point is the canons give us a better picture of the mindset of the church in terms of totality, because it's a broader survey than any individual church father. So just assuming that, oh, I don't care what councils say, because I have this quote from Augustine. That's just assuming that a single church father

is above a council. Well you don't know that yet. What if if the orthodox paradigm's true, then the synod, even if it's local, is above any single church father. And obviously I'm not talking about fake heterodox synods. I'm talking about the ones that are accepted as part of the canonical tradition of the church. Are I said, let's look at Lao Deicia because this is another local synod and this was around three forty three, three point fifty. All right, this is just this is not the synat itself.

Let's try this. Yeah, here we go. Canon six, it is not permitted for heretics to enter the House of God while they are in heresy. Does that sound like anything that god logic Rid Vaughan or even the post Vaticans who Protestant is Romanchollolic Church would hold to. Now, obviously we don't copy paste read the canons without some nuance or without some equantumia. So this is probably talking

about notorious public heretics, right, like Arius. We don't let Arias come to church, right he's been excommunicated or someone of that stature, right, because there's going to be people, obviously who have wrong ideas who can come to church. So this is talking about public known heretics obviously, otherwise you couldn't identify who they were. So public known heretics are not supposed to be attending the liturgy if they've

been excommunicated. What Protestant Church upholds this persons converted from the heresies that is out of the noovationists, the Botinians, the Cordadas, Simians, whether they were catechumans or communicounts among them, shall be received, not be received until they've anathematized all of their heresies. So you understand, the attitude that we have of people converting to the church is the exact same attitude in the fourth century at the council at

the center of Leedisia. We are telling people to do the same thing that they were telling them in the fourth century to do. And they're mad because we're saying there's no church less apologetics. There is no parachurch apologists in the first thousand years, it doesn't exist. It's a

made up Protestant business model idea. Who called you to teach, who catechized you, And in the case of Avery, he's just taking all of the Orthodox ideas of the monarchy of the Father and still acting as if, well, I can be an Orthodox apologist while not being Orthodox, because I'm not going to defend a church that Jesus said up. I'm just going to defend Jesus. The idea of Jesus as a divine son of God. Well, there is no such thing as a bodyless Jesus, because the church is

the body. If you're not defending the Jesus that directed people to his church, you're defending the wrong Jesus. You might as well be defending the Mormon Jesus. At the end of the day, even though the proposition is true, Yes, Jesus is the son of God, and even though Avery means that in the correct sense, if you're sending people to judaizing sects, which is what Avery does, then it's scattering in vain, scattering. He that does not gather with

us scatters abroad. That's what Jesus says. Here's Avery sending people to synagogues. Oh, I got radar.

did was nobody addressed any of the actual arguments. For example, name a paarachurch church list apologist in the first thousand years, just name one. They just ignored all of the arguments all and it's all about Jabad or throw bros Bad. This is such a predictable response. This is all they do every time, same thing. Muslims do, same thing, Roman Catholics do, same thing as everyone else. Do I need

Avery for Clout. And the only reason people think this is that he's got more subscribers on YouTube and TikTok. Who cares about that? You can buy subscribers And I'm not saying he did. I don't know if he did. But what's a better measure of metrics. Something that's harder to fake is the search? Okay, so let's look at YouTube search and then only oh, why you crucial Bushebob Motris, because they're trying to dunk and throw his metrics in

my face today. That's why look at this. In the last year on web search, we're double avery almost always, and when it comes to YouTube, we're equal. Why would I need somebody that I'm already beating metrics wise for Cloud.

I don't need that for Clout. So then this whole stupid drama today was just like next level ridiculous because I don't even know who the Muslim was, all Right, So some Muslim dude said, Dyer has a good point because he's calling out God logic to and David Wood to defend some actual church and some actual tradition and not the easy grift of anti Muslim anity and church list Jesus. And so then all of these people then make, especially David Wood, their whole thing is, oh, he's a

Muslim sympathizer and supporter. He's with the muslims now. And I don't think David would. Is that stupid? I actually think he's just being very deceptive, and he's actually more of a Sololenskyle style subversive because he has to know that agreeing with a Muslim on a point about avery not being honest, of course, that doesn't mean I support the Muslim worldview. This is so retarded. That's like saying,

this is what leftist remember the leftists do this. Hitler drank water, You drink water, you must be with Hitler. The sky is blue? And I say, if a Muslim says the sky is blue, and I say, yeah, right, David Wood, Look, he supports Islam. That's literally what it was as was today. And I'm like, what are you even talking about. He's like, you know, this person supports doxing and this and that, and I'm like, no, I

don't even know who the person is. But what does that have to do with whether what he said was correct? If Judas says and he's being obviously didn't believe it, But if Judas went out with the apostles and preached. If I say what Judas said was correct, assuming that he said things correct, does that make me an Antichrist? Judas goat. I'm supporting Judas because Judas said, I mean, this is a genetic fallacy, or it's just fallacy of

guilt by association. And he has to know that that's a fallacy, because he's on enough debates to hope surely what he would know basic fallacies. So agreeing with somebody's point is not an endorsement of the worldview.

me in my Bible? All of these people are under a delusion, and it doesn't matter that they get a lot of things correct, because the delusion furthers other people into the delusion, who think I can create my own parachurch, e church ministry, but they have no authority to do it.

There is no connection to the historical church whatsoever. And the easy kill shot is, as I pointed out two days ago, if the Church of the first thousand years was exclusivists in its ecclesiology, and we're seeing that that is the case, then you saying I reject all exclusivist churches or claims means that you're not part of the Church of the first thousand years. That's that simple, and that's what Avery said. So people are saying, well, this is old David Wood. Now Avery is also saying there

is no one true church. So notice the stumbling block isn't just is Jesus the way the truth in the life by extension. If there's one Jesus who had one body, there's only one church in history. That's why Paul says one Lord, one faith, one Baptism. That's why the Nicene Creed says one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. These people won't even tell you what church they're in who they don't want to get dogs. They don't have to say the specific building. They can say, I'm a representative of the

evangelical free Church. I'm a representative of Billy Bob Strip mall Church. I mean, at least the IFB people say we're in Stephen Anderson's cult. But none of these people will actually even tell you what church they go to, because there's no There isn't one. I mean, there isn't one that they're defending, is what I'm saying. Maybe they

go to eve Agelical Church. Who knows. So these people will live stream all week long with thirty viewers, and then they'll get propped up by all these goobers just because it's a racket. Dude, it's nothing to do with theology. That's why Mahler and Christian King and this their little boot foot soldier minions gay p They won't actually debate. Everybody has asked them to do formal debates, and they won't do it because it's not even about that. Mallory

or not. JP even said, I don't really care about theology. Rouselan said the same thing, of course, not we saw last night. The Peter Druckcker model is that dogma is antithetical to a numbers game for megachurches, and they're all using the Peter Drucker megachurch model. I thought this was

a funny little owned by the way cell phone. I asked on YouTube the same question, any evangelical parachurch, epologist, name one apologist or father or anybody as a representative in the first thousand years who had a churchless apologetic name one. Oh, there's not one. So they're all doing a self appointed business church model. And it doesn't matter if you get a bunch of things correct, because if you're sending people to synagogues, it defeats the whole purpose.

You're sending them from one book worshiping sect to another book worshiping sect. They went from Sunni Islam to Rabbinic Judaism, but just Messianic. That's another heresy. A sect Judaizing is the first heresy, that the first that the Church dealt with. And of all people, scam Shamou comes out and says that I'm actually corrector well, he has to because he claims to be a Catholic, but he's just made up his own invention of Apostolic Christianity of ancient churches, which

is a fallacy. Heresies are ancient, ancient, has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. It is a quality of the true Church. But you can have an ancient heresy, does it make it true? Because it's all that's the anachronous fallacy. So here are these heretics. Here's this guy being an historian. And notice how they default to Astorianism. She is not the mother of the person of Christ. Way to be an historian, dude, call in, goober. None of these people will call in. Now I lost it.

Here we go, call in historian. We are live tweeting for you guys, and we went for three hours last night with only one guy that would actually debate. Okay, so then we'll get back to the councils in just one second. I mean, this is just such a leftist style, effeminate projection here. They just respond with the way that they think. Right. They think it's about numbers and clicks, and when you find out that, oh, actually I have

bigger numbers than God, logic, that didn't even make any sense. Now, notice how they talk about the four letter words and piety signaling and then they turn around and do it. So look at these evangelicals. These are the people talking about how bad the Ortho bros. Are. By the way, I did convert to Islam. Here's the proof. I'll be taking my shahada. As you see Lewis exposed me years ago.

Here's the proof. They tell David Wood he can clip that and they can prove to their By the way, their Adiq audience will believe this, because the whole grift is target these Adiq Muslims, convert them to online e church evangelicalism, and then you've got a ready made cult of Adiq retard still and that's why they do it.

That's I'm convinced that's why they do that model. And by the way, notice that telling people that they have to go to an Orthodox church and that they can't just go to any church, that immediately becomes a problem for their model. That's why they won't do it. The business model is more important, and growing the channel is more important then whether or not there's one Holy Catholic Gabastolic church. This is not that difficult. It's not rocket science.

I mean, you're either in this church or you're not. Timothy, what's up? What's up?

have special care with these heretics. Notice how different the attitude of the church in the fourth century here right after Nicia. How different that attitude is from these goobers who think that there's a churchless Jesus and you just send them to whatever church. What does this terminology sound like? They would be calling all the people at Nicea and Laodicea and Gangra orthobros now Heffala, who's the famous commentator on canon law, says, this synod is actually dealing with

the invalid baptisms of the Montanists. Montanus had in fact created an entirely weird different version of baptism, and so the economia here didn't count. There wasn't economia here because Demontanus had so mutilated the theology and the form of baptism that the baptism is not valid. And my point there is that's the rigor that you hear us talk about.

We don't automatically de facto grant that everyone has baptism, nor did the Church of the early centuries, which is the same view as the Orthodox, telling you that we have the same view as they do as the fathers. Now, look at Canon nine. Let's see if this is an acumenius canon. The members of the church are not allowed to meet at cemeteries, nor attend the martyaries of heretics.

You cannot pray at the heretics services. And notice they're doing intercessory prayers sat intercestsory prayers, which shows they believed it at this time. Refuting gay Pee, and they're saying, if you go to the martyrs of the schismatics and the heretics, you're excommunicated. Does that sound like the ecumenist e Christianity of these frauds and these people doing their grift. No,

it's what Orthodoxy says. Now, maybe you disagree, you don't like all this, fine, just admit that you don't believe the Church of the First Ayls. Just admit your position is Anabaptist. I will respect the Anabaptists more than these people because the Anabaptists, who are absolutely insane lunatics, they'll at least admit this is not the right church and this is the Orthodox Catholic type stuff, and we don't like that. That's Antichrist. So all of these people are heretics.

They're more consistent than you on this point. Ca members of the Church shall not indiscriminately marry their children to heretics. Imagine God Logic saying that. Imagine David Woods saying that. Imagine Wes Hoff saying that they can't say that because there is no visible body that can say who's in and who's out. Because everybody's in, oh except Mormons. Why because you will believe in the triunity. You don't believe in the trinity. You believe in the Protestant Martin Luther

august Ainian Trinity. You don't believe in the Orthodox Constant Anthon noble one Trinity. What are you talking about? Female presidents? Canon eleven presiders are not to be appointed in the church presbytides. No female priests. Protestant Charismatic churches are full of them. Now. Remember this is also because the previous canons we're dealing with the Montanus and the Montanus were the first heresy in the early Church who believed in

an ongoing, continuous divine revelation. They ended up snagging Tourtullian, who apostatized and became a Montonist. They were also some of the first to promote women pastors, women preachers, and teachers, so they were early feminists. Okay, well, Canon eleven of Leo Deicia already says absolutely not. By the way, this is also showing that they wouldn't want a continuing office

of the deaconess, also not necessary. Canon twelve bishops are to be appointed by the ecclesiastical government and the judgment of the Metropolitans and neighboring bishops after they've long proved their foundation in the faith and conversation of an honest life. The only Protestants who could even pretend to say that statement are Anglicans, and they're all full gay, so they're

already done what Protestant could say that. And by the way, it refutes Roman Catholicism and shows that they didn't have a papal idea because in the Roman Church after the Middle Ages, the pope appoints every bishop in the world. How come there's no mention of the pope appointing any bishops here. How Come it's local and decentralized. Canon thirteen. The decision of those who are to become priests is not committed to the lay people. Protestantism is a bottom

up theology. The whole thing is premised on the idea that the laity create their own priesthood in church. And notice right here that's cut off at the cinema late to see you by noting that, no, no, this is not a democratic organization to bottom up where you just decide to become a priest. Every Protestant preacher has decided to become his own priest. But what I wanted to note was Canon nine.

prayer with heretics and schismatics. So what Protestants don't understand this is a key point here, is that heresy and schism only makes sense in terms of canonical limitations, canon law, And since Protestants don't have canon law, there's no sense to the idea them being able to judge who is

and isn't a heretic. For the Orthodox, the canonical churches, the ones that follow and are in communion, that follow the canons and the canons, but why are not interpreted by the individuals are interpreted by the bishops, as Trolo says. And Trolo says, the bishops have the authority to titan or laxina laxing up, make a word up the application of the canons, not the laity and not the priests. The bishops have the authority to do that. But how

is a heretic or schismatic determined canonically? Those that are not in the canonical church are the heretics, and the schismatics do not forsake Christian martyrs and turn to false martyrs amongst the heretics. This is why I said that may angered all the Cops. I said, Orthodox, we can't accept Coptic murdyers. I'm sorry, I'm just being faithful to my tradition. And then, like the Muslims that they are, the Coptics all lost their mind and tried to and

they acted like the Muslims that they are. Christians must not forsake the Catholic Church of God and go away invoking angels, gathering assemblies, et cetera. So this is thinking, you can't go into weird angel theology and rites. You cannot enter the priesthood and be a magician, an occultist, et cetera. It says mathematician, but at that time that just meant a person that was associated with sigils, right, It is not lawful to participate, we'll say, in the

feasts of Jews and heretics. By the way, if it's not lawful to participate in the feast of Jews and heretics, how does that comport with Rid Vaughan and David Wood's rabid Zionism. No one amongst the priesthood or the clergy may travel without letters that are canonical. This means that you get permission to so that you don't invade and go into other people's jurisdictions. That's what this is talking about. Look at Canon forty four. Women may not go to

the altar. Protestants don't have an altar. What Protestants are forbidding women to be at the altar and on the altar? None of them because there is no altar. So who has the church that's the same as the Church of the fourth century. We do, and it's also not the basically a humanist, apostate Vatican two church right now, that's just lao to see it. So we've just looked at two local synods as example texts of the mindset of

the Church in the fourth century. Both of those are right after Nicia, right And as a review, we'll look back at the Canons of Nicia really quick, because most Protestants, who are of course largely typically ignorant, they think, oh, I believe the Council of Nasia because I love Athnatius and he just taught the dude who chrish. No, that's not all he taught. That's not all Nicia teaches either, by the way, so we'll note in the Canons of Nicea one three twenty five there's limitations on who can

become clergy based on the canons at that time. In other words, if you castrated yourself like origin did, you cannot be among it's the clergy canon one. Have you ever heard of anything like this that do Protestants even have canon law? Of course not, then they're not in line with the church, the basic functioning of the church. And at Nicea, which they all claim to love, the whole Protestant the evangelical ethos is just based on you

being ignorant. The whole thing is based on you not actually seeing and knowing what they actually said at Nicia. And once you go and look, you can either become a reform a radical reformation person that said the church died like Ann Lee, George Fox Paul Washer or you become Catholic Orthodox and if you become Catholic, we got about a thousand videos on the problem that you're going to encounter that way. So, uh, let's say we've got any callers. Michael, what's up? Michael?

what's up? So you'll notice? Look, I know, people, this is the traditions of men in the Book of Acts, in Acts fifteen, the exact same pattern of a council deciding an issue and laying out a pattern of canon church law. In Acts fifteen, they say, we decide this, Let this letter be sent to the churches. This is the decision. That's the pattern of all of these other synoles. That's what the church is. What's up, man?

the church. If the MP and other patriarchates excommunicate Bartholomew, then at that point, after the ex communication, the churches on our side would not accept the sacraments of your side. So until that happens, it's not a problem. Soul glow. What's up, dude? By the way, here I found the patron saint of the online evangelical epologists. This is Saint Dunning Krueger of the Holy Shofar, and he's of course he's got a ruseln Godly Ambition T shirt and he's

got the John Hagey Show Far. So for those of you that are evangelicals that are looking for transcendent help, you can ask for the intercession. Tell tell gaypee and cut. He can ask for the intercession of Saint Dunning Krueger of the Holy Show Far. What's up man?

church law. Okay, slow boys, this is not talking about the Bible canon. This is church cannon. There's canon law before there's Bible canon. Do you guys even realize that the church is working in an apostolic tradition before there's even a Bible collected together. So the people that are converted from Heathenism, they have to be instructed. This is the catechumenate, and it says do not immediately advance them

to the episcope or the priesthood. You need to be in the church for a while before you become a priest or a bishop. That's what this is saying right here. And catechumens need a longer trial. Citing Saint Paul, do not let a novice be converted, because in pride he

will be lifted up. How much more applicable is this to the online e apologist's sphere, who are all self appointed preachers and teachers, And notice the threefold office of priest, bishop, And then later this it'll say right here in Kennon three, we forbid any bishop, priest deacon to have women living with them that aren't mothers or sisters or wives. See that right there, Isaac, what's up? There's no Protestant churches except for maybe some Lutherans and some Anglicans that have

bishop priest deacon. Right there, you can see you don't have the ecclesial structure of the church at the Council of Mesa. What's up, man, Isaac?

a parasynagogue, a heterodox synthity. Now that the Roman Catholics are, after that situation, a heteroix non church entity, how much more are the Protestants who don't even have any semblance of the foremarks of the church. So I forgot. There's a couple more canons that we want to look at here, and we're going to go to Nicea. We're going to go to the Apostolic Canons. So as we move through Nicea, we note that in Canon four bishops are supposed to

be appointed by the local bishops in the province. Right, and there's some economia for urgent necessity for other situations being possible in this case, in emergency and whatnot, has to be eventually signed off on by the metropolitan, which is the bishop of like the big city, the large central thing. Where are the metropolitan bishops of the amongst Protestants? Is there anything like that? I've never even heard of that.

And noticed, by the way, there's nothing about the Bishop of Rome confirming all the bishops in the world.

ecclesiastical law right there. See that, and then it says, let the choice of the majority prevail in certain situations when there's jurisdictional squabbles amongst these bishops and bishoprics. So Canon law and senidality right there, not Roman Vatican I, Papalism and Canon six. But notice as our main point today is not about papism, but nothing like Protestantism at all.

All of those things that redeemed Zuomer and wes Hop and Rus Lawn and David Wood and all of these people think Gavin Ortland are the accretions are there right there at nice one. The next one is about people who were lapsed in persecution. Talks about bishops, priest and deacons again, excommunication again. Then there's another one about don't ordain the present to the priesthood too quickly, don't ordain people that are ignorant. There's another one.

be maintained. So notice that, Nicia, they're already maintaining earlier canon law church law to it that if a man is at the point of death, he should not be deprived of the indispensable viaticum, and that's just Eucharist at deathbed. That's your final rights. So notice that, and I see they're already talking about final rights. But if you're restored again to health, then he can also communicate, but in

gener and prayers only. In general, in the case of a dying person asking to receive the Eucharist, let the bishop, after examination give it to him. The next one is about catechumans who fell under persecution. The next one is about bishop, priest deacon moving outside of their jurisdictions and that can cause scandal. Sixteen same thing. Bishops, priests and deacons shall not go amongst all the other jurisdictions and cause problems in squad. Wait a minute, where's the exception

for the Bishop of Rome who has universal autocratic jurisdiction. Supposedly, Canon seventeen is about usury and clergy should invest engage in usury. Canon eighteen is about this is a great one. Check this out. This proves a real presence. It has come to the knowledge of the Synod that in some districts deacons administer the eucharists to the priests, whereas no canon or tradition or custom permits this. They have no

right to offer to them that do the offering. So the priest is the one that does the eucharistic offering. Thus the deacon has no right to offer it to the higher since he's the lower. And also this has been made known that certain deacons touch the eucharists before the bishops do. Oh interesting, that's not Protestant at all. That's the real presidence coobers. Let all such practices go away.

Let deacons remain within their own bounds. They are ministers of the bishop, and they are the inferior of the presbyter, Bishop priest deacon, the threefold office that the Orthodox Church still has. Notice it's not super bishop Rome, bishop priest deacon, it's not the fourfold office of Vatican one. It's just bishop priest deacon. Now check this out. Let them that receive the eucharists according to their order after the presbyters,

and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer it. Furthermore, let not deacon sit amongst presbyters, and if they disobey this decree, they are deposed from the diaconate. Does that sound like do it yourself? Bible Baptist, Presbyterian and Manu Old Church theology. Does that sound like Rousselan's rhythm and blues charts? Does that sound like rap charts? Be honest, chase, what's up? Hey? I got one for you. You remember this has to do with like rustlan and stuff.

debate to be in the correct position. Because that's what ultimately matters. Your major point is justin Martyr that's one point fifty. You call that early church? Yeah, I do call that early church. Goofball, Dan, what's up, JOJ?

thought it was a sign of humility. What's up, man?

whatever sect you want. It doesn't work. This is the same problem that by the way, this has already happened decades ago, even in the evangelical world. So back in the day when Billy Graham was doing all of his big stadium preaching, and he actually would have people from all denominations receiving the converts that would come down and

pray the sinner's prayer. I'm being serious. And it became a huge scandal because the committed Protestant evangelicals were like, why do we have this Roman Catholic guy over here, Why do we have this weird other sectarian over here receiving the converts? It makes no sense. It was a huge scandal, and there were books written back in the nineties, eighties and nineties calling out Billy Graham as a tool of the establishment because it was just preaching Jesus and

creating all of these phonies. People who think to their Christians because they also the sols come down the all to say the soils prall. Why we'll give you a hot sluss of pizza if you'll pray to Jesus and your heart. Look, football, come into your hot right now. The NFL will save you. Just nonsense, And then you have billions of boomers, not billions, but you have a giant.

I don't know. Let's guess fifty million Boomers because of Billy Graham that think I'm a Christian because I prayed that Centner's prayer and I do what the hell I want. Don't nobody tell me nothing about Jesus.

But and then there's a letter anathematizing, excommunicating areas. When's the last time you heard of a Protestant church and athematizing and ex communicating anybody? How about the celebration of Easter and the Eucharist on Easter? Oh, look at that. It is not the determination of the custom of the Jews. Low quality? What's up? Low quality? What's up? Joke?

them had to kind of oh oops. Right when this whole debate was happening in the last year between when the Roman Catholics were all having meltdowns because they can't make Vatican two square with their stupid theology because it doesn't, so they had to try to work really hard to make it fit. I wish that there was an easily accessible list of the statements out of the Council of Rome. Are dually end up having to go to like these tradcat sites. I don't know what the site is, so

I don't know if I trust this. This looks like some kind of goofy Protestant thing. Let's see if there's anything here. The only reason I'm going to this is I just want to show the what the canon is, and this is just getting me. Roman Calolic websites talking about the him being a saint. You know, we know that. No, I'll see. I think Catholicism dot org has a thing on that, or is it. I think it's Taylor Marshall's website that has that. Actually, I just don't feel like

getting out Danzinger. I can get yah here it is. I could get you Danzinger where it has a full, full thing. But I'm just trying to find it quickly. All right. So this is the Council of Rome late three hundreds, and the Council of Rome is attempting here in the West to give a normative canon of scripture right now. The Apostolic Canons, as they are called, is the canon of scripture that's normative in the East, according

to the Canons in the fourth century. So I want all you slow boys to listen very closely to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that either of these quote infallibly establishes the canon for the whole church, because they differ in small ways. Okay, However, what we can see from Canon eighty five of the Apostolic Canons, this refutes west Huth. By the way. That's why I'm doing this, is that the normative canon in the East. According to the Eastern canon law, the Apostolic canons are the norm

in the fourth century in the East. Because remember, for us, the Church is decentralized, right, So we're not going to say that just because Pope Damasis is in Rome and Augustine and he agree on the Deudero Canon, that that's necessarily the universal teaching. That's the Roman cathol reading Vatican

One into the first uh several centuries. We're going to say that that was the norm for the West, and we're going to say the Council of Rome, and we're going to say that the Apostolic canons are an example of the norm for the East. So noticed, notice in Canon eighty five the canon includes Judith, the Maccabees, all three Maccabees, Syric see that Wisdom, Wisdom and Syric, the

Epistles of Clement, and the Constitutions of Clement. Now, ultimately those didn't get included in the final normative canon by the time of Trollo and the sixth and seventh Council. But I don't have to prove that. All I'm showing you is that for the normative canonical Bible of the fourth century. In the East, it includes the Deudo canon. Now let's look at the normative canon in the West at the same time, because remember we believe the Church

is decentralized. So the Apostolic canon show us the mindset in general of the East, and we're gonna look at the mindset in general under the Latin patriarchy or the West. Likewise, the Catholic Church accepts these Old Testament books, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Syric and then it lists all the ones that are not controversial, and then Judith and two Maccabees. So the only difference there is that Rome doesn't immediately accept third Maccabees and the Eastern Church

considers it as part of the canon. And then we read that the New Testament. Do they see if they Yeah, they include the Apocalypse. By the way, they only they include the Apocalypse here because of Athanasius arguing it as well as the Catholic epistles. So between the East and the West in the fourth century, what was Snodaly canonically normative for the Biblical canon. I know we have some slow boys that when I explained this, they don't understand

the difference between canon law and the Bible canon. They get confused two different things. And what we saw a minute ago was canon law even preceded the Bible as normative because there was not a fixed universal canon at the time of Nicea, and Nicia already said be sure and follow the previously existing canonical law. So Canon eighty five includes the Deudro canon for the East. The Council of Rome in three what was it, eighty whatever? Three

eighty two damasist Augustine includes the Duo canon. There you go now again, but you but dea canon.

because they don't believe anything else Jerome said. In fact, according to them, if they're consistent. Jerome is a heretic because he doesn't teach the Bible and the Solas. And if you don't teach the Bible and the Solas, according to the Classical Reformation teachers, you're teaching a false gospel. Hate man. You're going to go to hate a late man,

as that Baptist dude says. So again, ironically, the IFB cult is actually more consistent on this point than God Logic, than David Wood, than Wes Huff, James White, Gavin Ortland, Redeem Zoomer, because they're at least honest enough to look at this and say that there's a pastasis, friend, that there's apastasy, because this is all Catholic stuff. I saw that Catholic stuff. That's a church Antichrist candid chargeable out

an a crack. I've been dealing with trailer blood. I have the people since I was eighteen, so I'm very familiar with this stuff, right. I just happened to forget that Steven Anderson's cult believes that that they're sunny Baptist. I forgot that they were soony Baptists. I remembered it in the midst of the debate that I was like, oh, yeah, I forget he believes this. He thinks the Bible is an eternal book, which, by the way, he then says that the Bible could be wrong and Paul had errors

in his teaching. So it's like, so the canon could be wrong, but also the KJV is an uncreated, eternally generated Bible from God book for the uncreated book. Again, sunny Baptist, this is silly. This is so we see that the two canons here, not canon law, but the list of the canons. By the way, notice that in canon eighty five, canon law is beginning to determine the Bible canon.

Bible colleges about that. They never told me this. I had to go dig this up on my own before everybody. I'm not joking about Sunny Baptists. I mean the Muslims believe in an uncreated foot, an uncreated book. There's an eternal, uncreated Kuran. So they literally have the sunny position. It's just the KJV Nathan, what's up, hayen Man, hayen Man, what's up?

can say the same thing about Tertillian. Tertullian is a heretic, but his works are very valuable because we can see, for example, when he would before he was a heretic, he was defending the Trinity, and he wrote treatises about the Trinity in the second century. So that refutes, for example, Jake the Muslim metaphysician, or people to say that the Trinity was created a Iceea or all this nonsense. So again, those people are useful. The decay is useful. They're not

canon law. They're not Again, everybody's got to get out of the mindset of the Protestant idea that picking and choosing this dude is somehow a better, higher tier over a synod, the mind of the many, even as we saw in the Canons of Nicea, trumps the mind of one. And that doesn't mean in every case. Obviously, sometimes the majority can be wrong, but typically usually when it comes to senidality, the principle that the majority are correct holds.

Not always, it's not infallible. Sometimes you can have a false sonod that you know, persecutes Saint John Christistom or whatever. But normally speaking, and for example the Orthodox Church, the best shops have regular sonodal meetings to govern the church, and normally speaking, they're going to accurately assess the problems in a council and in a synod, much better than worthy to just do it individually on their own right. And that's the model of Acts fifteen. All of this

stuff is just the model of Acts fifteen. Do you guys, I mean, all you Protestant Bible worshipers, I mean, do not worship Acts fifteen, where it says the council decided something, and they sent out the decision of the council to all the churches, and that's all this is. It's like no different And if the same Holy spirit's guiding the Jerusalem Council of Acts fifteen, same Holy Spirits Guiding Council and Nicia with Athenaeus. Ath Nations argues that he says

the Holy Ghost spoke at Nicia. So look at Canon five. This is interesting because we're going to go over here

to the Second Ecumenical Council. So this is gonna trump even our local synods that we looked at a minute ago, Gangra and Laodicea, because this is the Second Ecumenical Council that they perceive to not need even Rome's approval to do right, And it's kind of iffy, okay, yeah, but was it Celestine right kind of agrees and then we don't know, and it's iffy, and then eventually they absolutely affirm it a couple of centuries after. So this is three eighty one, and this is the theology dominated by

the Cappadocians. They dominate the theology of the council that condemns the Apollinarians. And what does it do, most famously, it literally defines the official trinitarian dogma for the Universal Orthodox Catholic Church. That's why I consted out that one is so important, and it was held and presided over by Saint Melidios out of communion with Rome. Rome then retroactively says, oh, yes, we do agree with that it okay,

find it secumentical. Oh well, then thank you for proving that the Holy Ghost can speak dogma outside of commune with Rome, undermining Vatican one. And also thank you for proving that there's saints outside of Roman commune, which you later admit of Vatican two but deny in uh, I'm sunk them and can tut the Domino. So we see, for example, at concept on one in the Canons three hundred and eighteen, fathers assembled and they anathematized the Eunomians,

the the Motamaki, the Marcellians, semi Arians, and the Pollinarians. Okay, and then we see another canon limiting how far bishops are supposed to go and not go into other bishops jurisdictions. No exemptions for the bishop Rome. By the way, again this they don't even they're not even worried about whether Rome accepted or not. They're already doing the Council without Rome. Now they would like to get Rooms acceptance, sure, but they're doing it and they don't care if for Rome

acceptance or not. And Rome was iffy, and it was it took a long time for Rome to accept this. So Canon four is important because it says, in regard to the tone of the Western bishops, we receive those in Antioch who confess the Godhead, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So this is an earlier canon presumably relating to that's not the canon. Looking for hold on which one is?

Does that sound ecumenist to you, anybody? Where is the acumenism in that? And by the way, I think this New Advent this has a different numbering than what's in the chaft set, because in the chaft set this is

Canon's seven and I'm looking for the canon. But this is the no salvation outside the church canon, right, So notice this It says thereupon, when they are brought into the church, they are given chrismation, the seal, the seal, seal, seal, Right, it says, you know, means who have a heterodox, weird, crazy baptism Montanous, their baptisms don't even count. They need to be baptized. These other groups. It's sufficient to chrismate Eunomians.

They're not even their anti Trinitarian they can't be just chrismated because they never even got baptisms. And as it says, all of these sects, because their heresy is so extreme, they are to be received as heathens when they become Orthodox. So we make them Christians, then we make them catechumens, and then we do the exorcism prayers, and then we instruct them and catechize them and then baptize them. See that does that sound like redeemed Zoomers magisterial Protestant Church.

Does that sound like any of these people's made up Protestant church? Do you? And it's supposed to be Canon three. I wonder if New Advent are they being shifty. Here look at canon three at New Advent. It doesn't have the New Rome canon. Of course they're numbered differently. So

let's see. This is why it's hard to find that New Rome canon because it's numbered differently, and it might not even be included here at the New Advent list, because the Eastern canon list has the famous canon which is the basis for Canon twenty eight of Calcledon, that the Bishop of Constantinople is second after Rome. Here we go, yeah, so here's the Eastern list, and that's funny that New Advent. Why does New Advent not have that on there anymore? I know I've read it on New Event before and

I've screenshoted it. That's I wonder if they altered that. So look at the This is just probably the Roman list, so they probably just deleted it. Here's the canons of constantin Noble one and this is the chaft set list right here, look at Canon three the Bishop of Constantinople. So how the prerogative after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople's New Rome. Right, this becomes the controversial canon, the

basis for the Canon twenty eight of Calcilton. Right where Leo says, I reject Canon twenty eight, and then Roman calocs always are dishonest. They never tell you why they act like, oh, because of papal premacy, even though Leo says no, it's because it violates the order of Canon six of NICEA one, right, because it's Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. And for Leo's argument was that if you make Constantinople second after Rome, it's not fair to alexandre and Antioch.

Nothing to do with Vatican one people's supremacy. So they just lie about what it was actually about. But notice that the New Advent, the Roman Catholic website doesn't even have Canon three even listed anymore, but the shaft set, which is based on presumably the Eastern listing of the canons, puts Constantinople as number two, not just at Calcedon, but

at Constantinople one. That's the reason why at Calcadon they just inserted it because they were like what was already out of the previous ecumenical Council, which Rome had not officially really totally accepted yet. Right, So there you go. But again to back to the point of the final Canon of constant and Umble one, does that sound at all like anything Protestant will what's up man? Hey James, Yeah, Hey, thanks for having me on.

become orthodox, Alex. What's up? One thing I want to say too about people making a big stink about this, how come you didn't call God logic in these people out till now you were distreamed with it before because they did an attack Orthodoxy till now, duh, what do you think? What's that? Man?

the Pope solves these issues. We don't have division anymore because he solves the issues, and now we have certitude for the dogmas, and on and on on, and then when you actually go into the world Catholicism and you see it because you think that it's going to be this church that you've read about in the Church Fathers, right, this glorious grand church, militant like the Middle Ages, And I'm gonna be like Thomas Aquinas and I was sitting in a scripture scriptorium and just write with a quill

pen and create theology treatise. And it's not like that at all. That's not the reality. What's up to a boy, Cleve? What's up? I'm about to play some of you tonight, Cleve talking to me as we cover Cleve, what's up?

you know, I hope that the wortho Bros die. When he pray that the Orthoboros would die, and people were defending it, they were like, who's no talking about Orthodox, He's just about Orthobros. It's like, so they're well, they're Orthodox, what are you talking about?

do an emoji and I will bring you up. None of y'all are you serious? Out of all ten of y'all, nobody disagrees. Come on now, how can we have no evangelicals for two days straight calling in? Except for that one? Noah, dude, he was only one nobody. I guess I'm just cooked when it comes to debate, nobody else will debate. Okay, here we go, Devin, Devin, what's up?

struggling with that too. When I was Protestant, I was getting into Roman Catholic theology and once I read as soon as I read Jerome Street this, I was like, oh, yeah, okay, and then the typology I think is a good argument too. Patristic PTSD. What's up?

You know, we just talk with anybody on there. So, you know, and it comes to the question, there's a lot of people, like in the Baptist sphere, you know, not wanting to have these debates because you know, they don't really have a grounding for, you know, a basis for all the things that they're arguing. You know, it's just comes back to their own traditions or their own preferences.

bitcoin is kind of subtly creeping up of late. Of course we expected that even though we did have a we're back in the bear market. And if you want to get started with supporting me through bitcoin, this is my bitcoin wallet right here. We'll go to do a little bit of rouse lawn here, a little bit of money's talking, a little bit of money here. We are big promoters of what I believe is ethical money. And if you didn't see my thirty what was it? We did a podcast like forty minute case for man. I'm

getting memed like crazy out here today. Look, and this is by the way, reminder of who does God logic send the converts out of Islam to synagogues, massionic synagogues where they let Ruselm preached. That's ruled over by some LARPing Mexican dude, Rabbi Eduardo. Okay, whatever, dude, Well I forgot what I was going to pull up here than you appreciate that. Yeah, just put over there. I forgot what I was, what I was even doing. We're talking about. Oh,

the Bitcoin interview, that's what it was. I forgot that I shared this interview, and I kind of forget there was so much stuff going on. I kind of forgot about it. But shout out to bitcoin News and the guy that runs Bitcoin News, which is a pretty I think they have a pretty good sized audience. H he became orthodox. So the guy that runs Bitcoin News is now an orthopro, an evil ortho bro. And we had

a good conversation. Cool dude. And and I've already this is already like fifty posts down because everything's been so crazy in the past few days. By the way, here is a shake e mom Jonathan Shelley, Eben Shelley right here. Check out it been Shelley. That was a good one. But I do want to give you guys the link to this only because I think it came out as a really solid thirty minute case for bitcoin and then addressing all of the usual fud. Right, I mean, bitcoin

apologetics is like the same as orthodox apologetics. I don't mean literally in terms of what's important, but I mean like it's the exact same, Like everybody just repeats the same thud and then you end up. Good grief, I'm never going to find it. And of course bookmarks never doesn't even work. Let's try the bookmarks never works. I think I did a pretty good job dispelling the usual boomer fud that you get. Yeah, here it is right sixty three thousand view as well, So everybody should peep

this right here? What's the ethical case for bitcoin? There you go, ethical money, Jihanny Bitcoin Jay holds the Satoshi wallet. I wouldn't be asking for super chats if I had the Satoshi wallet, dog, But you can support my my little Satoshi wallet right here if you want to donate via BTC. All right, let's get back to or reshare this because this was a good interview. Get back to the calls. Who's next, bird? What's up? Birds up?

all of that stuff. I've read all those books and all of a sudd of a const books too, and like all of them lament the fact that, hey, how come after Vatican two believe in the real presence went from like ninety percent to twenty percent. It's like it's I don't remember the exact numbers. It is something crazy like that. Wing depending what's up. Yeah, it's because when you revolutionize the church, as Vatican two did by protestantizing the liturgy, obviously people have them the same willy nilly

disrespectful attitude. They lose the reverence because they don't believe in in the I mean, if the entire service is not reverent, why would you believe in the real presence. It's it's kind of obvious. Coach, what's up? And yes, I did offer because I know they're not going to act. I can just basically freely offer everyone in the world a formal debate now knowing that I have nothing to worry about, nothing to prepare for, because no one will

do it. So it does mean no damage or disservice or like, I don't get nervous because I can just say, here's an offer for public formal debate with west Haf, David Wood, God Logic, Gavin orland Ip Frank Trick, Mike Winger And people said, how come you didn't tag Mike ware because he he blocked me a long time ago, so no point. You can't tag doole. I don't think if they blocked your coach Pill, what's up? Well, what's okay? I donated to David Wood when.

isn't appropriate. But the Seven Documentical Council actually has a pretty fleshed out theology of what's appropriate in the liturgy, right, and since Rome didn't accept really the theology, that's kind of nominally of acceptance to the icon Council, quote unquote, and of course they don't have any idea about what the Council of eight forty three is, which is the reaffirmation of the victory triumph Orthodoxy over the iconic class,

which by the way, has even more clearer theology about iconography. They don't have that council, they don't accept it. So although ironically, Uniates do celebrate the triumph Orthodoxy again another bunch of nons stuff that makes no sense in the Roman Catholic world because it's about the papacy, it's not about the right theology. So I made a video that would be very applicable to what you're talking about and would help. It's called how icons refute Roman Catholicism? Yes,

you heard me right, How could icons refute Rome? Well, precisely, because Rome doesn't adhere to the actual theology of the seventh the Chemical Council. It becomes a situation where you're correct, you can kind of go crazy with it, and you can paint giant, giant bodies with tiny peeps all over the churches, which makes absolutely no sense to anybody Orthodox. I mean, and I've been to Rome, I've been to

the Vatican and I've seen. And you go to Rome, there's basically a Catholic church every twenty feet, right, So you can never even see all of the Catholic papal churches in Rome, but you don't have to go far to see a thousand fat boobies, booties and peeps in your face everywhere. Now, why is that no Orthodox church has giant, chunky chicks and dudes with serpents biting their wee weis and build fat boobies bouncing everywhere in the church.

And that's because they don't believe in the theology of the seven that critical council. I remember when I brought this argument a long time ago, and a classical theists he went crazy over this. This is like probably twenty eighteen or nineteen when I was starting to make this argument. And another book actually that's pretty good just on this topic is Michael Hoffman's book, A Cult Renaissance Church of Rome. Because Hoffmann goes a Latin Mass, at least the last

I heard. I don't know if he still does or not, but he actually figured out, even though he's not Orthodox, all of the stuff that we criticize about the second millennium of the papacy, like the Renaissance papacy, Borgia Medici, all that stuff, Like he noticed all that. He's like, wait a minute, the humanism actually begins with the perennialism of the Renaissance theologians, Picodella, Mirandola, all those characters. That's where a humanism actually begins to seep into Rome. And

you can see it in the esthetics. It's not the only argument he makes. It's like an eight hundred page but but this is one of the argument that he makes. He says that you can see in the aesthetics of the papal apartments they have giant reliefs and paintings. To

is it literally to isis. Now, we're not prudes. So I don't really care outside of the context of the church if somebody has because I mean, I'm not tempted to lust with some big old fat check out of the Renaissance on a wall when I'm going to the bathroom. That doesn't make me lust. But so I don't think it's outside of the church. I don't think there's a

huge deal. And if an Orthodox person had a statue of you know, they used to have statues of the Emperor, so they would have a statue of Emperor Constantine or Theodosia. I don't think that there's nothing wrong with that. And no, I'm not saying, oh, therefore I love the statue of Trump. That's not what I'm saying. So it's not statuary that's

the problem. It's whether that's appropriate within the context of the liturgy and whether or not within the church, within the context of the actual you know, alter area and all that. Does it make sense to have giant fat chicks with their ass hanging out? No, it doesn't, And that to me is like another kind of Hello. Rome doesn't actually follow the echemical councils. This is so obvious.

If you read the Seventh Council and the eight forty three Triumph of Orthodoxy Council, you're like, oh, that Roma doesn't believe any of this. So their belief, their belief is not iconography. It's just religious art. There's nothing wrong. And they kind of see it all as quote sacred art or religious art. That's not what icons are. They are means of of grace. They're sacramental. They're not just religious art anymore than the Bible is like a mere

religious book. No, it's the book, right, and the icons are not just religious art, they're windows into heaven. Anyway, Nicholas, what's up.

because I almost began Orthodoxy on seven. But in the twenty tens we would have this argument, and this alone