Pt 1 - OPEN HEATED DEBATES! Atheists, Mormons, A Neo-Con & Libertarian ALL COOKED!

I'm married to a buncle pop. Oh.

Oh, we got better to come.

Joined in a subway shop.

Oh oh, I'm married to a buncle pop. Oh, by the man's mats.

They come to me through a tube. My whole life it's been watching on a tube.

Whoa oh oh oh.

We got weard a courtius been a subway shop.

Oh we got wed at Curtis in a subway shop. Oh we got wet courtaus be in a subway shop.

Oh oh h I got married to a fucko pap. Whoa, we got ready come joint in the subway shop. For I'm married to a funco pap. Whoa I imagine made Rosie come to me through tube? Who like the stick watching on the two whoa, whoa.

Over a boding joy to see the subway shop.

O we got waiting for the sad subway shop. Oh m hm, oh, I'm married to a phone cap. We got ready, we got joined in a subway shop.

Right, listen the roads. They come to me through the two nights in the roads. They come to me through this hanto bunco phone call. Whoa bunco the bunk? Oh oh I got married, I got married to my punk go papa. We got ready. We got joined in a subway shop.

Well, phone call love, phone call love, I'm mappy to my phone.

Do we got wedded? Come join in the subway shop. Oh, I'm mappy married to a funk. Go boo.

We got joined cords in the subway shop. Vitamins and biscuits, some minerals to come and be through it to the holy man watching on the two.

Whoa, Oh, I'm happy to my funk, go boo.

We got wedded. We got joined in the subway shopping.

So where do we get to the Bible from?

Did you even read the cannons?

There is only one church. You are in din occult.

You're a gobbling a demon, a bull merchard you saw mean?

I'm your dude? Is this your person? Webs?

I need a gender jew?

Can't taking these little to yours?

On your dude?

You one plus one plus one equal free. It comes from a dog tree. Why do you pray eat dead people? The traditions a madden you? Heretic on your dude?

Is this your person?

Webs?

I need a gender jew?

Tickets little to your soul boys on your dude?

What's your pistic justification?

Circular and you are.

Too.

And the monkey you bud off in that tree? What you doing up there? Why you stand? Why you run it from them?

Re bad?

You ran mom and to and from me?

That del the monkey, female monkeys with them bananas between the trees, hanging down upside down.

Found smart.

We're making it out of the trees with this one. Boys, What you doing to me? Dela monkey?

Makey mmmm?

Put your diddy oils in the microwave right now, because it's about to get live, get it warmed up.

Till a monkey?

What do it to me?

Tal it deal a monkey? Whoa huh?

They ended too quick? What the heck? Do we have any more bangers to get you all ready? What's up? Welcome? We're already got six hundred live right now. What's a welcome all of y'all, six hundred chat nerds to the chat. It's been a minute. It's been a minute since we had an open debate. And I always like to mix it up. I always like to throw a curveball. I hope you put your microwave diddy oil on thirty seconds, got a nice and warmed up because it's about to

Quas in modo. Quas it quasi quas in modo. Gun lots, bitch is calling me on my mobo Quasi modo our gutten natural flesh patch tracks for my move over. I live life crossing Modo. My bitches be calling me nothing Modeo. You don't even understand this.

Float over, float over.

When I get older, will I still have an f club.

Shoulder I got. I got tangled in Modo.

High school kids making fun of me? You call me played over on this back part right here, This is the part flo cousin Modo. I'm up in my castle. It's very dank.

I found that I found a hump backed chicken.

She was stank on it. A quasi modo.

Looking for a quasi modo. Ho was in modo.

You don't even know what it's like with a little bitty friend on your back like this ragion. I got a little brother on my shoulder, Quasim Moldo. I just smile a with modified Lamboo.

So that I can drive in a Wizard. He had to buy a modified Lambeau because of his humpback. Did y'all understand that? Did anybody get chutched them bars? By the way, I spit that whole track as always ad hoc and prov baby. Everything we do music wise is improv. That's the amazing part of cringe core. When dire Mode steps up to the mic, you know you're about to get some freestyle fire. It's all freestyle, that's all roll over all right, I'm you dude. We're about to make

I'm not doing, monkey, you clumb up in that tree.

What you're doing up there while you staring at while you running from every debate you ing from Andrew and from me, I'm not.

Doing I'm not doing all.

My doing.

A monkey's hanging down.

I'm sent down sound.

By a smile monkey.

What you're doing to me? Clemment up that tree?

Matt and a feeding no male monkey climbed up a tree, K S s and he and doing much more enforce.

Than that.

Monkey.

Dea monkey with them bane the tree dress hanging down. I was like, down sound, that's a smile, Not so monkey, what you're doing to me?

Clemment up that tree?

All right?

Last one and that's this one's This one's because it's a debate where we got to have like the oh my gosh, how does Mike Winger get a million views? Who are these people? Even these This is weird. Oh this is a damn quasi moto right here. Look at this doe looking like damn quasi moto. We're trying to debate theology, bro, you can't debate if you've got a

Excuse me, you're you're just making an assumption that all the saints agree they.

Do they do.

I can go read them.

You have those things.

You're a call that demon a boomer card part a demon.

A boomer assumption that a boomer part. Excuse me, a demon a bloomer art.

Are you're acholar ly a deement in a boomer part outdoor anomicy a demon.

In a Boomer part.

Excuse me, a deement in a Boomer part, or a demon in a boomer making an assumptions, or all the councils inspired in an errant.

The acumenical thing ideas.

So there are ecumenical sentence are inspired in an errant?

Correct? How do you know? Because the oyster at least is another truth? How do you know the voyster leads you to know the truth because.

They're in a court with all the other ecumenical doctors, all the other test parts and the scriptures.

You're just making an assumption.

You're acholarle that demon in a Boomer part, or a demon in a boomer making an assumption of collar that dement e a Boomer part.

Excuse me, who's me?

A demon em a Boomer part, or you're acholar ly deement in a Boomer part. Outdoor economy a.

Demon in a Boomer part, excuse me? A deement Boomer car em Boomer car.

All right, that's enough of all that. It's time to open it up. We got a nice little fat chat room here ready to go. We had a excuse me, excuse me, we had a soy man in the chat talking smack all day. I hope he calls in. So the way this works, as you guys know, is that you request to speak over here on Twitter. So call ins are via Twitter. It's the Twitter space at the top of my profile. Here is the link in the

Stay in my little delusion. I want to stay in my little soy pod delusion fantasy world.

No, no, not me.

I invite you to destroy me. Who else does that? Nobody else invites everyone to come and destroy into the bank. Nobody why? Because they're scared.

All the other online apologists. They will only interact in a professional way with the other big channels and apologists. I'm not dirtying myself with the messides, with the plebs, with the workers. Please please, all of these snotty apologists on the internet.

To a degree from a Baptist university, I want to open borders. And by the way, miss scholar, I come through a though try. I'm caving Ortland a mis scholar. I don't care about none of that. Could care less.

If you are a gave an Ortland follower, Come make an argument, Come get in the chair and make an oreum.

A boy.

Play shakraf some more.

No, because I'm an elite apologist on YouTube, I go on Matt Fred I drank pints with a queas. I drank a giant Beerstein full of cake icing like Ibirah. We professionals, we don't sink to the low levels of the meanness of Jay Dyer and his student voices that he does.

We're better than him.

We're better than that, are better than that. I'm the best person on the internet, a better than that, better than you because I'm pious. Let me show hold the world how piss on?

I'm thinking about like a like a Limp Biscuits type of song on pious. You know, remember that horrible era of rap rock in like two thousand and three. Oh it's the worst, like big old baggy jeans, Fred Durst with a baseball cap backwards on pious on one.

Of the best.

Let me show y'all are better than the rest on pious on the internet. It's good. All of that's gay, bro, Get out of here with all that game is. That's why nobody will come debate now in the debates sphere. I forgot to mention this. Somebody sent me Alex O'Connor's

Asking, do you even go to church? He doesn't even go to church. Well to you, to you, good sir, I licked the phone from my espresso. That is my response to you, sir, I look at the phone. I licked the phone at you, sir. Anyway, So back to the issue. Did they never gonna have me own pines with Aquinas? I don't care anyone else.

I mean, I've always been in the sphere of the fringes, you know what I mean? Like, you know, if you talk about the type of geopolitical stuff, I talk about your class as conspiracy and so that kind of stuff is, you know. I mean, we're a lot more mainstream nowadays than we used to be, but it's still seen as not normian, am I Okay? I mean I'm not acting any different than I act on literally every live stream where we just clown around and have fun. So I

Serial killer?

What was his name? Remember him?

I just went blank. I know my serial killers very well. I just went blank on what's his face? Bt not BTK because he was all dressed up like women.

He was.

He was gross. Who's the one that zach Efron played. That's what I'm trying to think of. All right, we got four people in line. That's good. That's what I like to see. We already get four people, are about to open it up. Oh, I'm so, I'm nervous. Super No, not the nice talk or he was a Satanist although actually Ted Bundy, right, that's what I'm talking ab well, I'm about to go Ted Bundy on, y'all. Ted Bundy on, y'all.

Technically, uh, technically, Project Pat was not writing a haiku. I studied in Japan under the foremost authority haikus, and that is technically not a haiku.

Well, thank you, thank you so much. We were all concerned all over here, waiting for the definitive proof to whether Project pat was right in Haikus or not. Thank you, Spargatism five thousand. We love you, We owe it all to you. Next up Harrison, not Smith, but Harrison, just Harrison, just straight up Harrison. What's up, Harrison?

Yo?

What's good day?

Great to be talking with you. I just had a question regarding uh, which Ephesians was it?

Really quick?

It was Ephesians two eight nine.

You know, for the grace you have been saved through faith. Yeah. So I was talking to.

One of my Protestant friends and they were basically just arguing that, oh, you know, the relationship with God is enough and not actions.

So I just wanted to see you know, what your thought is or like what a rebuttal.

There's no such thing as a relationship without actions. I mean, imagine saying to your wife, well we're married, but it's a relationship. This can you mute bros ecking? But I don't have to actually do anything to demonstrate that I actually love you. It's all notional, it's all just verbal. I mean, that's crazy. What does Jesus say, if you

Twelve?

Okay, So he has a Protestant presupposition that that text and Ephesians too, is teaching the Protestant doctrine of solo fide or justification by faith alone, apart from any kind of works. When Paul is talking about in the context first and foremost of the works of the law, the Jewish law, so circumcision, none of those works are going to save you. That's what the very next verse he said, as you are called the uncircumcision by those who are

Right on. Yeah, thank you, Yeah.

I quoted Matthew seven twenty one through twenty three to them, and they just presented me with Ephesians, and so I was like, man, that's just.

So they think the Bible contradicts I mean, you have to harmonize the text.

So the question, I know, yeah, it was, Yeah, it's kind of some circular logic.

I don't know.

But well, and other other points you could Other points you could make is that the Church never in history taught sola fide. I mean literally, the ancient world didn't even have the metaphysics and the nominalism necessary to divorce one's status from the ontological reality. So if you don't know, justification by faith alone is premised on the possibility of divorcing what is ontologically the case from what is nominally in a legal sense status said to be the case.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Man. One more thing.

I know this may not be relevant to the topic. Do you think bitcoin is going to go back down?

I think that, like I said in the last live stream, if there is a dip, usually what happens is that when there's a crash, the crash of the of the latest cycle is the peak of the last cycle. So the peak of this cycle has been about sixty.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The faith did go back down, it would not go packtick yet, right.

I don't think we'll see like you know, bitcoin below sick. I mean it's possible you have a like.

A prediction like when what do you mean when, like when if it did hit the floor, like when it would Oh.

Well, I think based on past cycles, and this is not any infallible guide, but it's just the best guess. Is that right around uh, you know, June is when the since we're since we're in a bullmarket now, the bull the bullmarker will probably start ending around June, and then we'll probably see a crash around that time.

All right, man, thank you. Yeah, I'm gonna go.

H but I but again, I don't know if I I don't know if I would rest in there being a crash to sixty you know what I mean? Like, let's say we get two hundred thousand dollars bitcoin, it might crash to one hundred, you know what I mean?

Right, Yeah, that's that's fair. Yeah, I've been thinking about that.

Thank you for the uh, for the insights on the arguments. I'm gonna go, uh talk to my friend about that and see what they say.

Yeah, great questions. You could also always you know, shift the topic over to he may not want to shift the topic, but you could you could talk about, you know, the canon of scripture, because you know, Protestanism is really grounded on solo fide and excuse me, solo scriptura as well, solo fide sol scripture. You know, the sola's the only in other words, sola fide itself rests on solo scriptura, right because they need their specific canon, which for example,

Man?

Go I'm you, I'm you dude?

Hey man?

Hey man?

How you doing hey?

Hey?

So I had a few questions. I know this is a debate, However, this is a this is not my position ask questions. It's fine, okay, awesome, man. So I have a friend that is in the O c A. I won't mention his name or anything.

And he claims that there's a lot of people that you know, uh, say that they're a humanist this and that, and he views that those that view the O c A as a humanist our sectarians almost like akin to that of like the calendarists, like true orthodox schismatic types. And I mean digging into it, like what why would one say that the O c A Is a humanist?

I guess is what I'm doing.

There's more accurately, every jurisdiction has a humanists and liberal accumanizing elements amongst them, so there's no perfect jurisdiction. I'm sure you can find a humanist amongst rocorps, but whether there are a humanists amongst the OCA is. Of course there are. There's a humanists in the Antiochians. There's a humanist in everywhere, so that shouldn't even really But it's not like the entire thing is that way.

Okay, So what did you say, Like OCA is as a whole is like not, I only use the word tainted, but like not like just because there's some a humanist presence within some of the clergy within the OCA that doesn't like undermine.

Well, remember that although there is this kind of there is a sense in which the various jurisdictions operate as a kind of a collective. Really Orthodoxy is in many ways decentralized, and so there's gonna be a lot of good priests and a lot of good perhaps even bishops. I'm not familiar with all the bishops of the OCA, but I mean there's certain bishops of the OCA who are really bad, like Archbishop Alexander Gilitzen, who thinks Origin is a saint and is obviously a big open ecumenist.

That awesome, Hey, that was a good answer. That clears things up. And then I have another question on that of baptism.

So I just read on the reception of the heterodotsy to do with that, that's church by Uncome Mount and press and it kind of left them with more questions than answers.

Yeah, I just if you go back to the last open Debate stream, we had about a whole hour where we discussed this, So I would just say go back and watch that stream because I just don't really want to repeat the whole hour of argumentation about that topic. But I think it's the last open Debate live stream that we had, we had about a I don't know

Yeah.

Yeah, So people who were very successful through it, they must all be part of a giant scam. Everything is a scam. Oh, I'm blackpilled. Everything's bad. Everything's a scam. You gotta I'm mute, Boba duck. What's up? I'm mute.

Yeah.

I remember the Church of Jesus Christ the Latter day Saints, and my friend was saying that I should debate you, But really I was just trying to get an understanding of the what you called it, the monarchical trinitarian view or something like that. But it sounded like you had other things that you wanted to debate about Mormonism.

Or we debate whatever you want. I don't care. We could talk about Trinity, or we could debate Mormonism, whatever you want.

Honestly, I don't have many issues with the Orthodox. I think they're closer than everyone else. You know, we're in an agreement on my grace versus works. It sounds like we're an agreement on rejecting Thomism. Thombism, however, you pronounced that.

A lot of stuff like that.

So I don't dislike any of my Orthodox guys, and I don't have enough of a knowledge of their doctrine to have issues with it.

Can I ask you a question? Yeah, One of the things that I think is probably just on the surface, one of the most maybe difficult elements for me in terms of what I mean. I'm not an expert on Mormonism. I've done over the years. I've done a decent amount of research. I've read Talmadge, one of your systematic Theologians, and other kind of older texts from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, and you know, doctrine Covenants, Pearl of Great Price,

You know, the Joseph Smith translation was non necessarily intended.

To be.

Like oh, this was actually in Genesis, or even necessarily like this is canon.

Okay, so I can add to the Bible and present it as if it's a prophecy. I mean, you understand these verses are intended to predict and prophesy. Joseph Smith, you absolutely can.

And this is something I can't talks about.

Where Nephi is reading in Isaiah and he says, well, I made this, and I liken the scriptures unto myself. So he tries to find himself in the scriptures and let God teach him new things about himself or about God from the scriptures rather than seeking strictly that's what.

But see, that's what. Are you aware of the way that, for example, Muslims do this with Mohammed in the Book of John or in Deuteronomy, that those passages are prophesying Mohammed.

Yeah, but they don't necessarily.

But like we don't use the Joseph and the translation is like evidence.

It doesn't matter whether you use it now because it's evidence of a con man. He's a fraud.

You could say it like that, but you could also say, well, you know, an actual prophecy would look like that way too.

Right Like now, actual prophets don't add themselves eighteen hundred years later to the text, and.

You reading the Book of Matthew would say, these are clearly the apostles retroactively reading.

Christ.

Not at all, totally, totally not true. Number one, no matter what Jews say. But that's not at all. That's the argument Gesus himself makes, not the Pharisees. It's Jesus saying that these Old Testament passages predict me, totally different than retroactively saying eighteen hundred years later the Book of Genesis, which actually thousands of years later, retroactively the Book of Genesis predicted Joseph Smith. That's preposterous.

So Jesus saying eighteen hundred years earlier, Moses predicted me.

Are you aware of what the Gospel of John says? Jesus doesn't just say those books predicted me. He says, I spoke through those prophets. Sure, yes, no, that's not the same. What did hold on?

What did I just say?

What did Jesus? What did I just say?

He said that Jesus said he spoke through the prophet.

Does Jesus say, what does Jesus claim that in the Gospels? Yeah, okay, so that's different. Man, that's totally different than what you're talking about.

Again, for a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ.

That's a fallacy. You have, dumb dis argument is Jews reject the Book of Mormon. Sure, so what the heck does Jews.

Have to do with anything?

That's a stupid argument. That's a dumb argument. What does Jews have to do with anything?

I'm saying that the same principle by which you're discounting.

No, you're using a fallacy. It's not the same principle. You're way off retroactively saying eighteen hundred years later.

Well, whatever you think. It is like the same loge.

It could be used by someone who is inclined to argue against Christ.

No, it couldn't. That's the false equivalence. You don't see the difference there. If Joseph Smith said I was predicted in the Book of Genesis because I spoke. If Joseph Smith said I was predicted in the Book of Genesis because my spirit, yes, I can hear you? Can you hear me?

Okay, I'm back.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yes?

Can you hear you? Okay? So if Joseph, if Joseph Smith, do stop for a second. Stop for a second. Okay, let's walk through this. If Joseph Smith said, I spoke through the spirit that was speaking in Genesis, it was my spirit speaking in Genesis to predict me. Shut up, man, Well, are you're not going to stop talking when I'm explaining this to you? Why do you keep interrupting? Let me.

Right?

Why is this funny?

I'm hearing you out.

Yeah, but you're giggling. Why are you giggling? Are you giggling at the idiots of momentum? I mean I would be giggling too if I was a Mormon, because all this stuff is amability stupid. So again, if if Joseph Smith said, I am speaking through Genesis, that would be all right. If you're not gonna, if you're gonna, If you don't stop, understand, if you don't stop talking over me and interrupting, We're done. That's just so stupid. You want to call back in and try to get a

kJ how's it going?

Can you hear me?

Yep?

Awesome. I don't have any debate or anything.

I just have a question.

Anybody have actually talked about this already, So if you have my apologies and you can just shoot me away, I'll find the other reference.

But what do you think about loose from the Catholic Church?

And then about what about Loose?

I guess we already covered that, like three lives rooms back. I made fun of it. I made fun of it for an hour.

What is a What do you think about secular art, like art that's not blessed by a priest being used to promote Christianity.

There's nothing wrong with Christian art. It's just that the canons of the Orthodox Church were set up to dictate the liturgical worship practice. And by the way, it's actually it's not even the Seventh Council that first starts to rule on this, it's actually the Council Trollo. Trollo and Canon eighty two, it is one of the first canons of the Church to specify what's appropriate and not appropriate to the liturgi worship of the Church in terms of

I gotcha, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be blessed by a priest at that point. And then of course you couldn't use it.

Like in the church.

Well, I don't know if what you mean by blessed by a priest, because I mean you could you could say that, you know, Like the imagery is like for example, it just it depends, right, So like this image, for example, the famous image of you know, Adam and Eve touch or excuse me, God touching Adam. This is a heterodox image because it's presenting God the Father as if he's

You see. Oh yeah, I never thought about that.

Yeah, And if you read the later icon count like for so, in the sixteen hundreds in Russia they had really big icon councils. They're not ecumenical councils, but they're still very important for Orthodox iconography, and they were having to deal with UH Jesuit promoted Western heterodox iconography coming into Russia and Eastern churches. And the point was that a lot of these icons were intended to teach Philly okuay, and so you have he in the Orthox church. You

Really appreciate that, Jay, and I got another one here.

This is a maybe this will get some of the UH Muslim folks spun up for some debates here.

I don't know.

I noticed the contradiction in the Kuran that I wanted to share with you. Sure, and and might maybe you could say if it's a good contradiction or you know whatever. But so there's a surah which is two to one, yeah, two two one two two to one, and it states that Muslim men cannot marry polytheistic women.

Okay.

And and as you know, many Muslim apologists will argue that the Trinity is a form of polytheism.

Sure, actually the Koran.

Says it is.

Yeah, the exactly the Koran says it is.

In Surah five five, it states explicitly that Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women. This is this Allah confirming that there is something correct about the Trinity.

In other words, if you can marry Christian women, then Christianity is not polytheis exactly.

It's either it's either Alla didn't know that the trinity or that he approved of it. And you know, there's a bill the like to site the like to site a further exegesis by Umar and he was a companion of Muhammad, and he states that it's best not to marry Christian women because because of their doctrine on trinity. So he says you should you should avoid Mary and Christian women. Luckily, Allah thought about that in his greatness.

That have been made lawful to you. For Allah is great.

Nice. Yeah, now I pulled up each of these texts so everybody can see on screen the three texts that he's mentioned. All of these have been pulled up for you. So there's a very clear contradiction and what it actually shows, which we've known for many years. And as Kai has shown in his early or watching out of videos, the Qoran and Muhammad did not understand the Trinity. Even if you think the Trinity is wrong, we would at least expect the Koran to get what the Christians believe correct.

Yeah, yeah, exactly, I mean, and he would know all versions.

Of Christianity, all versions, Oh exactly right, he would know all the sacks, all the different groups correct.

Yeah.

So there's even you know, modalism, which which I don't know if you'd even consider that trinitarian or not, but you know, there's so many versions of it that surely one might be justifiable at anyway.

That's a great contradiction. I appreciate. I wasn't aware of that one, but yeah, it does seem like it would be an outright contradiction. So I appreciate that. A we're going to try the Mormon guy again if maybe he's got a better connection. There's not a delay. What's up man? You there? You want I'm mute?

Yeah, I'm back.

Sorry, Okay, So let me restate what I was trying to argue to you. It's a false equivalence to say that because Jesus says I'm the one that spoke through all those prophets in the Old Testament. That's not the same thing as Joseph Smith saying, oh, let me add a few verses to the last chapter of Genesis to predict me. That's totally that's a false equivalence, very different.

Okay.

See, you're saying like the problem is adding.

Scripture, right, Well, it's not just that, but it's also a con man element that obviously nothing in the Book of Genesis is talking about Joseph Smith. And what he's doing is because the last chapter is about Joseph the patriarch, he's tagging himself in there because it says Joseph, sure, sure, you're okay with that? Yeah, all right, Well then I mean, if if it's okay to be a con man and be a fraud, then we can all do that. But

Right, not in the text?

We have no then then that's a con man fraud operation.

It can be.

But again, you know, non Christians Christians.

This is do you know what a fallacy is? Do you know what a fallacy is?

What?

What's a fallacy?

Formal or informal?

Informal is fine.

Informal is two logical propositions that do not necessarily connect to the conclusion.

Right, So the fact that people in other religions don't accept Jesus' claims has nothing to do with whether or not Joseph Smith's adding verses makes him still a potential prophet. Those are two totally disconnected. What does the attitude of Jews.

Have to do with this.

It's just that they use the same argument, right, So.

What how does that make it a good argument?

I don't know.

You think it's a good enough argument to use against Joseph Smith, Right.

No, I just showed you that it's a false equivalence. It's not the same thing.

It's not quite the same.

No, it's totally different. Jesus is not just saying that, let me retroactively find a few verses that might hint at me. He's saying, I literally spoke the entire Old Testament. Peter says that it was the spirit of Christ who spoke through all the Old Testament prophets. Joseph Smith is not doing that. Joseph Smith is saying the last chapter of Genesis, it's about the patriarch Joseph. Oh, by the way, here's ten extra verses about me, Joseph. That's fraud, con men stuff.

Maybe Joseph did have such a prophecy in Genesis, unless you think it's a full account of everything.

Happened to You just admitted a minute ago that Genesis is not talking about Joseph Smith.

Yes, because it's not a full account.

A full account, it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

I do not know whether Joseph in Egypt had her personal prophecy about Joseph Smith.

You just admitted that Joseph Smith added those verses and you said we don't have to accept that as a Mormon. Now you're trying to say, well, maybe it can be counted, so you're flip flopping.

No, please, please listen, I don't know whether Joseph had this prophecy.

You just said a minute ago that you don't have to believe those as a Mormon, did you not, Yes, And now you're flipping the argument and saying that, well, maybe actually Joseph did have a prophecy of Joseph Smith.

Okay, how is that different from we don't have to believe.

It, because now you're admitting that it was a prophecy, when a minute ago you said that Joseph Smith might have actually just added those things. Which one is it? No, you've contradicted which one is it? You're moving the gold post in the middle of the argument. Which one is it?

Uh?

Personally, I would say, if you'd let me finish that it was Joseph likening the scriptures on chin cell and God kind of speaking to.

Him as if this was true scripture and using it.

To teach Joseph Smith something about Joseph Smith not necessarily completely suid.

All right, we're out here, We're done. This is the dumbesth I've ever heard. Later, yeah, yeah, goodbye. He literally changed the argument, right, So when the first argument that, look, we're more Mormons, don't have to believe this. This could be Joseph Smith just being creative and kind of retroactively finding himself in the Old Testament. Excuse me, finding himself in the Old Testament retroactively. And then he flips it and says, well, it actually could be a prophecy of him. Now,

Jay I had a question. It was about logical fallacies. If you want to I'll just step down and wait for another time.

What's the question?

There are questions about the tag position. So in the nutshell, we're arguing as a as Christian's logic, ethics, and science are grounded in the triune God or the Christian paradigm, if you will, can the same grounding be applied to concepts like logical fallacies for example, that the gentlemen before made one, or like circular reason, and what do we attributed it attributed to? Is it God as He's revealed in the scripture? Like how do we justify all of the fallacies that we know today?

Well, fallacies are a violation of the principles of logic, So we don't have to justify fallacies. I'm not sure what that means. We just have to demonstrate that the principles of logic are the case. They are grounded in God. They're grounded in the mind of God, the eternal mind of God, and so that's what gives them their permanence, their stability. They don't evolve and turn into the opposite of themselves, and so any fallacy is merely a violation

Hello God, yep, let's if you say.

I was gonna have a question, but I'll just actually just take.

It to my priests.

But I do want to make a comment real quick. Sure you know Protestants also make that same marketing.

Well, the Jews says this, and the Jews.

Now the Muslims remember that, I've had multiple Muslims say Jews don't accept the prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament. So yeah, exactly, this is totally irrelevant, totally, but what about But what.

About the Jews who will then convert to Orthodox and say no, the Orthodox and justified.

Yeah, it's arbitrary, Like why yeah, what about those Jews? And by the way, Jews don't accept the Book of Mormon, so like what is that? What does that have to do with earth?

And also, I don't Mormons don't even accept the Bible anyways, I've had tons of conversations with Mormon.

No, it's a stupid cult that they say. Once you start talking to him, then it turns out they'll tell you, Oh, well, by the way, the Bible has errors in it, and the Book of Mormon fixes all that. Right, So it's just like it's just like Islam. Mormonism is an American prairie muffin Islam Manuel. What's up? The only difference, by the way, is that you know, actually I was going to say, is is you know not. Actually Islam is polytheistic.

Yeah, So I'm just curious on the transcendental argument for God right now, I'd say I'm more of an agnostic, and my main issue with a positive claim of God is that even you admit that God is a circular argument and you use God to justify logic, to justify morality and all these things.

Yeah, well, how about I just use the term recursive or self referencing? Is that better than circular because everybody gets tripped up on the word or the terminology. We're just pointing out that at a basic level, everybody's argumentation will bottom out and you will have something that's self referencing. So let's say, for example, we want to do linguistic philosophy.

Okay, but couldn't you say that for anything else, like you need to use you need to use words to justify using words.

It's a category error. Do you understand that there's two different There's a difference between studying logic and meta loogic. Those are two different types of questions. Do you know what that means?

No, I'm not super well read on philosophy.

I'm just wondering because on it.

That's the point right there at what you don't understand I'm telling I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I'm telling you that that's what you're misunderstanding. You're assuming that, for example, fallacies across the board apply in every single type of situation or case, and there a certain situation where they don't apply. Let me give you

Oh, I mean you're you're referring to the subject at hand, which.

Is yes, exactly So in this case, because it's a unique situation, it's not at hominem because precisely what's in question is the character of the person. So likewise, if we say, in the question of logic, right, if I ask a metalogical question, which is about the status of logic itself, what's the ontological status of logic? I cannot do that without assuming logic to reason about it. So it's not circular because it's simply unavoidable in a meta type of question.

Okay, So.

I mean again, logic is necessary is kind of what you're saying, And you're saying that logic would come from God because I've seen some of your videos.

I've said those things, but those things don't relate to what I'm saying right here. This is just a category mistake. Right, So do you know what we mean by meta questions? What that means?

A question about questioning.

No, a question about the status of something like the like the ontological status is something you know what that means they're doing. I'm not trying to put you on the spot of me it make you. I'm just literally trying to explain. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but are you familiar with that term of like what a meta question is?

Uh?

No, Okay? So, like if I'm doing mathematics and I'm doing two plus two equals four, I'm doing basic arithmetic, right, that's a different question from when I say what is the number two or the number four? So that's a different type of question. It's a meta level question where I'm asking not what weather two plus two equals four? But what is the ontological status of the number two or the number four. That's the point is that TAG is operating at that higher meta level, and so it

Okay, But I mean I'm just saying that.

If you're gonna say that you can't do logic without that, right, right, I mean I don't see how that's.

The case, Like, it's obviously the case. You don't understand this like, because logic is necessary for all reasoning and all propositions and all meaning and all predications. So if I'm going to reason about logic, I have to assume that logic is the case. You can't make sentences without logic. You don't know that, No, I do know that. Okay, then you just prove my point. Thank you. You prove the point.

What does that have to do with God? Though?

Like what, we're not at God yet. I'm just trying to demonstrate the category error. You're not going to understand the argument for God until you understand the mistake you're making about the category error. First. I'm trying to demonstrate that to you first.

Okay, there's a cat.

Like what I literally just explained all of that to you. Alright, We're moving on next up MKG hey, j yep.

I just wanted to say first, thank you for the book recognition.

I just got my copy of the mcgotting books controversy.

Yeah, that will solve a lot of you know, like Protestant or you know, Chrystal logically that people have.

My argument free right now though, is regarding the law.

So what's happening specifically for a circumcision and I'm basically looking at Acts fifteen, Genesis seventeen, Relation two, Enrollment seven, and this I feel like this is I don't feel but based on my reading, it seems that Paul is having this kind of tug of war happening where he's not rejecting the law, but he's not saying the law is the be all end all.

I'm having a hard time seeing how he justifies the cessation of circumcision.

Well, because circumcision is itself a limiting right, women cannot be circumcised. And his argument in Colautions, if you Readclautions, is very clear that the right of circumcision itself is a type of the right of baptism of the New Testament. And so because circumcision was specifically the right of initiation for males in Israel for that Covenant. If the Covenant is to be expanded and open up to all of the gentile nations and it's going to include women, obviously

But my problem here is isn't there a progressive righteousness with every generation that comes. Isn't Peter more honored than David in some sense?

No, I don't know where you where that comes from, because I mean the Hebrews eleven when it describes the heavenly Jerusalem, they are classed as saints along with us.

Okay, but specifically the covenant of circumcision that starts with Abraham, not with Moses.

Correct.

Yeah, but Noah has made righteous without prior to circumcision.

But from a Christian's perspective, don't we believe in progressive revelation?

Yeah? But the argument of Acts fifteen is that the precisely what is the progression is the opening of that covenant to the nations. And there's a direct connection between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic because circumcision is the right of that covenant right until we get the new Covenant that was appropriate for that time because God was still working primarily with a single nation state as his church. The Church of the Old Testament is Israel, the nation state.

I see.

But now, my my argument for that is that, yes, it's clear that some of the law, the letter of the law is fulfilled and actually represented as the spirit of the law.

It's it's it's.

True form is shown through the spirit of the law. But there are still especially from the Orthodox perspective.

Yeah, but the Church determines. The Church determines what The Church determines what things carry over exactly, not Jews, not Messianic Jews, not. The Church has determined that circumcision is fulfilled in the circumcision of Christ and is replaced with baptism.

And my concern here is that if we were Protestants, then this would be no issue and we could just move on.

But hold on, why would that be Why would that be no issue for Protestants?

Because because Protestants put all their weight on the spirit of the law, and that's worth.

There is no first of all, there is no one Protestant that does that. In fact, many Protestants are judaizing sex which don't do that. So I don't even I wouldn't even agree with that argument. Okay, if if the Apostles are given the authority to determine and interpret the texts and decide what carries over and what doesn't, that's all you need to know that circumcision doesn't carry over.

Okay, But but.

What the church uses as justification for why circumcision doesn't carry over?

Does it not rest mainly on Paul's arguments? I guess that's my question.

No, the apostles are arguing that circumcision was done and fulfilled when Jesus was circumcised.

But doesn't that's my question. Doesn't James disagree? And that's where kind of the quarrel and Acts fifteen is happening.

And no, what do you mean now what James? James doesn't disagree, he agreed the council agrees with not requiring circumcisions for gentiles.

What do you mean?

But in the beginning of it, it's not a full agreement. The Council is convening to say do we impose this yorke or not? And then they come to a conclusion that no, we shouldn't. The yoke shouldn't be asked of the gentiles.

Yeah.

So I'm saying that's that there is this intersection that's happening that.

Yeah. So there's debates and then and Paul Paul rebukes Peter at the beginning Glatians.

So I'm saying, I'm saying the sources Paul, Paul is the rebuker.

Paul is the one saying, no, what you guys are wrong, which shouldn't we shouldn't ask this of the genial?

Okay? And do you think that Paul tricked the Council in Acts fifteen to side with Paul. I mean, this is this is a problem. What you're arguing is a Protestant judaeic argument.

And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying, here's the chorus you here. Can saints be wrong?

No not, Apostles can't be wrong?

No?

No?

Okay, Well, first can saints be wrong.

Well, saints are not equivalent to apostles, so yes, later church fathers can be wrong the apostles. The apostles do not teach error in this regard.

No, apostles can be wrong.

When there's like a counsel or an authoritative teaching that makes its way into the scriptures. No, they don't teach wrong.

Because you know where I'm going with this.

I think you're going to say, what that Paul, that Peter rebused wrong? Wrong, but they got rebuked and so it didn't become part of scripture or the Council in Acts fifteen Providential.

This is this is my problem.

This is my worry.

I feel what is There's not a problem Peter.

Is he and James can be wrong and Paul is right?

Then no, you're missing the points. You're missing the point they got something wrong but got corrected and none of the wrong teaching made it into the Council or into scripture.

Well that's how the story ended. I'm pausing, and this is all coming from Paul and Luke's point of view, And.

Well you're why are you setting Paul and Luke against everyone else? You have to trust the divine Providence. It's the same faith that you have that stop interrupting. It's the same faith that you have. The Divine Providence guided the church in later centuries to collect the canon together. So if you doubt this, then the whole religion goes. I agree, But what reason is there to doubt this? I don't understand the basis of delt This whole doubt comes from.

Essentially why I think orthodoxy is appealing and.

It's favorable over But what you're saying would make orthodoxy false because it's a denial of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

No, I'm saying, yeah, it's a continuous of it's the Orthodoxy's claim is that we're there, we're the true tradition, we hold the oldest tradition.

That's the orthodox cost.

No, it's more than that. I mean, I'm saying that in Acts too. There's a promise that the Holy Jesus in the Gospel of John promises that the Holy Spirit with leading God the Church into all truth. And that happens primarily at a sonodal or communal level. Right, it's

But would it be fair to say that you can only that claim if we've already agreed on.

That being the case.

Yeah, absolutely, yeah, you have to. Of course the presupposition that the church is guided as part of that is part of that assumption.

Absolutely, But I'm speaking in the case itself priority.

But you can't do that that that that's an invalid move. There is no but in this, There is no invalid there. You can't have This is a Protestant type of argument, or a Muslim type of argument, where you assume that there is no guidance or holistic faith. There is this possibility that they got it all wrong at Acts fifteen because they followed Paul. Well, look if Paul, if Paul's wrong, then Christianity is wrong.

I guess this is this is where I'm coming from. So you can see where how this relates the question that you've posed to the Muslims or to.

The Jews about or specifically the Muslims. At that point of if I was a fifth, sixth, seventh century Jew or Christian, how would I know what Muhammad's thing is true? That's we're directly You're directly investigating the scripture.

That's based on a consistency with prior revelation. So what I'm arguing is precisely that Paul and Acts fifteen are consistent with prior revelation. Prior revelation itself is not teaching that circumcision continues for all eternity, for all the nations. It's not even possible to do that. How could the Mosaic law, when most of it is confined to Palestine and Israel and the Land of Israel, how could that be for all the nations?

No, I agree, But what I'm getting at is, let me focus the point.

If I'm a Jew in the first century, and I'm hearing this Gospel, and I'm hearing the I'm hearing the Act, the Letter, I'm listening to the letters of Paul, how can I investigate that? What Paul is thinking is consistent and has continuity.

By going to the Old Testament texts and soon not.

Just post facto of the Holy Spirit has.

Protected because only that interpretation makes sense of the Old Testament data in a coherent way.

Because I have to have you read the Book of Hebrews, the Book of Hebrews.

What part are you the.

Entire Book of Hebrews is making the point I'm making.

Because I don't disagree.

With did you have you read the Book of Hebrews? You're not listening to what I'm saying, not not in this entirety. No, you haven't read the bro I'm not trying to be rude to you, but like you got to go and read the New Testament at least before you try to make this, before you try to argue this. Ukraine, what's up?

Yes, Hello, yep, yeah, this is Ukraine. Seven seven seven okay, yeah, I have I have a question about I was reading some church history and apparently in the year eleven eighty two there was a raid on.

It was actually by Orthodox.

Christians against certain Roman Catholics that were in Constantinople, and they basically just killed everybody.

And that that was part of the Yeah, I guess one of the policism is true now because there was a one raid by some Greek Yeah, no, no, no, it's a really good argument.

You No, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying you know, I mean, well they were, they were asking for it, but you know, probably, but you know, should the church?

Would it be appropriate?

And did the Church ever repent of this or anything or apologize for it or would that even be how.

So if one nation, if the Greeks do something, are we collectively guilty?

No, that would just be presumably that would just be that particular well, that would be that particular Holy see it best. I mean, I'm antiop and so we never really we never had an emperor patronize us.

We never really had enough power to abuse.

What are you Ukrainian or are you pro Ukraine? I don't understand what Ukraine saw, but I.

Just put that in there because I just think that. But I just think that that, you know, what Russia did to Ukraine is grotesque and unfair.

Well, what about the seven years of Western NATO provocation?

Well, Obama blockaded all military to Ukraine from the get go.

I mean, NATO wasn't this is.

Prox this is this is proxy. The proxy stuff that they did, including setting up those bio labs all along the board of Russia.

Those the footage from those, those were Soviet biolabs that were built in the Soviet Union.

Ukraine ever built a single I'm.

Not talking about Ukraine. I'm talking about the State Department setting up biologe. You're saying that's all fake.

Yeah, so what the they were found? There was one found that they found one in.

So you're a boomer who listens to Western mainstream Is Trump a bad man too? Is a boomer media?

True?

No, no, no, but I mean all are we still fighting the Cold War? Are we still fighting the KGB and the Cold War?

Unfortunately? Yes?

The k Look, I mean, I mean, tell me, tell me more about Is the c I a good Are the the good guys?

I'd say, I'd say that I'd put them into kind of the.

Gray category, neither neither black or white.

But you know, what's the official policy of the West.

That doesn't mean the Russians are worse.

What's the official policy of the West when it comes to things like Malthusianism, enthusianism. You don't even know. So you're a boomer expert on geopolitics. You don't know what Malthusianism is.

Mount malthus theory, that that's absolute.

That's oh, that's obsolete. Really have you read people like, uh.

Yeah, well that's the progressives or fools.

I mean, I'm not talking about progressives. I'm talking about like official Kissinger Deep you know, State Department Global two thousand. You could read Miles Copeland's CIA Manuals where he talks about the whole purpose of everything they're doing in these countries is precisely for Malthusianism.

Well, well, if Ukraine wants to join the empire, and we want them to join the empire.

Now now, now it's an empire.

Empire.

Now wait a minute, So America America is a wait a minute, because the propaganda from people on your side about ten years ago is that there is no American empire.

Now it is.

Well, they call it a coalition of the willing, but that's a semantic debate. I mean, it's basically an empire. I mean, why do you think you know they put all this money into Israel. It's to hold that position. It's to control those trade routes and Somber.

Wait a minute, you're pro Israel, right because Israel supports does Lenski and Ukraine, Well.

We would hope it would be. Well, I'd rather have them do it than us to it.

But I mean that's one you would want if you're running an empire, you would want one part of the empire to support the other.

Part of the empire.

So I mean we need want more skittles, more abrations. Remember one Lenski said, what does Lenski say if you are from blaw whether they want to run an empire, you need large, healthy families where men or men and women are women with traditional value. But you just said you're pro Ukraine.

Doing is insane. You just said you're pro Ukrainian's your right wing.

No they're not.

I mean they're not all flat out Nazis, They're not that right wing, but they are far more the typical Ukrainian if.

You ask like that, I mean like the Azol battalion and right wing. The most Americans the battalion and right sector. You like those guys, I understand them. Oh interesting, but I thought you're pro Israel. Well, now what would you do?

What would you do if you're if if if Chinese soldiers were marching up and down, you know, God forbid invaded our country, you'd want something like the Michigan militia.

To be there, right, quite so, Satanic minded like literal Satan tattooed dudes are the equivalent of the Michigan militia in your mind.

Yeah, Well, the Azop Battalion, they're neo Pagans. They're into Norse mythology and that kind of thing. It's the old the original pagan religion of Europe. The East Europe didn't haven't have like inquisitions. So the witches were never burned at the stake. They just never went away. They were always there. And some of them are left and the battalion, Uh, you know that's what they are.

Okay, So what's the origin roblem?

Right?

So the origin of all that right wing stuff in Ukraine? Like, where do you think that comes from?

It's the the what the azo and that's that's all that, that whole sector instep of the indigenous prequel.

No it's not, no, it's not.

No, it's not Stepanic, No, it's not. I'm talking about Steponic and right sector and all that.

Well, they did, they did, they had to choose between Hitler and Stalin, and they did go with the Axis Powers and the White Russians from World War Two.

It goes back to that, right, So it's the Galen It's Ryan our Galen's network.

Right.

Yeah, yeah, Bendarra's network and the you know people like that. It goes back, you know, it goes I mean, but if you think about it, if you're in World War two and you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin.

I just want you, as a boom, I just want you as a boomer to admit that you're pro neo in in Ukraine.

Well, I think the kind I think the ninety when borders are finding that they should be returned to and.

You know, if you so, you're pro neo in at the same time as pro Israel. Makes sense of that for me?

Well, if in terms of supporting in terms of economics, Israel is the money.

Think Okay, so it's just about economics of course. The classic classic boomer, right, classic boomer Thoughtian have.

The resources, the Ukrainians, they could give.

Us more money. Yeah, exactly right. It's all about that money, ain't it. Boomer? For years, do boomers care about anything other than money? Do you guys care about anything other than the money?

How empires look?

So now you're it's funny. These people were anti empire and they would go after if you talked about empire ten years ago. It's just funny. Now they're all about and impart it's all about that.

Well.

I think you know people, I think the I think people like to use too many euphemisms to be too politically correct. I don't I'm not a fan of political correctness, but I think the country, but I think the country should honest. I think our country can do a better job honestly describing what is our foreign policy and why is and why do we do what we do?

Wait a minute, are you pro so? Are you pro Trump? Or were you pro? Were you pro Walt Kamala?

Because no, I no, I voted for Trump. I voted for him.

But doesn't Trump want to end the Ukraine conflict? So isn't that a bad move on his plots?

I hope he.

I think he.

I he did a good job on the Abraham Accords with the Israelis in the Southeast. If he can get those guys talking to each other, I'm sure he could reason with Zelenski and Putin. I mean they're not nearly they neither one of them is half as crazy as as it is down in the Middle East.

I mean, what if, what if the root of the problem is boomers like yourself. What if you are the root of the problem.

I didn't order, I didn't order, and I didn't order Ussia to be in that country.

All right, So, like most boomers, doggy.

Dude gave Russia money to keep it from completely dissolving. We proved Russia downsize, but American money. We gave them hundreds of millions of dollars directly to Russia. And this is a fact to keep so that the entire so that the whole thing wouldn't unravel and they would be able to control their nuclear weapons. So, you know, Putin owes us we saved we We quite literally, he wouldn't have even been the president if it wasn't for us.

Yeah, I mean, I'm familiar with like the era of Yeltsin, and Yeltsin being a Western typical Boomers said you know, you're not gonna let me talk, You're just gonna talk over me.

Uh.

Yeah, I'm familiar with all of that period of like Yeltsin, being a Western operative and that I'm sure that there was a phase early on when the West didn't mind and supported the idea of a Putin presidency. But what is the source in your mind? Where where is it that you get Does this go back to the Cold War? Are you still living in the Cold War era? You said to be believing the kgbben a problem? Is that the root of this? Like why you think Russia is a bad guy? Are you there? I guess he left.

I don't know.

I couldn't hear him. If you want to call back in if your mike's messing up, I don't get any sound from you. Uh no, I guess he left. So there we go. So basic. It's great because that was like the archetype of any bloomer debate that you have talking over you moral, just like virtue signaling. When asked about what the root of the problem is, I got none to do with it. I mean that was like classic the KGB. So we should start playing Uri Bezmano.

Clips Hi Jay have balls.

Well, sorry, I just got a couple of questions on your thoughts about some Bible verses, one of them being the when Jesus speaking to his disciples and saying that his father's house has many mansions.

Do you reckon there's any chance of that being anything beyond what he's just trying to say?

Like, No, it has nothing to do with it has nothing to do with there being many religions that get to Heaven, none of that stuff.

How about anything beyond that?

Look with metaphysics in the sense, do you think there's any chance of him because it's quite obvious that there's a place there.

No, you wouldn't think that the I don't.

I don't think so.

No.

I just think it's talking about the beauty and expanse of heaven being beyond.

What we can conceive, Okay, because I was sort of like thinking about him, thinking could it potentially be in to say that there's much beyond what we know and what's going to be revealed here and if you could potentially.

Lead to well, yeah, I mean I think Paul speaks that way when he talks about, you know, seek through glass darkly and all that you want to try again, go ahead. I don't hear any sound from you, So I don't know if your mike's messed up or what, But we don't hear anything. Mas Williams. I have to say, I think that was the first, like Bloom or Neocon that has ever called into debate. I don't think I've ever ever had one. Yeah, what's up?

Hello, what's on your mind?

I have one question for you?

Yep.

My question is in the Bible.

In the Bible it is said that so you are authors.

I don't know about the suspicion. I just know about the Catholic person.

Okay, Brad, what are you trying to say? What is your question?

Is Jesus God.

Is the Father God?

Yes?

Yes?

Then why does Jesus say that Father is the only only true God?

Because it's called monarchical trinitarianism, and so he is the source, fount cause, an ark and principle, the Godhead from whom all Godhead flows. Right, he left moving on United. I didn't kick him.

He left.

Good.

You think it's rude, call in anybody who has an issue. You want a debate, You think it's rude. I don't care. You think I'm mean? You think I care that you think I mean I don't care. Has people calling me mean for ten years made me cease at all?

No?

You can call in right there? What's up? Man, United Kingdom. What's up? We've got the entire United Kingdom calling, oh brother, bloody hell.

Glody, your rings are?

What's so?

Just about the meta question earlier and the metaphysical frameworks of the Holy Trine.

So I sent you a message.

About what a Russell universal want and the hypothesis that his description of how the universe works can unite and work with the Holy Trainee based on the source being the Father, the Son, the matter, bone and such.

But I just I just want to the matter. There's nothing to do with matter. I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, So if you, if you, if you read that message, just s you can just have a look and if you want to give me some feedback, you most welcome to.

If you think it's like out there.

I think it's out there that we don't. This is, this is it's not where we go with our turnty theology. But thank you, Dane. What's up? Daniel?

And I'm you.

Hello?

What's up?

One question is the is the word Jehovah?

Is that a misinterpretation of the tetragrammaton?

I don't think it's a misinterpretation, though, I think I think it's one of the isn't one of the early names of God that's used, if I remember correctly, I haven't looked at this into this in a long time, but.

Okay, that's all I have, thank you.

Yeah, So, I mean the term is used in Exodus first, so let's see, we're here Exodus six, so it looks like in Exodus six. Yeah, the term is in the Hebrew Jehovah. And let's see what that is said to be, Jehovah, the existing one, self existent, the Jewish national name for God, Jehovah yahueh. So no, I don't I've never heard that that's a mistranslation, but thank you for that question. Good

Man?

Try again? It's like Kenneth's having a hard time connecting. So look, I'm looking for people who disagree today. So please if you don't disagree, then please don't clog up the quay, the queue or whatever. The what are the gay terminology is they use in England? I don't know, Man, Kenneth's not working. We'll try to come back out, come back in. We've got Jamal. What's up?

Jamal?

Can you hear me?

Yeah?

What's up?

Okay?

Okay?

So I'm against.

The argument did orphinic you percents when it comes to the divine and the energy distinction'.

You're against the essence energy, is what you're saying.

I think it's well.

I can already tell from your voice that it's because you have high level spurgatism five thousand and you think that it's not logical. I can't deal with like some five thousand levels perk right now, Gang's delicious? What's up?

Man?

Got a Yakoub in the house. I have a why'd you go? Mathematical proof in the energy thanking? You call what's up?

What's going on? What's happening?

Yakub to the power to the fourth power?

Baby, that's right, that's right, the father Yakub.

But that is right.

This is a prophet, a prophet of of Yakoub gangs delicious speaking.

I agree. I accept your prophecies with docility.

Awesome, awesome, good good. I actually had a couple of questions.

I'm actually Orthodox, but they're not Kanakis's questions. I'm not going to ask you about uh drinking beer on Wednesday and Fridays.

Okay, that is allowed.

But I was gonna ask because my dad is a Protestant.

And uh he had asked me one time about the scriptures and the councils.

And all that kind of stuff, because he's obviously scripture.

Alone that sort of thing.

Are you in a spaceship, dude? It sounds like a theremy.

Sorry.

It was blasting off to the PDEs to meet he blasted off and up here he's blasting off in up pyramid to meet your coup.

That's actually exactly what I'm doing. I'm coming to bring the message of your coup.

So you're talking to your dad. Your dad is a prompt and he's talking about councils.

Go ahead, yeah, And he was his His thing is, why aren't the things taught in what his holy tradition in the councils, things like that, Why isn't it included in the Bible? I tried to explain that, you know, they serve different purposes. I don't know if that's even correct, but it sounds correct.

At the time of saying it.

So well, wait, so why isn't the ecumenical councils included in the Bible. The Bible predates the ecumenical councils and is the direct teaching of the apostles in Moses and so forth. So why would the ecumenical councils be in the Bible. I don't understand the objection.

I guess more like the.

New Testament, Like why isn't like some of the rules that think, like the canon law and things like that.

His thing is like, all right, So the early form of canon law is in the New Testament. It's the decision and decree of the Council in Acts fifteen. That's church law.

Yeah, that makes sense.

So you'll notice there's a dispute that arises. We talked about this with two or three guys back right. The dispute arises. The Apostles meet together in the Council in Jerusalem and Acts fifteen, and they come to church law decisions based on multiple problems and scandals that are happening

Okay, okay.

So in other words, the church after the Apostles is merely following the example of Act fifteen. Yeah, okay, dude, you over that plant. Dud's over there playing pole position.

I'm actually at work in a in.

A piece of heavy machinery.

I'm moving that dude.

Don't don't try to foolish you. You work at the go kart h at the at the the name go Kart Factor. You over there run it riding go karts around.

Oh man, you got me, You got me. I'm just I'm just rolling around on the go carts.

But that's actually pretty awesome. If you're like, you're at the go kart track proselytizing for yakub.

That's exactly what I do. I sit here for twelve hours a day.

Just all the parents think you're like a total creeper because you're a white dude that's over there trying to talk all the kids into Yakub.

I'll wear the T shirt too.

Any other questions, that's a good question. So I would say, well, like you said, yeah, the Bible is like a it's a it's not the type of book that we would expect church law to be. And of course church law is normative, it has authority, but it's not on the level of divine revelation. Divine revelation is the direct like revelation of the Holy Spirit to the church, it's you know, stands for all time. Revelation ceases with the death of

Well, it says that we can't go to the theaters, and when it goes to the theaters as excommunicating for.

The theaters at that time are not the same thing as movie theaters today. It's totally a different thing.

Right.

You can't like a clergy can't ride horse? Is why? Well, because at that I'm serious, like in the Middle Ages, riding a horse was a sign of nobility and clergy were not nobility. Okay, so does that cannon still apply? No, because it's not relevant to a society that no longer has aristocracy.

That makes sense.

I'm with you, I'm with you.

I'll so what I'm trying to say is that that church law is necessary because the church has to deal with unique cases in various times and places within history, and the Bible itself doesn't address every possible situation like that, right, but it doesn't make the church law identical to divine revelation.

Okay, cool, I like it.

I like it.

Great question, man, Thank you, and good luck with the Yakubian proselytizing at the go kart track. Patrick, what's up, dude? Oh forgot, by the way, there's supposed to be there is a Roman Catholic wants to bait tonight. So this is a buddy of Tim Gordon's. I forget the guy's name, something like Chris or something. So it seems like a nice dude, you know, seems like a wholesome, dad, dad,

What's up, man, Hey, there's it, Golenius Patrick, I'm not really understanding your prompt for debate because it's just a whole bunch of nowns.

Well, it's debating, though, it's debating any of those. In other words, that if you're a caval y prot Yeah.

I'm not Protestant, Catholic, any of that ship.

Okay, it's open debate for anything.

Really, I'm definitely I'm definitely agnostic. But I was wondering if you're open to a debate about.

Whether or not rights or a force mandate or define mandate.

Uh.

Yeah, Like we've had a lot of like libertarian type debates that would touch on that.

Yeah.

Uh so, do you ad hear that it's a force mandate or divine mandate that we get our rights?

I would say, ultimately, any justification for the existence of rights would have to be grounded in some kind of divine transcendent being.

Yes, Okay, because I hear a lot of people talking about force mand date.

I'm not gonna waste your time because it's not really a debate anymore because we.

Both agree so well.

As an agnostic, what what type of deity are you talking about?

So, I mean, holistically, I do believe in a Christian God, it's just I don't. It's really hard for me to follow a specific religion because it's really hard for me to pin myself.

Down to a group. I don't like group identity.

So it's hard for me to be like, say, all go around and say I'm a Catholic or a Protestant or Eastern Orthodoxy, because I feel like, once you put yourself in that circle, you are now held to those principles of that standard, and if they go, if they conflict with your interests or values, you really don't have an argument because now you just put yourself in a place where you have to follow a doctrine, because if you're not following that doctrine, then you're not following the

And I do.

I'd hear to a lot of their principles, but it's just for me, I can't lock myself down into a religon.

I don't believe an organization.

Well, so you don't reject all collective identities, right or do you?

Uh?

I think if you're running around as an individual saying on this, on that, and preaching and preaching to people of what you are and who you are,