They've seen what it actually says. And we've hammered this for months and for weeks and months. Well, but it is it's true. Now they do they do worship.
Oh I thought I thought was supposed to be so clear. And the position doesn't change. No.
You see, as Tim Gordon pointed out, you got to know uh, Frega's linguistic theories to understand Vatican two. And clearly, clearly anybody who has an IQ above room temperature would see that the rate. The way to interpret Vatican two is uh, you know Frega's linguistic arguments. You can't make this up. That was his argument last.
Night in Romans One, doesn't Paul talk about how no one can claim ignorance because they can see, like they can observe creation and infer there is a creator.
Yeah, but it's the external witness is attested to in their hearts. That that's why he said. And it's not the intellect, that's what That's what we're saying, is that it's the noetic. It's the noetic problem, not an intellectual problem. The noos is the heart. It's not an intell The intellect gets darkened too. But the only reason the intellect gets darkened is because the noetic faculties the heart is are dark is darken first.
Just on Paul's talks that they then suppress it through their unrighteousness.
And who does he say that they're worshiping and serving in verse twenty five? Is it the true God? No, it's the creation. They exchange the truth of God. And they don't worship and serve the God anymore, the Creator. They serve the creature. Amen, their worship is not God, it's the creature Romans one, which.
Is what we've been seeing all the time.
It's idolatry exactly.
The whole passage is making our point. And it's not the intellect that is the problem, it's the heart. As Paul says, did they retain the true God in their knowledge? They did not retain the true God in their knowledge? Romans one eight. Are they worshippers of God? Romans one thirty says they are what haters of God? If I'm a hater of God? Am I a worshiper of God? Roman Catholics?
Well, you see, if the reference freaks according to by freaking right thing about natural objects that don't apply to things like God, then well of course it's worship, but.
God just doesn't accept it.
You see, well, the whole dat Vatican, the cons like, yeah.
Just because people use is a Roman Catholic professor friend of mine.
Said, it's sort of stupidity.
You got to go to school to learn. Yeah, like go with your heart and your intuition, like I mean, look at the poll before this started. Of course Christians and Muslims don't worship the same God. And then all of you are gonna get so caught up. And I can do I can dance.
You want me to.
Dance Frega, you know, Krypti Parsky.
I can do it.
It's a whole bunch of nonsense, like intuitively, listen to your heart. It's absurd, and that's what the poll showed, right, And all of y'all getting confused, right, none of you are to even understand like the depths of these kind of theories of reference. But like lean into your heart, like you know.
Of course, we talked about this today at church, and all the guys at church are like, I can't believe that we're even having to debate this because even Protestants just intuitively know. Of course, Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God. Come on, it's just obvious they don't and seeing the actions of the papacy tells us what they mean.
Well, that's because you haven't read Crypteme and Straws and bertrand Russell.
I have read some of them, but I don't see how that's how that's going to help us with with one John two when it says that if you don't have the son, you don't have the father. So yeah, here was the original poll in the midst of the debate, seven hundred and thirty three votes, almost eighty percent agreeing with us, and these guys were losing. That's Cameron's Catholic poll, by the way, And.
That's amazing, especially in this Dame age when everything's just fan.
And everybody's fanboys and they're not honest. That's pretty amazing. Exactly.
Yeah, that's actually says a lot.
To remember. The gods of the nations are devils. Do not go after the other gods. The things that gentile sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to the one true God, the Trinity. First Grientia ten twenty Romans one, that they exchange the worship of God for the creature and what do the medieval papacy called the Muslims, infidels, demon worshipers, pagans, heretics, on on dean limb ten dollars. They want to vilify you guys so bad that they're willing to check out
the Superman Lowest Hill analogy. They're very deceitful and malicious. I think that's becoming aware. See, I've been saying to you guys since twenty eighteen, when all we had all the loft In drama, all the Ibarra drama. I've been saying, it's not me being mean. These people are devious and they're slimy, they're snakes, And I think maybe finally people are trying to actually figure out these something's off with these Roman calogue dudes, the so called pop apologetic sphere.
Matt five dollars, Martin Luther, Uber Allas Luskiddell became remember for four months, I love Clark Kent, but I hate Superman. Jordan dearedof five dollars Roamed says that Muslims arnor Mary. But how is that? They say? Is she honored by saying that she will be Muhammed's wife in heaven is that honorable to say that she divorced Joseph.
Yeah.
I mean they're just picking and choosing and ignoring the ways in which Islam blasphemes and vilifies the Virgin Mary. Straight why mel ten dollars? If a man worships a demon disguised as the God of Catholicism, we have to say that he is actually worshiping the same God as we are, because they are corrupted by people infallibility. It does seem like that right, like it would this would be transversible, reversible, you know, in all these different ways.
And that's why Father Deacon was actually correct to say that, No, I'm sorry, Protestants and Catholics do not have the worship of the Trinity or Christ. They don't. They've lost it. That's precisely why we don't grant that they have gracious sacraments, because they've lost the faith. And we're not saying that because we're happy or gleeful. We want them to come back to the faith. Monarchical trinitarianism. And what you're hearing here about Theophanes and the Trinity in the Old Testament
is the Patristic teaching. It is the Orthodox Catholic church's teaching. It's the teaching of the first thousand years. The stuff that Rome now teaches is the deviation, and it should be evident to all for the world to see that the papacy has deviated through the very actions of praying in the synagogues, I mean in synagogues and moss towards Mecca. Well, they're just suiting.
No.
No. In Roman Catholicism, you're not just sinning when you do actions of apostasy, as we saw in Aquinas, those actions cut you off from the Church and our specific serious sins that automatically excommunicate you in traditional Catholic canon law. They're not just random sens. It's not like sleeping with your girlfriend. It's not like cheating at work or something is stealing five dollars of the cash register. Yes, they're all sins, but in Catholicism there are strata and layers
of sins. Some of the sins are so severe they remove you from the mystical body. And as we saw, one of those is heresy and apostasy. Those remove you from the mystical body. In Catholic theology, as we already saw tonight, that's mestichi corporus twenty three insideast conidum nine. Okay, so who's next, tallahassee what's up? Down two to six two dollars? Be careful, Jay, Superman is going to get you.
Sincere hypocrite five months. Mott and Bailey fallacy is that Vatican two says they adorning worship the same God, but then cats tray to cats repeat to well, but Muslims misunderstand that God in worship to make the position seem agreeable. Interesting it could it be a Mott and Bailey fallacy? I think it is, because that's kind of just shifting the meaning of the words, right, Probably, Deacon.
And I'll go ahead. What was the question?
We're we're investigating whether the Vatican to approach of the Roman Catholics might be a Mott and Bailey fallacy. It's a ahatorical tactic where one advances a controversial claim and then when challenge, retreats to a different, modest, easily defensible position of the mott and then pretends that the original claim was never made. I think this is a Mott and Bailey fallacy. That's a really good I think.
That's I think so Father Russell was saying was the stocking horse fallacy. I think it's similar, like you put yourself out there and then you can retreat when the deer or whatever you know in the analogy starts to move and be like, oh no, no, no, I'm behind the.
Yeah.
Yeah, So like if I say, well, they say, look, we all worship one God, right, we all worship a unitary unity in some sense, and it's a creator living and subsisting in himself, as Vatican two says. And then the bailey is the controversial claim that we all worship it, and it's the same reference. And then when you get into the specifics the speaker when challenged on the bailey the difficult part, they retreat to the mott. Well it's the same. But what about where I show that it's
not the same. Well, but it's just the same because we say the word God together.
Yeah.
Yeah, they're definitely doing this, do you.
And all these fallacies, right, do you notice the stemonic.
Yeah, it's a form of lying because.
Yeah, I mean, look what the devil says, Oh, you'll become like God's or like the devil himself is always manipulating and equivocating on the words, right, taking a little bit of the truth, which is actually has a reference and then what.
Does he do?
He switches it and the.
He dissolves.
The boundaries have been like, well, it could mean this and this contact and fix the reference.
Yeah, that's what they're doing. Yeah, they're they're interchanging the definitions of the words depending upon what needs to be argued at the time, and they're shifting. They're shifting between specifics and generic. That's what they're doing. Misty Rain I grew up in Protestant I was raised Protestant. He'd about Orthodoxy. I thought it was Catholicism. I steered clear from it. I broke away from Protestants because of unanswered questions. I
found your videos and knew I was on the right track. Well, yeah, exactly, check out good you know Orthodox Church. I would avoid the Greeks, Saint trifon five dollars Jay, I just joined. Did you see that they're going to do a therapy session. Yeah, I saw this is the They're they're crashing out and so now that the actual issues are out there, they're going to try to come after me personally and do
an exposed video. But like all it is, that's only going to help us they don't even understand that, Like nine percent of the comments.
Are if they won, why are they doing.
This exactly if they're confident and if they won, and this is not but they know it's not. It's a huge optics nightmare, which is why they've spent ever since then just coming after me an FDA non stop midnight light. Why would unbelievers Why should I say to non believers that try to refute the Bible if they haven't read it, Jesus didn't act like that he loves everybody. Well, they have a false conception of Jesus. I mean this idea just like Mormons, right, Mormons, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Messiah and the divine Son of God, the Father. Yeah, but every meaning attached to those terms is not what orthodox Christianity means.
Because false conception of love as well, right, Because if God is love.
That's one of his energies.
Can't not be loved. But then when he says I came to bring the sword right Father against.
Son the second world, well that's not loving, you see.
But like, but God's always love, so that even division right in rebuking and condemnation and judgment and casting out is love. And so not only do they they not have an understanding of like who Christ is, they don't have to understand what love is, right, and so don't ever grant that to people love is not emotional, you know, boomer.
Hippie kind of like, yeah, just be like love is.
Like there's an act of love in actually executing somebody for Yeah.
Well, they think love is an affectation of being nice and agreeable. That's what they think love is. Yeah, and by the way, they're totally dishonest about what I presented in the debate. I did I present the nine different slides of the from the Middle Ages on Islam from the papacy. I didn't present one. And this slide for this example here from the Council of v N. It makes basically the same equivalent point as the very first one from Pope Urban about the status of Islam. Where
did it go? Islam is an infidel religion. Infidels are pagans. Saracens are called pagans, So they're not monotheistic Abrahamic believers. They're pagans. Jack Jack, Oh, okay, can you hear me?
Uh yeah, yeah, I hope you guys are doing well. I kind of missed the drama with all these discussions the past, I don't know, going on for weeks or whatever. But I am a Catholic and I was just interested because my from what what I remember hearing from clergy and whatnot, has always been that the Angel of the Lord is the second person of the Trinity. That, uh, basically every thing.
That you've said, well, some Catholics are better than their the some Catholics are better than their theology. Because most of the academic ones will deny that. But if you're talking to like just you know, a local priest or something like that, he might actually just think from the Bible and the liturgical tradition that it is, because it's
pretty clear in the Bible that it is. I mean, when Justin Marter argues against Trifle the Jew, he argues that your text as a Jew, show the aims of the Lord to be distinct from the Father, and that's the Messiah.
Yeah, I think I actually recall hearing about that.
But the problem is that in the later Roman Catholic medieval discussions from Aquinas and then the responses to Palamas from Barleum define that the light of Tabor is created, and Aquinas explicitly teaches that these are just visions. It's when when Abraham, when jo Jacob's wrestling with the angel Lord. These are visions because God cannot be in time and space because he's not a body, so there's no way for the Lord can't stand there. He's not a body. In fact, that's yeah.
There was something today.
A reading we had today actually for the Peace of Saint Peter and Paul was from Acts right when when Peter is in jail and he has a vision of an angel and he's being guided out of the prison, and it says that Peter thought that this was just a vision and he didn't understand that it was really happening until he was of course on the on a side street in Jerusalem, and he realized that physically happened. So I mean that I don't know if that was the that was Christ, that being that angel of the
Angel of the Lord. I don't think it was, But now.
I think that was just an angel. Usually it was. Usually when it is at the Theophany, it's identified and you'll notice there's a great paype. I would recommend it's not very long because you guys have heard me reference the Benjamin Summer book Bodies of God, which is the Jewish text, the modern scholarly Jewish text that admits multiplicity
in Yahweh, in the Torah and the Old Testament. This is a paper that somebody wrote at a seminar that compares Sommer's analysis of these Theophanes, the Jewish scholar, versus Aquinas's analysis in their Night and Day. And we are saying that the Orthodox tradition is faithfully accurately presenting what the Hebrew tradition is, and the tonistic metaphysic explicitly departs from it.
That's interesting. Do you know if anything in the chemistic philosophy has been dogmatized per se?
I think?
I know, transubstantiation and probably a million other things have been, but has there been anything about the.
Yeah, I mean, I think and whatnot? There are later statements that what you for example, Trent says that what you partake of, and for the Orthodox, the uncreated light is the uncreated grace that we partake of. For for Roman Catholicism, at Trent it is specified that the grace that you partake of is a creature, so it is not an uncreated reality.
Even like like sacramentally being in like the mystery of the Eucharist, like that would be something that would be that's supposedly a creature, that would that's that's the.
Maginst We would argue that Roman Catholicism, because of its divine simplicity doctrine, does not have any explanation for what the divinity is in the Eucharist.
Hm, hm, can you expound on that?
Well, we all agree, we all agree, we all agree that no one partakes of the essence of God. So if you're Roman Catholic and you have a strict Fourth Laddering Council Peter Lombard doctrine of divine simplicity or a Tomistic doctrine divine simplicity as your framework, then you're going to be forced to say that the grace that is itself in the sacrament is a creature. And that's what Lili God says. Lili Gott says, the grace that you get in your soul is a supernatural created accident.
And why do you think Christopher, uh, doctor Christopher Thomas Waswaski said, you don't experience God in the U chorus exactly.
Yeah, yeah, I didn't I don't. I mean, I am not familiar with.
That individual or what.
Well, he's the Thomas professor. He's the Thomas professor.
I'll give him that.
Okay, what was So is it is there like a distinction? I guess, I guess maybe maybe it's.
A semanticable thing.
Is it that you were not?
Well, I guess you are. The eu Christ would be the totality, like the Trinity is president as present right and in the the body blood salon divinity.
Well, I mean not in the same mode. So it is the body and blood and soul and divinity of the Son of God. But the divinity there, according to Saint Cyril and the Council of Ephesus and Orthodox theology, is the uncreated grace, light, and immortality of God, not the essence of God. Cyril has two letters where he talks about those, So that's the essence inerg distinction. And Rome rejects that.
And that's why Christopher said what he said.
He's okay, so he said that you're not you're not receiving that receiving God?
Is that?
Is it not?
For the same reason though that you said that that you're you're not receiving the essence of God. Is there some sort of I'm sure there there is a super philosophical dichot like difference there that I'm not that I'm wollefully uneducated and can't understand.
But we're not that chasing them. Obviously, they want to say that you're in some way and it's contradictory.
The essence of God is actually there because they according to coins, the substance of the essence of God is there, and the substance of bread is removed, and the accidents remain in the accidents that here in nothing rather than the substance, which is contradictory itself.
Well, they're not going to say that you can eat.
The essence of the actual essence.
So they're going to have to say that it's a way of seeing.
You partake or directly experienced God. So he said what he.
Said, it's right here in loud with God. The sanctifying grace that is in your soul from whatever source when you're baptized or the uchus or whatever, is a created, supernatural gift, really distinct from God. So it is not God. But do you notice proposition five. It is a participation in the divine nature those are tradictory statements because there's no such thing as created God.
Yeah, yeah, that's that is interesting.
Okay, yeah, good questions. I appreciate that. We always welcome a civil Roman Catholic calling in DZ the king. What's up, straight white male? Five dollars. Maybe Muslims can actually join Sam Shimmun's Apostolic church exactly the one that he made up v Scott five dollars. They're trying to draw a wedge between you and FDA now, saying if you look at Jay, he was mean, but FDA was nice. All this. Yeah, all they have is this stuff they don't know. They
can't address sexual issues. Orthotoko's ten dollars just one second. Here is a simple one for the Roman Catholic slowboys. The Council Florence says Tranitarians are condemned unless they become Nontrinitarians are condemned lest they convert to papalism. Vatican too, says Muslims worship the true God and should be esteemed. That is a contradiction. Exactly what's up?
Hey man, Thank you for taking my call. So, yeah, I was listening to your conversation. You and father, Deacon with Trent and the gentleman. And I believe it was trying. He was trying to pay you to do a syllogism for your for your argument, and I don't believe you gave one, not that you had to give one at all, but I just took the luxury of making one. And I wanted to just hear your thoughts or receive if you could poke holes in it for me.
I want to before you begin, I want to I want to spell pylogism for you. S I L L y T your O s M I s M. Now go ahead.
I appreciate you Father, thank you.
I have sorry speak Peppi and this Alexia. It's hard. I'm sorry for give those things.
But no, I but I appreciate your father and I everything that you do. I read a lot of your works, Father, and you taught me a whole lot. So yeah, So what I have here is premise one, which is you can't honor the father without honoring the son.
As Jesus clearly says in the in the.
In the description right, and primise too is honor is a necessary component for worship. Honor is a necessary precondition for the possibility to worship, right, like, you can't to do any type of worship without first honoring I think, And Primis three would be Muslims reject honor to the Son, at least in the sense that Jesus demands that you have to honor him, to honor the Father, as we Christians believe. So the conclusion therefore, Muslims don't worship the same God as Christians.
Father Diagan, watch your assessment.
Sorry to you, just repeat that again, sure, father, Primis one, you can't honor the Father without honoring the son. Primis two. Honor is a necessary component of worship.
You can't worship without first given honor. Primist three, Muslims reject honor.
To the Son.
Yes, Muslims don't worship the same God as Christians.
I'm gonna just do this request. Let me just write it out.
Yeah, that seems to be valid, actually, and it includes the belief operator too, so and which would be honor which was the point that I was making with the Berlian stipulation.
Right right.
And I remember you giving one argument, father, and I can't remember what that was on, but I did want to ask I guess one of you guys just before we depart.
I think the only.
Way that a Roman Catholic could poke a hold of this would be premise. Three Muslims reject honor to the son. Maybe they were trying to redefine what honor is or some how make some type.
Of Well, we're just saying worship. I mean, the whole debate is over worship, so why not, right, I mean Muslims do not worship the Sun, So just put it that way.
Okay, awesome A I love you two guys, Thank you, and I appreciate your.
Yeah, straight white male, I know we did that one. Sorry, Laser Turtle Productions ten dollars. I came to a faith by way of AA. Oh, you mean like addiction. I struggle with obsessive compulsion. Matthew eleven twenty eight is holding me by a thread. I respect you deeply. How has Jesus transformed your life? I'd love to hear from you. I mean in a lot of ways. I mean, my whole life has been totally changed, you know from I don't I think, and as you get older and as
you live your life, you don't think about Christianity. I'm not saying you're doing this, but you don't really think of it as like one thing or one big event. I mean, there may be a Pauline event in your life where you have the scales you know, fall off or whatever. But I think as you get older, you just see it as something that you, you know, kind of gradually takes over your life, you know what I mean. I think that's the point is to grow in it. Come to me, all you labor here heavy laden, and
I will give you rest. Yeah, I've definitely seen that to be true. Orthozowski two dollars again, one John two twenty three. Yes, we just we mentioned it earlier. I don't see how that's not a kill shot. I think Jesus and the Pharisees and one John two are pretty much the kill shots. Because you notice when I brought them up, they turned their eyes. They wouldn't even look at the screen. And to me, that says more than if they had at least tried to give some kind
of sophistical answer. But they turned away because if you deny the son, you don't have the father. Muslims deny the son, therefore they don't have the father, Therefore they.
Don't When they asked me question, Mike, well, I'm not going to answer that.
If I said anything like remotely like or acted in any way remotely like the way they acted, the all Roman Catholics would be going crazy. It would be the end of the world. They would be like, he's done, his career is over, he's you know, Saint trif On five dollars, jay I just joined. Did you see that they're having a therapy. Yeah, we said. The Orbo mental breakdown is because you asked william debate. Williams are running for six years and Orbs are deceiving people on the camera.
The Gatholics can cry together coptic brow three dollars. Great work, Father Antonius. You held down the rest of the debate. Certified soy boys that admitted that communion and the liturgy is not an empirical experience of God. Well they're Thomas, so God isn't in time and space? Is how silly? This says the grace and the things that are in time and space in the Thomas system are creatures. The soy deflected to transubstantiation. Strong Man Soyman admits Roman Catholic
God is an Orthodox God. Yeah, it's not. Tun one hundred and fifty dollars well, thank you, Jacob. You is a huge super chat. Try upping your persuasiveness in your augmentation to the room acalacs by smacking a bunch of apples and then smash them into your mouth with your boxing gloves. Also, I need to let some flies room loose in the room because of it head flies landing on his head. I just noticed later on as people were talking about laughing about it. Also, I'm a website member,
I can't get access to the member's stuff. All you gotta do is come over here to the website. It's probably so simple that it's boomer level stuff. Literally, everything when you're logged in is just on the member content page right here. So when you're logged in, you go here, you scroll down and it's all on one page, and you click the links to the audios or whatever. So it's all one page. And want to remind you guys too if you want to go ahead and get pre orders.
Esote collag With three will be out in the next few weeks. Don't have an exact date yet, but it will be in July, so sometime next month. All of our products are here, but sign copies of every book. Esoteric Hollywood three the completion to the trilogy. Nine almost ten years of Esoter Hollywood, so this will probably be the end of the trilogy. If I get a wild hair down the road, I might write about movies again.
We'll see what I feel like going. But this is, probably, at least for the nearer future, the conclusion to the trilogy. So if you want to get your signed copies, go ahead and click the link in the show description and head on over there and get your name in for so Soteric Hollywood three. But remember it is still a few weeks out, so don't message me complaining in the
next few weeks. Where's my books? Also, if you order parts one, two and three, or anything together with three, it will not be shipped until three comes out, So don't order one in two and three and then be like, where's one in two? It's all going to come together. I cannot go through hundreds of orders and sift out individually doing separate orders for the people that want their part twos. That you'll just have to get it all. It's just way too much, just a nightmare the way
we can do that. So you'll just have to wait a little bit longer. But thank you. T FONK and hopefully that helps you if you just log in, everything is literally just under this tab. This as member content. Let's see if you guys also have going to donate as well to FDA, so the super chess will also help FDA. And I apologize for not having the website
to updated in a couple of days. We've just been so covered up with a debate, so I should get this all updated very quickly, and we will soon return to finishing the geopolitical text by Blumenthal Management of Savagery. That's going to be complete very soon, and that will be our next geopolitical discussion. And I forget what we're doing after that, but it's going to be funny the way. So follow me also on AC if you don't follow me there. But yes, all books from the website are signed, guys,
you don't have to request it. They're automatically going to come sign. That's the whole reason to get into the website, and not some Jeff bezos heils from nine x ten dollars. Are you actually losing sleep over any of those losing sleep?
No?
But after the debate, I had had so much coffee, you know, was so ramped up exactly what happened. Yeah, just like father Deacon, Like we were both having coffee.
I typically don't drink unlike Jay, who would drink coffee until like, oh, I drink it all day long. Yeah. I typically won't drink coffee past like three, but I think I drank some coffee till like five.
And uh, you know, you're just.
You're intellectually charged and you're thinking through arguments and you're on the caffeine that like immediately after the debate, like you try to go to bed, like your mind doesn't shut off.
Yeah, your mind doesn't shut off. My mind didn't shut off until about four in the morning. So and I had a lot of espress. So yeah, exactly, I mean for real, Uh, Hailstrom says, just keep doing what you're doing, homeboy. A good chunk of why myself and many others will be converting to Orthodoxy. My family's baptism is July sixth, Well many years man, that's awesome. It's raining steak five dollars. Remember, like I said to you guys, like we had a tradecat,
just show up today at liturgy. He's like, yeah, I'm done with the trade cat.
So we had two Mormons show up that converts really Mormonism into Orthodoxy day from Mino.
Oh nice, so like recent converts that they've been Orthodox for a while.
No, like within the last year. Yeah, and they were talking you know, I didn't interject, like when they were talking to Father Russell, but like they were talking about all the stuff they left Mormonism over the stuff that we were actually talking about.
And yeah, this is a bunch of nonsense people saying that debates don't do anything, and nobody gets convinced by debates. I meet people every day that get convinced by debates. So that's just simply not true. Some people don't like debates, and that's fine, you don't have to. But many, many, many people do like debates. It's raining stake five dollars. The largest Christian nomination is this far gone to of the Roman Catholics. It's truly scary if you think about it.
It is this is the power of the ecumenist movement, and it's the unfortunate nature of this sort of Masonic a humanist, perennialist idea. The current state of things make sense. Thus with this, it's really all theology and philosophy at the beginning of it and end of it, isn't it. Yeah, Ultimately it's our paradigms and our commitments, you know, Harry Sarpanos five dollars. The Theophanies nail all this. Thank you
Jay for exposing these heretics. Yeah. I think ultimately, if we get into these biblical texts, that's the end of it. I mean, look at number twelve, right, and then Yahweh came down in the pillar of the cloud and stood at the door of the tabernacle, hm suko two dollars. Did you see Lofton's response to the Pope's letter? I know, I haven't. I don't even know what the Pope's letter is. What's I haven't kept up with Leo. I have no idea what what's going on with Leo?
What?
What's Leo's letter? And I don't watch Michael Lofton, so I don't know. I haven't looked at a Michael Lofton video probably five years, So I've no idea what even talks about Pope leo letter? What's his letter about? An emotional letter to.
Is this.
New or old to Jews? Is this it? Two days ago? Leo's letter to all priests for Tell me now, I want to know what the letter is. Which letter? There's a bunch of things coming up. I don't know which one it is.
Me.
Look, o J what's your opinion? What is your opinion? Ten dollars on be In? I think he's got mental problems. I would stay away, don oc two to six. Two dollars. Careful, Jay, Superman's gonna get you up. Howdy. Five dollars give me a tld R on schismatic Orthodox. It's not even worth your time, man, It's just like twenty people on the internet. It's not It's not even worth it. Greg the Brion ten dollars, Thank you, gentlemen for this great stream. We
got some more callers here. Somebody tell me what the law the LEO letter is now. I want to know what this is. I'm not gonna sit here and read all of pots.
I'm gonna bounce, man, Why.
Are you bouncing?
Now?
We are bout it. It's probably gonna get crazy. Now, you gotta go. If you gotta go, you gotta go. It's fine. We'll see dude. Just do one or two more. I'll send you some money. Samurai, what's up?
Let's do a couple more.
Okay, Samurai, what's up? I'm you.
All right?
We lost him, tag Ormond. We're looking for people, by the way, who disagree, So I'm gonna go. You get to the front of line if you disagree. What's up?
Man?
I still want to know what the letter is?
All right?
These people, tad, I'm me it.
What's up?
All right? Moving on? It's all the same people that always call in. I'm looking guys. I looking for people who disagree. So raise your end. If you disagree, I'll go to you. Zoom Kant, I'm trying to go to you. Go ahead, and I'm you hey, man, can you hear me?
All right?
First of all, thank you for taking my call. So I'm still kind of halfway in when it comes to like Catholicism. But before we get into it, I would just like to clear up an analogy because I think this is a very dangerous analogy and if it was very hopeful when it comes to my debate background when it comes to these things.
Because you have to study it.
First of all, you disagree with the cal L. Clark Kenton Superman analogy.
Correct or No? Yeah? For multiple reasons.
I do.
Yeah, I think I'm gonna try and what do you call?
This?
Package up everything to a more comprehensive way, because what they were doing, even though I slowly go into the Catholic site, is very problematic, right, and I think it's very ubiquitous to every Catholic who watch that and why they voted for you as the winner. Right, So, as possible, I'd like to provide this very short clearing of the analogy.
Would that be okay?
Sure?
Because the problem is they presented a false twin fallacy.
Right.
The problem here is that they say Clark Kent is kal El. Superman is Kalel the Muslim see Superman and we see Clark Kent.
I think if you actually will, if they presented that to you, you instantly can't come up with a rebuttal.
But I think you should have agreed with them and slammed them from the very beginning there, because what they're presenting is they're presenting this analogy even though what they're presenting in reality is a false twin dichotomy. Because if you actually ask Clark Kent, hey, Clark Kent, do you believe that killing your enemies is actually will actually solve the problem Clark Kent would say, no, I don't believe
in killing my enemies. And if you ask Superman, hey, Superman, do you believe in killing your enemies, and that it would actually solve the problem. Superman would then say, no, I don't believe in killing my enemies because when you what you unders need to understand here is God. God has two identifiers, external identifiers being there.
He is the God of Moses.
He is the God of Abraham, and he has internal identifiers, identifiers that indicate that it is him, even though you don't know it's the God of Moses. That is Jesus telling love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, do good to those who do evil, to right. So that's the internal and the external. What they're presenting is
a false twin dichotomy. I know it's a false twin fallacy, wherein they say you have a twin here, Twin A is the good person, Twin B is the twin of twin A. Twin B looks like twin A. But here's the problem. If you date twin B, if you make a child with twin B, even though you love twin A, you're still making a child with Twin B. If you ask Twin B if his principles are the same as
Twin A, it will not be the same. They completely externalize the identifier of God by removing the internal identifier of God, which completely.
Doesn'mates every single principle that the.
Catholic Roman Catholic stands for.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Can you be more specific on what you mean by an internal identifier because you use like Jesus talking about loving your enemies and I'm trying to understand what you mean there.
So basically what the Church teaches is what I'm trying to say, the values and principle that the Church teaches, which completely goes against the doctrine of Islam.
So you're saying that in identifying who the God is, you can't divorce it from the ethics of the God. Is everything is?
Yes?
Yes, what the God teaches you to do with the God?
Yes? In fact, yeah, I was I would. I was agreeing with that same idea when I was saying that it's more like a set theory where what you believe about the deity is like a set of numbers. I'm just making an analogy here. So let's say I have a set with ten numbers in it. If I remove one of those numbers, even though a lot of the other numbers are similar, it's still a different set. So
it's mutually exclusive. So you're correct if you say that I worship love and adore the God of Abraham, but I believe that the God of Abraham tells me to kill my enemies, and he creates evil as an actual ontological thing.
And he's deceive and.
He deceives, he's the best of deceivers. Then clearly that is not the same reference as Abraham's got in reality.
You know what the other problem is too, is that when you construct a fictional story, you put yourself in an omnission mood.
Oh, that's a great point, and that's the thing in question is.
Yeah, it's like we're on the other side, right, and we're trying to determine we don't know, right, We can't actually see that. So there, they've already begged the question. Assume what they wanted to prove that the same deity. They can just be wrong, but it's question, right, So what do they do? Well, let me create a fictional narrative about a man named Superman, which this case actually works. It's like, how ridiculous is that?
Again? I think that my Bill Cosby analogy is the one that's accurate saying the way the Bible is presenting the false gods. Go ahead, what's up? Man Cyrus? All right? He can't, he can't connect, But thank you for the dick and I agree that was That's exactly what we were getting at. Tracts. What's up? Tracts? And then Dylan, go ahead, Dylan, I'm you, h Dylan, do you want to talk? Owen Owen, I'm you.
Hey, Guys, I have a disagreement. Okay, I'm presenting it on the behalf of someone who's not willing to come on the show.
A friend of mine.
I'm an Orthodox catechumen, and I have a friend who made the bold claim which I disagree with.
He made the bold.
Claim that epistem propositional knowing is not relevant and can be discarded within the Orthodox framework. And I wanted to know what's the best way to tackle that proposition?
Well, I mean, why would Saint Gregory Palamus write the Apodictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit using apidictic logic of Aristotle to argue against the Phillyoquey, if conceptual knowledge was to be discarded. I mean, all of the dogmas in the Orthodox Councils are listed and explained conceptually. So the idea that concepts are bad is silly. They're just not the highest of what we are aiming for and shooting
for as Orthodox Christians. We want direct experience to participation in God, not just knowing about God, but knowing.
About proper order. It doesn't mean that second and third things are bad, right, So people cam nuances and so they're just like, oh, the most important thing is it's this or nothing right, So it's just intellectual and spiritual laziness. Also, I want to bring up too, because I saw this so many minute criticism me that oh, well, the father deacon Nys was used in twentieth century analytic philosophy to
answer his people and stuff like that. Don't forget that Saint Gregory, the theologian, Saint Gregory Nazis received the same criticism, yeah, and that he was like, oh, that he was talking to philosophers and using their language and he was learned in philosophy. He was receiving the same criticism, and he responded back when speaking to philosophers speak in a way that you can win you know, speak philosophies basically philosopher over.
So there's no canons to say I can't use twentieth century analytic philosophy to speak to analytic philosophers that they might win them over to the truth. And so there's something similar with that too, like obviously with this, you know, and the gospel reading today was literally from Matthews, seek first the Kingdom of God. So it's about priorities, like we don't put intellectualization philosophy first, but like, don't be so immature in childlike to be like, well, you know,
it's either this or nothing. It's like it has the place. This is the third and fourth place, and you speak to people in a language they they can understand, right, and everybody is saying Demetro's Standale says that you know, every philosopher might get something wrong and so far as they hit the truth right.
So I just feel like it's spiritual.
And intellectual laziness to be like, well, there's no it's I'm either or like you've got to disregard this.
And also it's also it's it's important, it's party signaling. It's insecurity, and it's also christologically wrong because Jesus didn't reject having a rational mind. In fact, he assumed a rational human mind, and every rational human mind has concepts. So the idea of tossing out conceptual knowledge because it's not the highest knowledge is just kind of silly. Han, what's up, I'm your.
Hi Jay?
Hey, thanks for having me on.
I've really been enjoying listening to your analysis of Yahweh and Abraham. So I wanted to kind of go a little further into that and try to try to understand the trinity from your perspective, and uh that the trinity is basically defined as three persons in one being or one one God. I want to understand what is your definition of person? And this is leading to something. What is your definition of person?
An orthodox Christian theology? A person is a subject or an agent?
A subject or an agent? Okay?
Does does a person have their.
Subject or agent has in essence? It has properties? So even grammatically speaking, like all predicates belong to a subject.
Okay.
So in your theology, does a person have their own mind?
A person has a mind. Yes, a person has a mind.
So are there anything Are there any persons that do not have their own mind? No, no, okay, is a business legally a person?
No?
Well, legally they might be treated as but they are not ontologically a person.
Okay, they're they're legally a person, but not ontologically a person, okay. Is so I guess that the question is then, is how many divine minds are in the trinity?
One one?
Now, if there are three persons and a person has their own mind, how does that work with being one mind in the trinity?
Because that one mind exists in a different mode between the persons. So each person has that one mind uniquely in the mode of being the son, of being the Father, and being the spirit, just like the will of God is one that exists in the mode of the three persons that have it. So properties of nature like mind and will are common, but exist in a unique mode.
And also, I would say too, unlike us, our persons are contingent upon and determined by Like we don't have a personhood apart from our material instantiation of our essence of humanity. So that's why we have separate minds. So in philosophy, and although we can share a common essence, the principle of individuation is separation is a material instantiation.
But because the trinity exists prior to that, obviously the second person's incarnation, right, mind is a property of the nature, the essence of God, and exists in a unique mode each person. They can all share one mind without actually being distinct like us.
Does it make sense?
Do you realize what you're doing is equivocating?
No, because if if there's three persons in the trinity, a person has their own mind, then there's three minds.
In the trinity.
I just said, do not equate.
I give the principle that separates equivocation between created person's immateial and stantiations.
Versus persons in the trinity.
So you can't use the objection of equivocation with me. I literally knew you were going to go that way and block that by actually bringing up that point. So like, no, the principle of individuation is matter, right, So not personhood, I said, with our personhoods, because our essence or individuated and matter, it separates, but that persons whould exist transcendent in the trinity to matter. So no, you can't use that objection. I'm sorry.
Okay, So see I want to make this point because this is distinctly what separates your theology of the Trinity with the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.
Okay, let's uh, let's talk about that, because.
We give each of these persons their own mind. Okay, no, but no, where.
I want to But but this, none, none of this matters because for you, God is a man who's a creature who evolved to become God. So this is preposterous. You're with and again, does your does your church teach that God the Father is a man with a body who evolved to become God.
This is about mine.
So you're not going to talk about are.
You familiar with it? You're ignoring that.
He's not going to answer it. If you don't answer questions, then you get dude.
Matter versus prior to matter, and your whole theology is based on matter man becoming God. So you're never going to win this argument. Congratulations.
I already booted him because he won't answer the question. Tracks that travel I was kicked out of the Twitter space. I didn't kick you out. I want to talk about the seventy weeks of Daniel prophecy. I mean, I'm a preterist in that text, so it was fulfilled at the first advent, as the text clearly says banana team for three dollars. Jay, I wasn't saying it was Leo's letter. I was saying, Michael Luften did a response to you, the papal bull that you brought up in the debate.
He says, it's not magisterial. I mean, they always say it's not magisterial, So I mean, but that begs the question, doesn't it. What is the criteria to know when it isn't isn't magisterial and they don't know. They can't tell you, soap drinker, So raise your red if you disagree, I'm going to people who disagree. And if you won't answer questions that are erect questions like that. Notice we answered
his direct questions, every one of them. As soon as I asked him about God the Father being a man with a body who evolved and who is a creature, he ignored it twice. So so yeah, so what's up?
Oh, thank you for letting me on. I'm just here because.
Sadly after or you actually said that we shouldn't be listening to Sam anymore because he is like like he's you know, Iffy, And there is something that he said that I thought was really.
I think that was very important. He said that, like, so if you if somebody does like something.
Bad to you, you don't have to.
Forgive them unless they ask for forgiveness.
Is that true?
Because this is no can I skip and j So this is what my Montanica therapy workshop was with Father Turbo. What forgiveness is. So forgiveness isn't no not you're sorry. It doesn't do anything to the person, so the person doesn't have to actually be sorry. Forgiveness is a release from the captivity of the memory of the past. So what forgiveness really does, just like any release from sin, is released you from captivity. So it doesn't mean don't you know, ignore or forget don't remember.
You remember it, but you're not.
Held captive by that. You release yourself right, because it's all about theosis, right and acquiring the virtues. So whether somebody actually wants they're sorry, what's forgiveness? You can forgive somebody because forgiveness is about actually your ontological in terms of your state of your character and virtues, releasing you from what would hold you captive from progressing suits that you say, I released myself from the memory of that.
I still remember it, but I'm not being held captive by it.
Yeah, you could forgive people even if they don't add ask for uh, you know, forgiveness, because you want to do that. That's going to be in the best interest for you, not just for your salvation, but also as far as you can stand so you're not imprisoned to you know, resentment and hatred. So you forgive them so that you can be free. But that doesn't mean that you let people walk all over you. You do not have to keep interacting with somebody who is abusing their boundaries.
You can cut somebody off. You're just no longer held captive by this. Every sin is holding you captive, right, So that's why the unforgivable sin is unforgived, like the unwillingness to to repent us and forgiveness and all of this wrapped up its captivity is what it is. It's like, you will you can't progress to become like God if you're held captive by So we forgive others even as God forgives us, and if we don't, will be held captive and judged by the same standard, because that's who
we are. So it's not that God sentences us. It's literally just an ontological declaration that like, you're held captive, and you're not like me, because I'm free from captivity and then released myself from from a hold captive of anything, whether distractions, any sins or passions. And that's what forgives. That's why we forgive.
Brax and bull at five dollars a day. Explaining to Ezekil thirty seven, it's brought up by dispensationalists. Yeah, I mean, there's nothing about this that is literally about like modern Palestine, nation, state of Israel. This is talking about the Theophany. By the way, it's the presence of the Holy Spirit here in the Old Testaments, I know it is the third
person here. It's a triadic passage. We have the Father here or Yahweh here, and we have his spirit coming upon the valley of the dry bones, and the prophecy that these will all be resurrected. So in the teaching of the church fathers, this is usually applied to different things. It's an application to baptism and being raised spiritually from the dead. It is also a prophecy of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecosts upon those who will be empowered to go forth. I will put my spirit
in you, and you will live. And it is also a prediction of the end of the world, the final day resurrection, when we will all be resurrected to glory and vindicated in the Kingdom. And thus that one kingdom is the Church of God. So dispensationalists will make all this apply to some nonsense. We're in the nation state of Israel right now. When the promise of a singular united kingdom, the two sticks here that will not be parted.
They will never be divided into two kingdoms. And God says I will be the king, their king, and they will be my people. David, my servant, will reign over them. That's Jesus. Jesus is the David servant that will be the prince of this kingdom. The Tabernacle that is forever with us. All of this is interpreted in the Book of Acts to be the first Advent and to be Pentecost. Is it always get this mixed up because it's talking about the Tabernacle of David, which is Acts fifteen sixty.
Excuse me, so when Peter starts preaching about the same promises and the same expectation of this uniting of the kingdom as chatologically, it's not the end of the world. Ultimately, it is the first Advent, when Jesus brought the end of days, brought the rebuilding of the Tabernacle, which is the resurrection of Jesus's own body. Jesus's physical body is the Tabernacle of David that's restored. The Church is the Kingdom, which is the true union, which will never be divided.
That's what Ezekil thirty seven is about. It's the first Advent, and it's Pentecost, but it does look forward to a bodily resurrection in the eschatological final Kingdom, where Jesus is in all and through all. As Paul says in Corinthians, I raise your id. You disagree, and I'll go to you. I want to go to people that disagree first. And by the way, if you're like the Mormon dude, and we answer all your questions and then you ignore our
questions twice, you'll get rid of anybody disagree. Raziam. We got twelve people on line what's up, Ragiam. Dylan disagrees. What's up, Dylan, I'm your.
Hello, Yeah, how's it going.
I I sent that chat in earlier.
Oh c b aa whatever laser turtle there.
But yeah, my my way to faith has been unorthodox and kind of that sense of the word, but from like a material logical standpoint in terms of being saved and salvation and everything. You know, I found a kind of theological dead end.
In uh a A.
I'm not sure to what except you're familiar with that, but it's kind of a non religious path to God, which.
Yes, we did a one podcast and I'm familiar with the basics.
Yeah, and you know, but there's there's kind of a dead end to it. And the more I've kind of researched and read.
Into some of the.
Early kind of church and that all that sort of stuff, being that it can be borderline gnosticism and it's not long term fulfilling and I'm just like constantly searching grasps.
Okay, well, I mean I would say, check out an orthodox church. I appreciate you coming on. That's not really a disagreement though, so I'm looking for who disagree, Yeah, just check out a look at Orthodox Church, Trey, Matthew First, Praezer, Caleb Slinger to any of all disagree, raise your hand, We'll go to you. Nobody disagrees, mister White, do you disagree? Trey disagrees?
What's up?
Hello?
Okay?
Can you hear me?
Hey man? What's up?
One at a time? Mister White? First? Go ahead, mister White.
Oh hi, hello? Yeah? What's up?
All right? Moving on wasting our time in the beginning tray, what's up?
Hello?
Yah? Yeah? What's up?
Now?
I'm just inquiring into both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I saw the debate.
I guess I'm going to try and see if.
I can kind of, in my own mind just kind of steal me in the Catholic position. I've been listening, you know, to what you've been saying. So hope we don't bring up something that you've kind of been, you know, listening.
While I'm on a walk.
Okay, But wouldn't wouldn't the position it would kind of relate back into what was that kind of baptism with desire, wouldn't it? Like I understand that like they could be relating to like I love Clark Kent and then like you're saying, I love Clark Kent too, but you think Clark Kent is the actual Superman.
But then I know this analogy doesn't This analogy doesn't work because Islam is not I wasn't I.
Wasn't gonna repeat their analogy. I was gonna I have a different one. So what I just said it backwards. Sorry. What I was saying is that we're both saying that we love Superman. You think Clark Kent is Superman, but I think this random baby is Superman. So our reference is actually different, even though we think it is the same. But would that not be covered under the baptism of desire kind of kind of thought?
How is the baptism of desire which is based around invincible ignorance or right?
That's what I mean?
Like, like, if you are choosing the good.
Again, the Muslim possession is not ignorance. It is predicated on an explicit rejection of the Trinity and the deed of Christ. Mm hmmm, So it's not the invincible ignorance position.
Okay, Okay, And so you because I grew up Protestant, and so you grew in a Protestant, did you have the similar experience where like you kind of just didn't even know what orthodoxy was.
You know, and so how could you know?
What do you mean?
You know what I mean?
Well, because you know there's the whole thing of ecclesium. You know, there's no salvation outside the church, and so but what if you just don't know it even exst But I.
Mean that, But that's different from pointing to the dogmatic contradiction. So I might agree with a Roman Catholic that there's such a thing as baptism and desire, and their Eastern church fathers talk about that, and they talk about baptism of blood, et cetera. But that's different from saying, okay, but Muslims, Christians, and Jews therefore worship the same God. You can't get from invincible ignorance and baptism and desire too, we all worship the same God when Islam is predicated
on specifically rejecting it. So it's no longer about they've rejected, the desire's gone, Like they're saying, I don't desire that God. That's Islam. And that's the false equivalence that Muslims that Roman Catholics are saying, is like, well, what's wrong with about desire, And I mean, I'm not making fun of you, but like many of them have made the same kind
of line of argument. It's like that would work if you wanted to make if you if you restricted your argument to invincibly ignorant pagans, maybe you can make an argument there if you're for the Roman Catholic position. But this is a Muslim, which is a religion predicated on explicitly rejecting the Trinity.
Jake, I was just so wondering about what it seems like, like why do you like like brush off the true Orthodoxy people? I Protestants just like to use that as a talking point. It would seem good for you to properly address and the people address.
It's been addressed by David uh Ahon years ago. And I don't have to redo all the stuff that David addressed.
We could do it really years ago. Like Orthodoxy includes uh uh sy right, Like you can't. Well they said that they.
Have, Well they said that, but their synod was basically two people in Europe, so one of him was dead. What's up, Singer.
They're not recognized by any legitimate Orthodox right, so you can't whatever problems are going to the church. You can't skuz him and be like, well, and again it's a very Western problem to make everything abstract and be like, well, see, I have the true faith and propositional form, and I'll split out from the incarnational community of the Orthodox Church. And it's yeah, which.
Is exactly Kyle ten dollars. Why does Romanthosism do this to people? Cameron seem reasonable before he was Roman Catholic. Now he's defending all this nonsense. Well, I mean, you guys are overlooking the possibility that some people were just grifters. Sam went from saying that Muslims worship demons to saying that now Muslim's worse of the true God. Well, I mean he's buying into May's the way He's got a defend it, right, and again, maybe all they're all grifters.
Who knows? Michelo j Five dollars Do I have to read? That's what they're Collagwood one to read three? No, uh, Mercado five. They they're independent books. They're just different films and different structures of which films are analyzed by themes. Mercado five dollars. Thank you for helping an ignorant Protestant find the true faith. Is an absurd amount of infighting that you get from these papists or ship fight. Yeah,
they're it's it's unfortunate. I actually feel sorry for the Roman Colo's had to remind myself of this today at church is like, you know, I remembered what it's like being a miserable trad cat and that's where all these people are. Suko ten dollars.
Sorry.
The YouTube autocracked is crazy. I was trying to say, Michael Lofton made a response to your claims about the Pope and the first Crusade. I'm not I don't really care what Lofton does. Honestly, Guys like like I was saying, I'm always going to be doing open for him. So anybody who wants to call in if their Catholic, can do that. But there's no more public Roman Catholics that
are worth debating. Somebody said we need debate Matditics. I've been asking Jerry to debate for like seven or eight years, and he always puts it off. I might still do the Tim Gordon one, because I've already said I would do it if we find a big platform that will not be obviously, I'll never go on Cameron's channel again. So if we find a big platform, I'll do the
formal debate with him. But I mean, I mean, there's just no These were supposed to be the two top tier philosopher professor Roman Catholics, and so then everybody else is like, yoga, what about this other guy? Well, why would I go a tier down? Those are supposed to be the top tier.
So and that's what Cameron did. He brought what he thought was gonna be.
Yeah, Cameron thought he was bring in the top tier. And I mean so like, it's just like when the Muslim the Muslims did this. You didn't debate the real Muslim, the real apologists. You're scared of Shaik so and so, who you've never heard of, by the way, you're scared of the hidden Hi Mom. You won't debate him. It's like the no true emom fallacy, Like you can't you haven't debated the real Muslim. It's and then when you debate all the Muslims, it's like there's nobody else to debate.
I tried to get Muhammed a job to do it, and he wouldn't do it. So I wasn't I didn't have enough clout sos. Same in the Roman Catholic world, there's not anyone else there. There's nobody else left. People are saying Ruslan, No, in the Roman Catholic world, there's no more Roman Catholic public apologists. That's why I'm saying I don't need to debate any public Roman Catholics anymore because there aren't any. They're done, like, there's not another one to do. Voice of reasons not going to do it.
And we saw their top two be basically childish crashouts, so we're done. Like that's the final boss defeated. Dude, I don't have to play Zelda all over again. Already beginning, I'm being silly, But let's talk. Got ten dollars Pope Leo the fourteenth and Jelous address June twenty June ninth, twenty twenty five. We can speak of acumenism of blood that is unseen and profound, a unity amongst Christian Church is not yet full and visible. Yeah, I mean that's
just standard ecumenism. Laser Turtle production two dollars. I was away from your desk, Dylan in the Twitter chat. Okay, well, if you're disagreeing, you'll go to the front not Alan rogers five dollars on a scale of acumenism one that zero to ten, would you place the idea of salvation quote outside the church? Well, the phrase is ambiguous because do you mean just out of the visible confines?
No?
I mean yes, in the sense that God might join people to the mystical body in ways that are extra normative, which we don't see or have access to, Hence things like baptism of desire or baptism of blood, this kind of a thing. But that doesn't mean that we then necessarily affirm all the Protestants and Roman Catholics have gracious sacraments. We would not say that. Howdy, five dollars, can you gray the Brian? Thank you for this stream, gentlemen. Ten dollars.
Is Rodriguez jam orthodox? I know you're looking for. Really disagree. I disagree on the Theophany and Genesis eighteen.
Oh my gosh, heykaank you yeah, thanks so much.
Man to here, everybody to bless you guys.
Okay, well, now that I got to a super chet, Israel is going so I don't see Israel Rodriguez anymore. So sorry, I just saw your super chet, but you're already going Joe Mama one two three A question, what do you think critics of tag like Malpass get wrong about the argument that'd be a better one for FDA because he's kept up with reading Malpass and I haven't, So he's seen more of Malpass's like recent critiques, So I don't know what he's been arguing in the last
couple of years about it. So not Alan, No, we did that, demon Clatt two dollars? Why did you block me? Why are you salty? I called you a pussy. Stop acting like a pussy. That's why I blocked you. I didn't block Apostate Profit because I'm a pussy because I wanted to do the debate. I blocked him because he kept commenting and getting on my nerves. And you're just wasting your money because any more super chats like I just won't I'll just refund them. It's like I'm calling
you a pussy. Why do you not want to talk to me?
Like?
Why do you think Matthew Logan, Matthew, I'm you guys.
Do a hit?
I can share? Uh, where are we at over here? I don't understand, Like do you not want to talk. People call in and they just sit there or doesn't it doesn't connect. I don't know, Slinger. I'm mut.
Hello, can you hear me? Okay? I had a question.
I'm inquiring about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and I heard you say before that at the beginning, basically everyone's in the same boat trying to figure out But it's just the means you could use to try and get to the truth, right, Basically, that's kind of what you said.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe I said something like this one time.
Basically, when you're trying to figure out what's true at the beginning, all three people are in the same boat. Oh yeah, at the end of the day, you have to use you know, you have.
To Yeah, you're you're relying on the Holy Spirit to be you know, convinced as an individual. Yeah, I got you know, Okay.
I wanted to give you my reasons why I'm considering Orthodoxy to be true, and if you think they're good reasons or not, or if it's it's like just not good reasons.
One of them is kind of the exclusivity of it.
How like everyone will say your guys' is sacraments are valid, but you guys, you guys.
Say no one else's are.
It's kind of like, I actually think you're onto something here, because if we want to compare this attitude to the Church's attitude in the first millennium and how they spoke about itself, only the Orthodox continue that attitude. So I think you're on the right track of looking for markers and indicators of the true Church, one of which would be consistency of confession and ideology about itself.
Right.
And just to give you my background, I grew up Pentecostal, huh.
And the whole.
Thing was it was all just about like singing warship songs.
Emotionally something, Yeah, that's the Holy Spirit, right, emotions.
Yeah, and your.
Whole thing where knowledge, you know, the Holy Spirit to use knowledge and research and all these other things.
Just looking at the exclusivity.
And then another thing is this, let me know if you think this is a bad reason to consider it when you just consider that everyone says your guys's sacraments is okay, No one says you guys are heretics.
I kind of got over the icons.
Because I actually went to an Orthodox church with my friend.
I went twice and.
I see an icon on the wall, and it was people venerating the cross. I believe in the early three hundreds. Do you know what I'm talking about? So the whole idea what I heard when I first started asking questions, Well, well they didn't venerate icons to like the year eight hundred, but that pushed it forward like five hundred years basically. And I want to know if you think this is
a good argument. From what I understand, the councils happened to refute people who are disagreeing with something important.
Correct, and something that's usually been clearly done already for a long time.
Right.
So another the thing I the logic.
I used to get over the icons. I want you to know if you think this is a good logic or not. Constantinople. I've read the first three councils.
I'm waiting to read the rest.
Good Constantinople is to confirm.
The deity of the Holy Spirit, and that's in three eighty one, right.
Correct, Well that's part of the council. Yeah, I mean it condemns a pollinarianism. It uh adds to the nice and creed, So it does many things, because.
Okay, but my point is everyone knew the Holy Spirit was God for three hundred and fifty years, but it wasn't one hundred percent confirmed until someone disagreed with it.
Correct, you get what I'm saying.
Yeah, Counsels meet to usually address heresies that are growing, right right.
So then that kind of made me realize, well, maybe icons were a thing the whole time, but like no one cared to beat them until.
Well, there were some early there were earlier disputes and people who disagreed about imagery throughout the centuries, but it doesn't seem to become a major issue until the time of the Seventh Council due to, for whatever reasons, originist influence amongst a lot of monastics. So this for some reason, and this is Mayandorf covers this in his book, This got a lot of them the monks thinking that on the basis of Neoplatonic ideas, all of these images should
be done away with except for the Eucharists. Or what if for whatever reason they thought the Eucharist was like the one that should remain. But I would say check out the documentary on an orthodoxy Hata on Old Testament Christian worship being the same, and then that will also
help with that whole dispute Israel. Oh, by the way, before you get on Israel, I want to add that I think that you could make an argument along the same lines as that guy that if the Seventh Ecumenical Council has an anathema service, and that's kind of the expectation that the church will continue this anathema service, there's literally only one church in the world that still does
the anathema service, and that's Orthodox. That's kind of another way, kind of like iconography and the decree of the Seventh Council. In icons like Rome doesn't follow this anymore. They don't really They give verbal credence to the Seventh Council, they don't actually follow it other than just giving lip service to images. But there's a lot more in the Seventh
Council of just lip service to images. So when you read the Seventh Council and when you read the Synauticon, which is the eight forty three reaffirmation of the Seventh Council, like this service is normative for identifying the true church, you could argue and if no other churches do it, then there's no other church that is the same church of the eighth and ninth, seventheth and ninth century church. Do you know what I'm talking about?
No, I don't take shit.
I got no love for the free beast.
If you want to play tough, I want to hate this and I don't never slow up. No, I don't take shit. I got no love for the bapist.
If you want to play tough.
And want to hate this, I know we're showing up the biggest statement.
I don't never stole up. No, I don't take shit. I got no love for the bapist.
If you want to play tough and want to hate this.
Athough, we're showing up the bigges statement.
Everything I do so instinctive and so passionate. Every word I'm moved so descriptive, like in natistive. I got a vandetta against people who've gotten it being negative when you should be getting after it. I got facts over facts over traxs, and that's being so speaking fast. I can roast, I can guess think I'm okaying least, but I don't know if that can erase all the now.
Uh.
The reason I'll play that is not that I'm arguing, because I know people are gonna say this, They're gonna misinterpret the argument. The argument is not that you have to perform this service perfectly to prove that you're the true church. My argument is rather that I know, I'm aware that local bishops can add to this. For example, Metropolitan serve from a preas includes Zionists and Jehovah's witnesses
in the Anathemas. So it's not that the service has to be done in some sort of magic formula where you read it perfectly. I'm saying that the service itself is normative for the church identifying the heresies and reminding everyone every year what the heresies are. And it's a giant list. If you read some of the larger, longer lists of the Sonoticon Service, the Anathema Service, then this is an easy identifier for what the Church of the
first millennium is. And no one else does this. What's up Israel?
That? What's going on? Man?
You want to talk about Genesis eighteen?
Yeah, I mean I don't claim to have like certainty as to what it says, but I back before Shamoon lost his marbles, I mean he was arguing Theophanes.
Yeah, I mean.
I started learning about the Theophanes.
Oh yeah, I mean I've heard him times.
Yeah, and he was pretty good at.
It, I mean, you know, And and I had wrote, Ah, I was taking notes on one of the talks that he was doing on it, and I kind of like made an article where you know, he was basically arguing or refuting the position that, oh, well, it's not multiple divine persons that are present there, it's just a Hebrew idiom. But you know, there's some examples of Hebrew idioms that you have where like Solomon is referring to himself, but
it's it's different. And you know, if you go to let me see him trying to so obviously, you know, you have the three men appear right, at least one of them is God, at least one of them is the Lord.
But then it gets interesting when.
In twenty to twenty one it says, then the Lord said, because the outcry against Sodom and Gomora is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether to the outcry, according to the outcry that has come to me, and if not, I will know. So the Lord is speaking, and then he says, I will go down, and then in twenty two it says, so the men turned from there and went towards Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
Yeah, but so, but that's before Abraham does this intercessory move. So the plan in twenty one is that Jesus and the two ael this is my reading, Jesus and the two angels are going to go do it. And Jesus is like, I'm off to destroy them and Abraham in an intercessory way. And then we see this in Genesis elsewhere, you know, where he prays and he says, you know, if there be a few righteous, right, well you let the you know. Right after this is when he starts
bargaining with Jesus for their lives. So I think that that's prior to Abraham stepping forward. If Abraham had not stepped forward, Jesus would have gone with the two men to do it. And this is like when you see if you read the book of Amos, Amos does intercessory prayers for Israel because God is going to destroy it, and God says to Amos, had you not interceded, I would have destroyed them.
Okay, I think I see what you're saying.
So you're saying that words says, and the Lord went his way when he finished.
Speaking with Abraham.
You're saying that that that includes the intercessory prayer, which first not just so in thirty three where it says and the Lord went his way when he finished speaking with Abraham.
Well, in nineteen one, it doesn't sound like the Lord went with them.
Because there's a I'm trying to find the part here, because there's a part where it says like the Lord rained fire and sulfur or whatever from the Lord out of heaven.
Yes.
And then there's another verse.
I think I'll pull it up over here, and I think it's Isaiah is a thirteen year I think it's thirteen where it says he says, look, I am rousing against you the meads, who do not regard silver or have need of gold. They will crush young men's arrows, and they will surely show no mercy to your children.
Their eyes will not refrain even at your children.
And Babylon, which is called which is called esteem because of the King of the Chaldeans, will be as when God over through Sodomigamora.
So you have like this and again like correct me.
If I'm sort of missing the initial point you were making about the conversation because I'm trying to grasp that, like the timeline.
Because you have well the Lord reigning.
Sorry, go ahead, which verse you're reading from in isaiahare.
Isaiah thirteen seventeen to nineteen.
I'll sort of the meads up against them who will not regard silver, Babylon, the glory of the canyons. I will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
So it's like one person referring to another, kind of like in Isaiah forty eight where he says, you know, you know, the one speaking is identifying himself as you know, the first and the last, and then he says at the at the end of that little section, he says, and now the Lord has sent me in his spirit.
So it's sort of that sort of that that that language where you know, you know, the Lord said to my lord kind of language where you have the Lord referring to the Lord doing something else and they're both participating in that action where the Lord.
Rainfire, I say Lord in Genesis eighteen, though I think the strongest argument here is in Genesis eighteen. It's specifically twenty two. That tells us that only one of them is Yahweh, because they're all going to walk away. And then Abraham stands before one of them, who's Yeahweh?
Right?
And I recognize that the one standing before them is Do you think that that sort of negates the language of the Lord, rain fire from the Lord out of heaven?
Like it?
Because you do have some Hebrew idioms that use something, but it doesn't happen.
I mean, it doesn't like when we go to Genesis nineteen. I understand what you're saying there. But like in Genesis nineteen, the two angels that go to Sodom, they're not identified here, at least in the way Lot treats them. Lot does not treat them or act the way that Abraham acts to Yahweh.
That's a good point.
So a Lot treats them in a reverent way, and he calls them lords, but he does not call them Yahweh. So let's see what and remember a Lot is a righteous man according to here was eleven. So let's see what the word is here in Genesis nineteen, because that might help here in two.
Let's see what I can put it into the exegetical up here.
Genesis nineteen two. It says, behold now my adon, which is like, I don't I lord's owners, masters, super attendants, kings. So lords is just a generic term for a master, which could be divine, it could be human. Well, but what I'm saying is that he doesn't treat them the way that Abraham treats Yahweh in the previous chapter.
Okay, yeah, I mean yeah, I think you make a valid point.
Also the Orthodox view, Like I'm not aware of any acceptance or position that there's an angelic representation or excuse me, that there's ever an angelic energetic manifestation.
Yeah, me either. That's why I was sort of iffy on it, because like I knew the lang.
Which sort of you know, an argument could be made for it, but I didn't know of the I know that there's also theological implications in these things you could like not just like interpreting it however you want, Like that has to be submitted to that right, And I wasn't familiar with the patrictic understanding of it, So.
I just yeah, if you look at the way they in the Moscow Icon Council, which is just kind of repeated that all the theology is in the laws Ky alspens Key book. In volume two of that, there's a chapter. There's two chapters on the Moscow Icon Synods, and when they talk about this issue, they argue that and they actually get really really deep into all these theophanies, like super deep. A lot of time is spent on the Ancient of Days and Daniel seven, but they also get
into all of these as well. And I don't recall and I know that's not an infallible council, but it's you know, it's still got a lot of wisdom that we can draw from, even if it's not infallible. They tend to just say that you can only do the spirit as One interesting question I have is like, oh wait a minute, I just realized something. You can only do the energetic manifestations of Father or Spirit the way they're presented in the New Testament. I just realized that
because it's only tongues of fire and dove. And that's interesting because in the Old Testament there's reference to the glory Cloud as the as the spirit. But it's interesting that the that the Moscow Synod is is saying that you ought not say depict the energetic manification of the
Holy Spirit as cloud. I don't think they. I think they say that it's only well but the reason they yeah, well they're actually you could like you could argue that, like there's icons that show clouds, you know what I mean.
But yeah, who was I was just reading somebody that was saying that the cloud represented like the apathetic nature of are understanding, Oh yeah.
That could be. Yeah, well, the thing I'm saying what I'm saying there about the one of the reasonings that that synod has is that it refers back to see it two, and it says that you cannot use in the churches or in the icons any of the symbols that were proper to the Old Testament. So for example that it says, don't do Jesus as a lamb, which
is interesting because the Roman Callouy Church violates that. But and the reasoning is that it's not proper to it's not proper to depict Christ in iconography as a lamb anymore because he's now incarnate, so it would be like Judaea. It'd be like going back to the Judaic thing. And that's the reasoning. Also, I would have guessed why you shouldn't do Holy Spirit as glory cloud. But I'm just speculating.
Yeah, that's interesting. There was also one more thing, just something that I mentioned in terms of Catholics being deceptive with their language. And it's interesting in the context of Islam because a while back years ago, Shimoon did a live.
Stream where he sort of just brought somebody on and let them speak. His name is Lloyd de.
Jong or something like that, but he was lecturing on gnosticism and hermeticism.
Yea, yeah, it was.
Really good because he's he's pulling from the.
Forty thousand dollars Encyclopedia of Islam, and he is in terms of the gnostic aspect of it.
There's four levels of knowledge.
And the first one, which is called ibarra or if tita in mysticism. And mind you, they don't claim mysticism in their religion, and yet they're Encyclopedia is giving a mystical uh, a definitionally mystic definition for these things.
And it says the.
Literal language, which is unsuitable for esoteric topics, right, the coded language.
Well, this is the type of stuff that doctor Khalil argues. He says, yeah, this is exactly why we're shiah.
Yeah, and it's also why the emms and the teachers don't tell people these things, sort of like how most Catholics don't know that they worship the same God as Muslims. Because unless you actually go into the debate and you start parsing out what your belief actually is and need to defend it, then this stuff comes up.
But this stuff is settled at the.
Bottom when the waters are still and everything's cool until you have to dig all of that up and then you realize, well, that's it's intentional because when you go to the second level of knowledge, called eshara, it says a gesture, sign, indication, and rhetoric acquired the technical meaning of illusion and then allusion to refer to implied or indirect reference. And in Latin, which is also interesting, it's add luterae.
Which means to play with words.
And in mysticism it's the esoteric language of the inexpressible mystical experience, symbolic expression, a silent gesture or sign.
So it's funny, isn't it like that?
That sounds like that sounds like words, that sounds like Sufi stuff where you can just allegorize and turn it into anything.
Yeah, because when you're the teacher and you get to disperse this information in a way that simply gets people on your side, you're going to play with words. And it's funny because in this whole thing, it's like, well, we'll do Catholics and Muslims worship the same god. Evidently so and it's not our god.
Yeah.
I mean you have this deceitful system and these deceitful teachers who are literally just like, as long as you get people away from the truth, of course you can twist the words.
What do you actually mean by that?
So I just thought that's great. What was the fourth tier of the knowledge?
So there's two more, actually, and the second one is pretty interesting.
It's called Latifa.
Who are you talking about? What you talking about? Latifa? Hold up, man Hola, why are you telling my Lati?
She ain't here, she's getting all up In mysticism, the subtle organ a theory of levels developed from the time of najim Aldin Kubra Mystics of his school.
What's interesting about this third level is that it's actually linked to the word lilat, which you know how in Greek like the wisdom is the sofio, well, the the count. The Islamic counterpart to that is Lilac, which is sacred knowledge.
Now what do you think that translates to in Hebrew?
In Hebrew law, Yeah, well Lilac in Hebrew is literally lilith.
Oh I thought you meant what his tradition translations.
Oh no, so the word translated into Hebrew. Yeah.
And you know, in Isaiah thirty three there's mentioned to this demonic figure, which is interesting because like the Bible describes these demonic figures as you know, uh, demons who seek out waterless places, dry and waterless places spiritually and physically.
Also, and it's interesting because Mohammed was.
In a dry, waterless place in a cave with a demon who.
Basically physically assaulted.
Him, and Lilith in this whole demonology thing, like you get into the Kabala and all this weird uh Judaic mysticism.
She's a succubist, Yeah, who tries to him having this.
Encounter with a demon that perfectly fits that description. And then you have that basically sort of uh implicitly in in their mystical uh teaching. And then the fourth level of knowledge and I'll finished up with this.
The is called hakika haikika chu.
Yeah, and it.
Says reality, essence, truth, and rhetoric. Now in mysticism, and this is interesting. And missism is the profound reality to which only experience of union with God opens the way. So in their understanding, that would be what Muhammad attained to.
So yeah, and I have more notes though, but that's the basic for four levels of it.
State Akika again, uh.
Hakika reality, essence, truth and rhetoric and exegesis. Al Hakika is the basic meaning of a word or expression and is distinguished from madijas and philosophy has an ontological and logical meaning. The ontological meaning is best translated by nature or essence, essential reality. The logical meaning is the truth, with the truth which the exact conception of the thing establishes in the intelligence or in the intellect?
Is this in this honest question? So is this like a dictionary that's only describing the Sufi stuff or is this broader than Sufi?
Let me see, so I have the exact it says it's the forty thousand dollars Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Islam New Edition. I couldn't tell you, maybe because they don't want people reading this stuff. I mean, I'm not paying I mean you could probably Internet archive find that thing.
Here's one that's like five thousand dollars. Is that you think it's the same one?
It could be. I mean he said it was forty. I know, I found some really expensive ones. I don't know if I have the exact one he's looking for.
Though.
Well, when I type in Hakika, what you get is just like the wicked Wikipedia shit is like four stages of knowledge or truth and Islam in Sufism, it says, what were the four again?
First one is Ebara?
Okay, this one? So this is different. Nevermind, it's different. I know it ain't eric Obara. Hey, it might be maybe Erica bar Yeah, exactly. Well, thank you, all right, thank you, Thank you, Israel. Appreciate that. I'm getting pretty tired. A really good call there from Israel. It's a really great points. Appreciate that and raise some good objections on Genesis eighteen and nineteen. I still think the evidence is on the side of it being the Lord and two angels.
So guys, if you want to support the stream, you can also head over to chalk dot com, seach o q dot com the best in supplementation on the Internet, and that is the show sponsor, chalk dot com. Let's see, somebody asks a question about you just pro j forty Is you already get forty percent off? Somebody had a theophany question, where did it go? Mister Anderson three dollars? What is the orthodox y of the shikaina? Well, that's what I'm saying, Like, it's an energetic manifestation the fire
in the cloud. We know the divine fire is you know, Paul says, our God is a consuming fire. So that's an energetic manifestation of the divine energy, divine power, the divine light. The cloud is fascinating because it's also a theophany. We know at Mount Sinai there's the darkness of the cloud right, which, as the caller pointed out, definitely has
a reference to apapaticism. But there's also you know this, you have this theophany and Lemiticus nine where it's called the glory cloud and it comes down and appears to all the people and then the fire comes out from before yahweh in the cloud. And we also know this is part of like God's chariot. It's an angel chariot that he rides, and the angels are also present in the Theophanes two, and it's primarily though the sun, but there does appear to be references to that call the
cloud the spirit. So what could be happening is just simply that the cloud is an energetic manifestation of the spirit, because in the New Testament Orthodox theology, the tongues of fire are at pentecosts or energetic manifestations proper to the spirit. The dove is an energetic manifestation proper to the spirit. But there's as I think about it, there's nothing that's precluding the cloud also being an Old Testament energetic manifestation
of the spirit. But it's just something that we're not depicting in the icons, since after the New Testament is not proper to depict the Old Testament representations anymore in iconography. But I was looking, but I was looking at the icon of Elijah, which my priest gave us a print version of a nice icon of Elijah. But that's an Old Testament icon, but it has pretty sure it has fire. Let's see if we can find it. But maybe that's proper to Old Testament figures to depict them. This is
a really good question. I don't actually this might go beyond what I know. Cloud and Orthodox icons, so we do see the Virgin at times on a cloud. I want to say that that Ezekiel icon as cloud too. Let's see, here's angels on clouds. In Orthodox iconography, clouds often symbolize divinits your divine presence. You see that often with the thea tokos. Let's see. Let's see if I can find that Elijah icon. It's a pretty uh interesting older Russian icon. It looks like this kind of this
isn't it the one that I have? But it looks kind of like this, So there is cloud and fire. That probably is That probably is a theophenic because if you remember, doesn't the Holy Spirit play a crucial role in the ministry of Elijah and the giving of the double anointing, the double portion of the Spirit to Elisha.
So I would venture to say that that probably is an indicator of the spirit, because we know in many of the Theophanes, doesn't Paul say baptized in the cloud and then the sea, as he mentioned that baptized in the cloud in the sea. That would be the glory cloud. That would be the spirit. The spirit hovers over Mary, the glory cloud hovers over the temple, over the ark, the spirit is over Mary. So it seems like it would have to be. Let's see, I've got a list
of a bunch of spirit related Theophanes here. Oh, there's a bunch. But yeah, Paul, Paul says, baptizing the cloud in the sea, right, Yah. First, Granians tend to they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. That's the glory cloud right in the beginning.
Hellope, yeah, yeah, Hey, so thanks for having me back on again. I had a question about in terms of I know you all typically when you debate with Roman Catholics and stuff and talk about the papacy and these
different things. Something I was thinking about the other day and I just kept thinking about because I remember Martin Luther was thinking about back in the day mortal sin and how that relates to different things, and just I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly, because it sounds like a total contradiction in the Catholic way
of thinking. If you have adulteries of mortal sin and you commit a mortal sin, you don't confess that, you go to Hell, and you're not supposed to be in communion with people that don't have your dogma.
Right.
But I saw something that said the Eastern churches do economia and allow for divorce and remarriage in case of adultery. But if you get divorced from remarriage for adultery, you commit adultery, which is immortal sins.
Oh, I didn't know that. That would be a pretty killer I just caught that. I didn't. Yeah, that would let's say that's true.
Let's see, Uh, it's cannon fifty eight or eighty five, maybe.
One of them.
I don't remember. Let me see the photos. Is this was earlier today?
I've never known about that. That's actually a really interesting question. Yeah, because I mean the this, I mean, I'm just using AI, which could obviously be wrong.
That's what I'm doing.
Yeah, it says Eastern ride churches do not permit this.
You have to ask the question the right way, right, because.
They say that, and then you ask it a slightly different way and they're like, oh wait, yeah, they do it for economia, and the Latin Church doesn't say that it's uh.
They say like, well, no it's not.
It's not really adultery, so it's not really immortal sin. Because I say so, it's basically.
What they say. Hmmm, yeah, this is what I've been.
This is what I've been really kind of like I was even at earlier today, like how you're saying they were they're denying the Theophanes.
Now, yes, many of them are.
So I was just at and I can I don't know, maybe I can tell you, I don't know.
I mean, all the Thomas will, all the Thomas will the only Roman Catholics who are going to be better than the theology and admit Theophanes are the ones that are like, you know, just don't care about Tomism.
But if you don't even need that, dude, I took pictures. I went to like I told you, I'm going between the two of them.
I was at an.
Adoration chapel today. Their Bible study, their Bible, their study Bible in the adoration chapel says so it says it's Jesus.
Well I would I would just I would just say again, many of them are better than their official theology. Okay, anyway, but thank you for those questions you get suck. What's up?
Man?
So yeah, I was just thinking, even what this honor as Christianity is doing, maybe it's best to like try to talk with David Wooden AP because they're gonna be reviewing a debate. I think it would be like nice because for the Christian Muslim community, like the Christian versus Muslim community, like this is a pretty big deal. So getting up and like defending yourself there would be.
But I think you mean to David wood In AP.
Yeah, David would AP.
And then there's gonna be there's gonna be this one other Calvinist guy coming up on the stream as well.
I mean, if they asked me, I'm not gonna like invite myself to their stream. But I mean, I don't know I say it, but it's a good idea. I'll think about it. Let me we'll see anybody who disagrees. Is the last chance if you disagree. I'm not sure that's a good question. How will David would an AP interpret? I mean, I wouldn't be inclined to think that they know Islam enough to recognize that it's just foolish to
call it the same God. I mean I would think all right, guys, remember head remember to chalk dot com. Use promo code Jay forty four life to get forty four percent off, or use the promo code jy forty you get forty percent off. You just want to test it out. Check out the ton Kata Lee, check out the chad Mode. Those are my favorites. Let's make sure I didn't miss a super chat here Aracota twenty dollars. It seems like Catholics. It seems the idea that Catholics
won is just on Twitter. I don't even know. I mean, they might be proclaiming on Twitter, but like thousands of the comments under YouTube, some people on Reddit. Yeah, I don't know who cares what redd It says read Orthodox are gay and Acumenists exactly. Good job you made all these Catholics spurg out like leftists. Yeah, I mean, ultimately, it's just a win for us in the law. Run Jason Killer, why'd you block me? I don't know which one you are? I said, get a job because of
your Trump skit you did freedom of speech. I don't know what that means. It sounded like boomer shit to me, like get a job, not in a ironic boomer an intentional sense jo say eleeron God bless you, Thank you man. By the way, speaking of Boomers, the new episode of Sam Hyde is up and it is Boomers and I did contribute to it and we got more awesome episodes ready to pop, lock and drop it in the next few weeks. Are listed them here on my page two.
By the way, on the front page of the YouTube channel, you can watch the Boomers episode right Jan and Sam actually brought a boomer on, which is pretty wild, so you can actually see what a boomer is if you didn't If you didn't know Codys one dollar. God can't deny himself, he cannot. The truth can never be in opposition to truth. Proposition to Vatican two says that Muslim's the door, the one guy living in subsisten himself. Proposition three Islam's Koran denies the Trinity in Christ di entity.
Either Vatican the Vatican is wrong or Vatican two contradicts. Either Vatican one is wrong or Vatican two country dicks. Yeah, exactly. There's a lot of different ways to lay this out. Thank you, guys. I'm about cooked for tonight because I'm tired. A lot of fun though, thank you for the super chats everybody tonight, and I'll send some of this to FDA. So check out Sam hid Show subscribe at md dot tv if you want to support our comedy work. What else is there going on? Anything else